how to awnser that buddhist bros?

how to awnser that buddhist bros?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This resonates as true. I find many of the buddhas teachings invaluable though such as best choice. Is it possible the scriptures were corrupted? I likewise read many hindu and bible scriptures which do not resonate

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >showed that the real essence of Buddhism and that of the Vedanta are not very different
    Yes, rest is sectarian.
    People really like to name what isn't to be named, and bring it down to the level of bullshit that is 'human'

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This.
      If one can't be bothered to cite Adi Shankara's objections, and how well they hold out compared to the Pali Canon, then one can't even start being considered as serious.

      The degree to which we've all decided to reduce complex and difficult theology to memes, macros, and infographics is a debasement of our human faculties.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Dunno. How do YOU answer that Sankara was only one step in the return, followed by Ramanuja, followed by Madhva?

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    A similar thing happened to Jesus' religion, except it went the opposite direction than atheism, instead it became defined as absolute obedience and faith to matter and the demiurge.

    • 2 months ago
      Seanonymous

      peasants gonna peasant

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    by pointing that buddhism is fundamentally incompatible with vedanta as it rejects the notions of brahman and the atman

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      What is ego

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I just had a massive discussion with a hindu that makes these claims about how buddha was a avatar and that his disciples corrupted him and that actually he teached atman and god so on... This seems to be the narrative that hindus are feed to, you just can't change their minds.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Just passing by because I found this thread interesting. I wouldn't call myself a Hindu but I probably look like one to most people, I sometimes have fun talking to the Buddhists on /x/ because you're some of the only people on the board who aren't lunatics, you actually have interesting things to say and you don't get hostile the second anyone asks you questions, so thanks for that.
        But anyway, I wanted to chime in here to say that from what I've read, a lot of Hindus actually believe that Buddha was the ninth Avatar of Vishnu (which they get to via some number fudging to make Krishna the eighth, usually by quietly carpet sweeping the guy before him) and more specifically that he incarnated to "lead the asura to false moksha," sometimes with the added justification "so that they can't influence [things]" (I generally get the impression they're talking about the new kalpa here, which I find interesting since they don't talk much about how to influence one kalpa from another.)
        While it's pretty funny, and while I'm also pretty sure that it's mostly just a way of minimizing and reconciling Buddhism (and explaining away the ways in which Buddhism and Hinduism are incompatible,) it does remind me a little bit of the OP image here.
        The impression I generally get is that Buddhists focus more on Brahman as a permeating universal oneness and the means by which Nirvana is attained (realization of the illusion of Atman, thus realization of unity with Brahman) whereas Hindus focus more on Brahman "as God", as a "Great Spirit" (indeed, "Brahman" seems to mean "Big thing" originally, and "Atman" to mean "Breath thing.") to be appreciated and enjoyed *through* all the distorting, kaleidoscopic reflections that Samsara (and indeed Maya) provides us with. Thus, it seems like the charge that Buddhists have "become atheists" does hold some truth to it.
        How did Gautama Buddha *actually* answer this one?

        Dunno. How do YOU answer that Sankara was only one step in the return, followed by Ramanuja, followed by Madhva?

        implies it is but one trial along a journey.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >you're some of the only people on the board who aren't lunatics
          Because buddhism isn't paranormal

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Anything except being a servile goycattle chasting materialistic shadows on the wall and being riled up into race/gender war is "paranormal" these days unfortunately. This is the only place on EerieWeb to discuss the spirit.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Buddhists don't believe in spirits

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then why did Tibetan Buddhists go to such extreme and well-documented lengths to subdue/convert their local land spirits?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not sure what you mean, but probably the same reason that Augustine of Hippo tried to fill in his demiurge religion with platonism

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh wrong reply forget this

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, I'm curious as to who you WERE trying to reply to though

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The post that was bellow yours. Buddhists often say that souls don't exist and then do some pilpul when you ask them how reincarnation works. They also get mad at that word and say you have to say rebirth instead for some reason.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If in the next life you are reborn as a Brahma, do you think it would be correct to say that you have reincarnated or been reborn?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Buddhists often say that souls don't exist and then do some pilpul when you ask them how reincarnation works.
            consciousness is what reincarnates, it carries with the 'karmic seeds' that haven't 'germinated' yet, the buddha says: "Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness" — SN 23:2 because it is consciousness that takes rebirth and ending it is getting out of samsara. In hinduism you have a eternal soul (atman) buddhism simply says that this soul is not eternal and certanly not unchanging.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            this is all wrong

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I know my sources butthole

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you don't know anything
            you have reading comprehension issues of a not even 5 y/o

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Anon consciousness is an English word, please post the word for the buddhist concept. So if the soul is not eternal, and ends, presumably when you die, why should anyone care about nirvana and not be hedonistic? That doesn't make any sense. But notice how you also say the soul is changing, that's there as preparation for the pilpul for where you secretly affirm the hindu and platonic concept of eternal souls by saying about how it's changing and how that means it's not eternal, but is eternal as a changing concept. Many westerners understand that the soul has no form, and that the self is dictated by the ego. You could just say this clearly but you don't as you have to subvert the normal concepts in order to push your religion as unique and smart.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I already posted this in a prior buddhist thread but here it goes again: Chan Master sheng yen in the book “Orthodox Chinese Buddhism A Contemporary Chan Master’s Answers to Common Questions”:

            “So if Buddhists don’t believe in a soul, what is the fundamental substance that transmigrates among the six destinies and can transcend mundane existence? [...]
            Buddhists believe that “phenomena arise dependent on conditions” and “things inherently lack self-nature.” In accordance with this view, the physical world exists dependent on causes and conditions, as does the spiritual [mental] domain. […] And what of the spiritual domain? […] Buddhists describe the spiritual domain with the term “consciousness.” In Nikāya Buddhism, six consciousnesses are discussed, with the sixth consciousness serving as the entity that integrates the life process. In Mahāyāna Buddhism, two more consciousnesses are mentioned, for a total of eight consciousnesses. The eighth consciousness is the entity that integrates the life process [providing coherence and continuity within one life and between lives]. [...]
            So the function of the eighth consciousness is storage. But the storage is not that of a one-way depository. It takes deposits from outside and makes withdrawals from inside. What is deposited is the psychological residue of behavior, which is imprinted on the field of consciousness and called karmic impressions or seeds; what is withdrawn are psychological impulses that later develop into behavior and the results of behavior, called karmic fruits or active dharmas. [...]
            From the above discussion, we see that the eighth consciousness is not equivalent to an eternal soul. If an eternal soul did exist, then the transformation of an ordinary person into a noble one, that is, liberation from the cycle of birth and death, would be impossible.”

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >then the transformation of an ordinary person into a noble one, that is, liberation from the cycle of birth and death, would be impossible.”
            Dont vajraBlack folk (or dzongchen can't remember) say that you are already liberated and just need to remember or something along those lines?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No sect of buddhism believes in a immortal soul, you must be mistaking it for buddhanature

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            but there are past lives. it stands to reason that memories can be transferred as flame from candle to candle. this is the RA.

            >then the transformation of an ordinary person into a noble one, that is, liberation from the cycle of birth and death, would be impossible.”
            Dont vajraBlack folk (or dzongchen can't remember) say that you are already liberated and just need to remember or something along those lines?

            this reminds me of Plato's
            >all knowledge is recollection

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Of course it reminds you of Plato, it's the logical conclusion found everywhere

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What? How would the existence of immortal souls mean that the endless cycle of birth and death can't end? Isn't the point of nirvana so your immortal soul stops doing it? So what happens when you die according to buddhists then? You'll just post more pilpul to refute all this and give another vague paragraph. We'll never get a real buddhist description of what souls are. You ask any other religion and they'll write it in simple terms in a few sentences. You follow a fundamentally dishonest religion.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            tell me that you are from uttar pradesh without telling me you are from uttar pradesh

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Please try to speak English

            there is actually no life and therefore no cessation of life.

            >When we are free of objects, there is no birth or death, like when a river flows on forever. So we say this ‘leads to the other shore.’ This is what we mean by paramita. (Platform Sutra)

            That's not an answer either, looks like you're no longer trying pilpul and have gone to the vague platitudes instead

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Most /x/ "Buddhists" don't attempt anything in the field of application. They just recite mishmash.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You call the Buddhist dishonest for not discussing the soul. Maybe this is what you want out of religion, but it is not the religion of liberation. Liberation is freedom from all dualities, including the self. Then your mind is truly free. Calling the Buddhist dishonest here is like calling him dishonest for not talking about God. Soul and God simply don't come up for the Buddhist because they aren't part of the Way of Liberation! Om Mani Padme Hum.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The buddhists do discuss the concept of souls, you posted a quote from one of them. If they actually didn't discuss it we wouldn't find all these vague statements everywhere regarding the question.
            >Maybe this is what you want out of religion, but it is not the religion of liberation.
            This has probably worked for you with morons but isn't working now. When you advertise a religion, you need a clearly define doctrine of some sorts so that people interested will be able to be convinced by knowing that you're consistent and have thought through your beliefs. For people like you this isn't important as religion are more like personality cults than serious ways of life.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            i'm a buddhist because a daimon told me to become a zen buddhist. so i did. that is the sole source of my faith.

            qtd. doesn't discuss the soul it discusses the lack thereof. buddha never discussed the Atman. we talk about that in /bg/ often.

            the doctrine is transcendence of self. that's what applies here.

            you may be wondering how to use symbols if the source of symbology is transcended. the answer is that conventional symbols are close to something real, but they do not belong to kosmos. they are impositions.

            it's not vague to say that there is no life therefore no cessation of life. that makes perfect sense. it is called the Middle Way.

            it does sound achy to the Western ear, used to discrete categories and their logical boundaries.

            buddhism is beyond logical boundaries, the boundless Mind!

            >you need to clearly define a doctrine
            All dharmas are empty. this is probably a bit over your head for now, but seeing as conventional symbols are mere willful impositions on matter, there is a single vehicle which transmits the dharma thru skillful means. but when one looks for "doctrine" one finds nothing because formlessness is all there is.

            this is taken literally, as if formlessness actually were something, when it is not, by "definition"

            all definitions are meaningless, sorry if Zen doesn't give you a "doctrine" to cling to in faith. your sacrifice

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            tldr conflicted Anon believes buddhism is dishonest because they talk in koans

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're a buddhist because it sounds smart to you and you were pulled in by a personality cult.
            >it's not vague to say that there is no life therefore no cessation of life.
            How is there no life when you and other people are living?
            >this is probably a bit over your head for now
            This is typical of your likes. You start pretending that your religion is too much for anyone who questions it, that they simply aren't intelligent enough to comprehend. You're pathetic really.
            >all definitions are meaningless,
            So can anyone just call themselves a buddhist then, if definitions aren't real?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you're a buddhist because it sounds smart to you and you were pulled in by a personality cult
            i told you, a daimon told me

            >how is there no life?
            all qualities such as life and not-life are fabrications of dualistic tendencies

            >too difficult for you
            i only meant i probably shouldn't be introducing a topic to you that's even difficult for buddhists to grasp, but i expounded nonetheless. my problem maybe

            >can anyone just call themselves a buddha
            buddha-nature is empty so yes

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >all qualities such as life and not-life are fabrications of dualistic tendencies
            But you're breathing, trees are growing, how is that a fabrication? You still haven't answered why buddhism is above explaining its doctrines like every other religion does. Perhaps that's just its gimmick though, it says nothing is real yet all its followers do similar things.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            they say nothing is real yet all followers do similar things. how is it possible? this is the Single Vehicle.

            >how is life a fabrication?
            i'll use some Western philosophy. nietzsche said error may be a condition of life. so to posit life as a truth may be an error!

            heraclitus said everything is Becoming. Parmenides had the insight that beyond mere appearance was Being, which became the Christian God (Being as such). but for heraclitus, like the Buddhist, everything is in flux.

            that is why tibetan buddhists make mandalas of colored sand which they blow away upon completion. because nothing is fixed, every concept is (zeus's lightning) attempting to make the transient into something static (the product of greek thunder)

            i'm breathing, trees are growing. these are conventional ways of denoting a transient phenomena. notice how you use the language of Becoming: you don't say "you breath, trees grow," but "you're breathING, trees are growING." where is the ING? in nothingness, at one moment there is breath, at one moment there is growth, at another moment there is not.

            to say you have latched onto some truth in conditioned existence is to be attached to qualities, what is the definition of affliction

            evanescence

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What is the single vehicle? You did not explain how life is fake. You said it is a transient phenomena, that is you going back on your claim it is fake. You are now saying it's real, but it changes. You are doing pilpul because your religion is fundamentally dishonest and moronic. It's such a shame in history that intelligent, well thought out philosophies failed to garbage like this and abrahamism.
            >you don't say "you breath, trees grow," but "you're breathING, trees are growING."
            This is a weird thing in English, most other languages will say the former in all case.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >what is the single vehicle?
            the single vehicle is how Buddha-nature can be taught even though all Dharmas are empty.

            Life is fake for the same reason the paradox of the heap shows that there are no heaps. Take a leaf fallen from a tree. is it alive? it is cut off from the Source, except in its Buddha-nature. is it partially alive, partially dead? now you see you are mired in Duality. this teaching is aside from the fact that all qualities are transient.

            when i say life is transient, this may be taken literally, as in the concept of being in samsara, but what i meant was that the concept which "Life" denotes is itself transient.

            >you are now saiyng it's real but it changes
            it's not real BECAUSE it changes. anything that changes is mere appearance. this is the fruit of Parmenides' problem of change.

            >well-thought-out philosphy's demise
            i showed how Heraclitus is consistent with the Buddhist view that there is no life. life is a quality and all qualities are constantly in motion in the Dharmic Vortex.

            you can either use the boundary case (problem of the heap) to show that there is no life or non-life, or the Heraclitan case (problem of change) to show that life is mere appearance.

            >moronic
            Zen is moronic but that's because all entities are formless. If Anon did not laugh it would not be the Tao!!!

            >other languages
            you said what you said. this is Discourse by the holy spirit

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            also, consider the fact that all qualities are just conventional symbolism. analytic philosophers have essentially realized this and said that all philosophical problems are actually problems of language. they're not free of Duality and they posit the subject and predicate as if this is the way kosmos actually is. then they say they are "carving the world at its joints." but joints are an anthropomorphism. kosmos has no joints.

            for example Descartes said "i think therefore i am" but the Lichtenberg objection says that while there is thinking to suppose there is a subject thinking is to be under the spell of subejct-predicate grammar.

            so when you follow language, such as the notion of "life vs. not-life," you become mired in maya (illusion) of conventional symbolism, arguing for example "is a fetus life or not-life," which is impossible as a Discourse (this is proven out by liberal politics) because the quality of life is without form to begin with

            if you want, life is buddha-nature

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >life is Buddha-nature

            Franchise will be extended even to the rocks, dirt and other unliving things.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >(this is proven out by liberal politics)
            Not at all, politics is driven by emotions and logic comes second and is twisted to get the result they want.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The paradox of the heap isn't real. doesn't mean that there are no heaps, only that a heap is a subjective idea. You can define a heap as two grains, the paradox is solved.
            >is it alive?
            It depends, often they can grow into new trees. Plato further solved all these with the theory of forms. You didn't bother trying to solve it, you just declared that nothing is real. Except your enlightenment of course, that's real.
            >it's not real BECAUSE it changes.
            In order for something to change, it must exist in the first place. Your pilpul has failed.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The idea of piles is supposed to reflect that complexity can arise from structure. Philosophies that seek a monad are flawed because they are reductionist by nature, and so they can never look forward but only backwards. Look at how all religions grounded in Greek philosophy devolve into fundamentalism.

            Emptiness is from means that the vessel gives shapes. It’s echoed in modern ideas of a statistical model of thermodynamics which sees time as an aspect of statistics and reality itself rather than trying to atomize things into chunks. Buddhism can approach an ontology that can lead to the same technological innovations as Greek philosophy while overcoming some of the inner paradoxes pointed out by Zeno and those who came after him. But it’s still not a perfect system, in any of its current forms.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            How does that make them flawed? What are the errors of Greek philosophy, do you know that there isn't one single school?
            >Look at how all religions grounded in Greek philosophy devolve into fundamentalism.
            Every religion does this

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I’m talking about the school which won out and developed into the primary explanatory model for the world today. Pythagoreanisn by way of Platonism by way of Aristotelianism by way of Humanism by way of the Empiricists. The main issue is that they have never been able to resolve the mind matter paradox, or most of Zeno’s paradoxes, which are still some of the main thought problems in theoretical physics today just under different names.

            >every religion does this

            Notice how Buddhism infamously doesn’t have terrorist thugs in the modern world and the ones that you might make an argument for like Aum Shinrikyo are just Hegelians with prayer beads.
            The divisions on Buddhism have usually come from political growth and material growth leading to a different class structure and a need to reconcile that. Like the Theravada/Mahayana split, and the development of Pureland in Japan.

            I’m sorry because this next statement will come off as really dismissive. But all of these things are useful as far as they are explanatory models of experience, and they should be judged as such. They’re not classes in an rpg. No one gives a shit about Parmenides except for what he contributed to Plato’s thought and you would be laughed out of any serious conversation for trying to re invent the wheel.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What are you talking about anon? We do know how mind and matter work, we know from modern science that memories are stored physically. So mind is just physical. But spiritually the concept of how souls work is very old and has remained pretty consistent throughout history. Plato wrote about it. Here it is what most people understand

            There is a simple answer. People's egos are the things that define their current incarnation, souls are the essence that gets moved around and put in new bodies. Anyone would answer this easily except buddhists. The gnostics weren't afraid of this question at all. they'd answer it instantly and move on. What does that say about your derivative.
            >the Buddha says it's not
            Then the greeks were much more intelligent than him

            There are buddhists persecuting muslims in Burma right now. Buddhists have promoted lots of wars throughout history, they were just the same as western churches. This idea that buddhists are all peaceful and didn't do war is just a really stupid western exotic depiction mainly coming from that most predominantly buddhist controlled countries have been weak throughout modern history.
            >you would be laughed out of any serious conversation
            That says a lot about you.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >we do know how mind and matter work

            Then go complete the project of western science has pursued since the Medici poured money into grinding glass for lenses and make yourself immortal. I can’t take the rest of your comment seriously.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What are talking about?
            >I can’t take the rest of your comment seriously.
            No, you refuse to address it

            you're calling Heracliuts pilpul and talking about the abandonment of learning my dude

            >the only permanent thing is change

            parmenides thought if x could change x did not exist. so there is no change. that's his problem of change. but we perform the reductio ad absurdum and invert this, saying there is change and there was never any x in the first place!

            You were using pilpul by making statements and then changing the statement later on through by changing the meaning of the words you used. You're now just deflecting everything. If you were honest you'd have started off the argument by saying that nothing is real. That's never how it goes though, your likes always try to win the argument first, and when that fails you fall back to saying nothing is real.

            >how did Greek philosophy fail
            by falling to the illusion (Maya) of the conventional symbol (language) see:
            [...]

            only heraclitus did not fail hence why Nietzsche followed him into the Becoming of Godhead.

            God is a Succession of Kings

            What is the illusion? As said before, Plato came up with his own explanation that doesn't involve saying that nothing is real.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No, you refuse to address it.

            Listen here, you are categorically a moron. Your statement is that “Plato solved the mind-body problem.” I don’t know how to even begin to refute this because it’s just a total misunderstanding of the world. Do you think you’re the only Black person who ever read Plato, and that it’s actually the cutting edge of thought or something? Is it just as easy as knowing what the Hyperuranion is and then you’re an immortal?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you can't refute it, then it's time for you to finally concede. please stop pretending you're right, because during this whole discussion you and your stupid religion have been shown as dishonest pilpul that hides behind a mask of being exotic and intellectual.
            >Do you think you’re the only Black person who ever read Plato,
            No, absolutely not. Many people have read Plato, and the majority of people are familiar with concepts that he described. His description of souls is the normal, rational explanation that has appeared independently all over the world. It was even this concept that was happily adapted into christianity despite contradicting scripture. Your religion is filled with logical contradictions in its dogma that it can't define anything because everything changes, and that has led it to reject normal ideas that everyone can understand for mystical nonsense to entice people.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >we know from modern science that memories are stored physically
            No we don't. We haven't a clue how memories are stored. In fact, we don't even know if memories are really "stored" insomuch as phenomena is re-experienced, and from that phenomena your consciousness reconstructs what it thinks happened. We know that Alzheimers damages parts of the brain physically, and it's associated with memory loss, but we also know that many Alzheimers patients have a "rally" before death where they suddenly regain these memories and cognisence of their situation (which again, should not be possible if they were physical, they would be damaged beyond repair).

            Fact of the matter is, we don't know a god damned thing.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >how did Greek philosophy fail
            by falling to the illusion (Maya) of the conventional symbol (language) see:

            also, consider the fact that all qualities are just conventional symbolism. analytic philosophers have essentially realized this and said that all philosophical problems are actually problems of language. they're not free of Duality and they posit the subject and predicate as if this is the way kosmos actually is. then they say they are "carving the world at its joints." but joints are an anthropomorphism. kosmos has no joints.

            for example Descartes said "i think therefore i am" but the Lichtenberg objection says that while there is thinking to suppose there is a subject thinking is to be under the spell of subejct-predicate grammar.

            so when you follow language, such as the notion of "life vs. not-life," you become mired in maya (illusion) of conventional symbolism, arguing for example "is a fetus life or not-life," which is impossible as a Discourse (this is proven out by liberal politics) because the quality of life is without form to begin with

            if you want, life is buddha-nature

            only heraclitus did not fail hence why Nietzsche followed him into the Becoming of Godhead.

            God is a Succession of Kings

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the cuck who cried at a dead horse is the noumenon

            It’s probably Darwin if anything. Look at how WW2 was basically just a war over the interpretation of his ideas. Actually scratch that it’s probably Hegel since he’s directly upstream of all of Darwin, Marx and Heidegger’s notable work.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you're calling Heracliuts pilpul and talking about the abandonment of learning my dude

            >the only permanent thing is change

            parmenides thought if x could change x did not exist. so there is no change. that's his problem of change. but we perform the reductio ad absurdum and invert this, saying there is change and there was never any x in the first place!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            there is actually no life and therefore no cessation of life.

            >When we are free of objects, there is no birth or death, like when a river flows on forever. So we say this ‘leads to the other shore.’ This is what we mean by paramita. (Platform Sutra)

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            In the here and now we can say yes, the "I" exists and the soul doesn't, but in the sphere of infinite consciousness the "I" is diluted, so which answer is right? Is consciousness I? Is the I a unity? Is infinite awareness my self? It's not such a simple answer, the Buddha says it's not, the answer is not in gross reality.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is a simple answer. People's egos are the things that define their current incarnation, souls are the essence that gets moved around and put in new bodies. Anyone would answer this easily except buddhists. The gnostics weren't afraid of this question at all. they'd answer it instantly and move on. What does that say about your derivative.
            >the Buddha says it's not
            Then the greeks were much more intelligent than him

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            False.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            completely wrong, the buddhist sutras make inumerable mentions to spirits, plus what the heck you think petras are? You must have been reading "secular buddhist" texts that downplay buddhism spiritual stuff.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You must have been reading "secular buddhist" texts that downplay buddhism spiritual stuff.
            Just like Daoism, people in the West pretend Buddhism is just a secular philosophy and not a vibrant spiritual tradition with all that that entails.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            name a single "spiritual" thing youve seen, experienced or know of from personal experience

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            if I tell you won't believe it, so you can go eat a dick instead

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            lmao
            it was out of courtesy
            as if i need you to actually tell me
            but your response is telling enough
            i mean.. we both know you dont know
            your response is just there to show the other people

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don not understand the nature of your question, 'spiritual' or 'supernatural' things are arbitrary terms, the "supernatural" is just as natural as anything else, is just what we would call not obviously seen. Spirits exist, negative and positive forces outside our visions exist, you can call it either deva or angel, mara or demons the names are irrelevant.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            jesus dude just walk away
            this is why you stay on rddt..

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, he's right. You're just bitter about the "lack of proof" for the things you want to believe in. You should redirect your anger at the thought-trap that made you think this way - that made this kind of proof requirement such a sticking point for you in the first place.

            >a lot of Hindus actually believe that Buddha was the ninth Avatar of Vishnu (which they get to via some number fudging to make Krishna the eighth, usually by quietly carpet sweeping the guy before him) and more specifically that he incarnated to "lead the asura to false moksha," sometimes with the added justification "so that they can't influence [things]"
            this is just people trying to coast on the fame and name of buddhism while also trying to disparage it, basically advertising for your own religion
            it's even more obvious when you consider buddha completely rejected hinduism

            Nobody seems to be able to agree on what the big man actually said or believed. This is why writing your own ideas down in your own lifetime is so important.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            he backpedaled on a claim to try and save face
            kys you fricking moron

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            ofc they do
            you need to stop hanging out with fricking morons

            No he didn't, he just (rightly) didn't want to try communicating himself to you.
            You appear to be the only ornery person in an otherwise serene thread. Why don't you try reading instead of posting? You might learn something.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            not interested in your garbage standards
            and this thread is pretentious fricking garbage

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            ofc they do
            you need to stop hanging out with fricking morons

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Hindus focus more on Brahman "as God", as a "Great Spirit" (indeed, "Brahman" seems to mean "Big thing" originally, and "Atman" to mean "Breath thing.") to be appreciated and enjoyed *through* all the distorting, kaleidoscopic reflections that Samsara (and indeed Maya) provides us with.
          wait no, there is hindu monastic orders that deny the wold too, they existed before buddhism was created.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Interesting. Are you talking about Sramanas?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sramana is any “protester” of the dharmic order. So Jainists, Buddhists, but also a third group called Ājīvikas which are a bit more complicated but Hindus who reject dharma. Some context that is lost without remembering the Jainists and Ājīvikas is that Buddhism is actually supposed to be a middle path between hardcore renunciation and just acquiescing to dharma. I find that a lot of online Buddhists tend towards being more like Jainists but without the sense of personal responsibility.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >a lot of Hindus actually believe that Buddha was the ninth Avatar of Vishnu (which they get to via some number fudging to make Krishna the eighth, usually by quietly carpet sweeping the guy before him) and more specifically that he incarnated to "lead the asura to false moksha," sometimes with the added justification "so that they can't influence [things]"
          this is just people trying to coast on the fame and name of buddhism while also trying to disparage it, basically advertising for your own religion
          it's even more obvious when you consider buddha completely rejected hinduism

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it's even more obvious when you consider buddha completely rejected hinduism
            The apologism states that Buddha's rejection is of the false conclusions that were being propped up by the Vedas. Think of Buddha as like a wipe of bad habits.
            >IF you think the Vedas suggest animal slaughter (via sacrifice rituals) or caste destiny or any of these other body/material-based notions
            >THEN I reject the Vedas, and will start again
            >you dont understand the principles the Vedas are built upon, so no more of that, let's work on simple basics

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Clearly those with such a view cannot distinguish falsehood from truth. How can this be right? When I was traveling around I saw a lot of this type; recently they've become especially abundant. They gather groups of three to five hundred cloud gazers, saying this is the message of the Southern School, taking the Platform Scripture and altering it, adding confused drivel and excising what the sage meant, deluding followers. How can this be the verbal teaching?

            >Ouch! Our school is lost!
            how much more so would this be the. ase with someone as famous as buddha
            the lotus sutra is a mess for ex.
            not to mention that different schools use different versions
            people don't quote their texts here for a reason..

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You show a very weird understanding of why people do this.
            >what the sage meant
            The entire premise is the sage is giving you half information at best.
            It's like getting mad that the high school teacher contradicts the one you had in 1st grade by claiming you can indeed subtract larger numbers from smaller ones.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            try rddt

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No thanks, too many buddhist zealots.
            Do you run away from what I said because you dont understand or because you do and have no rejoinder?

    • 2 months ago
      no, buddy

      It makes you wonder where the Buddhist ideal of "many in body, one in mind" came from, doesn't it?

      The concept of many in body, one in mind is based on the vow of Shakyamuni Buddha, which is contained in the Lotus Sutra, ‘to make all persons equal to me, without any distinction between us.’

      This is the basis of Mahayana Buddhism in particular, it is the goal of enlightenment, and of unity between all. It is the goal that we not see ourselves as separate, and then I ask you what are we?

      • 2 months ago
        no, buddy

        Interestingly, Mahayana Buddhism strikes closer to the original words Gautama spoke to his disciples (according to most historians). It is this very concept of unity that is lost in Theravada Buddhism.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >i dont know what's going on and rely on others to tell me but let me try to educate you anyway

          • 2 months ago
            no, buddy

            Ignorance in one appears as ignorance in the other. Ultimately ignorance belongs to us all. If you disagree with me and have something more important to share, I recommend focusing on that.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            i recommend you shutting the frick up

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          how is this concept of unity still Mahayana which preaches the emptiness of form?

          we need to be careful of Lucifer's New Age "we are all one"

          i understand that if we are all the Buddha we are of one mind with separate bodies.

          how far does one take this without falling to New Age propaganda?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lucifer? Come now.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            a lot of New Age buddhists say we are all one but that is not to be free of duality. Lucifer is New Age philosophy, all for one one for all. this is where we are all one comes from in the New Age. you come on! i'm asking how a buddhist doesn't fall into this trap, not saying the teaching that we are all one Buddha is heretical or Luciferian

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think you care too much about israeli fairytales. Universal oneness is a fundamental reality - in fact, it's the ONLY fundamental reality. It's not just Dharmics who figured that out, either. People all over the world knew it and said it, just look at Native Americans or Africans (particularly Yoruba.)
            I know how it is, Abrahamism fricked up the world and then preoccupied everyone with trying to figure out who fricked up the world. Among the gods and mythological figures there are many suspicious looking characters and it's easy to ascribe blame, and then to viciously disregard - even invert - the teachings of whatever is being blamed. But the only resolution that makes sense is to reject Abrahamism *itself* and the poisoned dichotomy it asks the mind to reconcile.
            Dualism is as close to "reality" as it gets, though as people in this thread would doubtless be quick to point out it IS still illusory. It's a fundamental part of the workings of the evident world. The entire concept - or its inversion, whichever pleases you - isn't poisoned just because it features in Abrahamism. That way lies madness.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >figured that out
            It's a conjecture, they did not figure anything out, they came up with a similar hypothesis in different areas. This is why you new-agers are hated so much, you cherry pick cultures that have similar ideas as you, twist them to what you think, then smugly behave as if this means you're absolutely right.

          • 2 months ago
            no, buddy

            Form is body, and the ideal is many of body one of mind. By being one of mind the body loses meaning, it becomes an empty thing, a mere vessel. Anything can be twisted if you let it, so let me clarify. One of mind in this context does not mean we are all the buddha, it means we must all become the buddha.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        he didn't say that anywhere

        • 2 months ago
          no, buddy

          Who, Shakyamuni?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            nobody said that anywhere..
            and obviously mahayana is an offshoot based on misinterpretation like all modern institutions trying to gain money from the name and fame

          • 2 months ago
            no, buddy

            You realize I cited the source right? This is one of the most well known pieces of literature in Buddhism. Perhaps you're not familiar with Buddhism in China or Japan?

            Also I wasn't trying to claim Mahayana was perfect or anything like that, I'm just talking about some relevant history relating to those offshoots and the differences between them. It's relevant because it seems to support the claim that the original intent relating to concepts like Brahman was lost.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            lol sure dude im the illiterate butthole here

          • 2 months ago
            no, buddy

            When we take the precepts of a Bodhisattva and vow to teach all and guide them to Buddhahood, this is an extension of the ideal Shakyamuni spoke of. It is essential to understand.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            nobody said any of that and you're a fricking moron

          • 2 months ago
            no, buddy

            >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva_Precepts

            Does the text on that article show up as zalgo for you? The vow to save all beings is basically universal in Mahayana Buddhism.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            jfc dude

          • 2 months ago
            no, buddy

            Interesting point, Jesus did also say something similar.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            right and buddhism was around millions of years before it
            make sense you don't understand shit when you quote a thief on teachings they couldnt even comprehend
            you learn your abcs from morons too?
            jc dude
            and then you throw that shit 15 y/o rddtors use to try and one up me as if youre somehow clever or have some fricking point to make?
            jesus fricking christ dude fricking kys already

          • 2 months ago
            no, buddy

            We have a lot more in common than you think it seems. I also believe Jesus got most of his teachings from the east, but I never quoted him. I hope one day you will focus on what matters instead of trying to divide with hateful words and dissension without cause. Playing debate in your head doesn't work if others aren't playing too. I assure you my words have been directed at everyone, not at you specifically.

            look at ye', feeding the trolls

            This thread deserves the bumps

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            frick off

          • 2 months ago
            no, buddy

            No thanks, I have a vow to uphold.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >this is buddhist behaviour
            sure bud
            fricking kys

          • 2 months ago
            no, buddy

            Do you think a Buddhist is forbidden from disagreeing when others speak lies about his faith and claim his teachers do not exist?

            You continue using very harsh language, but when will you see that I'm speaking with kindness?

            I understand that it can be difficult to accept a correction with humility. I suffer from the same sorts of problems. If not, I'd have little to teach.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            right and buddhism was around millions of years before it
            make sense you don't understand shit when you quote a thief on teachings they couldnt even comprehend
            you learn your abcs from morons too?
            jc dude
            and then you throw that shit 15 y/o rddtors use to try and one up me as if youre somehow clever or have some fricking point to make?
            jesus fricking christ dude fricking kys already

            look at ye', feeding the trolls

            butthole fricking cried and you need to stfu
            illiterate fricking c**t

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            look at ye', feeding the trolls

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't believe in it, I don't see the need for a creator God, Atman doesn't exist.
    If Buddhism preached something different, I wouldn't be a Buddhist.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >a creator God, Atman doesn't exist.
      gay

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Brahman and atman could be thought of as a relation of the self in reflection. I personally think it's in alignment with what Buddha was talking about. Most people poison spirituality by being autistic about definitions.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        So, anons, what was the Buddha wrong about "God"?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I would like for someone to quote from a buddhist sutra a passage where buddha denies the existence of god straight up.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I can't quote anything, nor am i particularly well read on the matter, but I think this perception arises out of the notion that "God" is an external concept, which would end up being an "other" attachment and hinder enlightenment. But I think that's a very high level spiritual distinction, once again sullied by words and definitions. I don't think the Buddha said anything outright, people with less awareness have just inferred meaning.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      atman exists i just ignore it

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    An atheist. Who cares whether you believe in god, or not? What matters is what you do. But yes the soul was not denied by Buddha Gautama that is true.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    basically just an internet schizo...

    [...]

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >how to awnser that buddhist bros?

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >the real essence of Buddhism and that of the Vedanta are not very different
    I'm willing to concede that Buddhists and Vedantists (and many others; Daoists, Hermetists, Gnostics...) are united in that they practice to realize the Unconditioned and make an end of rebirth. But just because we agree on the goal, we don't need to pretend that Buddhist phenomenology and Vedantic monism are remotely the same.
    >the disciples did not understand the Master and ... denied the existence of the soul and of God
    I think the Buddha was pretty categorical when he said that all phenomena are without self, and that there is no permanent underlying basis to reality like Brahman.
    >have become atheists
    The Buddhist texts are replete with references to a vast hierarchy of devas and heavens, many of whom behave as protectors of the world (lokapala) and of the dharma (dhammapala). The Buddha also taught to contemplate the devas (devanussati) and emulate their virtues (brahmavihara). You would have to contort the definition of atheism very badly to make that accusation work.
    >Buddhists began to come back to the old religion
    "Old religion" would be pre-Vedic for the Buddhists. Siddhattha Gotama was prince of the Sakya Republic, way out in the foothills of Magadha, where the developing Vedic religion did not yet reach. His native religion of a primordial solar king is more reminiscent of other Aryan religions like Zoroastrianism, which makes sense because his tribe branched off before the Vedas were codified and written down (though some take this too far and take it to mean he was Scythian, which is a stretch).

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      jc

      Do you think a Buddhist is forbidden from disagreeing when others speak lies about his faith and claim his teachers do not exist?

      You continue using very harsh language, but when will you see that I'm speaking with kindness?

      I understand that it can be difficult to accept a correction with humility. I suffer from the same sorts of problems. If not, I'd have little to teach.

      not interested

      • 2 months ago
        no, buddy

        Good, that means you've learned. I wish you well.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >this is buddhist behaviour

          • 2 months ago
            no, buddy

            I don't think there is such a thing. I think you're trying to call attention to some ideal you believe in, but for those who are grounded in reality Buddhist behavior is human behavior. There are times to strive for ideals, but there are also times to take care of yourself.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            right youre totally a buddha for jerking off to hentai right

          • 2 months ago
            no, buddy

            There is a big difference between being informed/devout and being a buddha. You seem to have a lot of expectations, and I assume you hold yourself to them as well. Personal growth is not the goal however. At least from a Mahayana perspective, it is secondary to uplifting others. It is in being aware and selfless that growth comes. Otherwise you're just feeding your ego.

            I certainly have a long way to go, but that doesn't mean I should step off the path.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            frick off

          • 2 months ago
            no, buddy

            When someone annoys you, is it not merely because they are acting in a way you did not expect / desire? The solution to false expectations is not in the other.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            oh sure explain why a kid got his finger cut for imitating a buddha
            oh you cant and it doesn't fit into your worldview
            HUH

          • 2 months ago
            no, buddy

            People do not expect a child to be a Buddha, and in fact people expect it is impossible. People also expect children to be humble and to respect their elders. Such an imitation goes against those expectations and even a kind person can turn ugly in circumstances they are sensitive to, like when their life's devotion is disrespected.

            [...]
            >idk the basics but look at how devout and informed i am
            i bet you hadn't even heard of the story
            just kys dude jfc

            No, I hadn't heard of the story. However it aligns with a lot of my own thoughts stemming from research in an entirely different part of the world. This is a fascinating topic and I've been looking in to it since OP was kind enough to share.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            oh sure explain why a kid got his finger cut for imitating a buddha
            oh you cant and it doesn't fit into your worldview
            HUH

            >idk the basics but look at how devout and informed i am
            i bet you hadn't even heard of the story
            just kys dude jfc

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            according to my knowledge the will to liberate other sentient beings comes from a higher degree of meditation/wisdom, and flows naturally. you don't ask "why liberate sentient beings?" because the sense of compassion flows naturally from the higher transcendental state of samadhi.

            saying "i will now liberate sentient beings" 1) reifies a soul (diamond sutra), which is wrong, and 2) begs the question as to ethical maxims (compassion is given by wisdom in meditation) and 3) is too doctrinal for Zen (but the Zen will liberate others upon attainment of transcendent wisdom)

          • 2 months ago
            no, buddy

            This is also true, though as a matter of focus speaking on the individual's perspective tends to be more meaningful for non Buddhists.

            See, I judge religions against the historical context they exist in. I think you’re read enough to appreciate that even if you don’t agree with that. I have trouble accepting a “beyond time” as a useful category in light of the most recent models of thermodynamics and a statistical universe which are showing that “time” is just a property of statistics. I have a lot of respect for your erudition and thank you for turning me on to some new ideas.

            If time is just a property of statistics, then why do mass and movement change its speed? These things have a direct influential relationship with each other, so are mass and movement also just properties of statistics?

            I don’t really see how, but obviously I’m reading my own writing. I’ll try to clarify. People treating Theravada like it’s the be all end all is a new phenomenon here. And I haven’t explored it incredibly deeply, but it seems like that behavior is just driven by the same Protestant religious framework Ie: what is oldest and “undiluted” is always what should be looked to as the final word. I respect the desire to analyze concepts and trace them back historically and I think that knowledge is useful, but I think ultimately that truth is something we progress towards not something that is behind us.

            Theravada being solipsistic isn’t just my criticism. Mahayana traditions arose out of East Asian dynasties appropriating Buddhism as a political tool. That made it necessary for the clergy to actually engage with politics and the world at large, which led to an increase evolution away from the world-denying solipsism of Theravada. To me that is a desirable progression, but to put my cards on the table I also have a Catholic background that probably colors my opinion as much as the Protestants I criticize.

            The irony here is that the oldest texts of buddhism are of the latest teachings, meant to reach all. The early teachings The Buddha passed on weren't written down until much later, instead existing as spoken word tradition.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            He could be actually, anime depicts a superior much more beautiful and perfect reality. When you get off to hentai, you're shouting to the world that you reject crude matter for beautiful drawings created through the divine spark. So yeah he is pretty enlightened for jerking off to hentai.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            its gay af

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Being attracted to idealized depictions of women ackshually means you're gay
            How deep in the closet must you be man..

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You would have to contort the definition of atheism very badly to make that accusation work.
      Not really. Very powerful beings is not the same as a god, even when people have been translating the word to "god" for years.
      Buddhism is atherist and this line of argument is deceptive as its very best.
      It shows a REALLY weird shame and denial of atheism that has no rightful reason to be shamed.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        atheism is an embarrassment

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Atheism, a- meaning without and theos meaning god, means the rejection of the existence of gods. Since theos is equivalent to deva (even being cognate words), and Buddhism upholds the existence of devas, it can't be atheism. Only if you redefine atheism to mean something like "not monistic" or "not nondualist" could you uphold the accusation, but those aren't the plain etymological definition of atheism.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Since theos is equivalent to deva
          It isnt. The concept of a supreme person in theism is not the same as the concept of higher dimensional beings that one can become through good works.
          Devas are closer to angels or aliens than god, and I reassert that it is weird deception to try and put Buddhism in the category of theism.
          The only reason I can see doing it is to appeal to westerns or maybe hindus.
          Not even pagans want to be considered in the same category as theistic religions.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I concur.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Not even pagans want to be considered in the same category as theistic religions.
            Then why did the pagan Athenians try Socrates for spreading atheism?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Same reason the pagan Romans mocked and killed Christians for promoting theism.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Not even pagans want to be considered in the same category as theistic religions
            I think you're just using theism to mean monotheism. Paganism is obviously polytheist.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It’s important to distinguish between theistic and deistic paganism. It was the difference between the Etruscan’s and the Romans. Wether you place the gods as immanent or not had far reaching consequences on things like abstract thought and the building of theoretical models.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, there is a large and important distinction there.
            If you wish, you could say some forms of Buddhism are polytheistic.
            Ever wonder why that anon is so careful to not use that term?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I hate to play the “western Buddhists so cringe” card because it’s just no true Scotsman fallacy, but I seriously never see anyone mention Buddhas here besides The Gautama Buddha. In most Mahayana traditions he’s the least important Buddha and as much as you all like to meme people being weird purists about Theravada here is incredibly recent and reeks of Protestant kids dipping their toe into the orient and applying their exact rubric of “old thing and solipsistic better hurr” onto Buddhism.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm sure you have something interesting to say, but that really is quite the word salad at the end there.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don’t really see how, but obviously I’m reading my own writing. I’ll try to clarify. People treating Theravada like it’s the be all end all is a new phenomenon here. And I haven’t explored it incredibly deeply, but it seems like that behavior is just driven by the same Protestant religious framework Ie: what is oldest and “undiluted” is always what should be looked to as the final word. I respect the desire to analyze concepts and trace them back historically and I think that knowledge is useful, but I think ultimately that truth is something we progress towards not something that is behind us.

            Theravada being solipsistic isn’t just my criticism. Mahayana traditions arose out of East Asian dynasties appropriating Buddhism as a political tool. That made it necessary for the clergy to actually engage with politics and the world at large, which led to an increase evolution away from the world-denying solipsism of Theravada. To me that is a desirable progression, but to put my cards on the table I also have a Catholic background that probably colors my opinion as much as the Protestants I criticize.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >what is oldest and “undiluted” is always what should be looked to as the final word
            Okay thank you, this makes it a lot clearer. I can see a little parallel between Lutheran sola-scriptura and Theravada. I would point out that Theravada has a more continuous history and arose out of monks who were ordained in direct succession from the Buddha, somewhat like the Catholic Church being continuous from Peter's ministry. Whereas the big Protestant reformers usually represented a break in such tradition, a little more like Mahayana.
            Let me suggest a few more comparisons, just to rustle your jimmies. A big one is that Mahayana and Protestantism were largely possible because of advances in literacy. More literate Indians could write whatever new sutras they wanted and pass them on without monastic supervision, and the European printing press made it easy for Protestants to start spreading their own ideas against Catholic hegemony. Another one would definitely be a bigger interest in worldly politics, I mean like you said
            >That made it necessary for the clergy to actually engage with politics and the world at large
            Consider the parallel of Catholic scholastics and Theravada/Sarvastivada abhidhammikas busy in their ivory-tower intellectual pursuits, compared to Mahayana and Protestant reformers pushing for greater sympathy for the masses' spiritual desires. Related to that is the Lutheran sola fide, "faith alone"; compare that to the Pure Land idea that you only need to chant nianfo with all your heart and you could be assured permanent rebirth in Sukhavati. Whereas the Catholics emphasized good works, and Theravada emphasized merit-making at the least and austere practice at the most.
            Maybe this comparison could be interesting to flesh out all the way, but I don't want to fall into the trap of using these comparisons for polemics. I don't have a dog in the fight between Catholics and Protestants, so I don't care if I'm compared with either.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Addressing a few things outside the Protestantism stuff:
            >I think ultimately that truth is something we progress towards not something that is behind us.
            That's a false dichotomy. The truth is beyond time itself; it's not the product of dialectical progress, nor is it locked into one past event. This is why Theravadins consider the dhamma akaliko, timeless; it would be true even if Gotama Buddha never taught it, or if he taught it some other time/place. So the criticism is not that Mahayana sutras were written later, the criticism is that the Buddha taught the truth and that the Mahayana sutras (usually, but not always) outright contradict him. For my part, I recognize that the Theravada abhidhamma was written after the Buddha's time, but I still consider it to be true, which is easy enough since none of it really contradicts anything the Buddha taught.
            >necessary for the clergy to actually engage with politics and the world at large, which led to an increase evolution away from the world-denying solipsism of Theravada. To me that is a desirable progression
            If, as a Buddhist, you agree nirvana is the highest good, then anything, big or small, that moves in the direction of purity is a good thing. So in that light I can respect the permeation of Zen in the arts and trades of Japan, that's elevating the lives of laymen. But dragging ordained monks down to the level of worldly politics is a move in the opposite direction; the right thing to do, which I recognize in Theravada, would be for existing lords and masters to learn the Dhamma and apply it as best they can in their pursuits. I hold the Dhamma above the world, not the other way around.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            See, I judge religions against the historical context they exist in. I think you’re read enough to appreciate that even if you don’t agree with that. I have trouble accepting a “beyond time” as a useful category in light of the most recent models of thermodynamics and a statistical universe which are showing that “time” is just a property of statistics. I have a lot of respect for your erudition and thank you for turning me on to some new ideas.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don’t really see how
            How about because I am the one you were replying to with the Gautama post and it has no relevance to what I was saying.
            Neither Therevada nor Mahayana would be accepted by me as theistic.
            But I see in your replies that this was never really what you wanted to talk about.
            >behavior is just driven by the same Protestant religious framework Ie: what is oldest and “undiluted” is always what should be looked to as the final word
            On this new topic, it seems we could be in agreement. My first post in response to OP was how they deal with other groups claiming their own teacher was "incomplete" or "just a step along the way".

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Sādhu, sādhu! finally somebody who knows what they are talking about

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        completely wrong, the buddhist sutras make inumerable mentions to spirits, plus what the heck you think petras are? You must have been reading "secular buddhist" texts that downplay buddhism spiritual stuff.

        new wave of rddt trolls arrived
        must be posting time in mutterica

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The real buddhism is pythagoreanism, Buddha just stole from Pythagoras and made it into a gay meditation cult and then his followers lied that he was hundreds of years older. You'll find no agreement between any of the modern sects as to when Buddha was alive even to which century.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >t. most interesting troll in the world

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        And it comes from orphism. And that's the religion of Orpheus. Who is Orpheus? The Christ aeon, literally the same being as the guy from Galilee who got crucified. If you think this is trolling a few minutes of research will prove otherwise.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          People do not expect a child to be a Buddha, and in fact people expect it is impossible. People also expect children to be humble and to respect their elders. Such an imitation goes against those expectations and even a kind person can turn ugly in circumstances they are sensitive to, like when their life's devotion is disrespected.

          [...]
          No, I hadn't heard of the story. However it aligns with a lot of my own thoughts stemming from research in an entirely different part of the world. This is a fascinating topic and I've been looking in to it since OP was kind enough to share.

          moron comments
          you dont even have to read past the first word

          • 2 months ago
            no, buddy

            Isn't fun how we lash out at ourselves, using the other as proxy? Such moron. Much dumb.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well it's a shame you're unable to refute it. You're just mad that your indian religion is just a rip-off of superior Greek philosophy.

            >this is buddhist behaviour

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well it's a shame you're unable to refute it. You're just mad that your indian religion is just a rip-off of superior Greek philosophy.

          • 2 months ago
            no, buddy

            Poetry containing distinctly Orphic beliefs has been traced back to the 6th century BC or at least 5th century BC, and graffiti of the 5th century BC apparently refers to "Orphics".

            Indian scholars claim the vedas started around two thousand years before that. There is a lot of disagreement.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Buddhism is a rip-off of Orphism, not the other indian religions.

          • 2 months ago
            no, buddy

            Buddhism is a direct reaction to those indian religions. The Buddha talked about it, made a big point of dismissing their dogma etc.

            From the perspective of early Buddhists, the Hindus/Brahmans had lost their way and they were returning to roots. Orphism grew from those roots as well, if you believe the Vedas started in the early indus civilization.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Vedas are most probably legitimate and indian, but buddhism just came up right at the same time as Pythagoras and his cult, going by the dates given by academics.

          • 2 months ago
            no, buddy

            The rise in rationality is not unrelated. Cultures don't exist in vacuums.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, the Kali Yuga. The Vedas hail from the Dvapara Yuga. The conditions of the Kali Yuga make rationalism more appealing and useful.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, Orphism spread to the east. Buddha was a student of it like Pythagoras. And these western ideas are much more straightforward than buddhism is. Gnosticism was unfortunately the last iteration of Orphism until modern times.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            *the last iteration of western Orphism

          • 2 months ago
            no, buddy

            *the last iteration of western Orphism

            I understand why you say that, but I personally believe that mysticism, which is the largest common thread between these traditions, has origins dating before written history. The rise in rationality, as I see it, was also a remembering of forgotten meaning. The trend has continued ever sense.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're right. This is a good post.

            The post that was bellow yours. Buddhists often say that souls don't exist and then do some pilpul when you ask them how reincarnation works. They also get mad at that word and say you have to say rebirth instead for some reason.

            Yeah, that's definitely a thing. IMO it all starts to break down when you get technical about it. For instance, that story with Bodhidharma and the Emperor of China. At the end of their exchange, the infuriated Emperor asks "Who then stands before me?" and Bodhidharma replies "Not known" (or at least, that's how it's given in English.)
            This phraseology is insisted upon because the lack of the personal pronoun "I" is intended to indicate Bodhidharma's lack of Atman. However, the fact that he doesn't know something is indicative of his Maya - "Ignorance," which prevents us from seeing Brahman fully due to the limits of our Atman (Ishvara, our best attempt at knowing Brahman.) If he has a Maya, surely he has Atman?
            I recognize that Buddhists are technically correct in identifying Atman (indeed, all things but Brahman) as illusions, but considering how *neatly* everything is set up for us to play this game of monkeys bashing each other with clubs and screaming and stealing shit from other monkeys, it does rather make me think that perhaps this is a game we *elected* to play at some point, and that perhaps its architecture is this robust for good reason.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is just cope. No, its an entirely separate tradition.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Prove it

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The burden of proof is on you moron

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you're saying that suddenly in India a very similar theory to what was then popular in Greece just appeared and it's all a coincidence. No that's not it. You know that one came from another.

            Does Buddha actually deny the soul tho? The doctrine of not-self is so often misinterpreted as no-self that not even buddhist nowadays know the difference.
            I know anatta is core tenet of modern Buddhism but my understanding is that Buddha just refused to answer either way because he thought musing on such things is counterproductive to reaching enlightenment.
            He basically said "stop worrying about it, just practice and you'll see for yourself, there is no reason to spend all that energy thinking about this instead of spending that energy liberating yourself"

            So he could have just answered and ended the debate right there, but didn't because it would be "counterproductive". What a pseud. It's okay that your religion is flawed with unanswered questions, you can admit this. You don't claim that Buddha is a flawless being and the scripture is also perfect like Christians do.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    ?si=FnQV4CWxIJNc287W

    I prefer Abhinavagupta and Kaula system/Kashmir Shavism. I personally don't like any form of Vedanta school.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Does Buddha actually deny the soul tho? The doctrine of not-self is so often misinterpreted as no-self that not even buddhist nowadays know the difference.
    I know anatta is core tenet of modern Buddhism but my understanding is that Buddha just refused to answer either way because he thought musing on such things is counterproductive to reaching enlightenment.
    He basically said "stop worrying about it, just practice and you'll see for yourself, there is no reason to spend all that energy thinking about this instead of spending that energy liberating yourself"

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >It is very clearly known that the Way is just this - why can't people pass through? It is just because when they see someone open his mouth they immediately call it verbal expression, and when they see someone keep his mouth shut they immediately call it silence.

      .

      >how could the ignorant confusion of sentient beings be considered the same as the knowledge and perception of Buddhas?

      .

      >The reason those who learn the Way don’t realize the truth Is simply that they perceive the discriminating consciousness they’ve had all along. It is the origin of endless life and death; Fools take it for the essential self.

      .

      >Those who study the Way must grasp one's own Self. When Self is grasped the Way is clear. People these days mistakenly recognize raising the eyebrows, winking an eye, other silent signs, and remaining silent as the essentials of the Self. This is not yet finished.

      .

      >This Self has nothing to do with the dusts of the world or with observing long periods of silence

      .

      >Now if I say this to people, they think I am criticizing everyone else, but if I do not talk about it, it will be hard to elucidate. Zen teachers of a certain type say to people , "Fools! Why don't you understand this thing?" First they make a cliche of "your own mind," then try to use the mind to realize it; this is called driving a spike into a stump and then running around and around the stump. They pass it on this way, and it is taken up this way, knocking on their chairs and holding up their whisks. This is called trying to use the mind by means of the mind.

      >There is another type of teacher who tells people not to make logical assessments, that they lose contact the minute they speak, and should recognize the primordial. This kind of "teacher" has no explanation at all. This is like sitting on a balloon—where is there any comfort in it? It is also like the croaking of a bullfrog. If you entertain such a view, it is like being trapped in a black fog.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >"It is because of the self that one can bow to the other." These expedients are in profound accord with the intent of Buddha.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    issara nimmāna

    https://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh047_Nyanaponika_Buddhism-and-the-God-Idea.html

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Shoutout the homosexual trying to meme the word pilpul here and on EerieWeb, your mom and I are very proud of you.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Die before you die.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The problem with buddhism is that it only really works in an already peaceful world, creating a paradox. How can a religion that is about passive accepting of the now and leaving behind of the ego exist in a world full of hate and ego driven people that believe in magic sky daddies? It can't. We know the real truth, but it can't be applied to living in a world driven by ego, since ego is created by nature to make us survive in this world, without the ego humans wouldn't be here, the ego has/had it's place. Without ego humans would all collecitvely commit suicide since there is no purpose to procreating anymore, because we would all just go and achieve nirvana.

    This is why buddhism is in it's essence an death cult. It's not a bad thing, but humans want to live and continue to explore and create things and seek new meanings and frontiers with their egos.

    Everyone can say, hey, let's have worldpeace we just have to lose our egos and live in the present! But then we all just disappear. What was the meaning of life then in the end for humans? I know what I'm saying here is ego based, but I think an ego driven world is far more interesting than a world of humans that goes extinct because everyone achieved nirvana and sees no meaning any more in wordly desires.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      There are developments in Buddhism that try to deal with this. Medieval Japan was a war torn hell scape more often than not, and so sects like zen, Nichiden, and Pureland, developed with new doctrines. The idea of 末法 or “the end of dharma” is essentially exactly what you’re talking about. How can you lock yourself in a monastery when the world is burning? How can a selfish act like that lead to Nirvana, and how can we move forward? I’m not saying these questions were answered perfectly, but I hope you’re willing to take on good faith that you’re not the first person to have these problems with the faith.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >how can we move forward?
        Every move forward will eventually fall backward. Progress is a delusion.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >We know the real truth, but it can't be applied to living in a world driven by ego
      If your truth is so relative and dependent, then it isnt a very good truth.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Whats with that baphomethian pose with the right hand up and left hand down?

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    So if the essence is the same, all Vedantists should become Buddhists?

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    No the teachings aren't too different. The main issue with the Vedas is it places importance on theology and not on the way. Cosmic hierarchy is of little importance. What is important is living in the way. The way is how you attain enlightenment not praying to some gods or doing rituals.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    well, this thread has gone completely off the rails

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *