So,Theravada or Mahayana?

and why?

CRIME Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There are infinite ways how to attain enlightenment.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Name them

      • 1 month ago
        Schizo Retard

        >1. do your homework
        >2. eat your vegetables
        >3. brush your teeth
        >4. respect your elders

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Cap

      Theravada because it's straightforward, open, evident, rigorous and exhaustive/comprehensive (or approaches such). Mahayana is, to my knowledge, not that. Whereas theravada is like "In reference to feelings, if you do this this is the result. If you do that, that is the result." Mahayana is like buddhist fanfiction, a pantomime, without straightforward moral/ethical/skillful guidance.

      I don't think the pali canon is without adulteration (aka suttas that are just sorta garbage) but at least it has some enough good stuff that when you encounter bad stuff you can call he whole "adulterated". Mahayana is like if a writer smoked weed and sniffed cocaine and just did some automatic writing with some *sprinkle sprinkles* of Buddha, dharma, and other buzzwords.

      This is a good site for Theravada suttas: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I've just finished reading "The Secret Oral Teachings in Tibetan Buddhist Sects" by Alexandra David-Neel and am wondering now what posters here think of it.
        I don't know the differences between Theravada or Mahayana's takes on "the store-house" or emptiness.

        Mahayana is like buddhist fanfiction, a pantomime, without straightforward moral/ethical/skillful guidance.
        If Mahayana is in anyway related to what I have just read, they would take morality to be an illusion itself and that it represents part of the duality between the iron and golden chains

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Mahayana is like buddhist fanfiction, a pantomime, without straightforward moral/ethical/skillful guidance.
          100% correct.
          Same applies to theravada.

          [...]
          buddhism
          tibetan buddhism is not even buddhism and it's fully part of mahayana

          >Let's be honest.. Mahayana is immensely beautiful
          Mahayana is not beautiful. mahayana is a grotesque Hollywoodesque version of spirituality. Even worse it's deeply flawed and deceptive, leaving people trapped in suffering.

          Also 100% correct.

          >Theravada ===> orthodoxs

          >Mahayana ===> mormons, gnostics, santeria, spiritism, etc

          >Vajrayana ===> voodoo, scientology

          >shit
          >sprinkled shit
          >glazed shit
          All you need to know is in the Vivekachudamani. This will piss off the orange robed morons.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Same applies to theravada.
            No it doesn't.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yup, all multiflavored bullshit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Incorrect. Incorrect and brainlet pilled. Maybe even knowledgeable/learned brainlet but nonetheless it's giving "knows enough about a lot but doesn't know enough to speak rightly about that which he truly knows and not speak / speak with qualifications about that which he doesn't adequately know".

            What would happen if an savant had no expertise?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >qualifications
            All contemporary """boodhists""" are nihilistic larper morons incapable of grasping liberation ontology.
            Re: qualifications, you can keep seething assfingering your mind with your "there is no soul" stupid fricking bullshit I don't give a shit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >>Same applies to theravada.
            That's false.

            >Vivekachudamani
            brahmin garabge, so utterly ignorant.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The goal is complete self annihilation
            No it isn’t. This was addressed 2000 years ago by Nagarjuna, in the contestation between annihilationists and eternalists.
            Extinguishing a candle does not annihilate the flame - it unbinds the process of combustion from its sustenance and allows the fire to be free from burning

            Funny how NO ONE can make a compelling argument against this OP https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/soul-denial-and-nihilism/28254
            just look at the first moron (and the subsequent too) responding in the thread:
            First he begins with an argumentative fallacy
            >As far as im concerned this is pretty much a waste of time.
            What a fricking idiot. Then for him this is a flaw:
            It is clearly based on logic and language rather than practice insights,
            Fricking idiot, that's the whole point. He can't even debate the FACT, UNDENIABLE FACT that ANATTA is an ADJECTIVAL FORM that means "is not the soul" and that NEEDS to be preceded by a noun in order to work. That is EXACTLY how ancient pali worked, that is EXACTLY how it is repeated over and over in the Pali Canon.
            "<noun> is not the soul" is not the same as "THERE IS NO SOUL"
            >is mere speculation, and goes against how the Buddha taught. To know and see for oneself, as things really are, one MUST follow the Noble 8 fold Path, in order to condition perception to a place where one can go BEYOND logic and language!
            Now pay attention to that last sentence:
            >where one can go BEYOND logic and language!
            >where ONE
            One WHO? you fricking idiot? THE SELF!
            If there was no self, then what is the fricking point for liberation? who's getting liberated? are you seriously this fricking moronic? I'll wait. answer that if you can. Who's getting liberated?
            >Do yourself a favour, if you want to see results, if you want to access the knowing tbe Buddha was pointing to, then re-direct the effort that goes into analysing this kind of writting on Practice itself.
            Practice what, you moron? practices that OPERATE IN THE AGGREGATES? Are you telling me you get liberated by working with the aggregates? You can't be that fricking contradictorily stupid.
            The whole point is Liberation by DISOBJECTIFICATION, AKA get RID of that which IS NOT THE SOUL!
            1/2

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >without straightforward moral/ethical/skillful guidance.
        Good. Those things are false.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No? There's only one way to attain enlightenment. Skillful, good conduct with reference to all that you are and aren't.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Can you please elaborate more on what you said?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ānanda himself state that he knew 84,000 dhamma-teachings:
      From the Buddha I learned eighty-two [thousand], from the monks I
      learned two thousand:
      Eighty-four thousand are the dhammas that are present in me.
      >https://glorisunglobalnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/7.8_narrative_eng_002-024.pdf

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The goal of the article is precisely to debunk Ananda lol.
        And as usual you have no intellectual rigor. The theragatha cites this quote supposedly from MN and it's not even found in MN, not the in the old canonical texts and the quote is about dividing the teaching.

        also weirdly enough only the quote is only repeated in trash texts by the Sarvastivada and mahasanghika

        and this division is invented in the commentaries, where the number of the ''teachings''blows up because it's meant to be blown up by construction :

        Caturāsītisahassavidha-Buddhasāsana
        The Eighty-Four Thousand divisions of the Buddha’s Teaching

        Kathaṁ Dhammakkhandhavasena caturāsītisahassavidhaṁ?
        What are the sections of the Teachings in the eighty-four thousand-fold division?

        Sabbam-eva cetaṁ Buddhavacanaṁ:
        This is the whole of the Buddha’s Words:

        Dvāsīti Buddhato gaṇhiṁ, dve sahassāni bhikkhuto,
        Eighty-two (thousand) are taken from the Buddha, and two thousand from the monastic,

        caturāsīti sahassāni, ye me Dhammā pavattino. ti
        eighty-four thousand, that is the Dhamma set rolling by me.

        Evaṁ paridīpita-Dhammakkhandhavasena caturāsītisahassappabhedaṁ hoti.
        So this is the explanation of the sections of the Dhamma in the eighty-four thousand-fold division.
        1. Discourse

        Tattha, ekānusandhikaṁ suttaṁ eko Dhammakkhandho.
        Herein, a discourse having one topic is one section of the Dhamma.

        Yaṁ anekānusandhikaṁ tattha anusandhivasena Dhammakkhandhagaṇanā.
        When there are various topics contained therein each topic is accordingly counted as one section of the Dhamma.

        Gāthābandhesu pañhāpucchanaṁ eko Dhammakkhandho, vissajjanaṁ eko.
        In verse composition the asking of a question is one section of the Dhamma, the answer another.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          2. Abstract Teaching

          Abhidhamme ekam-ekaṁ tikadukabhājanaṁ,
          In the Abstract Teaching, each is divided into triplets and pairs,

          ekam-ekañ-ca cittavārabhājanaṁ,
          and each is divided into the chapter on mind (and so on),

          ekam-eko Dhammakkhandho.
          each one is a section of the Dhamma.
          3. Discipline

          Vinaye atthi vatthu, atthi mātikā, atthi padabhājanīyaṁ,
          In the Discipline there is the basis, there is the rule, there is the word explanation,

          atthi antarāpatti, atthi āpatti, atthi anāpatti, atthi tikacchedo.
          there is derived offense, there is the offense, there is the non-offense, there is the triad.

          Tattha, ekam-eko koṭṭhāso ekam-eko Dhammakkhandho ti veditabbo.
          Herein, it should be understood that each portion is each one section of the Dhamma.

          Evaṁ Dhammakkhandhavasena caturāsītisahassavidhaṁ.
          Such is the the sections of the Dhamma in the eighty-four thousand-fold division.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Western Occultism

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The center piece of western occultism is hermetic qabalah which is a chimera of mostly eastern traditions, i'd rather just go to the eastern traditions instead of consuming the interpretations of hedonistic temple celebs.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        exactly

        and qabalah, just like the abrahamic faiths, are just theft and regurgiation and a rebranding of eastern ideas.

        • 1 month ago
          Krishna

          no, east asians are rebels against God. God was dismayed and simply punished them by giving them slanty eyes. all their religions are rebellious against YHVH. for example they even consider the Fifth Element to be Metal, which was forged by a fallen angel, Azazel. They worship the Dragon. So no, Abrahamism doesn't come from a region that rebels against God. Impossible!

          What Kabbalah does come from is Babylon, which is why the secular person can use Hermetic Kabbalah. This is Mystery Babalon. The israelites were captives of high priests of Babel and they adopted their religious mode in service of YHVH

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This flavor of schizophrenia is pretty interesting, ngl

          • 1 month ago
            Krishna

            i find your post to be exceptionally splendid thank you my joy

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            only israelites and their gentile cattle care about yahweh

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The Middle East is the cradle of civilization. There wouldn't even be the Hindu gods the same way without Mesopotamia first. Same as there wouldn't be Greek or European gods without Mesopotamia's influence on Anatolia and the Caucasus first.

          • 1 month ago
            Krishna

            I say the Tower of Babel disproves your thesis. Gods are advented in various linguistic Spheres (milieus) in PARALLEL ||

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > The Middle East is the cradle of civilization. There wouldn't even be the Hindu gods the same way without Mesopotamia first.
            What an ignorant thing to say. In the very earliest vestiges of Sumerian civilization, the oldest records of history, we find that the Indian Ocean trade route already existed and was of pivotal economic importance.
            Cities in the Indus are every bit as old as any in Mesopotamia

  3. 1 month ago
    Thought leader of /pol/

    Theravada if you want only core essential of teaching

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I think it's overstated a bit. I come from a Thai Buddhist family. The actual day-to-day Buddhism is much the same as you would see in China or Japan: residual animism and folk religion. There's no pure Buddhism except in books. They all have an extra "karmic" layer dealing with spirits a lot.
      I just say this as a heads up. You wouldn't want to be unprepared and think it's all "fundamentals", because you'd get thrown for a loop.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Both moron larpers, contradict the essence of true Buddhism.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Theravada for the practice, but Mahayana for the tourist sites.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    checked and based arhat hours
    if you want to attain enlightenment get really good at solving people's life problems. A spiritual figure is a guiding or tutelary deity and if you tally the effects of spiritual influences on people they are usually like family members or old friends that have your back no matter what and remind you of greater goals in life and reconnect you with your authentic energy.

    Ultimately there are many forms of enlightenment and it is not one single threshold to meet. What is your true will behind the mask of life? What was your true will behind your lives?

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Mahayana, specifically East Asian Esoteric Buddhism (mikkyo), Huayan/Avatamsaka Sutra, and Tathagatagarbha literature.

    Because it's better.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >mikkyo
      Where can I learn more? I have studied some Chán and touched a bit on Huayan and Tathagathagarbha, recently worked on Awakening of Faith. I find it difficult to find information on the so-called Esoteric Buddhism, even though I keep getting my awareness drawn to it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      , specifically East Asian Esoteric Buddhism (mikkyo), Huayan/Avatamsaka Sutra, and Tathagatagarbha literature.
      >
      >Because it's better.
      It's not even buddhism.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's Buddhsim that affirms the Atman (Tathagatagarbha) and that has absorbed good bits of Brahmanism/Shaivism and Daoism. This puts it more in line with the Sophia Perennis and thereby makes it better than most of Theravada which, like Madhyamika, is riddled with errors regarding the nature of objective reality.

        Dolpopa/Jonang is a Tibetan alternative.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Based

      >mikkyo
      Where can I learn more? I have studied some Chán and touched a bit on Huayan and Tathagathagarbha, recently worked on Awakening of Faith. I find it difficult to find information on the so-called Esoteric Buddhism, even though I keep getting my awareness drawn to it.

      I'm coming from a Koyasan Shingon point of view. I recommend picking up a few books from the BDK series. They are Esoteric Texts, Two Esoteric Sutras, and the Mahavairocanabhisambodhi Sutra. After that, pick up Kukai: Major Works. If you live on the West Coast of the US or in Hawaii, there are Shingon temples. Some offer online attendance, as well.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What an absolute waste of trips and my time
    As always OP should be executed publicly for stealing baby penises

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Mahayana is the eastern atheism. It's intellectually deceitful, and on purpose and running on a deep desire to be holier than buddhists. You have to understand that after the passing away of the buddha, nobody understood anything he said. But at least they had an intellectual honesty about it. They said ''yeah we don't get a fricking thing from the sutras, so we will preserve them and instead circle-jerk on buddhism inside our self-made basket called the abidharma''.
    That's not what mahayanists did at all. Mahayanists wanted to feel superior and for this, they rewrote history. Instead they just created their own sutras, then their own abidharma, and of course they say they were the smartest and most righteous Buddhists alive.
    The funny thing is that later on, the same people did the same thing to their own teachings: the vajrayanists did to mahanaya what the mahayanists did to buddhism: vajrayanists rewrote mahanaya history by creating their own sutras then their own commentary saying that varjayanists are the smartest and most righteous mahayanists of all time.
    You have to understand that buddhists were fricking moronic after the buddha's death. Pudgalas are famously just as moronic as the mahayanists, but at least they were honest about it.

    And the duplicity of the mahayanists is not even the first time it happened in India. The first occurrence was with the brahmins. The brahmins were socially in power and nobody could stop them rewriting history when in contact with buddhism and jainsim. Their minor frick-up was that they claimed that the Vedas were super sacred, so they could not touch them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So they created the commentaries called the Upanishads and started changing everything the Vedas were saying.
      Of course the mahayana duplicity is precisely the vedist duplicity, because they were made by the same people. With buddhism, The brahmins had no barrier for rewriting buddhism into anything they wanted. And they wanted Brahminism. Their major frick up was first to write in sanskrit, like the brahmin Nagarjuna, then to copy the lengthy and delusion of grandeur style of bramins stories and of course to cram moronic ideas in buddhism, in a covert manner. Mahayana sutras are like hinduism sutras: they are very very long, very very pompous, very very self-aggrandizing and very very moronic.

      and guess what? normies absolutely fricking love it. Normies have been in love with brahminism-mahayana-vajrayana for the last 2 millennials, just like normies have been in love with atheism for the last 2 centuries.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So they created the commentaries called the Upanishads and started changing everything the Vedas were saying.
      Of course the mahayana duplicity is precisely the vedist duplicity, because they were made by the same people. With buddhism, The brahmins had no barrier for rewriting buddhism into anything they wanted. And they wanted Brahminism. Their major frick up was first to write in sanskrit, like the brahmin Nagarjuna, then to copy the lengthy and delusion of grandeur style of bramins stories and of course to cram moronic ideas in buddhism, in a covert manner. Mahayana sutras are like hinduism sutras: they are very very long, very very pompous, very very self-aggrandizing and very very moronic.

      and guess what? normies absolutely fricking love it. Normies have been in love with brahminism-mahayana-vajrayana for the last 2 millennials, just like normies have been in love with atheism for the last 2 centuries.

      Those are true words, I hope other people see this. Also some further commentary:

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        thanks for the links!

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Theravada is the closest current thing to what the Buddha originally taught.
    Mahayana boils down to metaphysical musings and complicating the core teachings, it's unnecessary and leads to mental proliferation.

    Four noble truths, noble eightfold path. That's it. Nothing more.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Four noble truths, noble eightfold path. That's it. Nothing more.

      i'm sorry but that's not enough, with just that there was no way buddhism could win against the other religions that constantly attacks it,(first the bhakti movement in india and now the christian missionaries around the world). Also theravada does not have philosophers like nagarjuna, atisha, je tsonkapa and a bunch of others, it stagnated in south-east asia untill recentely

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Also theravada does not have philosophers like nagarjuna, atisha, je tsonkapa and a bunch of others
        and that's a good thing

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nobody actually interested in spirituality cares about that nonsense.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I like what's in the suttas, I have faith that which is in the suttas is achievable, so I practice what's in the suttas. This probably leans toward the doctrine of the elders.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Theravada practicioner here, I would say study both and use that to build on your understanding of Buddhism.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I like Zen because I'm spiritually inclined towards Taoism and those 2 combine pretty well

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      basic as hell
      I bet you think you like Sufis too

  14. 1 month ago
    Krishna

    i was zen for a while and read the major mahayana suttras but i just adore unity with the Brahman and the Brahmaloka doesn't really do it for me. when i don't have forced dreams i have dreams where i'm in the Brahman (as if I'm in His Afterlife). i'm not willing to sacrifice the feeling of unity with Brahman to atheistic Zen. at least that's my feeling as of today. if you follow me i change my mind about religion often. all i know is that Osiris told me i'm krishna and i love the Brahman

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >i just adore unity with the Brahman and the Brahmaloka doesn't really do it for me.
      >i'm not willing to sacrifice the feeling of unity
      >all i know is that Osiris told me i'm krishna and i love the Brahman
      ???
      >i was zen for a while
      ???????????

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The better question is this.
    Who built these and another 10 similar MASSIVE sculptures? And why.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Vajrayana.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    something they dont tell you about therevada is that it completely died out and was revived from reading old texts to form a system 100 years ago

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Let's be honest.. Mahayana is immensely beautiful but why would Buddha deceive people into creating the Theravada life story and all those teachings and in reality Mahayana is what he taught? It seems weird. But I love Mahayana so maybe it's true who knows. I've experienced many different stages on the Bodhisattva path that are outlined in the sutras. It can very well be true.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Let's be honest.. Mahayana is immensely beautiful
      Mahayana is not beautiful. mahayana is a grotesque Hollywoodesque version of spirituality. Even worse it's deeply flawed and deceptive, leaving people trapped in suffering.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >immensely beautiful
      I think what you mean is "intellectually stimulating". Which is not the point of Buddhism, the Buddha didn't care about metaphysics.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    tibettan buddhism is better than those. thats all ill say. i study this shit

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Vajrayana.

      buddhism
      tibetan buddhism is not even buddhism and it's fully part of mahayana

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        but who makes it to buddha. not those buddhists. only tibettan buddhists do it right

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Theravada ===> orthodoxs

    >Mahayana ===> mormons, gnostics, santeria, spiritism, etc

    >Vajrayana ===> voodoo, scientology

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    All hidden knowledge can be found in $5 Amazon books. Almost all.

    The rest are found in Movies and Netflix shows.

    There is nothing hidden

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Hard attachments to whichever are already a failure from following the path.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Both are pointless in themselves. Buddhism's main merit is that it can serve as a path from a shallow understanding of religion to a deeper one, ie. it can be beneficial to pass through Buddhism as an atheist, as an agnostic, or as somebody raised within Christianity who never took the time to really dig deep and try to understand it.

    I don't understand why anybody would stick with Buddhism. The goal is complete self annihilation, which only appeals to the short-sighted and suffering or people who lack the creativity to allow the possibility of anything better. There's a crapton of nonsensical dogma you are required to take completely on faith, and (thankfully) your odds of actually achieving that complete annihilation are so minuscule (even as a monk) as to be zero in actual practice.

    Buddhism appears, on the surface level, to be more logical and sensible than other religions. But the more you dig (and I'm not talking even about the fart-huffing, deranged one-upsmanship of Mahayana or Vajrayana, but even what can be found in the Pali Canon itself), the more you'll find that below that outer layer of real practical teachings is something as ridiculous as it is dangerous. It's a religion of nihilism, sophistry that it itself criticizes in the same breath, and cold unfairness and deflection. It holds the karmic boogeyman over your head at every moment, and said boogeyman can't be criticized in the way an atheist might criticize the Christian God, as karma is not expected to be reasonable, merciful, forgiving, loving, or even understandable to anybody short of a Buddha.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The goal is complete self annihilation
      You're just proving my point. Boodhists are nihilists.
      The true objective is Self REALIZATION.
      Y'all orange robbed morons are fricking larping morons.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I wasn't trying to argue with you in the first place. I don't even know who you are. I was a Buddhist for years, and now I'm not. I chose death, but now I choose life.

        >>I don't understand why anybody would stick with Buddhism. The goal is complete self annihilation
        The goal is to end suffering, ie the annihilation of dukkha. There's no self annihilation because there's no self in the aggregates to begin with. And if you think the annihilation of dukkha is the annihilation of the self, then you think the dukkha is at the very least major part of the self, or even dukkha is entirely the self, and that means the self is pure crap.

        I'm not going to argue with the concept of "self" as it is set up by the Buddha personally. It seems evident to me that if all experience is ended, then the practitioner is practically annihilated. Whether this is actually possible in the first place, I would have to take on faith. When it comes to what is left "in" nirvana, the Buddha was always evasive, and I don't have the faith to be able to believe he was being evasive for my (our) own good, or that it was simply something that couldn't be understood by a non-Buddha. Like much of Buddhism, the outer layer/initial concept seems promising and good, ie. "It's just the end of suffering", but when you read the canon, when you contemplate these ideas both from within Buddhism and from the outside, questions and doubts that aren't answered by the Buddha arise. This is why I consider Buddhism a good starter religion, and not a complete package.

        >The goal is complete self annihilation
        No it isn’t. This was addressed 2000 years ago by Nagarjuna, in the contestation between annihilationists and eternalists.
        Extinguishing a candle does not annihilate the flame - it unbinds the process of combustion from its sustenance and allows the fire to be free from burning

        >Nagarjuna
        Pure sophistry.
        >Extinguishing a candle does not annihilate the flame - it unbinds the process of combustion from its sustenance and allows the fire to be free from burning
        There's nothing convincing or inspiring about this. It sounds just mystical and flowery enough to soothe a student's concern and distract them from it. You're left free to project onto nirvana (annihilation, or nullification) whatever hopeful but ultimately unconfirmed preformed notions you might have (like this anon

        Now I'll use this bit from that other anon who very correctly and intelligently made an axiomatic reasoning:
        >The goal is to end suffering, ie the annihilation of dukkha.
        Absolutely.
        >There's no self annihilation because there's no self in the aggregates to begin with.
        Ultra correct.
        >And if you think the annihilation of dukkha is the annihilation of the self, then you think the dukkha is at the very least major part of the self, or even dukkha is entirely the self, and that means the self is pure crap.
        Also correct. But it's worth mentioning, for some of the lesser educated eyes reading this, those who have swallowed the "there is no soul" normie stupid fricking bullshit, that the aggregates are OBVIOUSLY not the soul, and that THE ONE that's getting liberated is the SOUL aka the Atman
        I invite you to read the rest of the replies to that link I shared, equally moronic, unpositable "counterarguments" (cough, fricknig idiots, cough)
        2/2

        ). Buddhism is full of this kind of nonsense, like the analogy of the arrow. "Just shut up and have faith that I am who I say I am, that your problem is what I say it is, that I have the solution and that it is effective and desirable." Contemplatives in this region and time period pulled these tricks all the time.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >>I don't understand why anybody would stick with Buddhism. The goal is complete self annihilation
      The goal is to end suffering, ie the annihilation of dukkha. There's no self annihilation because there's no self in the aggregates to begin with. And if you think the annihilation of dukkha is the annihilation of the self, then you think the dukkha is at the very least major part of the self, or even dukkha is entirely the self, and that means the self is pure crap.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The goal is complete self annihilation
      No it isn’t. This was addressed 2000 years ago by Nagarjuna, in the contestation between annihilationists and eternalists.
      Extinguishing a candle does not annihilate the flame - it unbinds the process of combustion from its sustenance and allows the fire to be free from burning

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Now I'll use this bit from that other anon who very correctly and intelligently made an axiomatic reasoning:
    >The goal is to end suffering, ie the annihilation of dukkha.
    Absolutely.
    >There's no self annihilation because there's no self in the aggregates to begin with.
    Ultra correct.
    >And if you think the annihilation of dukkha is the annihilation of the self, then you think the dukkha is at the very least major part of the self, or even dukkha is entirely the self, and that means the self is pure crap.
    Also correct. But it's worth mentioning, for some of the lesser educated eyes reading this, those who have swallowed the "there is no soul" normie stupid fricking bullshit, that the aggregates are OBVIOUSLY not the soul, and that THE ONE that's getting liberated is the SOUL aka the Atman
    I invite you to read the rest of the replies to that link I shared, equally moronic, unpositable "counterarguments" (cough, fricknig idiots, cough)
    2/2

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >and that THE ONE that's getting liberated is the SOUL aka the Atman
      Yet the buddha never said that
      Parinibanna is just the breaking up of the aggregates for good, which are never meant, before or after Parinibanna, to be tied up by some magical atman. The aggregates are held by cravings and ignorance, so when those 2 disappear for good, it's normal the aggregates never arise again. None of this requires an atman.

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