Where should I start if I want to learn about Buddhism? What are the important texts?
Where should I start if I want to learn about Buddhism? What are the important texts?
Things and concepts at the edge of reality — and credulity. The bizarre and the spooky, mysteries, cryptozoology, weird coincidences, aliens, esoteric knowledge, truths with horrific implications, ghosts, and whatever else seems to fit.
Isn't that a religion of pedophiles?
anon what religion isn't
I kniw right
https://studybuddhism.com/
I recommend the Pali Canon for the words of Gautama Buddha himself and the Tibetan Book of the Dead for an initiation the esoteric side. Don't feel like you have to force yourself to read through books though, wander around and see what texts and meditational practices appeal to you personally.
This.
I recommend read the suttas of the Pali Canon: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/
Digha Nikaya and Majjhima Nikaya contain some of the most quoted/referenced one. You should explore all the suttas diligently and apply your mind rationally.
I disrecommend all of these. They are esoteric, not easily put into practice, and I would go so far as to say heretical. They are mahayana suttas. Pic related to one of the difference between theravada and mahayana.
The mahayana school of buddhism came after theravada (see above) school of buddhism and claimed to be better, more fundamental, and to reveal knowledge hitherto unrevealed which seemed to mitigate or overturn the authority of what came before it (with reference to the Buddha and the nature of those who were/are declared full realized in the Buddhist school).
Mahayana is closer in practice to what early Buddhists would have been doing, Theravada as a reform was to set a stricter and older canon, but Buddhism never attempted to hold to a strict canon.
Theravada is also one school of buddhism, Mahayana as a blanket term covers dozens.
Theravada is also entirely reliant on a monastic lifestyle, while Mahayana accomplishes a vehicle which can actually take someone like a westerner to the other shore.
>Mahayana is closer in practice to what early Buddhists would have been doing,
Nah.
>Theravada as a reform was to set a stricter and older canon,
I'd like to see you support that claim with an outside source. I hope it's reputable and itself either exhaustively cited or uses well founded information and clear logic (two things I think mahayana greatly lacks).
>but Buddhism never attempted to hold to a strict canon.
I think the reality, historically, is otherwise.
>Theravada is also one school of buddhism
All schools of buddhism are one school of buddhism.
>Mahayana as a blanket term covers dozens
Mahayana is also, fundamentally, one school of buddhism.
>Theravada is also entirely reliant on a monastic lifestyle,
That's not true.
>while Mahayana accomplishes a vehicle which can actually take someone like a westerner to the other shore.
Implying that theravada doesn't do that is ludicrous. Ludicrous means so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing; it means ridiculous.
Small vehicle issues
Issues not found. Your lack of discernment and insight is probably why you find mahayana so alluring and compelling. I've read that a lazy person delights in a poorly explained doctrine.
Muh source and insufferable sheep-mirroring language. Reddit the post.
>incoherent vitriol
It can only be EerieWeb :^) (vitriol means language (written or spoken) thought to be harsh or "burning")
Lol do you think vitriol is an uncommon word? I'm not even a native English speaker and yet I'd bet money I speak your language better than you do. Proof enough that you think what I said was incoherent. I'm not enlightened far from it. But was you said was long for the sake of being long and even a far from enlightened being such as myself can see you just spewed a load of egotistic bullshit and you know nothing about meditation. Go back homosexual.
>Lol do you think vitriol is an uncommon word?
It isn't super common.
>I'd bet money I speak your language better than you do
You don't.
>was you said was long for the sake of being long
No it wasn't.
>you just spewed a load of egotistic bullshit and you know nothing about meditation.
That's inaccurate.
>All schools of buddhism are one school of buddhism.
Not even remotely
If a school has multiple schools under it then it is either itself, merely one school, or it is an umbrella term. Fight me.
Did you get initiated into a buddhist tradition? You don't just consume information online and LARP as you know stuff, right?
>You don't just consume information online and LARP as you know stuff
No. That isn't the basis of how I speak like I have the authority to say "This is the case" and "This isn't the case".
Fair warning about opening your third eye. Reality will never be the same, and you will realize your every action is controlled.
this is good channel. i find reading tedious
Buddhism is about practice not just belief, actions create more merit than just theorizing. Thus whatever source of Buddhism you go to, also meditate (try 10 minutes then go longer) , it will help you understand what is trying to be communicated. Gnosis or spiritual experience is the most important thing in Buddhism or any spiritual practice. Without it, it
becomes pure theological speculation.
i would personally recommend not to start with the original texts, as they can be hard to get into as a beginner and you might just end up confused and unmotivated to learn more. better a more modern explanation of the basics. there are tons of books like this but i would recommend:
Thich Nhat Hanh - The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching (Mahayana school)
Walpola Rahula - What the Buddha Taught (Theravada School)
Stephen Batchelor - Buddhism without beliefs ("secular" Buddhism but still a great overview of the key teachings)
also this. to start meditating is the most important thing to do. theoretical understanding is important but also ultimately not what it is about.
dont worry too much about meditation technique etc just sit down, relax in a stable posture and try to focus on your breath for 10 minutes every day
excellent example of how to stay in samsara forever
decent channel overall but cant stand the guy
>excellent example of how to stay in samsara forever
for you
>"Why is it, Master Kaccana, that ascetics fight with ascetics?"
>"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views,
fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding
firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics." AN2
>excellent example of how to stay in samsara forever
It's not a quarrel, it's a discourse with recognized components of a recognized language.
just quote the lotus sutra to the theravadan and ask him to blaspheme it so he reincarnates as a dog or spider in hades
The anon you responded to is a Theravadan. Except I'm pretty in control/rightly relaxed with reference to mental conduct so I don't think that tactic, if carried out, would add up to something which ripened in what is disagreeable, unlikeable, unpleasant, or undesirable for me.
what about how the nirvana of the arahat is the skillful means of the Buddha, and not the true nirvana, which the layman couldn't bear to hear without first resting in the apparitional city of mythological arahat Nirvana?
I don't think that's something that is true.
>lotus sutra
fanfiction
Are you asking serious Buddhists only?
MN is kinda all you need, Bhikku Bodhi has the most accurate translation
>https://archive.org/details/MajjhimaNikaya/
The suttas are ordered more for memorization than for learning, different people have different ideas of what order to read them in.
>https://bodhimonastery.org/a-systematic-study-of-the-majjhima-nikaya.html
>NOOO GOY YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE POZZED ATHEIST BUDDHISM
stfu, wrathful buddha is coming for your ass
Fully English books are easy to find and far less confusing.
I think they're hella adulterated too though. The moment an author writes what is merely their own insight and you accept it as fact merely because you read it, you become a follower of that author like the monks who followed the Buddha.
Alan Watts, you will avoid a lot of false teachings by hearing him first.
>an author writes what is merely their own insight
That's almost all of Buddhism, less than enlightened dudes writing what sounds good.
>That's almost all of Buddhism
Some thing that are popularly regarded as Buddhism are not, I contend, Buddhism at all. Yes.
Nothing prevents a dedicated servant from receiving and purifying the essence of Buddhism.
>receiving and purifying the essence of Buddhism.
The dhamma is said to be "admirable in the beginning", "admirable in the middle", "admirable in the end", "entirely perfect", and "surpassingly pure". I believe that this is the case for its particulars and its essence. If this is there case, then there can be no such thing (nor can there have ever been) such a thing as receiving and purifying the essence of Buddhism, for the essence of Buddhism is, I say, the Dharma which was dispense by the Buddha: clear, open, evident, and free of patchwork.
>Bhikkhus, the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus is clear, open, evident, and free of patchwork.
https://suttacentral.net/mn22/en/bodhi
>he explains the Dhamma admirable in the beginning, admirable in the middle, admirable in the end; he expounds the holy life both in its particulars & in its essence, entirely perfect, surpassingly pure.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN82.html
Ok, receiving and purifying the essence of the big fat pointer called Buddhism.
Of course Buddhism can't contain truths, no human concepts can.
Buddhism is just Satanism with a happy calm face. Everyone into that I've ever met has been a short-tempered rich homosexual.
Abhidhamma
I'm not convinced of buddhism
1. because I have never seen evidence of past lives or ever felt like I had a past life
2. it has no explanation for creation
It is sane to not believe what you have not verified. It is sane to not disbelieve what you have not falsified. It is sane to neither believe nor disbelieve what you have neither verified or falsified. If you apply your mind rationally and diligently, you'll likely end up making the right decision regardless of what you can currently verify or falsify. Be energetic and upright.
>1. because I have never seen evidence of past lives or ever felt like I had a past life
belief in past/future lives are honestly not that important for the practice of buddhism and was not that emphasized by the buddha himself
>2. it has no explanation for creation
is that something that is necessary for us to live well? the buddha was not concerned with metaphysical or theological speculation, but with our issues as human being right now in this moment of time. so no, it does not offer an explanation for that
good answer
all of buddhism is a giant shit test and at the end you realize there is no nirvana.
If you want o get into Theravada, there is a very good introduction which is In the Buddha's words by Bhikkhu Bodhi. It is a step by step introduction to the basics using important texts from the Pali canon. The Dhammapada is another good text to start with.
For Tibetan Buddhism there is Words of my perfect teacher. If you want to get into Zen maybe read some collection of teachers like Dogen and Hakuin. And Linji
Agreed on the Dhammapada, the best way to get to know historical figures is to read their quotes and infer what you can, Siddhartha obviously observed nature keenly as part of his years away from society becoming enlightened, and he also knew a lot about war elephants because of his family's military background (maybe his own too). I like Thanissaro Bhikkhu, check out dhammatalks dot org where he's made all of his writings free, there's a nice section for beginners.
another gaping hole in buddhism is sila(ethics)
if evil shits like angulimala can become enlightened arahant, then logically, sila has nothing to do with karma/merit. so the conclusion is that karma is bullshit and there is no point in practicing ethics.
This is true, there are many contradictions in Buddhism. I think probably karma and reincarnation were the traditional folk beliefs and Buddhism came from a more intellectual strain, and they mixed together
Does it say somewhere that karma stops a person from being enlightened?
>then logically so the conclusion
Deluding yourself, keep that chain of deduction going and you arrive to the craziest of ideas.
The universe is a vast ocean, not a courthouse. An arhat takes control of fate itself and moves beyond passively experiencing karma. One can overcome their past misdeeds with Right Action. And let me assure you, Right Action is absolutely necessary at the higher levels or you're going to be facing an endless procession of wrathful deities blocking you from causing spiritual damage to the storehouse consciousness.
The only consistent way to ascension is to bully religious nerds and feast on their loosh.
Being a cannibal of others is how you end up in a not-happy place