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?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't that a religion of pedophiles?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      anon what religion isn't

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I kniw right

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://studybuddhism.com/

    • 2 weeks ago
      METTEYA

      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.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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).

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Small vehicle issues

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            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.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Muh source and insufferable sheep-mirroring language. Reddit the post.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >incoherent vitriol
            It can only be EerieWeb :^) (vitriol means language (written or spoken) thought to be harsh or "burning")

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

        • 2 weeks ago
          >>

          >All schools of buddhism are one school of buddhism.
          Not even remotely

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If a school has multiple schools under it then it is either itself, merely one school, or it is an umbrella term. Fight me.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      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

      Did you get initiated into a buddhist tradition? You don't just consume information online and LARP as you know stuff, right?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >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".

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fair warning about opening your third eye. Reality will never be the same, and you will realize your every action is controlled.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    this is good channel. i find reading tedious

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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

      https://i.imgur.com/Ygah65l.jpeg

      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

      excellent example of how to stay in samsara forever

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHWIQzd8bVw this is good channel. i find reading tedious

      decent channel overall but cant stand the guy

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >excellent example of how to stay in samsara forever
        for you

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >"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

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Open Sesame

          just quote the lotus sutra to the theravadan and ask him to blaspheme it so he reincarnates as a dog or spider in hades

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Open Sesame

            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?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think that's something that is true.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >lotus sutra
            fanfiction

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Are you asking serious Buddhists only?

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >NOOO GOY YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE POZZED ATHEIST BUDDHISM
    stfu, wrathful buddha is coming for your ass

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fully English books are easy to find and far less confusing.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >That's almost all of Buddhism
          Some thing that are popularly regarded as Buddhism are not, I contend, Buddhism at all. Yes.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nothing prevents a dedicated servant from receiving and purifying the essence of Buddhism.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >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

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ok, receiving and purifying the essence of the big fat pointer called Buddhism.
            Of course Buddhism can't contain truths, no human concepts can.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhism is just Satanism with a happy calm face. Everyone into that I've ever met has been a short-tempered rich homosexual.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Abhidhamma

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >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

      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.

      good answer

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    all of buddhism is a giant shit test and at the end you realize there is no nirvana.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 2 weeks ago
      METTEYA

      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.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The only consistent way to ascension is to bully religious nerds and feast on their loosh.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Being a cannibal of others is how you end up in a not-happy place

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