How similar is western Buddhism which developed in the 20th century counterculture, to "eastern"/traditional Buddhism?
How similar is western Buddhism which developed in the 20th century counterculture, to "eastern"/traditional Buddhism?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Western Buddhism is about Satan and Eastern Buddhism is about God so they are Night and Day.
Depends on what you mean by "Buddhism."
There's Buddhism as practiced by lay people in East, there's Buddhism as practiced by novice monks, there's Buddhism as practiced by experienced lay people, there's buddhism as practiced by experienced monks, there's Buddhism as practiced by yogis, etc.
In the west, due to a much smaller monastic organizations, Buddhism that lay western people came into contact varied. Lay buddhists in the west can range from hippie buddhists who love peace and want happiness for all, to lay buddhists who are academic scholars, to lay buddhists who meditate sapringly, to lay buddhists who digest all buddhist philosophy, to lay buddhists who want traditional ethnic buddhism, and so on.
To add on to this.
Eastern buddhism has different "denominations" if I'm not mistaken Mahayana, Theravada and Vajrayana.
I think Zen buddhism also counts.
Each of them follow different monastic codes and focus on different books written by different people.
Here in the west most people do not know the difference and follow the brach of tradition that their mastee taught them.
There's basic things that all branches share: forms of meditation, the four noble truths and the eightfold path.
Here in the west you have cults that make money off people, academics who are interested in the history of buddhism, regular people who's trying to find a solution to the current state if affairs in the world, people who went all the way up through monastic lifestyle, social media people who want to look spiritual.
But buddha was very clear atleast based on the suttas, that what leads to the cessation of suffering is the "non-attatchment" to material, people, thoughts or anything in this world or the next, and it's different from nihilism because the focus is not that nothing matters but instead that we can improve the world but bear in mind that the world is not perfect. So we have to better ourselves to better our surroundings.
My issue with Buddhism is that if you consign all existence to "suffering" then you actively can and do make the suffering worse than it needs to be.
For example, imagine if you were to live in as close a utopia as you can get, and also were to live in as close to hell as you can get, they're both "suffering" according to the Buddhist definition, but one is worse than the other. "The automatic cleaning robot ran out of power, so I had to put new batteries in it" is a form of suffering, a tedium, and also "a rogue warlord tortured me to find the location of my last food supply" is also suffering, now according to the Buddhist philosophy you should never try to improve things because suffering is inevitable and you must just come to accept this, there's nothing in it that promotes bettering the mortal world and lessening suffering because that would be attachment. If you were to run for office to make your community's life better that's attachment, so the Buddhist worldview would just be to accept things as they are.
That's nihilism
to them its not nihilism because they give it a buddhism tint
Completely wrong.
The whole premise of Buddhism is ending suffering. Buddhism asks people to change the suffering and improve things, not just accept them as inevitable. That doesnt make any sense from the premise of the Buddhism. You're likely confused about what Buddhism is and injecting your own nihilism/defeatism.
except they supposedly say they follow the path of the buddhisatva or some shit and stay to enlighten others aka smell their own farts in monasteries, they dont spread the message of what really is going on directly
the main issue that the east is general refuses to modernize their language, they are stuck in the way of talking used 2000 years ago, theyre stuck in tradition. people nowadays wont understand that nirvana refers to a state where you lack any desire for things society can offer you as a trap to keep you working for it
ive never seen any buddhist monk address directly that working for money is being a slave and that directly makes it impossible for you to really develop what buddhism is about
its not that you have to be a bum but being involved with money validates a system which is the root of all problems and the world in general
Pure nonsense
Tell me on the doll where the bad Buddha touched you.
Most of the time that is mahayana as they made up their own religious stuff, if we go by the earliest writings it does encourage you to help your community and those in need.
The response the other person gave you i think is not appropriate because the objective is not to disagree but instead to answers questions like yours, there is a sutta in which the buddha refers ti nihilism and explains how becoming of oblivious of everything surrounding you means that you're lazy.
Even if you feel it is a cult for lazy people who like living off donations, I recommend that you atleast check the dhammapada which has nice advice to live with less stress.
If you want to check more I recommend the suttas in general, I don't think the other writings are really useful for us lay people but that's my own opinion.
As I understand it Buddhism is about ending suffering on a metaphysical, psychological, and spiritual level, not on a physical material level.
All live is suffering, suffering is from desire, end the desire to end the suffering.
That's great on a metaphysical level, but a mortal dystopia is more suffering filled than a mortal utopia, this isn't subjective and this isn't based on desire or perception, buddhism does reject suffering, yes, but in an abstract indirect way, I'm saying it should acknowledge and address mortal suffering we can improve.
For example (and to what degree this is simply for PR we don't know) the Dalai Lama has said if ever he got back in power in Tibet he'd stop the corporal punishment that existed prior to 1950 (i.e, the mutilations, whippings, etcetera) that is a form of suffering in the mortal realm that we as humans have the power to change, yet the buddhist philosophy would have those pre-1950 serfs simply accept it, as inevitable suffering.
If a wave crashes into another wheres the suffering? If a lightning strikes a tree, where is the suffering?
Suffering is necessarily created by the idea of entities, or by positing of the idea of entities, we attribute suffering onto others, as having wronged those entities. Those entities which we posit as living inside a person, hiding inside them and suffering. Which the Buddhism refutes entirely.
Now thats not to say Buddhists teach that monks shouldnt care about others, afterall, the nature of Buddhism is such that caring for others reflects a true nature of reality, one thats selfless metaphysically and psychologically. Theres a reason why Buddha isnt prescribing suicide as the one true answer. Its because suicide is an idea bourne from the notion of reified self, its a delusional idea. The body still needs to be taken care of in your journey towards enlightenment.
>i need the buddha to explicitly tell me to love people otherwise its not canon
Buddhism doesnt teach love, it teaches care.
Love is a personal and is self centered, the emphasis here is self. Caring is a universalized and places the emphasis on the motion to act towards those suffering, and the emphasis here is others.
i dont really read you because you always create categories for everything
this is love, love is blablabalabla. instead i care for care, care is blablalbalbalabalabalabalabbalaabldsaldjdlaklsdajdljlksdhl;kASdn;lnsdklddkl
you reach a point where it stops being a troll and it gets sad, you reached it a long time ago
Mental clarity is required to achieve anything. Delusion/confusion creates suffering.
>larping pseuds blabber a whole shitpost of nothing
as expected of LULZ
As someone who was raised in a traditional Buddhist family seeing posts like this is kind of tiresome
Anyway, the things I find hilarious about Western non traditional Buddhists is when they make statements about Buddhism without having actually read any Buddhist literature nor any secondary literature on Buddhism
Seeing people talk about how they 'lost faith' in Buddhism once they realised that there's a place for faith in Buddhism, that supernatural events and entities permeate Buddhism and that you can't just filter through Buddhism to find some kind of authentic original completely rational non dogmatic Buddhism, etc makes me laugh
I thought Buddhism was entirely secular and all supernatural things are corruptions/synchronizations of other beliefs (Tibetan/bon in Vajrayana, Chinese folk religions/Shinto in Mahayana)
nta but i think he means that there are practically no real og scripts of the buddha and you have to wade through the shit of those schools to get to the thing
no there has always been references to supernatural phenomena and otherworldly deities in the earliest texts
Buddha also believed in karma and reincarnation, but said you should not cling to the afterlife either.
There;s afterlife. Its called rebirth. Buddhism teaches rebirth. Rebirth is central to buddhism, regardless of westoid;s inability to grasp it.
>its mahayana therefore its not buddhism
Retard
retarded question, but what happens in buddhism if there's universal extinction
everyone dies in nuclear holocaust, humanity dies, no rebirth is possible, what now happens?
Theres a story about the universe ending and rebirth of the universe, and the re-creation of the first beings in the new universe.
Aka light beings (basically god like beings) become enamoured with material universe, their desire for it muddies their ethereal bodies and clings to the new worlds that are being created.
In other words, the cycle continues.
Buddhism is just nihilistic Hinduism
Imagine if a Chinese guy who has never met someone outside of China before, never seen a Bible or a Christian irl before, went to university in Beijing and heard about the life of Jesus in a history course, maybe talked to some of his friends about their favorite Jesus quotes, and based his understanding of Christianity and its entire history on that.
Anon, we're discussing Buddhism, not the Taiping rebellion.
I'm not really able to understand Buddhism. The idea of a religion without the concept of the soul is hard to understand.
1) Follow the axiom laid by Buddhists and follow through the arguments.
2) Follow the axioms laid by the soul ism (theists) and follow through the arguments Buddhist use to dismantle the whole notion
Start from the bottom and digest it as simple arguments