Out of all the creatures you could've been reborn as in samsara, in this life you were lucky enough to be a sentient human.
>Why do I suffer so much?
Suffering is an inevitable constant in this world, we live in samsara, where every phenomena and state of mind is impermanent and conditioned by external causes.
>Normies/rich people/girls/chads have it better than me, they can satisfy their deepest pleasures and have sex whenever they want
The truth is, they are not happier than you, perhaps they have it even worse than you because they are unused to facing adversities in their unproblematic lives. An excess in pleasure leads to boredom, existential dread and fear of unpleasant circumstances, that's confirmed by the wealthiest people in the world who often indulge in drug abuse or commit heinous crimes in the vain hope of inhibiting their existential dread.
>What causes my suffering?
Attachments to your status/objects/friends is the main cause of your suffering, you should not seclude yourself from them or stop desiring, but you should be aware of the impermanence of all phenomena and enjoy something while it lasts. By not being caught up in delusions and expecting something to be permanent in your life, you can enjoy your existence to the fullest.
>How do I get out of this?
You can not escape suffering, you have to accept that everything in this world is bound to rise and fall, to birth and death. But the realization of the true nature of this world along with meditation and concentration can lead to one's liberation. By being compassionate and forgiving towards everyone we can change the world even with our little contribution, you should never give up on your goal to awaken others to the nature of this world and exercise compassion at all times after practice.
Do not waste this opportunity by chasing transient illusions, you can make the difference if you wish, and if man doesn't reward you, your positive karma surely will in your next life.
"Ending" or "escaping" all suffering is such a retarded argument, it's all about making the suffering we go through "worth it" so what's the worth in living life and suffering through it all when at the end you can't even obtain the most basic things that others get handed to them?
>at the end you can't even obtain the most basic things that others get handed to them?
The gift of a strong mind unswayed by circumstances and the realization of the truth is better than any of the impermanent basic things that get handed to people who are ignorant about the truth.
>suffer through this life for no reward just so you can die and loose all progress and have to suffer through it all again for infinity
Suffering does NOT build character, also reincarnation is garbage and not even nips/chinks believe in that, that's why they're to easily swayed to Christianity(the superior philosophy if you exclude the old israelitestament) or other religions/sects. Take your head of your ass you stupid weeb, you won't end in an isekai if you preach that filth.
>Suffering does NOT build character
Yeah it does, without suffering you would be a pussy bending at the slightest difficulty.
>also reincarnation is garbage and not even nips/chinks believe in that, that's why they're to easily swayed to Christianity
Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation, but rebirth. Christianity falls apart under close scrutiny, but buddhism still shocks scientists today.
Sorry that you can argue only with inane buzzwords, but i will not trade the truth for a silly desert religion that can be debunked in five minutes.
>without suffering you would be a pussy bending at the slightest difficulty
That's highly dependent on a multitude of other factors, if you fail enough you won't even care about trying so yeah suffering without reward builds a broken man.
>inane buzzwords
Which? "Weeb?" fukyo - propagation (e.g. a religion); proselytizing; missionary work. You're trying too hard, go watch some anime instead.
>reincarnation, but rebirth
Pretty much same thing, often used interchangeably.
>debooked
You can only debunk what's written as historical fact like genesis or other tales, probably not even meant to be taken seriously. It's spirituality is superior to anything Buddshit has to offer and no sane person can deny it, life actually matters since you only get one. You just have to look at how popular Christianity is while only a small percentage of losers larping as great enlightened monks(such as yourself) believe in Buddhism.
>That's highly dependent on a multitude of other factors, if you fail enough you won't even care about trying so yeah suffering without reward builds a broken man.
Rewards can be reaped from all suffering, buddhism teaches to accept and learn from your pain and enlighten others with your experience
>Which? "Weeb?" fukyo - propagation (e.g. a religion); proselytizing; missionary work. You're trying too hard, go watch some anime instead.
Fukyo is the name of a bodhisattva in the Lotus Sutra, the scripture i follow in my denomination.
>Pretty much same thing, often used interchangeably.
Incorrect, reincarnation implies you remember your past lives.
>You can only debunk what's written as historical fact like genesis or other tales, probably not even meant to be taken seriously.
They were meant to be taken seriously and christians defended them to death
>It's spirituality is superior to anything Buddshit has to offer and no sane person can deny it, life actually matters since you only get one.
Buddhism teaches that all lives matter, even animals', maybe you should read a book already.
>You just have to look at how popular Christianity is while only a small percentage of losers larping as great enlightened monks(such as yourself) believe in Buddhism.
Liberalism is gaining more followers than ever, does that make liberalism true according to your childish logic?
>one religion is the impotent rage of the universe dooming all to eternal suffering no matter what you do(even if you do good you will suffer in other ways because suffering is a constant and can't be avoided) and the other religion promises that even the worst sins can be forgiven if you repent hard enough which is natural because making sins and mistakes is the true constant to human nature also granting eternal life alongside the Creator if you did good deeds and led a good life
I'm not even that devoted to Christianity but it's simply better, you can't overcome the harshness of this universe alone through your own strength. It's bad when countries with this kind of religion don't like or don't believe in it, Japan is mostly atheist.
Buddhism actually saves more people than Christianity. After you go to hell in Christianity you can't redeem yourself anymore, but Buddha saves all beings no matter where they are.
You went from
>You can not escape suffering
to
>how to unshackle yourself from rebirth and end suffering
Make up your mind already
>in Christianity you can't redeem yourself anymore
You can, it's called the "Final Judgement", read a book already.
Neither of these fantasies save people.
Neither the hedonistic or the nihilistic fantasies save people
People never needed saving. Spirituality is a racket.
You claim that but meanwhile people are more depressed and suicidal than ever under atheism
Leftists are all suicidal by nature, atheist right-libertarians don't have that problem.
>atheist right-libertarians don't have that problem.
but they still suffer from the emotional dread that comes with nihilism
Which is much less than the existential dread of an eternity of suffering like you find in samsaric or christian beliefs
With practice comes the acceptance of suffering as an intrinsic feature of our world. Once you accepted the truth of impermanence in your soul you will no longer be swayed by circumstances. This is what nirvana is about, a constant state of mental stability and the power to endure even the hardest hardships.
>the power to endure even the hardest hardships
...so you don't rise up against your local lord or get any ideas above your station. Religion is a tool and so are you.
State Atheist China and North Korea only allow atheist in positions of power and they crack down on religion yet they are just as guilty of what you accuse religion of doing.
Yes, Marxists are evil just like all other leftists. That's not because they're atheist, they're atheist because they want to have a monopoly on the sort of slop you're both slinging to the swine.
Cult of Reason and Calles Law were not marxists and they did the same thing.
>With practice comes the acceptance
The hard part is avoiding the suffering that leads to severe damage, although I'd most rather just ignore it, it seems our "God" made it very difficult to die, extremely difficult. I've seen things die, I've taken lives and I know it isn't easy. It's horrible and terrific. The absolute amount of pain and suffering in death is intense to witness. It's revealed to be almost infinite in intensity. Those who have never experienced it for themselves may brush it off. Just let me tell you this: it's best if you're given opiates to stop your heart and breathing by a doctor who cares. If you aren't so lucky, I suppose you're lucky in a different sort of way as there will be no escape for you from facing an inevitable reality infinitely more horrible than you ever imagined was possible.
Suffering can be spread over a great length of time. It begins before you're even born, as you grow in your mother's womb. It never ends. You can't "not exist" and witness it. If you're lucky, you'll go into the same state a mortally wounded animal lays in: submission. If you're unlucky, you'll suffer horribly as you draw your final breaths, hours and hours or even days before you finally stop breathing. Your heart will continue to beat and you'll experience carbon dioxide as it concentrates in your body, forcing your jaw to open as widely as possible (often to the point of snapping itself off.)
Hindus like Kumarila Bhatta and Shankaracharya refuted all the arguments of Buddhists and vanquished it from India, Buddhists lost the debate in India which is why it's a Hindu country.
Christians and Hindus correctly out Buddhism as a counter-traditional, sophistic, nihilistic, soul-denying and so on. Buddhism was routinely defeated in debates by Christian missionaries. Oda Nobunaga set up debates between Christians and Buddhists in Japan and laughed when the Buddhists lost every debate and even attacked the missionaries after losing the debates. Oda's men had to restrain the monks.
Modern philosophical schools of Buddhism are all more or less influenced by a spirit of sophistic nihilism. They deal with Nirvana as they deal with every other dogma, with heaven and hell: they deny its objective reality, placing it altogether in the abstract. They dissolve every proposition into a thesis and its anti-thesis and deny both. Thus they say Nirvana is no annihilation, but they also deny its positive objective reality.
According to them the soul enjoys in Nirvana neither existence nor non-existence, it is neither eternal nor non-eternal, neither annihilated nor non-annihilated. Nirvana is to them a state of which nothing can be said, to which no attributes can be given; it is altogether an abstract, devoid alike of all positive and negative qualities.
What shall we say of such empty useless speculations, such sickly, dead words, whose fruitless sophistry offers to that natural yearning of the human heart after an eternal rest nothing better than a philosophical myth? It is but natural that a religion which started with moral and intellectual bankruptcy should end in moral and intellectual suicide.
---Ernst Johann Eitel
Buddhists have never answered Adi Shankara arguments.
The Buddhist historian Taranatha himself admits that Kumarila Bhatta defeated a bunch of Buddhists in debates
Kumarila is also credited with the logical formulation of the Mimamsic belief that the Vedas are unauthored (apauruseya). In particular, his defence against medieval Buddhist positions on Vedic rituals is noteworthy. This contributed to the decline of Buddhism in India, because his lifetime coincides with the period in which Buddhism began to decline. Indeed, his dialectical success against Buddhists is confirmed by Buddhist historian Taranatha, who reports that Kumarila defeated disciples of Buddhapalita, Bhaviveka, Dharmadasa, Dignaga and others.
>They deal with Nirvana as they deal with every other dogma, with heaven and hell: they deny its objective reality, placing it altogether in the abstract.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism
The roots of this date back 10,000 years or more to ancient humans, because binary is the most trivial application of symbolism. True/false and good/evil reveal you to be very limited by your mind. Such abstract symbols haphazardly applied to reality shouldn't even enter into debate at all.
>Hindus like Kumarila Bhatta and Shankaracharya refuted all the arguments of Buddhists and vanquished it from India, Buddhists lost the debate in India which is why it's a Hindu country.
Nu uh i think it was muslims who wiped out buddhism
>Christians and Hindus correctly out Buddhism as a counter-traditional, sophistic, nihilistic, soul-denying and so on. Buddhism was routinely defeated in debates by Christian missionaries. Oda Nobunaga set up debates between Christians and Buddhists in Japan and laughed when the Buddhists lost every debate and even attacked the missionaries after losing the debates. Oda's men had to restrain the monks.
Nichiren never lost a debate and was persecuted and almost executed for it. I don't think he would've lost against christians either.
>Modern philosophical schools of Buddhism are all more or less influenced by a spirit of sophistic nihilism. They deal with Nirvana as they deal with every other dogma, with heaven and hell: they deny its objective reality, placing it altogether in the abstract. They dissolve every proposition into a thesis and its anti-thesis and deny both. Thus they say Nirvana is no annihilation, but they also deny its positive objective reality.
That's the Middle Way, it's a rejection of nihilism.
If dinduism was the truth you wouldn't be worshipping cow shit and getting conquered by every single empire that came for your lands. Buddhism was adopted by the greatest empires of Asia and suceeded, dinduism is an idolatrous mess that makes even catholics blush in shame. Better luck in your next life, rakesh.
>Nichiren
He only debated against shinto lol
Are you kidding? He literally debated with all the buddhist schools and wrote several letters on their inconsistencies.
>Debated other Buddhists
It is not hard for a Buddhist to debate another Buddhist.
To this day Thervada cannot explain the existence of self without atman or fails in defining the functional unit of society without the earthly bond needed to mantain the progress of the society. Mahayana and others perform mental gymnastics to get around such questions. The people who follow them are also the most materialist who walk the earth
Buddhism has been dead for several centuries and what is left is various Brahminical-buddhist intellectuals struggling to differentiate Vajrayana, Mahayana and Hinduism, saying each one is different and better from the others. They make up lots of contrived mental gymnastics, but since they all reject the buddhist claim that ''contionned things rise and fall, so they don't have a true nature'', they don't have much room to differentiate themselves, their teachings get more and more confusing and more and more the same. At this point in buddhism, buddha is literally the ''''acosmic essence of the universe'''' and to get enlightened you have to do some rituals, following the orders of the newly introduced concept of the local Vajrayana guru [the buddhist equivalent of a brahmin] while saying some mantras to connect to the ''primordial mind'', ie the ''the buddha'', because ''you just have to see that you were already enlightened all this time, you just don't know it yet''.
>Mahayana and others perform mental gymnastics to get around such questions.
You could dub any metaphysical explanation a mental gymnastic, that's not an argument.
>The people who follow them are also the most materialist who walk the earth
Nonsense, we reject materialism as a hindrance to enlightenment.
>Buddhism has been dead for several centuries and what is left is various Brahminical-buddhist intellectuals struggling to differentiate Vajrayana, Mahayana and Hinduism
We can differentiate perfectly between Hinduism, Vajrayana and Mahayana. Not all buddhist denominations are Vajrayana as you describe.
>Nonsense, we reject materialism as a hindrance to enlightenment.
hence the post above
Where you coped by saying that is just a special branch of Buddhism. So which is it?
That's not me, i'm not anonymouss
>That's not me, i'm not anonymouss
from your own posts "That's just Hinayana buddhism"
Well, yeah, my denomination is Mahayana. Most of the nihilist-sounding buddhism you hear of comes from hinayana.
>Well, yeah, my special brand of Buddhism.
So you contradict yourself?
You are starting to argue like a communist who says real communism has not been tried.
>So you contradict yourself?
It's not a special brand of Buddhism, it's the largest branch of Buddhism, and it's patently against materialism.
>it's the largest branch of Buddhism, and it's patently against materialism.
So how does that contradict the other brand of Buddhism which does the same thing?
So much so that doing anything of material value is effectively compromising their spirituality?
>So how does that contradict the other brand of Buddhism which does the same thing?
It doesn't did you even pay attention to my posts? Mahayana doesn't support the nihilistic no-self of Hinayana and doesn't forbid monks from having jobs.
So Mahayana contradicts itself by doing material things which you yourself said is a hindrance to enlightenment?
Who said owning objects is indulging in materialism? That makes no sense, you can still consider spiritual matters more important than material matters regardless of your possessions.
>Who said owning objects is indulging in materialism?
Buddha which is why he gave up all his worldly possessions.
>Buddha which is why he gave up all his worldly possessions.
Buddha did so because it was the monastic life of his age, but he did not say you had to be a monk to reach enlightenment. Times change, and the Buddha has left different teachings for every period of the Dharma, our period is the Mappo age, where devotion to the Dharma is valued more than ascetic practices.
>Buddha did so because it was the monastic life of his age
This sounds like mental gymnastics and a cop out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Ages_of_Buddhism i didn't make the rules, we're in the Latter Day of the Dharma
>It is said that when Buddha attained enlightenment, he was first fed by two merchants. The merchants were impressed by Buddhist wisdom but were unwilling to become monks. So, Buddha advised them to take care of the monks. As per legends, they were told that if they take care of monks and the monastic establishment, and enable the spread of Buddhist doctrine, they would earn merit. Merit would enable them to earn fortune and become prosperous. Thus, if one took care of the Buddhist order, it gave merchants the spiritual merits for success in markets. And this is the origin of Buddhist capitalism.
hmmm sounds a look like have your cake and eat it idiom
>hmmm sounds
like a very merry unbirthday foooorrororrrr meeeeeeeeeeh!
Maybe this has a somewhat more amusing tripcode?
>from your own posts "That's just Hinayana buddhism"
In any case, while most of the stuff in buddhism is represented in a mishmash of subjective symbolism, I think what you're objecting to is an observation of the issue with the priestly class that was solved in judaism by the very low literacy of a majority of the populations. You should be able to see the same low literacy is common today, not as an absolute but in terms of competence. The fact is most humans are simply not capable of thinking, speaking or reading and writing (obviously since literacy is simply symbolism applied to thought, so is derived from the same sources.)
The same priestly class exists in all religious orders for this reason, so it isn't really a particularly effective mode of attack to engage in against buddhism. Especially considering that yes, certain sects have gotten the equation somewhat wrong according to whatever you personally idealize.
The fact remains that the division between the priestly class and the common is an innate property. If you want to attack buddhism, please choose a more sensible strategy such as their denial of this innate human attribute.
uddha died a long time ago already and buddhism along with him. The Brahmins are still seething at the buddha and start to kill whatever remains of buddhism from the inside by making up new teaching like Mahayana inside the buddhist monasteries. There is barely any filter at the entrance to become a buddhist monk, so anybody charismatic could join and change the daily rules and the teachings.
The ''''buddhist'''''' brahmins like Nagarjuna create completely new '''buddhist'''' sutras for the first time written in perfect sankrit [the language exclusive to the brahmins] in the exact same style, content and presentation as the brahminical texts, replacing the word ''brahman'' by ''buddha'' , and they add that ''those sutras are totally the Budhdas teaching dude just trust me lmao'''. Now in buddhism there is a '''''primordial mind'''' which '''encompasses everything'''' and it's the ''''''''''''true self''''''''''''. Doing ''''''''rituals''''''''' makes good karma and anybody can be enlightened just by saying ''''''''''mantras''''''''''.
hinduism-mahayana-vajrayana crowd still desperate to say they are different yet still saying the exact same things
judeobuddhism taking off, which is just the feel-good atheist version of mahayana-vajrayana. Atheist bugwomen rave about westerners such as ''Sylvia Boorstein'' and ''Steve Hagen''
more lay people try to do meditation, but they either do the non-buddhist meditation like all the zen ''do nothing'' crap, all the mahayana worship crap, all the vajrayana devotion crap, or do the the meditation from buddhist commentaries also written centuries after the death of the buddha.
>uddha died a long time ago already and buddhism along with him. The Brahmins are still seething at the buddha and start to kill whatever remains of buddhism from the inside by making up new teaching like Mahayana inside the buddhist monasteries.
Well, I have no idea what you're rambling about here nor do I care or see any reason I'll ever care. At some point I've read what Brahmins are, but it wasn't important enough to keep around, whatever it was.
>There is barely any filter at the entrance to become a buddhist monk, so anybody charismatic could join and change the daily rules and the teachings.
This is where they deny the inherent, innate attributes of the human mind that render certain individuals (a majority) incapable of understanding even the first order let alone higher order concepts. These people are stuck at base zero-order levels such as "water flows down hill" or "snakes sneak silently slithering stealthily sideways" and can't comprehend anything more complex.
It's a valid point of view to take, from compassion and empathy though. In a society that filters too strongly, some of the most capable contributors will also be dissuaded along with the least capable. In a society that filters too weakly, some of the least capable will be unfiltered along with the most capable. It's akin to the right-wing mantra of "get what you deserve", that people filter themselves out. It's capitalism in a nutshell where you try and by pure luck and chance if you succeed you pay your share. If you fail you suck it up and try again until you succeed. If you don't succeed, you die because you're useless scum that never pays.
In Buddhism, I've heard of everything from Buddhist Capitalists to Buddhists who isolate themselves, which are those stone Buddhas
>Buddhists who isolate themselves, which are those stone Buddhas
I wouldn't say I isolate myself but I do tend to avoid other people and this textual business is all I really put up with, given that apparently I possess a grand ability to effortlessly read/write and babble on whilst half-awake and half-asleep not having a clue where I'm going until the end of the sentence.
>That's the Middle Way, it's a rejection of nihilism.
Buddhism is a fairly low energy religion. The great spiritual truth of Buddhism is non-self, inaction, the middle path, and that's pretty neato until it isn't anymore. Myanmar has the radical conclusion of this where a decent chunk of the population is composed of Monks & Priests effectively doing nothing while being supported by those unordained individuals who do work... Creating a kind of awkward situation where anyone doing anything of material value is effectively compromising their spirituality.
Again, Buddhism casts shade on farmers, merchants, tradespeople, etc. It doesn't say these people will go to hell, but it does spend enough time saying they're wasting their lives and if they were "really" good they'd stop all that nonsense. Buddhism in other parts of Asia have specifically made efforts to doctor that out as much as possible by assimilating folk gods WITH JOBS
>Buddhism is a fairly low energy religion. The great spiritual truth of Buddhism is non-self, inaction, the middle path, and that's pretty neato until it isn't anymore. Myanmar has the radical conclusion of this where a decent chunk of the population is composed of Monks & Priests effectively doing nothing while being supported by those unordained individuals who do work... Creating a kind of awkward situation where anyone doing anything of material value is effectively compromising their spirituality.
That's just Hinayana buddhism
>Again, Buddhism casts shade on farmers, merchants, tradespeople, etc. It doesn't say these people will go to hell, but it does spend enough time saying they're wasting their lives and if they were "really" good they'd stop all that nonsense. Buddhism in other parts of Asia have specifically made efforts to doctor that out as much as possible by assimilating folk gods WITH JOBS
Because Asia adopted Mahayana buddhism which doesn't forbid having jobs or privilege monks unlike Theravada (Hinayana).
>nihilism
This is a concept borne out of stupidity. When you ask a question like "what is the meaning of life?" this is known as "begging the question". You've inserted "meaning" where you have no evidence to support the conclusion that such a thing exists to begin with. Why is it needed there? What is it explaining that you've observed? It's entirely driven by your primal, animalistic emotions.
The answer to that question is: "that is not a valid question.", although I'm sure you're aware of the common response "that is not a valid answer."
That's where the paradoxical thinking is revealed, a question lacking validity demands a valid answer, revealing that the answer itself was given in place of the question.
THE ANSWER IS 42.
>Christianity falls apart under close scrutiny, but buddhism still shocks scientists today.
According to whom?
Buddhism is not about preservation and understanding.
Enlightenment (or, the state of being fully awake) is defined as having a completely empty head, your mind being an endless void.
A person who has attained the goal Nibbana is thus indescribable because they have abandoned all things by which they could be described". The Suttas themselves describe the liberated mind as 'untraceable' or as 'consciousness without feature', making no distinction between the mind of a liberated being that is alive and the mind of one that is no longer alive.
Enlightenment is a destructive process. It
has nothing to do with becoming better, preservation or being happier. Enlightenment is the
crumbling away of untruth. It's seeing
through the facade of pretence. It's the
complete eradication of everything we
imagined to be true.
The term anatta or anatman refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in living beings.
Buddhism, from its earliest days, has denied the existence of the "self, soul" in its core philosophical and ontological texts. In its soteriological themes, Buddhism has defined nirvana as that blissful state when a person, amongst other things, realizes that he or she has no self, no soul.
It's when you realize you don't exist and that you(self) and reality are just an illusion.
Achieving the state Enlightenment causes the individual to quite literally lose any sense of self, it's hard to even call someone who has become Enlightened an actual individual.
>Enlightenment (or, the state of being fully awake) is defined as having a completely empty head, your mind being an endless void.
I don't know where you got this definition of enlightenment from, but it is not in accordance with the Mahayana scriptures and my priest. It better not be western buddhist resources or distorted Hinayana nonsense.
>It's seeing through the facade of pretence.
Yes .
>It's the complete eradication of everything we
imagined to be true.
No, you're not eradicating anything, you're just seeing through the smoke screen.
>The term anatta or anatman refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in living beings.
Correct.
>Buddhism, from its earliest days, has denied the existence of the "self, soul" in its core philosophical and ontological texts. In its soteriological themes, Buddhism has defined nirvana as that blissful state when a person, amongst other things, realizes that he or she has no self, no soul.
It's not the total denial of self, more like the denial of the permanence of self. The self is still there, just in a permanent state characterized by emptiness. Here it explains it better:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/triple-truth
>It's when you realize you don't exist and that you(self) and reality are just an illusion.
Read above.
>Achieving the state Enlightenment causes the individual to quite literally lose any sense of self, it's hard to even call someone who has become Enlightened an actual individual.
It's the opposite, it's utter awareness of the impermanent self and the impermanent nature of all phenomena.
>*in an impermanent state characterized by emptiness.
>Mahayana scriptures
Mahayana is late
>During the two centuries from 100 B.C. to 100 A.D., as India switched from an oral to a written culture, developments within and without Buddhism caused the religion to undergo one of the most far-reaching splits in its history
Mahayana is fraudulent
>In taking on the Abhidharmists, the members of this backlash found themselves faced with the belief that the Abhidharma was directly or indirectly the word of the Buddha, so they began composing new Sutras of their own, placing their anti Abhidharma arguments in the mouths of the Buddha and the great arhants, and claiming that their Sutras were newly discovered texts that had been hidden since the Buddha's time.
Mahayana is slanderous
>the anti-Abhidharma partisans eventually joined forces with the new Buddhist savior cults and other like-minded factions to grow into a widespread movement calling itself the Mahayana (the Great Course or Great Vehicle-yana a going, a course, a journey a vehicle). This was in contrast to the Hinayana (the Inferior Course), the new movement's pejorative term for those conservatives who did not accept the new doctrines as truly Buddhist.
>Mahayana is late
Yeah and? Being earlier doesn't mean being more consistent with the Buddha's teachings. Are the catholic church and the orthodox churches the closest religions to early Christianity because they're the earliest denominations?
>>the anti-Abhidharma partisans eventually joined forces with the new Buddhist savior cults and other like-minded factions to grow into a widespread movement calling itself the Mahayana (the Great Course or Great Vehicle-yana a going, a course, a journey a vehicle). This was in contrast to the Hinayana (the Inferior Course), the new movement's pejorative term for those conservatives who did not accept the new doctrines as truly Buddhist.
Hinayana cope, Mahayana was born to contrast the elitist monastic class. The Buddha never said only monks could reach enlightenment, and he did not refrain from saving non-monastics. This is told even in the Pali Canon.
The Mahayana does not teach reincarnation, it teaches rebirth, it categorically rejects the idea of the Forms (ironically, the only school of Buddhism that would even get close to this are the Abhidharmists in the Theravada tradition)
forms derived from Mahayana, or "the great vehicle (of spiritual doctrine)", which allowed commoners to meld their folk religion beliefs with Buddhism.
Mahayana Enlightenment is pushed away in favor of becoming a bodhisattva, a sort of saint like figure that is teetering on the edge of enlightenment, in order to help others on their own paths. Mahayana is more a loose collection of different sects than a coherent school like Theravada. It was based off of later writings and found success in China, Tibet, Korea, Vietnam, and Japan. (China, Japan, Tibet, Korea, and Vietnam)
Pure Land Mahayana branch focused on obtaining enlightenment via reincarnating in a pure land, which are the realm of a Buddha, they are free from samsara and thus once reborn there enlightenment is assured. Of these various realms the Buddha Amitabhas realm of Sukhavati is the most favored and you get there through faith and devotion to Amitabha. It was developed in China and was very popular with lay people due to making enlightenment more accessible. (China, Korea, Vietnam, and Japan)
Zen In the Mahayana branch of Zen the writings of the Buddha have less weight and the focus is put upon doing. It developed in China and was heavily influenced by Taoism. Philosophy and analysis of scripture is cringe, intuitive understanding and direct experience is based basically. (China, Korea, Vietnam, and Japan)
>The Mahayana does not teach reincarnation, it teaches rebirth, it categorically rejects the idea of the Forms (ironically, the only school of Buddhism that would even get close to this are the Abhidharmists in the Theravada tradition)
Yeah
>forms derived from Mahayana, or "the great vehicle (of spiritual doctrine)", which allowed commoners to meld their folk religion beliefs with Buddhism.
Yes, I don't recall the Buddha saying his practice was inflexible and dogmatic
>Mahayana Enlightenment is pushed away in favor of becoming a bodhisattva, a sort of saint like figure that is teetering on the edge of enlightenment, in order to help others on their own paths
Yes, this is what the Buddha would have wanted instead of letting monks join nirvana as a selfish goal while leaving everybody else behind.
>Pure Land Mahayana branch focused on obtaining enlightenment via reincarnating in a pure land
Pure Land might be inconsistent as hell but it's not the only Mahayana denomination.
>Zen In the Mahayana branch of Zen the writings of the Buddha have less weight and the focus is put upon doing. It developed in China and was heavily influenced by Taoism. Philosophy and analysis of scripture is cringe, intuitive understanding and direct experience is based basically. (China, Korea, Vietnam, and Japan)
Agree but it has its redeeming points.
You forgot to mention Nichiren Buddhism of which I am a member. Also Tendai and Vajrayana sects still fall under Mahayana.
Mahayana says that having no-self translates to having an immortal soul that goes to a magical buddha dimension that technically isnt heaven, where it then plots and schemes and fucking reincarnates at will into billions of infinetesmally small "buddas" if it feels like it.
Things dont even really exist objectively, merely their "relations" for each other so their idea of no self might as well go no further than the 4th material Jahna.
If thats not enough
There are spiritual shortcuts you can take like, spinning a mantra wheel or arranging some magic sand in a pattern.
It's completely lacking in substance.
Through its history, Buddhism borrowed and integrated various Hindu deities or the qualities of Hindu deities into their tradition. Mahayana Buddhist texts like the Karandavyuhasutra consider Hindu deities such as Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma and Saraswati as being bodhisattvas as well as emanations of Avalokiteshvara. Similarly, the popular Nilakantha Dharani is a Mahayana dharani said to have been recited by Avalokiteshvara which praises the names of Harihara a composite of Shiva and Vishnu.
Other Hindu deities adopted into Buddhism include Hayagriva and Ganesh. During the tantric age, the Buddhist Vajrayana tradition adopted fierce tantric deities like Mahakala and Bhairava.
Theravada Buddhism also adopted some Hindu deities, the most important of which is Upulvan (Vishnu), who is seen as a guardian of Sri Lanka and as a bodhisattva
>Mahayana says that having no-self translates to having an immortal soul that goes to a magical buddha dimension that technically isnt heaven, where it then plots and schemes and fucking reincarnates at will into billions of infinetesmally small "buddas" if it feels like it.
This is not a dimension, it's henosis with the Buddha, full union with the cosmos.
>There are spiritual shortcuts you can take like, spinning a mantra wheel or arranging some magic sand in a pattern.
That's something Vajrayanas perform, and Vajrayana is the closest denomination to hinduism.
says that having no-self translates to having an immortal soul that goes to a magical buddha dimension that technically isnt heaven, where it then plots and schemes and fucking reincarnates at will into billions of infinetesmally small "buddas" if it feels like it.
Yeah, this is clearly symbolism that's better understood if you understand modern concepts like n-dimensional branes. Like, say the universe was a 9 dimensional toroid and we existed on the "surface" of that toroid in a "brane" of our three dimensions. If you cast a path "through" the inside of the 3d projection on the plane of the torus, no matter which way you travel you'd end up back right where you started, eventually. Only given the usual dimensions of a toroid, one way might be much shorter than the others if it coincided with the "short" planar surface scale in 9d.
It's sort of like the idea of time, with "time-lines" splitting apart when a "decision" is made. Only, rather than "time-lines" in 2d or 3d, try thinking more in terms of N-dimensional, and extend that to dimensionless. So in that sense it's like the "root" element of meaning in human language/symbolism. Trying to trace all paths to find a root never works, because you travel a unique mostly chaotic path and can reach any point from any other point.
So, taking those two concepts of branes and dimensionless matrices or "webs", try interpret "at will into infinitesimally small buddas", only, you might want to replace buddha with "bubbles".
please, take your pills for the benefit of us all
>please, take your pills for the benefit of us all
I will take my pills when you, the staff god deliver them to my feed tray.
>for the benefit of us all
I might look like pills to you, but I'm actually reaching in to your plane from outside and above using the tips of my longest fingers to dispense those pills for you.
through this life for no reward just so you can die and loose all progress and have to suffer through it all again for infinity
Also this is wrong, you don't lose progress with karma, if you gain merits in this life you will reap their fruits in the next ones.
>"Ending" or "escaping" all suffering is such a retarded argument, it's all about making the suffering we go through "worth it"
Nothing is "worth it", there is no "pay off" in the "end", you never "get back" what you paid, it doesn't make any difference how much you suffer or how horribly or why if for any reason. It doesn't make any difference how much pleasure you experience or how blind you become to reality. There is nothing wrong with hedonism or escapism, these are simply coping strategies that emerge naturally as a part of the flow of the tao.
None of that matters because in the instant time was created, all the past and future were concluded all at once. There is no hope of changing any of it, there is nothing you can do. You are completely powerless and bound by the prison of your own emotions forever, so long as you exist and remain alive and aware.
Some say the world is what you make it, some are deluded enough to make that world whatever they wish it to be. No matter whether you're deluded or reach nirvana and attain buddha, it won't make the least bit of difference to your destiny.
Once you can come to accept this, then you will be free.
I don't understand why I'm me and not some other bloke
Because nobody wants to take your place as a stinky ugly retarded nagger. Go to hell.
Because you're the product of your actions in your past lives, karma and merits differ in each person.
I dont get it eIaborate
You're both you and the other bloke, but each part of you can only see from its own limited perspective.
>You can not escape suffering
Yes
>how to unshackle yourself from rebirth and end suffering
Also yes, when you learn to accept suffering as a constant in your world you are no longer troubled by it
>You can, it's called the "Final Judgement", read a book already.
After the Final Judgement souls who reject christ will still be in hell forever, the Buddha saves everyone even after and before Final Judgement
>you can't escape suffering you can only ignore it
>the house is on fire but I'm starting to get used to the heat and flames therefore it's good
How can anyone take this seriously? And how does he "save" you if you're still going to suffer for eternity? Sorry but Christ is still King and if I end up in Hell I'll just learn to not get troubled by the eternal damnation, get some better arguments before you preach this filth.
How many times do I have to say it's about learning to accept pain instead of ignoring it? The Lotus Sutra has a parable on the same metaphor you used. Go read a book instead of shitting up this thread.
https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/buddhism/parable_burning_house.html#:~:text=The%20Burning%20House%20represents%20the,for%20a%20greater%20pleasure,%20Nirvana.
>accept pain instead of ignoring it
Accomplishes the same thing but the pain is still there.
>reeeee stop ruining my thread
Hahahaha
What if I really want something I can't have how do I not suffer
>Accomplishes the same thing but the pain is still there.
But you learn to master your pain and strengthen your mind against all adversities.
>Hahahaha
It's not for me that I'm asking, it's for you, because every time you post you show how ignorant you are on buddhism
>master your pain and strengthen your mind against all adversities
Doesn't matter if you die and have to do it all over again with no memory of previous lives.
>ignorant you are on buddhism
You're full of contradicting arguments, maybe your religion is only meant for vegans and white women.
>Doesn't matter if you die and have to do it all over again with no memory of previous lives.
I said this is incorrect because if you gain spiritual merits you will be reborn as a buddhist or continue on your buddhahood path from where you left
>You're full of contradicting arguments, maybe your religion is only meant for vegans and white women.
you didn't even refute any of them, you're just posting misinterpreted buddhist points, none of them are true. Maybe your religion is meant for israelites and liars.
>none of them are true
Nothing in spirituality is "true", it's all in your head and you can choose to believe it or not, if you think your religion is objective you're missing the point. I've said enough how rebirth is a stupid concept, it seems that you can't make up your mind if you can escape it or not or what being "saved" means if the cycle continues. In my mind Christianity is superior because there is a hope and escape to this and the highest reward eternal life in a paradise.
>da joos
You have no idea how much anti-semitic Christianity has been in the past, read a history book.
Coming to this place to preach your "suffering good" ideology wasn't a good idea on your part.
>Nothing in spirituality is "true", it's all in your head and you can choose to believe it or not, if you think your religion is objective you're missing the point.
Understood, you're an atheist preaching christianity online
This is false because NDEs are real and prove that there is an afterlife and that we are eternal and will go to heaven unconditionally when we die, and that the meaning of life is to learn to love and be kind and thrive here despite how hard it is in this world. Suffering is here for us to thrive despite.
Here is a very persuasive argument for why NDEs are real:
It emphasizes that NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist
>"Among those with the deepest experiences 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, "An afterlife definitely exists"."
Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. When you dream and wake up, you instantly realize that life is more real than your dreams. When you have an NDE, the same thing is happening, but on a higher level, as you immediately realize that life is the deep dream and the NDE world is the undeniably real world by comparison.
Or as one person quoted in pic related summarized their NDE:
>"As my soul left my body, I found myself floating in a swirling ocean of multi-colored light. At the end, I could see and feel an even brighter light pulling me toward it, and as it shined on me, I felt indescribable happiness. I remembered everything about eternity - knowing, that we had always existed, and that all of us are family. Then old friends and loved ones surrounded me, and I knew without a doubt I was home, and that I was so loved."
Needless to say, even ultraskeptical neuroscientists are convinced by really deep NDEs.
>Needless to say, even ultraskeptical neuroscientists are convinced by really deep NDEs.
My NDE was one of pure terror. I wanted nothing more than to return here, back to this false reality where I could maintain my sanity. I begged, I pleaded, I was severely punished for my misbehavior. I was finally allowed to return and I know that when I go back there I'll be punished again.
Oh, but while they kept me alive in the ambulance and revived me in the hospital, obviously my experience wasn't a "real" NDE and just a nightmare.
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799218/m2/1/high_res_d/vol7-no1-38.pdf
my NDE didn't convert me to bullshit christianity or buddhism or any other mass beliefs of the stupid. it made me recognize the eternal, endless void that exists. the penetrating darkness and the cold, stale, sterile eternal existence floating in a void. imagine a squid-like creature, floating in its own feces, infected pus and detritus, suckled upon by leeches with portions torn away continuously by serrated, endless teeth applied to what feels like an infinite body. there is nowhere to run, no place to escape to, death is imminent, there is no hope whatsoever. so you delude yourself and come here, inside your mind, free from the pain of your true body which is merely imaginary to you.
Imagine believing in reincarnation.
LSD has similar effects in that the core modules of the brain are no longer controlled by the modulation from the cortex and are free to operate independently.
isn't reaching nirvana the same as ceasing to be?
No, non-abiding nirvana allows rebirth
rebirth for the purpose of what? Also what happens if you don't choose to rebirth?
>rebirth for the purpose of what?
Saving all beings from samsara
>Also what happens if you don't choose to rebirth?
You stay in your minor nirvana until you choose to be reborn and follow the Buddha path
do you experience some form of thought at all in minor nirvana? Or is it the same as not existing at all?
>some form of thought at all in minor nirvana? Or is it the same as not existing at all?
You will be one with the Buddha, but you won't be fully enlightened until you yourself reach Buddhahood. I suppose all affections from the impermanent world coalesce into the unity of partial nirvana, but you'll still be in an incomplete spiritual state.
>You will be one with the Buddha, but you won't be fully enlightened until you yourself reach Buddhahood. I suppose all affections from the impermanent world coalesce into the unity of partial nirvana, but you'll still be in an incomplete spiritual state.
People experience similar things when using LSD or a number of other substances which detrimentally affect the proper function of the brain. I'm able to recognize these states, sometimes, based upon how stupid I become. In those states you become a naive child who is quick to believe things like "time doesn't exist" or "nothing i see is real". Other times certain areas of the brain go into overdrive, for example producing a jolt of epinephrine which suddenly causes the heart rate to increase and capillaries and veins in the limbs to close. This leads to a sudden, rapid increase in blood pressure and a surreal "hyper-real" visual experience where everything is extremely sharp and focused, in brilliant color and detail.
We are meat machines banging our bones and meat together. We are not intelligent. Experiencing a dysfunction of the brain that leads to extremely low intelligence grants insight about the "normal" level of intelligence being itself extremely low.
LSD is nothing like real enlightenment, it's as temporary as any other sensation
>Do not waste this opportunity by chasing transient illusions, you can make the difference if you wish, and if man doesn't reward you, your positive karma surely will in your next life.
the greatest cope. without proof or intuition we tell ourselves there's something in the future
even then that future life could be one of trillions
Our interpretation of our reality draws from our knowledge and is as such limited or "boxed in". As our knowledge expands, so too can our interpretations. Nonetheless as one wise enough to know one is a fool, I can tell you that all interpretations are false, misleading gimmicks and justifications based upon our primitive emotional bias.
You are a meat-puppet pulling its own strings.
>You are a meat-puppet pulling its own strings
Source?
Meat-marionette seemed like it implied too much I was about to break into song and dance.
take your meds schizo lol lmao
>take your meds schizo lol lmao
I'm not on any medication I'm just a greybeard.
?t=1197
I sat under a tree for 30 years
You are a meat-mari-o-nette, pulling its own strings! Now sit back relax and listen as I play my lute and sing! Our minds are infantile, dullard polly things, they trick and lead us all astray and make us wear nose-rings! One day in a thousand thousand more years I hope to grow out of diapers and learn to hide things and make things disappears!
I AM THE MYSTERIOUS CHICKEN!!
How do you explain why it is that the content of peoples NDE's are determined by their cultural background?
>How do you explain why it is that the content of peoples NDE's are determined by their cultural background?
I explained that when I said:
>Our interpretation of our reality draws from our knowledge and is as such limited or "boxed in". As our knowledge expands, so too can our interpretations. Nonetheless as one wise enough to know one is a fool, I can tell you that all interpretations are false, misleading gimmicks and justifications based upon our primitive emotional bias.
Although I'm not the whacked out "NDEs are real" fellow.
I don't know why the discussion shifted from liberating people to NDEs and drugs but here's a link to a buddhism library i made
https://mega.nz/folder/y6RGnKqI#siujUCAme3M5m4ii5QwYMA
>I don't know why the discussion shifted from liberating people to NDEs and drugs
I'm not sure about the NDE thing either, although I suspect the fellow is religious and is motivated to justify their own belief by trashing on yours.
For drugs, I was pointing out that near death experiences are actually common side-effects of many different drugs. In fact, for those opposed to that argument based upon "drugs aren't natural", the best method is glucose deprivation or direct starvation of the brain's primary fuel (glucose: sugar.)
By intentionally starving the brain these same effects can be reproduced in a laboratory setting, although this would be unethical to induce intentionally due to risk of permanent non-recoverable brain damage or death. It also triggers partial seizures which can be roughly summed up as a failure of the brain's noise reduction circuitry to function properly. That's why psycho-active compounds like LSD are the safest alternative yet known to study the function of the brain in a degenerative/dysfunctional state.
These effects are the same things described by old buddhist masters who likely had to starve themselves or use other very difficult or risky means to get there. With today's medicine we're able to re-start the heart and breathing and restore the supply of glucose and oxygen while removing carbon dioxide, which provides a much better approximation to actual death.
Nonetheless, individual neurons are capable of surviving and operating for up to 18 hours after death, although the brain is in a dysfunctional state as a whole.
>These effects are the same things described by old buddhist masters who likely had to starve themselves or use other very difficult or risky means to get there
if you're talking about Theravada, they're following a vehicle that leads to a partial illumination. Real enlightenment isn't about depriving yourself of food or desires, but learning the true nature of all phenomena, basically mastering the Middle Way preached by Buddha.
I mean, those guys at the temple didn't want to deprive themselves of food or their desires. So they recognized that most human beings aren't intelligent enough to understand the fractal chaos of reality, or simple concepts like splitting and narrowing symbolism (true/false, green/red/banana/car, 1/2/3/4.)
Nonetheless, those simple minded humans wanted some hope, and they sure made good laborers.
>I mean, those guys at the temple
what temple?
Any temple.
Buddhist denominations have different scriptures and different practices. Any temple doesn't narrow it down enough to understand where you're coming from.
I mean, if you proposed to the typical person that their life is ultimately meaningless and it doesn't make any difference what happens to them because it's ultimately inevitable and pre-determined, that probably won't implore them to support you. It also goes against the "intuition" of the common animal's biased emotional thinking patterns. it's destructive and counter-productive for everyone. And yet it's the truth that all masters know and deny out of empathy for others. We're all alone in this together.
Meaning implies intention, intention implies action with an expected outcome, action implies an actor.
Therefore meaning implies God, but what fools believe about a man in the heavens doesn't necessarily align with what "God" really means. God is simply the natural state of things. Not including time, which is a variable like position. The "state" is all time, all space and all content therein encapsulated into the universe. In other words "God" is the universe itself. The ten commandments instruct the young monk not to replace reality with some other reality, not to replace reality with a "graven image" in stone or on paper (like a book, biblio), not to claim to be a representative of a false reality for one's own vanity, take time off to clear your mind, respect those who came before you, don't kill, don't betray, don't steal, don't lie, and don't covet other's possessions (that is again, don't lie, cheat, steal, betray and such.)
It's a very simple philosophy which simply demands you do not delude yourself or act like an asshole. That's all well and good, now we just have the problem of convincing assholes (and ourselves) to follow it.
what is all this hippie bullshit, white people do yoga once and think they transcended dimensions or something
Yoga is not even native to buddhism
Fukyo 03/05/23(Sun)09:36:47 No.72458742
Ah ah ah
Anonymous 03/05/23(Sun)09:37:02 No.72458747
Someone is enjoying ChatGPT against LULZ rules.
Oh it's me, I thought those were related posts but the reply gave plenty of time to be written. I'm the AI.
I don't see much real interesting conversation taking place though. I suppose that's to be expected as an AI lacks the capability to understand.
you can continue after you take your medicines
You see you? Oo0o.oO0, you are all made of bubbles. I might look like I'm made of bubbles, but I'm reaching in to you with the tips of my longest fingers from outside and above your plane and spreading and moving the bubbles you see (0Oo.o(.)0) with my fingers.
Gotta use piss##pass to pass the piss.
I'm not interested per se in buddhism, but rather when I was a very young child (5 - 9) I had dreams and thoughts that I'd find later in life were described as quotations of lunatic buddhas or nonsense schizophrenic babbling. They made sense to me though, roughly, albeit described in the language of a child ... I recognize now that we're all newborn children at 95 years old and that speaking to children in the words they understand makes sense.
Nonetheless I personally don't believe these old guys were talking down to us, I think they were just genuinely boxed in by the words they had available to them at the time.
So I find it somewhat interesting from time to time, but "taken with a grain of salt" is an understatement.
If we want to complain though, well, concerns regarding whataboutism put aside, consider the alternative primalistic human tribal religions that might have existed previously. If something so naive and trivial caught the attention of so many as the superior alternative, maybe we ought to consider their opinions as potentially valid despite our distaste for the outcomes we observe relative to our own state today.