Buddhism Revised Chart

Probably not, though in a year it is definitely possible to go through In The Buddha's Words, all the listed works of Nyanananda from seeingthroughthenet.net, a meditation book, all while reading various suttas on the websites (obo genaud, accesstoinsight, suttacentral) as you please.
There's a reason the chart says "studying the suttas never ends."

Crowley was a fat embarrassing loser edge lord.

Shouldn't this start with the Vedas since Buddhism was influenced by the Hindu tradition?

thanks fren

Hello user,

What is your opinion on the heart, diamond, and lotus sutras? I generally recommend them to those who are new. I also recommend them vipassana meditations as well

I'm iffy on the Heart Sutra, I appreciate it's stuff on emptiness and the aggregates but its nothing that cannot be found in Nagarjuna's works. I greatly appreciate the Diamond Sutra, as it aligns with the EBTs and helps to really illuminate certain teachings (same with Platform Sutra), though I think one should first read the EBTs and develop a strong foundation in them before moving onto these more advanced texts. I do not like the Lotus Sutra, it contradicts the EBTs far too much.

I'm also hesitant to suggest any kind of meditation to someone who has no foundation in the suttas yet, just because of the tendency of many to over-emphasize meditation before Right View or Sila are even moderately developed (not that one doesn't continue to develop View and Sila after they've started meditation, but the saying 'Sila before Samadhi' is a saying for a reason).

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, user.

Your guidance is very helpful in re-evaluating the sequencing.

May you be joyful and free from the root of suffering

I'm very happy to help.
It is rewarding to help honest seekers find their way when first beginning with Buddhism. For you user, I would highly recommend the works listed in the chart by Venerable Nyanananda Bhikkhu, freely available at seeingthroughthenet.net/books/ . I think you will find them to be incredibly profound.
May you be free from suffering and may your own practice and efforts help all beings to be free from suffering.

Is Alan Watts worth reading?

What sort of tradition do you follow, and have you chosen that tradition or were you born into it?

If you're looking for Buddhism, and you refuse to read anything remotely Buddhist unless its Alan Watts, then yea he's worth reading. If you're willing to read other Buddhist stuff, then no.
He's a charismatic speaker and that's undeniable, and he mixes together lots of ideas from various Eastern religions/philosophies in a way that seems to interest Westerners, but he is (for Buddhism, can't speak for other traditions) a half-decent entry-point. Or rather, he is like an entry-point to the actual entry-point, which would be the teachings of the Buddha found in the early texts.
I wouldn't say I follow any tradition but the teachings of the Buddha in the early Buddhist texts. That said, I'll go to Theravada monasteries/temples to either give alms or to receive meditation instruction, because while I don't align 100% with Theravada, don't identify as Theravada, I think they are the closest established tradition in the modern world to Buddhism in its earliest form. I appreciate the Ajahn Chah Forest Tradition and the various Mahasi Sayadaw Traditions. This was all chosen, I was not born into any form of Buddhism.

Actually to say "anything remotely Buddhist" that is harsh. There is a lot worse stuff to read on Buddhism than Alan Watts, but there is also a lot better stuff to read. IIRC Alan Watts himself denied being a Buddhist of any kind and did not identify as one, though he did enjoy exploring Zen as he understood it when it was first being introduced to the West. If I was looking to learn about Buddhism, I certainly wouldn't try to learn from someone who said himself he wasn't a Buddhist.

bump

Hmm, thanks user. I'll think I'll read him but just to see what his point of view actually is and not take him as a Buddhist figure.. I'd lie if I said I wasn't interested to see what he wrote. Any books of his that are clearly "better"/more profound than the others?

Not sure, I'm more familiar with his lectures than his books. Even in that case, I have nothing of his to recommend.

Just keep this sutta in mind
>"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

>"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.
- AN 3.65
>by agreement through pondering views
The Buddha is saying that one should not seek the truth merely by picking whichever teaching sounds pleasant to the already biased mind, or even by means of pondering, but ultimately by putting the teachings one is learning into practice and seeing firsthand if they work, if they are skillful, if they lead to greater well-being, if they direct one towards the end of suffering. By following this guideline, one can know for themselves what to follow, what to pursue.
"Although this discourse is often cited as the Buddha's carte blanche for following one's own sense of right and wrong, it actually says something much more rigorous than that. Traditions are not to be followed simply because they are traditions. Reports (such as historical accounts or news) are not to be followed simply because the source seems reliable. One's own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings. Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise."

bamp

Thank you kind user

No biggie, thanks anyhow.

This is nice, thank you.

Blushing is one of the greatest things because bashfulness is one of the things in the human body which is endearing for anybody to do and shows both humility and passion.

what are your thoughts on daniel ingram's mctb?

that's an interesting one. For one, Ingram can be a bit too secular for my tastes, but if someone refused to touch any authentic Buddhist texts and was only willing to read a secular one, MCTB is the one I would say is the best. I appreciate the stuff about the nitty-gritty of picking a monastery to go on retreat at, I very much appreciate the strong emphasis on the Three Characteristics and the thorough explanation of what the purpose of meditation ultimately is. I appreciate the sentiments that awakening in the Buddhist tradition is in fact not some esoteric thing that only a few hermits can ever achieve, but it is can be done to some degree by a layman or anyone with discipline and willpower (I still think its debatable to suggest that a layman can become an Arahant, at least in the manner that he describes, but up to Anagami I think is achievable). As to the negatives, for obvious reasons I am skeptical of his claims of Arahantship, or the idea that Arahantship is not 'full awakening.' I'm not a fan of the way he sides with the Theravada commentaries on a lot of subjects in which in they contradict the suttas (whether he knows that or not). I'm DEFINITELY not a fan of the implications that all spiritual paths, Buddhism, Vedanta, Christianity, are all pointing to the same thing. The part about Vedanta's Pure Awareness being the same as what Buddhism points to sketches me out (I think this might be a result of him seemingly not having a strong grasp on contact, namarupa, dependent origination, and he avoids these very important and deep topics in his book). Overall, I think MCTB is good for what its worth, its definitely not hippie nonsense, I do honestly think Ingram for the most part knows what he is talking about and isn't trying to be deceptive, but is honestly trying to help people. That said, one can come away from that book with a bunch of wrong views (due to his adherence to Theravada commentaries). I'd say, his book is great for learning what Vipassana is all about, as that seems to be his specialty, and for a brief overview of the meditative path, but it is no substitute for sutta study. My opinion is a bit mixed, but take from it what you will.

How should I learn about Zen Buddhism?

Read the Diamond Sutra, the Platform Sutra, and the Record of Linji. They will most likely confuse you though and be prone to misinterpretation if you do not first have a strong, solid basis in the Early Buddhist Texts listed in that chart, which the works I just mentioned assume a basic understanding of.

Sorry this post was meant for you:

Thanks!

Happy to help!

No Mahayana sutras? Personally I'd add Diamond Sutra (only for advanced readers), Lotus Sutra or Infinite Light Sutra amongst others

We need a supplementary Mahayana chart.
Main themes:
>Main Mahayana Sutras
>Vajrayana and Tibetan
>Zen and Chan (and Dzogchen?)
>Pureland
>Nichiren

Attached: skoler.jpg (396x325, 40K)

OP, have you heard of Master Nan Huai-Chin? He was said to be enlightened by the Zen, Taoist, and esoteric schools. His books are excellent, but probably a bit advanced for beginners. I've been reading his Diamond Sutra commentary lately and have found it very useful. The book he co-authored with one of his top western students "Measuring Meditation" is great and more beginner friendly I think. This site has translated some of his great lectures that you might like: seriousbuddhism.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/nan-huai-jin-anapana-lecture-compilation-section-1-the-dharma-door-that-is-easy-to-succeed-in/

Attached: cundi 2.jpg (801x1187, 297K)

>31. And the Blessed One recovered from that illness; and soon after his recovery he came out from his dwelling place and sat down in the shade of the building, on a seat prepared for him. Then the Venerable Ananda approached the Blessed One, respectfully greeted him, and sitting down at one side, he spoke to the Blessed One, saying: "Fortunate it is for me, O Lord, to see the Blessed One at ease again! Fortunate it is for me, O Lord, to see the Blessed One recovered! For truly, Lord, when I saw the Blessed One's sickness it was as though my own body became weak as a creeper, every thing around became dim to me, and my senses failed me. Yet, Lord, I still had some little comfort in the thought that the Blessed One would not come to his final passing away until he had given some last instructions respecting the community of bhikkhus."

>32. Thus spoke the Venerable Ananda, but the Blessed One answered him, saying: "What more does the community of bhikkhus expect from me, Ananda? I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back. Whosoever may think that it is he who should lead the community of bhikkhus, or that the community depends upon him, it is such a one that would have to give last instructions respecting them. But, Ananda, the Tathagata has no such idea as that it is he who should lead the community of bhikkhus, or that the community depends upon him. So what instructions should he have to give respecting the community of bhikkhus?
- DN 16

>all the listed works of Nyanananda from seeingthroughthenet.net
thanks user

No problem! Sadhu for your interest in these profound texts.

*insert cryptic comment that you should unlearn everything you know to experience Zen, or something*

Seconding this. I'm probably just blind, but I have had trouble finding information about Mahayana. (Particularly non Soto/Rinzai Japanese Mahayana).

bump

>tfw no Yea Forums sangha

The quality of the Buddhist threads on Yea Forums has drastically improved in the last couple months IMO. If anything there is a sort of Yea Forums sangha developing

i like alan watts so can you tell me what am i missing if i don't read anything else? doesn't have to be in detail ofc

Ok, I'll tell you but I hope you don't get upset, and I hope this thread doesn't get flooded with upset people as a result of what I say. Alan Watts taught what Alan Watts taught. He does not teach Buddhism. He did not consider himself a Buddhist. That should be enough, in my opinion. Why anyone would go to someone who proclaimed countless times that they are not a Buddhist, in order to learn about Buddhism is beyond me. I'm aware that he dabbled in the form of Zen first introduced to the West, and I imagine that is why you think he might be a good enough source to learn about Buddhism exclusively. If you want the specifics: from what I have observed, he mixes a sort of shadow-side of some Zen schools with a vague materialist interpretation of Vedanta. The shadow side I am referring to is all the stuff about how there is no need to put in effort, to have a goal in mind when you practice Buddhism or meditate. To be aimless, to not strive for anything. This contradicts what the Buddha says here:
>“Mendicants, I have learned these two things for myself—to never be content with skillful qualities, and to never stop trying. I never stopped trying, thinking: ‘Gladly, let only skin, sinews, and bones remain! Let the flesh and blood waste away in my body! I will not stop trying until I have achieved what is possible by manly strength, energy, and vigor.’ It was by diligence that I achieved awakening, and by diligence that I achieved the supreme sanctuary. If you too never stop trying, thinking: ‘Gladly, let only skin, sinews, and bones remain! Let the flesh and blood waste away in my body! I will not stop trying until I have achieved what is possible by manly strength, energy, and vigor.’ You will soon realize the supreme culmination of the spiritual path in this very life. You will live having achieved with your own insight the goal for which people from good families rightly go forth from the lay life to homelessness. So you should train like this: ‘We will never stop trying, thinking: “Gladly, let only skin, sinews, and bones remain! Let the flesh and blood waste away in my body! I will not stop trying until I have achieved what is possible by manly strength, energy, and vigor.”’ That’s how you should train.”
AN 2
As for the more Vedanta-esque views, Watts, as far as I'm aware, often taught that the universe is one, made of a single fundamental suchness that we are all a part of. He taught that you ARE the universe, that that is your true self: the eternal force of the universe. This is also a massive contradiction of what the Buddha taught about self:
(1/2)

>22. "You may well take hold of a possession,[26] O monks, that is permanent, stable, eternal, immutable, that abides eternally the same in its very condition. (But) do you see, monks, any such possession?" — "No, Lord." — "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such possession that is permanent, stable, eternal, immutable, that abides eternally the same in its very condition."

>23. "You may well accept, monks, the assumption of a self-theory[27] from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. (But) do you see, monks, any such assumption of a self-theory?" — "No, Lord." — "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair."

>24. "You may well rely, monks, on any supporting (argument) for views[28] from the reliance on which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair. (But) do you see, monks, any such supporting (argument) for views?" — "No, Lord." — "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such supporting (argument) for views from the reliance on which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair."[29]

>25. "If there were a self, monks, would there be my self's property?" — "So it is, Lord." — "Or if there is a self's property, would there by my self?" — "So it is, Lord." — "Since in truth and in fact, self and self's property do not obtain, O monks, then this ground for views, 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same shall I abide, in that very condition' — is it not, monks, an entirely and perfectly foolish idea?" — "What else should it be, Lord? It is an entirely and perfectly foolish idea."[30]
- MN 22
So yes, not only did he not consider himself a Buddhist, but what he taught often contradicted some of the very core teachings of Buddhism. In my opinion, it is not a case of "what will you miss out on?" but rather "What teachings about Buddhism will you get at all?" if you are to go to Alan Watts to learn about Buddhism. By all means, go to him if you want to learn about what Alan Watts taught, but I cannot recommend him as a teacher of Buddhism. He denied being a Buddhist and did not claim to teach Buddhism. If you go to him you will miss out on the essential practices, the deep teachings (name-and-form, contact, dependent origination, what Nirvana actually is) among countless other important teachings, AND you will be prone to misinterpretation when it comes to the more basic, surface-level teachings of Buddhism (such as the Four Noble Truths).
>inb4 this thread gets completely derailed because my posts might've appeared insulting
(2/2)

No offense, but all that stuff about pure lands, mountain realms and so on are basically corruptions of Siddhartha's doctrine, correct? How did such errors come into Buddhism?

well i don't think what you said is right and those quotes are either misinterpreted in translation or completely out of context. but thank you for taking the time to write this anyways.

The quotes of whom, Alan Watts? Or of the suttas? The suttas are pretty direct I think, and I included the sutta numbers under each quotation on purpose, so you can read the rest of them 'in context.'
>misinterpretted in translation
Well you'll have to take that up with The Pali Text Society, Thanissaro Bhikkhu and Ven. Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda Maha Thera, not me.

If you don't think what I said is right in regards to Alan Watts, that is probably fair, I don't claim to be an expert on Alan Watts. As for what I said about the Buddha's teachings, if that is what you are talking about, feel free to elaborate! I would be happy to discuss what you felt was wrong.

the teachings. those quotes are taken out of context and also buddhism from what i know about it is very likely to be misinterpreted and mistranslated specially by westerners because it's a very foreign way of thinking. they tend to apply it to their own view of the world and see it as motivation or some bullshit. also buddhism involves a lot of trickery so maybe you mistook that for the real stuff?
i think you're approaching buddhism the wrong way. it should never be approached academically. it's just someone trying to alleviate suffering and searching for answers. that's how it should be approached if you want to get it. if you're not suffering and didn't approach it out of desperation then you don't have what they call the great doubt. it would be just a shallow interest.
i knew from the beginning that alan watts is just talking about eastern philosophy and not an official source of anything but who cares? he fixes the fucked up western way of thinking and all the eastern religions are very related, have the same base, and lead to the same thing. i just don't see how could he be wrong? so you're saying that buddhism encourages the ego instead of destroys it? the effort part comes along with it. sure if buddhism is all about the ego then it would also preach and tell you to put in effort as much as you can.
honestly if alan watts made what he says up and buddhism is just basic motivation bullshit then fuck buddhism i'll follow whatever alan alan watts is teaching. and it would also mean that alan watts completely destroyed buddhism. his arguments are bulletproof. very simple and real.

Anyone?

how2into Zen and Pure Land Buddhism?

>also buddhism involves a lot of trickery
Source?
>if you're not suffering and didn't approach it out of desperation then you don't have what they call the great doubt. it would be just a shallow interest.
This is not the case with me. My interest in Buddhism is fueled entirely by what the Buddhists would call Saṃvega "Samvega was what the young Prince Siddhartha felt on his first exposure to aging, illness, and death. It's a hard word to translate because it covers such a complex range — at least three clusters of feelings at once: the oppressive sense of shock, dismay, and alienation that come with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of life as it's normally lived; a chastening sense of our own complacency and foolishness in having let ourselves live so blindly; and an anxious sense of urgency in trying to find a way out of the meaningless cycle. This is a cluster of feelings we've all experienced at one time or another in the process of growing up, but I don't know of a single English term that adequately covers all three. It would be useful to have such a term, and maybe that's reason enough for simply adopting the word samvega into our language."
The first Noble Truth has always been very apparent to me.
>i knew from the beginning that alan watts is just talking about eastern philosophy
>he fixes the fucked up western way of thinking and all the eastern religions are very related, have the same base, and lead to the same thing
Here is where I think you are having difficulties. All eastern religions are not the same thing, and do not lead to the same result. This is a very common Western idea, that all eastern religion and philosophy falls under the same umbrella of "spirituality" and that they all lead to the same thing. This is untrue, they all multi-faceted and nuanced. There is a reason why Hindus and Buddhists have debated for millennia about the nature of the Atman, or lack thereof. They have major disagreements with each other on topics that are at the very basis of their traditions. Alan Watts didn't "make up" all his beliefs, it's just that not all of them came from Buddhism. As we have established already: he dabbled in multiple different Eastern philosophies and religions, disagreed with Buddhism on many topics that he agreed with other traditions on. This is only hard to understand if you think all Eastern religion and philosophy is the same or that they all agree with each other. He agreed with Vedanta on the Atman, disagreed with Buddhism on the Atman.
>the effort part comes along with it. sure if buddhism is all about the ego then it would also preach and tell you to put in effort as much as you can
Right Effort is the sixth factor of the Noble Eightfold Path: a defining and core teaching of Buddhism. (1/2)

(2/2)
>"And what, monks, is right effort?

>[i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.

>[ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.

>[iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.

>[iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort."
- SN 45.8
>if buddhism is just basic motivation bullshit
I certainly don't think Buddhism is 'basic motivation,' they just view effort as a necessary aspect of ending suffering. Suffering doesn't end on its own, work has to be done to end it. That is the view of Buddhism. It isn't self help, the sutta I sent earlier about effort and to never stop trying is in relation to Virtue, Morality, Concentration and Wisdom. That is what is meant by "skillful qualities" in Buddhism. When "skillful qualities" are spoken of in Buddhism, it is always referring to Virtue, Morality, Concentration and Wisdom, or something that falls under those labels.

>Zen
Here:
Don't know how to help for Pure Land, sorry.

>so you're saying that buddhism encourages the ego instead of destroys it?
Well the term 'ego' is not really a part of the Buddhist vernacular, so I am going to assume that what you mean by 'ego' is somewhat similar to the term 'self' or 'self-view.' Buddhism teaches that there is no-self that can be found in all of experience. Everything there is in experience, sight, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, thinking, is all not-self. Everything one experiences through those avenues, the six sense doors, is not-self. Even effort and intention are still not-self, cannot be said to be self. So in that regard, Buddhism teaches one to not identify with these things as "I, me, mine," because they are in fact empty of self.

if you think buddhism encourages the ego, self improvement, effort, and you don't know about the trickery part o buddhism then you either have a lot to learn or buddhism itself is bullshit. anyways read and listen to more alan watts because whatever it is that he's talking about it completely destroys what you're saying so i'll leave him to respond to you/teach you. good luck.

you're too concerned with language instead of the truth. you're trying to be an intellectual i get the feeling you're adjusting your glasses and talking in a very pretentious way. drop it dude we're apes.

Well you'll probably get two responses:
>The Buddha did not teach about the Pure Lands or the Bodhisattva path or Tantra or any other esoteric teachings because what he was teaching was Skillful Means to his followers who were not advanced enough to handle such deep teachings. Later on, monks discovered these teachings for themselves which the Buddha did not teach to his followers because they couldn't handle them. Strict adherence to the early texts is just divisive sectarianism. We don't even know if those early texts are the word of the Buddha anymore than we can know if the later sutras are the word of the Buddha. (Or alternatively, the later sutras are in fact the word of the Buddha and the early suttas are not).
Or the other interpretation:
>These teachings are revisionist and contradict things the Buddha himself said in the suttas, such as in this one:
>32. Thus spoke the Venerable Ananda, but the Blessed One answered him, saying: "What more does the community of bhikkhus expect from me, Ananda? I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back. Whosoever may think that it is he who should lead the community of bhikkhus, or that the community depends upon him, it is such a one that would have to give last instructions respecting them. But, Ananda, the Tathagata has no such idea as that it is he who should lead the community of bhikkhus, or that the community depends upon him. So what instructions should he have to give respecting the community of bhikkhus?
- DN 16
>The teachings of the later Pure Land and Mahayana schools which contradict the earliest suttas are based on texts which appeared hundreds of years after the earliest canonical texts, and to consider them to be the most likely authentic word of the Buddha would be absurd. The corruption of Gautama Buddha's teachings perfectly aligns with his predictions that his teachings would be corrupted after he died, and he thought would even be unrecognizable 500 years after his death. Buddhism is prone to revision and corruption because it is a tradition which does not lend itself to the passions, and because it is subtle, hard to understand, deep, profound.

No it's not pretension, I literally don't know what you mean by ego in this discussion. I am not familiar with the use of the word 'ego' when it comes to discussion of Buddhism.

>if you think buddhism encourages the ego, self improvement, effort, and you don't know about the trickery part o buddhism then you either have a lot to learn or buddhism itself is bullshit
That entire post was to explain how Buddhism views effort as a necessary tool in the cultivation of virtue, morality, concentration and wisdom in order to end suffering and help others end suffering. It said nothing about self-help or self-improvement in the colloquial sense or "encouraging the ego" unless you think actively developing virtues like compassion for all beings, and restraining yourself from unwholesome behaviour that brings harm to others, is in fact "encouraging the ego."
This is a Buddhism thread, user. We are discussing Buddhism. You are essentially suggesting that 'real Buddhism' is your pre-conceived philosophy on things developed from Alan Watts lectures, but at the same time you're not sure if that is what Buddhism is, and if it indeed doesn't fit your ideas then it is not true.

Thank you, user. Honestly, I feel so sad. Buddhism seems so noble and respectable, without so many of the flaws I see in other religions, but I simultaneously look outside and see those same flawed doctrines wearing the name of "Buddhism". When discussing it to people, they mention all of those fantastical details, and I just have to state "I only appreciate the original teachings of Siddhartha, I don't care for what might have came later". But it looks foolish on my part, as if I'm denying Buddhist doctrine or something. Is there a group that explicitly goes by "Siddhartha's words only", or similar? Really, it feels so childish that I even have to discuss of such juvenile and selfish fantasies of personal mountain-lands and so on in the same breath as a teaching so wise as that which Siddhartha taught.

I personally just talk to Theravadins and here and there I'll sneak in explanations of how the Theravada commentaries and the Abhidhamma contradict the suttas and original teachings.
Theravada is admittedly the closest, though with its own flaws. It has the essentials down, and the deviations would be said to be minor by most. I'd recommend Theravadin monasteries and temples when you want to seek out a real life sangha. The advice in the chart is there for a reason though, no monk is perfect, and the suttas come first.

>unless you think actively developing virtues like compassion for all beings, and restraining yourself from unwholesome behaviour that brings harm to others, is in fact "encouraging the ego."
that's self improvement
>This is a Buddhism thread, user. We are discussing Buddhism
if that's buddhism then i'm arguing against it. though i'm pretty sure you just don't understand it. if i'm gonna believe either you or alan watts on buddhism i'll definitely take alan watts so like i said you probably have a lot to learn.

Well don't take my word on it, take the earliest recorded texts on the Buddha's teachings listed in the chart at the top of this thread.

You can read this sutta here, I think it would be informative:
accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html
Also, the Five Precepts in Buddhism (commitments to abstain from harming living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication) are some of the most surface-level, universal Buddhist teachings. I don't even think any sect deviates from them.

Thanks user, I'll remember that and follow your advice.

that is if you want to reach enlightenment. those are not moral rules to live you life by. they are just not good for you if your goal is to wake up. buddhism is completely amoral and doesn't preach.

Yes I am aware that the precepts are in place if the goal is the cessation of suffering, but that is what the entirety of the Buddhist path is predicated on. Buddhism isn't a "you must" religion, it says "if x, then y." If you want to reach the cessation of suffering, follow this Eightfold Path, which includes the Five Precepts.

would any of this help me be less constantly distracted?

If you're learning about Buddhism, the assumption is that you want to learn about the path to the cessation of suffering. That is why I mentioned the Five Precepts, which are an essential teaching for lay followers who want to realize the cessation of suffering.

great then you agree that it doesn't tell you to improve yourself or put in effort which would go against its basics. it just gives you the recipe if you want it and that's it.

The mindfulness aspect of meditation definitely would. It is hard for me to recommend mindfulness/vipassana practice in a secular vacuum though because of things like this:

The 'recipe' includes effort though. I was never arguing that the Buddha taught "you must strive to eliminate unwholesome mental states and to proliferate wholesome mental states just because I said so." It was assumed that because you were asking to learn about Buddhism, you wanted to learn about the teachings of the path to the cessation of suffering, since that is all Buddhism is. Buddhism in its entirety is the path to the cessation of suffering, and by learning about Buddhism you are learning about the path to the cessation of suffering, nothing else.

>great then you agree that it doesn't tell you to improve yourself or put in effort which would go against its basics. it just gives you the recipe if you want it and that's it.
Actually I made that clear in the post you replied to
>That entire post was to explain how Buddhism views effort as a necessary tool in the cultivation of virtue, morality, concentration and wisdom in order to end suffering and help others end suffering.
>in order to end suffering and help others end suffering.

the whole problem that buddhism tackles is basically the frustration of self improvement. you can tell me you need to work out if you want to be stronger but how the fuck do i summon up energy out of nothing to actually get up and work out instead of doing anything else?

you said the problem with alan watts is the effortlessness and the view of the self and you're agreeing with him now? if you think what he says about buddhism is wrong then you should believe that you can summon the energy out of nothing using effort and screaming like a fucking anime character and that you also have a self that is an entity by itself that can just summon up the energy whenever it wants to. idk why would anyone have any problems then.

and if you think you can't use effort to improve yourself and that the self isn't really a center of control then why were you even saying that alan watts isn't a good source for buddhism?

Samatha meditation can absolutely help. The Mind Illuminated is the best introduction for a secular practitioner. It covers mostly samatha, but it does incorporate vipassana stage 5 onward, so be weary of that if you continue to be a secular lay practitioner to avoid what is talking about.

>you said the problem with alan watts is the effortlessness and the view of the self and you're agreeing with him now?
I said the problem was teaching effortlessness in regards to the actual Buddhist practices, which requires effort. I did not say anything about conventional everyday self-improvement like with working out. I was talking about how effort is necessary in the Buddhist path. Here I said so in the post you're referring to:
>The shadow side I am referring to is all the stuff about how there is no need to put in effort, to have a goal in mind when you practice Buddhism or meditate.
>you should believe that you can summon the energy out of nothing using effort and screaming like a fucking anime character and that you also have a self that is an entity by itself that can just summon up the energy whenever it wants to
Well effort is undoubtedly a thing that occurs in experience. Effort is put into things all the time. Effort was put into your posts. I think your assumption that the very idea of 'effort' necessitates a separate self who is 'doing the efforting.' This is part of the self illusion. Intention to do things, thoughts, effort, are all not self. They just happen with no relation to a separate self entity who is making them happen. You experience thoughts. You cannot stop your thoughts from happening, they just keep flowing through the mind, because the thoughts are not yourself, you are not the 'thinker,' the thoughts are just happening and there is perception of them, but there is no 'perceive-r.'
If you're just asking how effort arises, typically effort to pursue Buddhism arises when one becomes dispassionate, disillusioned with the normal way of being. One sees the suffering inherent in existence and wants no more part in it, in birth, aging, illness, death, separation with what is pleasing, union with what is displeasing...etc.
>if you think you can't use effort to improve yourself and that the self isn't really a center of control
I'm saying effort is necessary on the path to the cessation of suffering, not to 'improve yourself.' Who is there to improve? There is no self-entity who is doing the efforting, there is just efforting.

if it's just something that happens then why are you calling it effort? the sun doesn't shine by effort and your eyes don't see its light by effort. those things happen effortlessly.
and yes you can't put in effort to be awakened it will just make it worse. it's like washing blood with blood or calming water with a stick. there is no self to put in the effort and you can't even stop yourself from putting in the effort.
>There is no self-entity who is doing the efforting, there is just efforting.
you almost got it idk what are you even arguing about

I think you just have a different definition of 'effort' than I do. You seem to think that for there to be 'effort' there has to inherently be a separate self doing the efforting, or at least belief in a separate self doing the efforting. I disagree, effort can be summoned, it can be experienced, all without the assumption of a separate self doing the efforting. It is just an action. If I said 'empathizing' is required would you say "but if it is just something that happens why are you calling it empathizing?" Why arbitrarily pick efforting as something that necessitates a separate self-entity? Intentions and effort are undoubtedly things that occur in experience, they can undoubtedly be aroused, proliferated, created and maintained. That doesn't mean there is a self doing the proliferating of intention and effort.
My problem with the "no effort" thing is the common interpretation that, if one wants to realize the end of suffering, they should not put effort into meditation, into developing compassion, into practicing Buddhism. The interpretation that nothing has to be done to realize the end of suffering, because you are "already enlightened" and there is nothing to do. That is what I have a problem with, and that is what contradicts the earliest Buddhist teachings.

i guess there are 2 kinds of effort, effort that you put in when you operate from an isolaed sense of self, and effortless effort. we both agree on the effortless effort so we're good.
however, the only type of effort that wouldn't be counter productive if you want to wake up is effortless effort. but how can you put in effortless effort if you're an idiot who doesn't know what effortless effort is because you haven't woken up yet? that's why you shouldn't put in any effort. the only effort you can put in at the time is normal effort which would be washing blood with blood.
but it's not that simple because at that time if you're actually interested in waking up you will never be able to stop putting in normal effort which would frustrate you more and more untill you realize that normal effort is counter productive but that is also what made you reach it. so that's why you encourage normal effort? to frustrate the student more? if that's what you mean then sure i agree. but from a theoretical standpoint normal effort just shows you don't understand the situation you're dealing with.
i guess ideally you'd put it a lot of normal effort and then someone points out that what you're doing is very stupid and counter productive so you instantly reach satori. which is what happened with me a lot.
anyways i really enjoyed that discussion you're actually one of the very few people i've seen who understand that problem. we should be friends do you have a discord or something?

You might find this PDF useful as well:
accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notselfstrategy.pdf
It explains how while in ultimate reality no self-entity can be found in the realm of experience, there is an undeniable sense of "self" in conventional everyday terms - we have names, we associate with other people, and this is how we operate. It is important to learn to maintain skillful conduct while living in the conventional world of names and beings: it is important to not bring harm to other beings, to develop compassion and kindness towards other beings...etc. It is only when the mind is calmed, stilled through this cultivation of wholesome qualities that it can see through the illusions and realize the ultimate nature of experience in which there is no self that can be found. The path to the unconditioned is the conditioned. The path to ultimate reality is conventional. The path to the conventional is the mundane. A being who does not have their mundane everyday reality in check (ie, they are immoral, hurting people, causing harm...etc) has a mind that is too chaotic to develop wisdom and cannot realize the ultimate nature of things. Only a being whose mundane everyday reality is in check (they are filled with loving-kindness, they are harmless, moral and virtuous) has a mind stilled, clear and calm enough to realize the ultimate nature of things.

Hey user, I see I think we are on the same page now. Check out this post here:
I think you will greatly appreciate this sutta which touches on this exact issue:
>"Monks, I will teach you the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

>"As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One.

>The Blessed One said: "Suppose a man were traveling along a path. He would see a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. The thought would occur to him, 'Here is this great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?' Then the man, having gathered grass, twigs, branches, & leaves, having bound them together to make a raft, would cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with his hands & feet. [7] Having crossed over to the further shore, he might think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying it on my back, go wherever I like?' What do you think, monks: Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?"

>"No, lord."

>"And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."
Essentially, the Buddha is saying that the water is the path to 'enlightenment,' to the end of suffering. To cross the water, one needs to cling to the raft to help take them across. This is a metaphor for the way that we use the Buddha's teaching to reach all the way to the point of awakening, but at the exact moment when awakening is about to happen, we need to let go of the raft (the teaching and effort) and walk onto the dry land on the other side.

Effort is to be given up, but not until the end of the path, when the moment of fruition has been reached. You can't cross the water without the raft (the teachings and effort) but you can't carry the raft with you once it has served its purpose and taken you to the other side of the water: you need to abandon it and hop onto the dry land. In this same way, effort and following the teaching is necessary until the end, which for most, myself included, is far off into the future. When the time comes, I will have to let go of effort, let go of the teaching, and realize awakening for myself.
As for communication, I only have the Buddhist facebook group I am a part of called saaaaadhu
You can find it on fb dot com slash groups slash saaaaadhu
There are people there much more knowledgeable than me to discuss things with you, and you might see me post from time to time as well.

>The path to the conventional is the mundane
****meant to say the path to the transcendental is mundane
Also if you can't get a link to work, just search for the facebook group 'DhammaVinaya Discussion'

the difference between the original method and the alan watts one is very subtle. he talked about the raft thing but no effort is included and i think it's better that way. he doesn't make it seem like a daunting task that requires a lot of effort. it's just something that you're trying to understand. and that actually makes you less likely to cling onto the raft and fetishize it. you only see it as it is, a raft. a problem to solve so you can get to the other side. i think you'll have a much quicker and better progress if you do it the other way.
i checked the group and i would stay away from that kind of thing because it fetishizes the whole thing like i said. it shouldn't take that much attention and discussion. it's just a raft.

I know the members of the group can be very overly religious with things but the admins are great for real-world practical discussion of the practice. That is why I recommended it.
I suppose we should agree to disagree here. I believe that if you want to reach the end of suffering that the Buddha promised, you have to play by the Buddha's rules and methods, and he taught Right Effort as the sixth factor of the Eightfold Path. If you're not going for what the Buddha promised, then you don't have to follow his path. But if you're after what the Buddha promised, then you do have to follow his path.

I would also say that the discussion is necessary in order to learn what the actual 'raft' is made up of, how to build it, what it involves.
It is a 2500+ year old tradition after all, and as you yourself said it is prone to corruption as well as misinterpretation by Westerners, so it takes a lot to figure out what the Buddha actually taught. I think discussion of the earliest texts in such a manner directly helps this problem and doesn't allow for misunderstandings.

i don't think there are several ways you can wake up. and why are you so into that specific thing anyways even if it's different? your goal should be to alleviate the suffering it doesn't matter how. i'm telling you i have a better faster raft that can get you to the other side but you just like the raft you're in so much. watch out or you'll be stuck in it forever. good luck.

I trust the Buddha when learning about Buddhism more than I trust you or Alan Watts, sorry user.

this book absolutely rules

Attached: mahamudra_the_quintessence_of_mind_and_meditation_idd573.jpg (366x550, 77K)

read what i said again.

Even as someone who follows the Early Buddhist Texts and not necessarily Vajrayana, I see a lot of value in Mahamudra meditation.

Can you explain to me what I misunderstood? All I really got from your post was that I am overly attached the the path that I'm following (the Dhamma as proclaimed by the Buddha) and that you have a faster, better path than the one I am trying to follow.

What position do you sit in while meditating? Right now I'm doing seiza with a cushion but I'm doing a stretching routine to get the flexibility for full lotus. Is full lotus actually the most comfortable position to sit in for long periods of time or is it more tradition than anything?

Attached: lotus.jpg (1200x799, 67K)

People who can achieve proper full lotus do regularly say that it is the most comfortable and stable for long sits, and that it is not just tradition. I cannot confirm or deny this myself, as I sit in the Burmese posture, which I find to be the most comfortable and stable posture I'm able to manage.

Attached: Burmese.jpg (400x533, 129K)

I'm saying why do you care aout this specific exact journey with the golden statues and all that stuff? the Buddha is also just a raft. you're clinging to it although any raft will do. i have no reason to tell you to do this or do that other than wanting to help. if i did it your way and treated it like a sacred journey i think i would've never got it.
i guess i didn't really have an option. i was desperate i couldn't be bothered with all that religious stuff i just wanted the suffering to stop. in all the zen stories the student has to be really desperate to be accepted and the master just messes with him and frustrates him till he gets it and can't be fooled anymore. the way you do it is different. it's like a hobby or a special club.
also by the way alan watts tells a story about dt suzuki not even completing the 8 fold path when he was giving a talk. he stopped at 4 or something and said he forgot the rest of them.
no one plays by the book. the game is already established and obvious.
good night user and good luck

Thoughts on this book? If positive, how may it contribute to the chart?

Attached: 9781559394758.jpg (400x619, 27K)

That book looks like it's meant to be an introduction, which would make it unnecessary on the chart since it already has a clear starting point.

The Buddhist term Anatman (Sanskrit), or Anatta (Pali) is an adjective in sutra used to refer to the nature of phenomena as being devoid of the Soul, that being the ontological and uncompounded subjective Self (atman) which is the “light (dipam), and only refuge” [DN 2.100]. Of the 662 occurrences of the term Anatta in the Nikayas, its usage is restricted to referring to 22 nouns (forms, feelings, perception, experiences, consciousness, the eye, eye-consciousness, desires, mentation, mental formations, ear, nose, tongue, body, lusts, things unreal, etc.), all phenomenal, as being Selfless (anatta). Contrary to countless many popular (=profane, or = consensus, from which the truth can ‘never be gathered’) books (as Buddhologist C.A.F. Davids has deemed them ‘miserable little books’) written outside the scope of Buddhist doctrine, there is no “Doctrine of anatta/anatman” mentioned anywhere in the sutras, rather anatta is used only to refer to impermanent things/phenomena as other than the Soul, to be anatta, or Self-less (an-atta).

Specifically in sutra, anatta is used to describe the temporal and unreal (metaphysically so) nature of any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal, and temporal things, from macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter as pertains the physical body, the cosmos at large, including any and all mental machinations which are of the nature of arising and passing. Anatta in sutra is synonymous and interchangeable with the terms dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanent); all three terms are often used in triplet in making a blanket statement as regards any and all phenomena. Such as: “All these aggregates are anicca, dukkha, and anatta.” It should be further noted that, in doctrine, that the only noun which is branded permanent (nicca), is obviously and logically so, the noun attan [Skt. Atman), such as passage (SN 1.169).

Anatta refers specifically and only to the absence of the permanent soul as pertains any or all of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) attributes, or khandhas (skandhas, aggregates). Anatta/Anatman in the earliest existing Buddhist texts, the Nikayas, is an adjective, (A is anatta, B is anatta, C is anatta). The commonly (=profane, consensus, herd-views) held belief to wit that: “Anatta means no-soul, therefore Buddhism taught that there was no soul” is an irrational absurdity which cannot be found or doctrinally substantiated by means of the Nikayas, the suttas (Skt. Sutras), of Buddhism.

chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Anatta,_Anatman,_No-Self,_Soulessness_and_other_Nihilistic_bullshit_your_local_retarded_''buddhist''_will_tell_you_about.

I can't sit in any posture or keep my back straight for more than 30 seconds. What do?

Yes I think all talks of anatta in this thread have maintained that "nothing in experience can be called self" and nothing beyond that. The Buddha refused to answer questions about whether or not there was an existing metaphysical self/soul in an objective existence outside of experience. As a matter of fact, IIRC, the Buddha refused to answer any metaphysical questions regarding anything outside of experience.

First start fixing your normal posture while sitting in a chair and standing. You might also want to see a doctor if its really that bad.

>le anything but the original teachings are corrupt and wrong
reeks of abrahamism

Why should I believe in *those* concepts, though? I can believe in other stuff, but not quite those ones.

>those quotes are taken out of context and also buddhism from what i know about it is very likely to be misinterpreted and mistranslated specially by westerners because it's a very foreign way of thinking. they tend to apply it to their own view of the world and see it as motivation or some bullshit. also buddhism involves a lot of trickery so maybe you mistook that for the real stuff?

You could apply that logic in the other direction by saying that your skepticism of translation and interpretation arises from it being an eastern religion translated into English, so it must necessarily be unrecognizable from the real deal. That argument goes in circles, so it's only a matter of how nuch you trust those transmitting the text, Thanissaro Bhikku et al., people that have practiced buddhism for years and are fluent in Pali.

theres no problem in blushing, if theres a problem with blushing then it is probably your sorroundings

What is the point of Buddhism when the Gita exists?

Nagarjuna is Mahayana. It's in the chart

Attached: asdf.png (330x511, 88K)

>we need to let go of the raft (the teaching and effort)
>Effort is to be given up, but not until the end of the path, when the moment of fruition has been reached.
What does it mean that the effort is to be given up? What should an awakened person do?

Awakening in Buddhism is about letting go, rather than attaining something. At the moment of Awakening, the practitioner lets go of the world, of everything, stops clinging and realizes Nirvana. In that sense, at the moment of Awakening, everything is to be given up. Until that point though, effort is necessary. There must be effort to understand the transient, unsatisfying, not-self nature of all things. The path to the unconditioned is conditioned.

Also, a partially awakened person (stream-enterer, once-returner, non-returner) continues to practice until full awakening (Arahantship). The fully awakened Arahant then typically spends the rest of their life helping other unawakened beings escape Samsara, due to their boundless love and compassion for all beings.

Thank you for the reply. So why did the Buddha start teaching dhamma after awakening? Did he have a desire to alleviate all suffering? Is this compatible with having given up everything?
Sorry for the stupid questions, I'm really ignorant but curious.

If you know nothing, then asking questions is not stupid at all.
My family is culturally Buddhist but there are plenty of areas which I don't even realize I was blind to until some people started asking questions that never occurred for me to even ask.

The Buddha taught the Dhamma after his awakening for the same reason that the Arahants do the same: out of boundless compassion, love and empathy for all beings. Hatred and ill-will towards other beings arises with delusion and ignorance as its prerequisites. The natural state when one sees things for how they are, without delusion and ignorance, is filled with boundless love and compassion. The Buddha no longer had delusions obstructing his ability to see clearly and so by default he had this love for all beings. It can also be said that such boundless love/compassion/empathy stems from one having a deep and full understanding of the nature of suffering.
Basically, hatred, ill-will and sensual desire (seeking lasting satisfaction in sense pleasures or in anything in the world) has ignorance as its root, loving-kindness does not have ignorance as its root and can be present without it.

Hey OP, what's your opinion of Thicht Nhat Hahn's books? Good introduction before committing to reading suttas, or does he soften too much for westerners?

Not to be dismissive, but he definitely waters his stuff down to appeal to Westerners.

That's fair. I started to read The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching as a primer of what to expect before getting Bhikku Bodhi's anthology, and it is evident that he's writing to an audience that he expects to remain part of the laity.

bump

>I desire to give up desiring
>DUDE Buddha is like SO CHill bro!!!
I still can't get over that there are unironically people that consider themselves Buddhists in the west. People who read a few books and sit still for a few min give into the delusion that they found the solution to their pathetic nihilistic lives. All "spiritual experiences" are just confirmation bias; of course if you sit in a cave deluding yourself you are going to fall for the illusion. Buddhism is the ultimate cuck religion so much so that action in of itself is renounced. To make matters worse, the people that congregate in these threads think they are somehow religious scholars despite being no better than the standard western crypto-materialist.

Buddhism might be the only completely uncucked religion, actually

>Not cucked
>Founder literally did nothing but sit still

Same lol

bump

imagine being this angry and resentful

A good book overviewing Mahayana thought is Siderits 'Buddhism as philosophy' I sometimes find that people on Yea Forums only recommend Nagarjuna or say that he is the peak/best of Mahayana but in actuality he just represents 1 of the 3-4 strands of thought important to understanding later Mahayana philosophy. Most of the basis for Mahayana thought comes from India, the Mahayana philosophy/doctrine from places like Tibet, China, Japan largely differ in what type of Indian Mahayana text they focus on and regard as important; although this is not to deny that they still had their own unique achievements. A common ranking system which differs a bit per school is the 'three turnings'

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Turnings_of_the_Wheel_of_Dharma

The first is the Tripitaka including all the Suttas etc; the 2nd being the teachings about sunyata in the prajnaparamita sutra and to some extent Nagarjuna's exegesis on them; the 3rd being the Tathagatagarbha-class sutras and the texts like the Sandhinirmocana Sutra and to some extent Yogacharas exegesis on them. Everyone from the Tibetians to the Chinese, Japanese etc reference all these texts and concepts from them constantly in their major schools of thought, so being able to fully understand their more dense texts (like if you wanted to read the actual or translated writings of the major thinker/writer of that school of thought etc) sorta presupposes having a decent knowledge of all the former texts and not just Nagarjuna. Then in addition to this you also have things like the Pure Land Sutras or Tantric teachings which is added on top of these three in varying amounts according to school.

>be a buddhist
>not allowed to kill someone who is raping someone

lol

You can stop a rape without killing anybody

I want to tickle you

Not the user you were responding to, but I appreciate this post. Thanks.

Terrible post

user be honest do you think that that guy is enlightened and knows what he's talking about, just based off of his posts alone?

What is the best translation of the Dhammapada?

Sorry for the late reply, but definitely this version right here:
store.pariyatti.org/Dhammapada-The-BP203ME-Pocket-Version_p_2513.html

last bump from me

r u cute?

has anyone ITT ever experienced a moment of true satori/enlightenment/illumination? what did it feel like to you guys?

Attached: B0GC9ip6.jpg (766x766, 161K)

cute!

I wish threads about Christianity and other religions were like this but they're too infected by proxy culture war nonsense. Buddhist threads can be bad too, but this is probably one of the best threads on the board right now. tranquil

buddhism makes truth claims, particularly with regard to what kind of sentiments or behaviours are a result of either knowledge or delusion -- so is it therefore incompatible with a roughly materialist conception of life? love and hate are emergent characteristics of life that exist simply because they exist, because of the utility to surviving and thriving in the creatures they manifest in (e.g. a mother lion loves its young and hates the predator who comes to kill them), each has its 'place' or else it wouldn't exist, they are circumstantial rather than essential. i.e. i perceive no intrinsic value judgements in a thing's existence or non-existence.

I would say its practices of virtue, morality...etc are useful for anyone of any philosophical background, but yes Buddhism rejects materialism, as materialism essentially makes metaphysical claims on the nature of an 'objective' reality. Buddhism only concerns itself with experience, and makes no statements about an 'objective' reality one way or another, in the same way that materialism (and pretty much all of metaphysics in philosophy) does. When one sees the truths of moment-to-moment experience clearly, without ignorance and delusion, one has dropped ill-will, and is filled with loving-kindness. This is the proposed nature of experience, but not any sort of 'objective truth claim' about the nature of 'objective reality.'

how does one gradate experience as more or less delusional? one is reminded of socrates equation of knowledge with virtue or 'excellence' -- that correct knowledge is the vital ingredient in making human activities good and productive. moral goods as a natural consequence of sober thinking and wisdom.

>Then, when it was evening, the Blessed One rose from his seclusion and went to the Banyan Park. On arrival, he sat down on a seat made ready. As he was sitting there, he [told the monks what had happened]. When this was said, a certain monk said to the Blessed One, "Lord, what sort of doctrine is it where one does not keep quarreling with anyone in the cosmos with its deities, Maras, & Brahmas, with its contemplatives & brahmans, its royalty & commonfolk; where perceptions no longer obsess the brahman who remains dissociated from sensuality, free from perplexity, his uncertainty cut away, devoid of craving for becoming & non-?"

>"If, monk, with regard to the cause whereby the perceptions & categories of objectification assail a person, there is nothing there to relish, welcome, or remain fastened to, then that is the end of the obsessions of passion, the obsessions of resistance, the obsessions of views, the obsessions of uncertainty, the obsessions of conceit, the obsessions of passion for becoming, & the obsessions of ignorance. That is the end of taking up rods & bladed weapons, of arguments, quarrels, disputes, accusations, divisive tale-bearing, & false speech. That is where these evil, unskillful things cease without remainder." That is what the Blessed One said. Having said it, the One Well-gone got up from his seat and went into his dwelling.
- MN 18

Delusion is generally characterized by self-view, clinging to a separate self, which gives rise to all sorts of craving, clinging, aversion, greed, hatred, "me vs them" "me vs other...etc." The conception of 'self' indeed does not make logical sense, and if you're into that sort of thing, now neuroscience is suggesting that there is no neurological basis for a 'self' in the brain. Despite understanding this, we still have an intuitive sense of 'self' that we cannot shake through logic. It is shed through insight meditation. I suppose this requires some degree of faith that insight meditation works, but Buddhism is a practice more than just an abstract conceptual philosophy.

Another sign of delusion is when one lives without awareness or clear understanding of the Three Marks of Existence: not-self, impermanence, and unsatisfactoriness.
For instance:
What then lord, is that one thing
which must be abandoned;
by abandoning which
ignorance is abandoned
and knowledge springs up in a brother?"

"Herein, brother, it has been heard by a certain brother:

"All things ought not to be adhered to."[1]

Then if that brother has heard,

"All things ought not to be adhered to,"

he fully understands the whole Norm.

Fully understanding it,
he [27] comprehends it.

Comprehending it,
he regards all phenomena[2] as changeable.

He regards the eye as changeable,
he regards objects as changeable,
he regards eye-consciousness as changeable,
he regards eye-contact as changeable,
he regards that weal
or woe
or neutral state
arising owing to eye-contact as changeable.

He regards the ear as changeable,
he regards sounds as changeable,
he regards ear-consciousness as changeable,
he regards ear-contact as changeable,
he regards that weal
or woe
or neutral state
arising owing to ear-contact as changeable.

He regards the nose as changeable,
he regards scents as changeable,
he regards nose-consciousness as changeable,
he regards nose-contact as changeable,
he regards that weal
or woe
or neutral state
arising owing to nose-contact as changeable.

He regards the tongue as changeable,
he regards savours as changeable,
he regards tongue-consciousness as changeable,
he regards tongue-contact as changeable,
he regards that weal
or woe
or neutral state
arising owing to tongue-contact as changeable.

He regards the body as changeable,
he regards tangibles as changeable,
he regards body-consciousness as changeable,
he regards body-contact as changeable,
he regards that weal
or woe
or neutral state
arising owing to body-contact as changeable.

He regards the mind as changeable,
he regards mind-states as changeable,
he regards mind-consciousness as changeable,
he regards mind-contact as changeable,
he regards that weal
or woe
or neutral state
arising owing to mind-contact as changeable.

So knowing,
so seeing,
a brother abandons ignorance
and knowledge arises in him."
- SN 35.80

'Monks, there are these four bonds. What four?

The bond of passions,
that of becoming,[2]
that of view and
the bond of ignorance.

...

And how is it with the bond of becoming?

Herein, monks, a certain one understands not, as they really are, the arising, the passing away, the satisfaction, the disadvantage of and the escape from becomings.

[12] In him who understands not these things, as they really are, the lust for becomings, the delight in becomings, the affection for becomings, the greed for becomings, the thirst, fever, clinging, the craving for becoming that is becomings, which occupies his mind, - this, monks, is called "the bond of becoming."

So much for the bond of passions and the bond of becoming.

...

And what of the bond of ignorance?

Herein, monks, a certain one understands not, as they really are, the arising of the six spheres of sense, the passing away, the satisfaction, the disadvantage of and the escape therefrom. In him who understands not (these things) as they really are, the ignorance, the nescience of the six spheres of sense which occupies his mind, - this, monks, is called "the bond of ignorance."

In bondage to evil, unprofitable things which defile, which lead to again-becoming, which are distressing and have sorrow for their result, which are concerned with birth and decay, he is therefore called "one who rests not from bondage."

These, monks, are the four bonds.

...

Monks, there are these four releases from the bonds.

What four?[ed1]

The release from the bond of passions,
the release from that of becoming,
the release from that of view and
the release from the bond of ignorance.

...

And how is it with the bond of becoming?

Herein, monks, a certain one understands, as they really are, the arising, the passing away, the satisfaction, the disadvantage of and the escape from becomings.

In him who understands these things, as they really are, the lust for becomings, the delight in becomings, the affection for becomings, the greed for becomings, the thirst, fever, clinging, the craving for becoming that is becomings, do not occupy his mind, - this, monks, is called "release from the bond of becoming."

So much for the release from the bond of passions and the bond of becoming.

...

Herein, monks, a certain one understands, as they really are, the arising of the six spheres of sense, the passing away, the satisfaction, the disadvantage of and the escape therefrom.

In him who understands (these things) as they really are, the ignorance, the nescience of the six spheres of sense which occupies his mind, - this, monks, is called "the release from the bond of ignorance."

Set free from evil, unprofitable things which defile, which lead to again-becoming, which are distressing and have sorrow for their result, which are concerned with birth and decay, he is therefore called "one who rests from bondage."
- AN 4.10