/lit/ - Literature

>>18214605
demon binding
hands-on meta-physics
disbelief & tricks
occult lore

Start with What The Buddha Taught, then read Red Pine's translation of the Heart Sutra.

>>18214652
>Heart Sutra
basically just Hinduism at that point

>>18214672
Not really. You haven't read it, so you wouldn't know.

Evan-Wentz has done good work on vajrayana, though perhaps not "to Christians". The book called Buddhism in Tibet by Emil Schlangintweit might give you what you're looking for, since it was written when Christianity was still predominant in the West.

>demon worship
My understanding is that Tibetan Buddhism is heavily influenced by the Tantric mindset of "turn poison into medicine", so it uses a lot of things that are traditionally proscribed by Buddhism and, indeed, other religions. This includes orgies, meat-eating, excessive drinking, etc. with metaphysical justifications. Whether they're genuine or just excuses to be degenerate is up to you. Traditional Buddhism rules out sex, drinking, astrology, black magic, browsing /h/ and /x/, etc. from the get-go.
Anyway, "demon worship". I know of a specific practice called chöd, in which the bhikku invokes demons and wrathful gods. It is based off of the more totemic native pantheon of Tibet called bön. The original ritual was probably used by shamans for malevolent purposes, but in a Buddhist context the bhikku turns the demons against himself to devour his body, the idea being to dissolve one's material attachments.

Btw, here is an analogy of vajrayana to the other two branches as follows:
>hinayana (pali canon + Theravada)
Walking to your destination. Slow, but certain and pretty much free from danger.
>mahayana (most other sects, including zen)
Driving to your destination. Faster, yes, but accidents are possible and can be dangerous.
>vajrayana (mainly in Mongolia, Tibet, Bhutan, and Nepal)
Flying by supersonic jet. This is as fast as it gets, but accidents abound and almost certainly fatal. There are accounts of Tantric rituals (buddhist or no) driving people permanently insane.

Buddhist mythology [like the jatakas] is not buddhism, just like Buddhist philosophy [ie the abidharmaS and their commentaries] is not buddhism either.
If you want buddhism, you have to read the sutras like dhammatalks.net
the pdf are here
https://americanmonk.org/free-pts-sutta-ebooks/

for a swift intro you can read bikkhu bodhi's books or watch his videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qP7zWzDtuY

https://buddho.org/a-short-introduction-to-buddhism-by-bhikkhu-bodhi/

>>18214691
>>My understanding is that Tibetan Buddhism is heavily influenced by the Tantric mindset of "turn poison into medicine",
Yeah but the buddha rejected those hindu methods like mantras and tantras, and only the 8 fold path leads to nirvana.

>>18214678
Huh. The heart sutra teaches sunyata and the 2 truth idiocy, which are not a buddha's teaching.

>>18214708
(((bhikku bodhi)))

That's because it is.

what does a buddhist do? do they organize charity-things like other religions? are there recommended meditation or prayer patterns? what's the day to day if you will?

>>18214672
I like how Buddha is wearing new balance shoes, makes him more relatable and therefore more based. Sorry but I don’t make the rules

>>18214691
Quality post!
>>18214714
And we may well consider that these are special practices for students with special abilities.
Second, Shakyamuni is not the only Buddha.
And finally, mantras may well be in Pali Buddhism, like meditation on syllables.

I like hinduism because it says I am based and I am God and everyone is nice and cool :)

>>18214605
The buddha is a canonical catholic saint. Read The Way & The Mountain by Marco Pallis. It isn't demon worship, they're trying to terrorize demons. Read Hinduism and Buddhism by Ananda Coomaraswamy.

>>18216078
Based post. Coomaraswamy is truly great.

>>18214605
think about how a christian saint must appear to an actual honest-to-god demon, that's the terrible protectors in tibetan ritual

>>18214720
The Theravada tradition disagrees with you.

>>18215780
Buddhism is a big religion. It depends entirely on which specific branch you're talking about.

Historically (and to this day) Buddhists founded and manned schools, soup-kitchens, and hospitals. However, the actual day to day for the laity is largely about accruing merit. The tl;dr is you want to get the "right kind" of karma to be reborn as a monk. That's the BARE MINIMUM. Most laity engage in various forms of meditation aside from that.

For a monk, it's essentially a combination of good works (what a "good work" is here can get a bit finicky by Western views; begging for alms is a "good work") and tl;dr taking your brain apart to achieve altered states of mind (again, that's a massive tl;dr). "Meditation" is an ENORMOUS category and includes everything from discussing philosophy to focusing on one's breath to chanting a mantra to praying to higher entities for aid.

They have cool art

>>18214605
This won't work on people who think the Catholic Church is satanic, but the scary Buddhist god statues are kind of like gargoyles. They're scary looking to scare off demons and things, but they're actually nice.

When did you realize that based on the law of conservation of mass, Buddhists were right about reincarnation?

>>18214691
>There are accounts of Tantric rituals (buddhist or no) driving people permanently insane.
like what

>>18216363
One Frank Julian Gelli reports having conducted the maithuna ritual twice in his book about Ev*la. The first time he didn't know what he was doing, and his girlfriend laughed at him and dumped him. The second time, he got it to work, and the girl he used in the ritual became a mental handicap. The sex was apparently pretty good though.

christ consciousness is but one state among many
sometimes the field you find yourself on is not apt to be like jesus
if i find myself among war, i become war

tibetan buddhism and buddhism are not the same thing
but basically, if you want to use tibetan buddhism for the sake of buddhism it's literally just fake it till you make it
act as if you are an all compassionate and loving being and so will you become

>>18214691
>This includes orgies, meat-eating, excessive drinking, etc. with metaphysical justifications
yeah i want to say these things are to be used properly
to tantrics, all in the plane of reality is seen as a tool
to what?
expand
tantra is very energy driven. working with energy. to be more and experience more.

tantra can be a path to enlightenment whereby one is surrendered to the flow and simply offers themselves up to -any- and -all- circumstances one may find themselves in

the selflessness aspect of tantra, afaik, accepts the "yin yang" nature of reality, that all forces are play act antithetical, even though they are one.
as such, all things are equal
some use tantra to expand their experience. some use it as a path for enlightenment.
the tantric aspect to buddhism is like...you take upon an identity as a means to benefit others in literally any way they wish, or any way that will help them find more fulfillment in life.
tantra embraces life to the fullest where buddhism denounces the game
so tantras "selflessness" (if acting for enlightenment) is very active, whereby buddhism it's very passive. you become a tool or a battery for others to help brighten their experience in -whatever- fashion illuminates them individually.

tantra can be used in many ways as it, to me, is like the existential root. hence why you see many doctrines spring from it.
it is a wordless thing, all energy oriented.
sex is a big component for many reasons
energy, union, breaking boundaries, character development, curiosity and novelty, exploring the human condition. etc.

they call it the lightning vehicle because many crash.
to tantra, stagnation is the only true sin. from there, you are coupled with tantra to act out yourself and who you are.
so it embraces indulgence. it accepts impulses. but once these things become drugs, you are no longer experiencing transience. it becomes vice. no longer a tool for growth. spiritual growth means something else to tantra. it accepts the individuality of others.

>>18216649
what was the ritual and what was it's intended purpose

>>18214691
>The original ritual was probably used by shamans for malevolent purposes, but in a Buddhist context the bhikku turns the demons against himself to devour his body, the idea being to dissolve one's material attachments.
can't really make a distinction of malevolent or benevolent here as it creates perspective and hierarchy. all becomes equal.
>dissolve one's material attachments.
yes
but also attachment to even "good" and "bad"

>Flying by supersonic jet. This is as fast as it gets, but accidents abound and almost certainly fatal
yes most people crash
tantra you cannot get stuck. if you are stuck, there is something you are clinging to.
as i said it is indulgent, but things must be fresh and novel. once they are addiction and drugs, you're clinging, craving.
you see the subtle difference here. there's a difference between indulging with someone and enjoying the fruits versus getting addicted to the fruits.
>cast out poison with poison
is one way to put it. i think humanity is meant to "go through it" rather than always keep the "lid on", so to say.
but the casting out of poison with poison is imo more tibetan. to tantrics they just indulge in the poison and let the chips fall where they may. i think they are very open and embracing of all lifes facets so if you get addicted to have closed yourself off from some aspect of life.
so its not always about eating the poison to conquer the poison per say. the latter isn't a mandatory thing. its just like...eat the poison and go through it. but you aren't really focused on the other side.

the idea is to maintain transience and openness. fulfillment. embrace all life has to offer.
as an act of enlightenment it can be as a means to let go this way, or simply you are surrendered to any and every situation you find yourself in. you add to it.

>permanently insane
that's because they convolute it. its important you dont do this because you are basically chasing infinity.
this is why to tantrics, you must just act, not think.

they say you need to be initiated which is common.
you may have a spontaneous experience as well. its not absolutely mandatory to be initiated, and tantra is not dogmatic like this

if you can see the "rightness" and "virtue" in women and children, the boundlessness and the change of it all, you will better understand. it is not an empirical thing.

>>18214714
>and only the 8 fold path leads to nirvana.
wrong
there are many paths. even christ is an attempt to use tibetan buddhism to unify identity then show one the way to enlightenment through that identity

there are probably as many paths as there are people as there are points in time.

>>18214691
>pic rel
tantra is also referred to as the end of the death and birth cycles
when there is no hierarchy, opinion, preference, expectation, and you are utterly surrendered to any and all situations you happen across, then there is no clinging. you are water.
buddhists still cling in their own way

>>18214605
>A Vietnamese monk and Buddhist teacher explores the common ground of Christianity and Buddhism on such subjects as compassion and holiness, and offers inspiration to believers in both religions.

>>18214714
>and only the 8 fold path leads to nirvana.
that's just not true
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratyekabuddha

>>18217155
They do it by following the same path.

>>18216777
>>>A Vietnamese monk and Buddhist teacher explores the common ground of Christianity and Buddhism
Which are none. Compassion or devotion doesn't get you enlightened in Buddhism. COmpassion is literally a hindu teaching which they say leads to brahma.

>>18216764
Yeah that's the narrative of retards like the perenialists, the atheists and the mahayansits. Weird how the buddha never emrbace yoru NPC view. But jsut because you lack critical thinking since you are a nihilist, you see every teaching as equal. Woah.

Even the jains dont sink so low lol.

>>18217255
>Weird how the buddha
buddha also wasn't expressing all that he knew
he gave us a practical approach. it's just not the only way

im not nihilist, i dont lack critical thinking, i dont know why youre projecting.
"every teaching as equal", ultimately, yes. different paths do different things, and the vehicle biases the destination. ultimately there are many paths to enlightenment.
even buddha said find your own buddhahood

>>18217242
not at all, the buddha created te 8 fold path, every Pratyekabuddha reach nirvana by his own means

The buddha said all buddhas got enlightened by following the 8 fold path, which is the path he teaches too.
That's buddhism 101.

>>18217338
every buddha reached nirvana by practicing dhamma, the 8 fold path is a practical application designed by the buddha, that's buddhism 101 every buddha has the means to be a teacher, thus having their own techniques and paths of enlightement, Pratyekabuddha just don't teach theirs

>>18217338
citation needed

>>18217242
if they did it following the same path then they're arhants not pratyekabuddhas

>>18214605
In the Shadow of the Dalai Lama by German authors Victor & Victoria Trimondi. They have an English translation published on their website:
http://www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Contents.htm

>>18217445
This has some quality info but the trimondi haven't had a tantric initiation themselves. They understand it well from a more outside perspective.
Once you understand Tantra and why, many of these things they describe are not so shocking.

Also they are viewing it as Tibetan Buddhist I believe and not Tantra completely.
Many Tibetan Buddhists have come under fire for basically enslaving women. They become like a battery to treat these men like gods.
I can't say this is "misuse", exactly. I don't know if there is some "power" or "exploitation" path of enlightenment or liberation.

Osho had a better understanding of tantra even though it's still mainstream. You can't really talk about Tantra as it brings form to a formless thing but he better understood it. He has a book out there might be of some interest.


A Christian reading the trimondi content is going to cause immediate repulsion. I don't recommend it as they take to more shocking aspect for the uninitiated

I will sum up as simple as I can

Tibetan buddhism: method acting
Tantra: improv

They can be used together
They can be used for enlightenment or not. The freedom is yours.
There are So, so many ways to use these things.
Even within Tantra and Tibetan buddhism there are different ways to use them for enlightenment

>>18217255
>acts like an expert but has never heard of Upaya
lol

>>18217244
The Buddha in the Pali Canon disagrees.

>>18217244
>COmpassion is literally a hindu teaching which they say leads to brahma.
basically no school of hinduism says this

>>18217244
you're just talking out of your ass now

>>18217866
4 brahma viharas => brahma world dumdum

What reincarnates if their is no self? Not trying to bust any Buddhist bros' balls just curious. I find this to be one of the biggest contradictions in the religion. Meanwhile Hinduism has this covered with their concept of Atman.

>>18219303
nothing reincarnates, your karma goes to someone else, just like your whole life was initiated by someone else residual karma sculpting the basis of your mind, there's transmigration of mental figments but no reincarnation of the soul

>>18219421
Can a person be born without karma?
If all sentient beings were liberated, and nobody can be born without karma, there would be no birth.

>>18219303
birth happens out of a condition so you dont need a soul

people who cant think outside the soul meme dont understand dependent origination

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da

>>18219427
To expand on this. If there was an end to all karma, could a being which suffers be born? Would there be birth of any kind?
Could a being be born without karma? Would this being never suffer?

>>18219430
so what is the actual connection between each rebirth?
why could the buddha recall his previous lives?

>>18219605
it's craving
>>18219605
>>why could the buddha recall his previous lives?
there is nothing specific about this. it's part of the insights in buddhism and ''it just happens''.
Recalling the previosu lives is not improtant to end suffering. What matters is to understand that the aggregates are conditioned, which makes them suffering, and everything suffering is non-self, from this , dispassion for the aggregates kicks in.


"What is the purpose of skillful virtues? What is their reward?"

"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward."

"And what is the purpose of freedom from remorse? What is its reward?"

"Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of joy? What is its reward?"

"Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of rapture? What is its reward?"

"Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of serenity? What is its reward?"

"Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of pleasure? What is its reward?"

"Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of concentration? What is its reward?"

"Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of knowledge & vision of things as they actually are? What is its reward?"

"Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of disenchantment? What is its reward?"

"Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of dispassion? What is its reward?"

"Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward.

"Thus in this way, Ananda, skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward. Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward. Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward. Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its reward. Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward. Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward. Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward. Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward. Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward. Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward.

>>18219430
> people who cant think outside the soul meme dont understand dependent origination
dependent origination was refuted by Sri Shankaracharya (pbuh)

>"No one, they (Buddhists) claim, can possibly deny this chain of causation (Pratītyasamutpāda) beginning with nescience. And once the whole causal chain beginning with nescience is admitted to exist, and to be revolving continually like a wheel with buckets at a well, it is found to imply that the formation of aggregates must be possible. But this is not right, as the causes so far mentioned lead to production (of the next effect in the series) only (and not to aggregation of any kind). An aggregate could be admitted if an intelligible cause were assigned for it. But it is not. Nescience and the rest may cause one another mutually in your cycle, but they only cause the rise of the next link in the chain. There is nothing to show that anything could be the cause of an aggregate. True, you claimed that if nescience and the rest were admitted, an aggregate was necessarily implied.

>To this, however, we reply as follows. If you mean that nescience and the rest cannot arise except in the presence of some aggregate and so are dependent on it, then you still have to explain what could be the cause of the aggregate. Now, we have already shown in the course of our criticism of the Vaisesikas that aggregation is unintelligible even when supported by such assumptions as that of the existence of eternal atoms along with eternal individual experiencers who serve as permanent loci for the conservation of the effects of past action. So it will be all the less intelligible in a theory in which only atoms of momentary existence are admitted, without any permanent experiencer or any permanent locus for anything. If the Buddhist now claims that it is this causal chain beginning with nescience that is the cause of aggregation, we ask how this causal chain could ever be the cause of aggregation when it depends on aggregation for its own existence?

>>18219852

>>18214605
>Any books that explain Buddhism to Christians?
Journey to the West. Filmed and then dubbed as Monkey Magic and televised in the Commonwealth. Yes the TV show is an authentic religious text. Yes she is a reverse trap. Yes the Bodhisattva has a hot beard.

>>18219493
The end of suffering is the end of individual life unless you as a Buddha (or a select few bodhisattva) choose to continue to remain in the world and teach

>>18214605
I've read The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, it was okayish introduction to the basics. The guy who wrote it took sexually advantage of his pupils though. If you're right kind of christian the way some people wipe their ass is demo worship, but there is resemblance to vajrayana and satanism, mainly in that the both use transgression, while most religions aim towards transcendence. But even then, unlike satanists, vajrayana doesn't transgress for the sake of transgressing.

>>18215780
They argue with people on /lit/

>>18220069
Could paranirvana for everything be achieved by killing all beings in all realms? There would be no chance of rebirth if there are no more living things.

>>18214652
>>18214678
kek you're that same seething faggot who always spams those two books every time someone posts something you don't like
Not very loving kindness of you, my fellow nihi- I mean buddhist

>>18219303
Nothing, it's dumb annihilationism and every time you ask a buddhist to explain they just play word games and tell you you don't understand.

>>18219427
Well accordingly to some elite, birth isn't what we think It is
And has to do with your family
"Sins of their fathers"
Basically it's the blood and the efforts of those before you

>>18219605
If you don't want to be here you have to want nothing from this place
That's basically it
One of the first stages to that is losing oneself
Tantra as enlightenment is surrendered to the flow
Buddhists dissociate mostly, and give
Both of these are absent craving and want
Tibetans basically larp until they become

But there's a ton of ways to use Tantra and Tibetan Buddhism

>>18221444
> If you don't want to be here you have to want nothing from this place
That’s not answering his question, but its just more smokescreen and avoiding giving an answer to the apparent contradiction

>>18220732
You ever notice how when a population gets culled the survivors are tougher? Good luck ending life

>>18219605
>so what is the actual connection between each rebirth?
The connection between each rebirth. What's the actual connection between you and me? The connection between you and me. If you want to giga-materialist, what's the connection between the liver in you now, and the liver that will be in John Smith when you get hit by a car, die, and your liver is donated to him? It's the same liver, but not really because it's been changed by the events that have occurred, and is now in him. There is, however, some causal connection. So too with mental phenomena. There's a causal connection between all mental phenomena, which is why you can get angry and then calm down. Again, to be giga-materialist, the memory in the Buddha's head is the memory in someone else's head. Does this mean that it's "the same" memory? No, it's been changed.

An enlightened being can see the precise relations. All the Buddha has is eyes with no smoke over them. You could do the same if you got enlightened.

>>18217866
No no, he's doing a bit.

>>18219427
Entirely correct.

>>18220732
There's infinite worlds, anon. You can't actually pull this off. In the time it took you to get through half of the infinite multi-verse the remaining half would be teeming with life (possibly from life from one half moving into the other because of the open space).

>>18221444
tantras are not compatible with buddhism, since they fail to trigger insights and dispassion

>>18219128
>4 brahma viharas
That’s a Buddhist teaching, not a Hindu one you dummy

>The brahmavihārās (sublime attitudes, lit. "abodes of brahma") are a series of four Buddhist virtues and the meditation practices made to cultivate them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmavihara

>>18214672
Want to read about Hinduism. Halp?

>>18221713

Here are two books you can start reading about Hinduism right now, after checking them out you could start to read translations of Hindu texts like their scriptures or the prose writings of their philosophers

>Essentials of Indian Philosophy by Hiriyanna
https://archive.org/details/TheEssentialsOfIndianPhilosophy

> Introduction To The Study Of The Hindu Doctrines by Guenon (from the perspective of the Traditionalist school)
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.280367

did you have more specific questions?

>>18221754
>did you have more specific questions?
Not really. I need to start from basics, desu.

Although, my quesrion would be, why Guenon? As in, I have heard of him a lot here but is he even considered a Hinduism scholar among Hindus and other Hindu scholars? He is a complete outsider to Hinduism, right?

>>18221754
What do you think about Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Bagchee?

>>18214605
>explain to Christians
Why bother? You tards will believe anything. )If you can read greek this doesnt apply to you(

>>18221630
You still didnt answer his question of what the connection between each rebirth, you just went on a meandering aside which could be interpreted any number of ways, its funny to watch you flounder trying to answer it
>If you want to giga-materialist
I thought we were talking about Buddhism? So is this you admitting that Buddhism just amounts to materialism then? If not why bring it up at all?
> It's the same liver, but not really
huh.... so its the same bundle of aggregates that’s reborn... but not really?

>>18221798
I’m not familiar with them or their work, but after reading a bit about them I see that they have written about ideological bias in the works of some of the German orientalists and how they used apparently specious reasoning to support some of their hypotheses like the Mahabharata being a Kshatriya text with foreign layers added later by Brahmins. I dont know the details well enough to endorse their conclusions but I know from my own experience in reading Indian philosophy that I myself have seen scholars writing about it make ridiculous claims and substitute editorializing for arguments before; so I’m well aware of and accept that there is much shoddy and biased research out there.

>>18221773
>Although, my quesrion would be, why Guenon?
I personally enjoy his writing, I find that its insightful and he better communicates the mindset of a traditional Hindu than most western scholars or even some westernized Indians writing in a western, secular, ‘critical-school’-indoctrinated manner, the most traditional thing would of course be a text written by a traditional Hindu pandit or what have you, and some of these books are great, but the flip side is that these traditional Hindus are not always fully acquainted with how westerners view the world, so they are not aware of every clarification that it might be important to make when writing for westerners. People have reported his books being among the selection provided by Ashrams in India to westerners before, and Ramana Maharshi also had words of praise for Guenon.

>As in, I have heard of him a lot here but is he even considered a Hinduism scholar among Hindus and other Hindu scholars?
He did not publish his works through academia or involve himself with them really, so taken in that sense of belonging to the academic world I would not even consider him a scholar but rather as an independent metaphysician or “philosopher”. As I mentioned above there have been Indians who have expressed approval of him before. If you are curious at all about perennialism its worth checking out.
>He is a complete outsider to Hinduism, right?
He was not initiated into it but he could read Sanskrit and he displays a deep familiarity with Hindu philosophy in his works, he mostly focuses on Advaita Vedanta but you can still read his books before studying other Hindus schools and it would still be helpful IMO.

>>18222056
Thank fren

>>18214605
>is Christian
>asks about Buddhism
>his first attempt to look at it is to examine a left-hand path synthesis with Tantra
I would be surprised if it didn't look like demon worship to you, anon.

>>18221593
This doesn't answer the question.
>>18221630
>There's infinite worlds, anon.
Is this a Buddhist view or a modern, scientific view? If there are infinite worlds, does that imply an infinite number of beings need to be liberated?

>>18222222
The pores of just one monke contain all the buddha-fields in the universe more numerous than all the bananas in the jungle.

before u get materialist about birth and death just view it as clinging
once you have preference, expectation, want, opinion, etc etc. you are conjuring an identity, and all these hierarchies always collapse at some point

ending the death and birth process is the ultimate surrender
theres no preference u just accept whatever happens to you in front of u
obv its not exactly realistic for where we are in spacetime, tho u can find areas in the world to practice this more practically. its not exactly accessible in the west. death and birth are accepted here and used as a tool for expansion
like i said
if u want off the ride, you have to want nothing from this place. you have to not be averse to whatever comes your way either.
buddhists are a dissociative way to not be averse
tantra practices an active way to not be averse

>>18221836
>what the connection between each rebirth
This was answered in >>18221630.
>n-no i mean what is the discrete thing with a self nature that does the co-
What you're asking for results in an infinite regress. What connects the thing to the connector that connects the thing to the other thing? What connects the thing to the first connector's connector? What connects that connector that connector? Reality doesn't work like this. There is a relationship. Charting out the precise nature of it is irrelevant and doesn't make you stop suffering. Right now, you seethe and write and twist in anger about this. If I tell you "the connector is peepee", will that make you happy? No. You'll just say "UHM ACKTHUYUALLY IT'TH POOPOO!", and just be angrier, more full of dukkha, and more snot will dribble down your eighth chin.

The only one you're hurting is yourself.

>>18222222
It's a traditional Buddhist view dating back to the Flower Garland Sutra (it's a composite work written overtime between 0AD and 400AD). Tl;dr there's a multiverse so there's infinite universes full of, yes, infinite beings in need of liberation.

Someone explain the fundamental principles of tantra to me? I want to see if it's something I want to add to my repetoire or if it's something I'm already familiar with but don't know have a name for.

>>18222577
There are none
It's pure existentialism. At root it is just working with and generating energy
From there it is impregnated by time and methods (tools) to spring forth different sects.
Basic feminine masculine principles, Tantra being pure fem

>>18222577
If u want to better understand, then understand women and children on their terms

>>18223044
Is there any special formula to the rituals they use or do they concoct them by intuiton? Are they divinely inspired or taught psychically by some cosmic Buddha? Do they use scientific reasoning to focus some particular attribute of consciousness and meditate on that? Do they do energy work? Do the practices and ritual be used for anything, but applied to Buddhism, it causes quick attainment?

>>18223053
I can comprehend any perspective, and to get at the fundamental principles of tantra you would want to ponder and samadhi on the perspectives of women and children and their perspective of the world and the myriad dharmas?

>>18222222
witnessed and wasted

>>18223082
Afaik, rituals are energized
It's like language creation
There are what they call "oral traditions" or "passing the lung", but even these were created
To my understanding, the original mantras didn't have "meaning", but the tones would effect our bodies in a certain way so that information was passed and understood. Language still effects us this way.

There may be some specific rituals. I believe the vehicle biases the destination, so how things are ritualized effects the medium and the trance.
Tantra really depends on who is using it, I think.

Anyway any ritual can be created once you know what you're doing.
HOW you come across this knowledge is a totally different subject. I think you have to surrender to femininity.
You know how Jesus said, to reach the kingdom of heaven you must go through me?
I believe it's not just Jesus himself but the idea of sacrifice is what takes you to enlightenment. But, imo, there are many things to surrender yourself to and they will all offer you different knowledge. Like there are many "poles" you can surrender to. "Light" or "dark" being an example.

If you would like something practical, I suggest looking into kundalini.
I've yet to read pic rel but it's been suggested to me.

>>18223082
>Do they use scientific reasoning to focus some particular attribute of consciousness and meditate on that? Do they do energy work?
Tantra is a different type of science/technology than we are used to.
Yes they do "energy work" but even this combination of words has come to mean it's own thing.
It is very existential and energy oriented.
I can't tell you exactly what tantrics do exactly because it depends on the user.
If you ask me, it is like the electricity, the light, the void, the water, and the fire all rolled onto one. From there it depends on who is using it

Also if you can understand pic rel then I think u will be closer to what you seek
This book is all entirely "metaphysics"
U have to truly understand women to get this stuff, but as soon as u think u know, it changes

>>18223082
>causes quick attainment
Tantra is fast because it is no inhibitions
I don't 100% know what it is, no one does. It can be so many things it can be nothing. You will never get to the bottom of it bc you're chasing the fish.
But afaik for enlightenment, there are probably a number of ways to use Tantra
But the one they say "prone to crash" and "fast enlightenment"
Think about what people are doing when they experience enlightenment.
They let go of themselves and they give to others.
Now imagine Tantra as going through every situation. Like doing heroin but not getting addicted. Oh you are scared of having sex with another male? Now you go do that. So I mean you can't cling bc you can't be addicted. You arent afraid of situations because you don't cling to self.
As I said it's like active non-aversion where Buddhists are passive non-aversion.

I do not believe this is the only tantric path to enlightenment but this is what they talk about when they say fast method

>>18223167
I wouldn't say "perspectives" of women and children, bc women and children just act.
They are attuned with themselves and they just flow. There are some biological components but not even those are static ultimately.
Once you are "experiencing" like women and children, u will understand.
Honestly think enlightenment IS Tantra, just that there are different vehicles.

All the "gnosis" is time relative imo
"The tao that can be spoken is not the eternal tao"
Tantra is then nothing, but u will feel it. It's like ur whole body is hooked up to an energy grid like the aether or something. Like you become connected to it and you can pull and push energy around

>>18223288
I practiced kundalini for some time in my younger years and I've modified it based on my own insight, and "compressed" it, if that's a way to describe it, to maintain myself for my physical health in a short amount of time. I had awakening in my teen years where I realized what you can't put it into words, and remembered my eternal vow to teach it to every person, however long it takes, it immediately interested me in Buddhism and I've been studying the sutras ever since. From all that practice I started remembering more and more of my methods. I'm in this lifetime in this fragile and ephemeral form to reacquaint myself with palpable transience and see the perspective of buddha in this world. Vajrayana and tibetan buddhism interests me in their method and seeing how their skill and mine may overlap or not. From these descriptions I have an intuitive understanding. Also thanks for the rec and reply.

>>18223327
Thank you for your reply as well.

>>18223368
Thank you as well, I understand the heart of what you're saying.

>>18223399
I have experience with this, thank you for clarifying my understanding.

Remember anons, there is no learning, only remembering.

>>18223484
to understand tibetan methods you just have to have methods on your biology basically, coupled with imagination

If tantra has power through transgresses norms, would typical forms of stuff like eating meat and sexual deviancy be useless to people who don't come from a buddhist background or other background that forbids them? Also, is tantric suicide a thing? What about things like becoming a warlord or serial killer or something? If there are limits to this stuff wouldn't transgressing them be inevitable and keep pushing things further? It seems kind of like this should all collapse in on itself eventually or lead to a buddhist empire but maybe I'm just misunderstanding how it works.

>>18223834
It doesn't need to be deviancy
Sex can be seen as union. Why I say don't read the trimondi content is because they only understand from outside.
Say you want to increase your connection with someone. Then there is no -logical- reason why you would not have sex with them, even your family.
This is not "sex" the way you think about it because you need to understand that this is without craving nor desire. Sex becomes something else. It is as equal as sitting on the couch with your partner talking then engaging in sex. You aren't "trying to have it", you both just fall into it spontaneously because you are fulfilled by the moment with them, so you don't have preference to get to sex. Just like when you are having sex you aren't focused on orgasm, you aren't focused on not orgasm. You are in some other point in time rather than here and now with your partner. Can you see what I mean? It is purely subjective and improvisational.

It is not "deviancy" to tantric because to tantric, that is a !!!human being!!! This is what trimondi and some Tibetan Buddhists get wrong. They "use" people they view as "foul" as a means to let go of their attachments and hierarchy etc.
To tantric, this is a human being. They already have no negative thought about this human. They have no "disgust", but Buddhist are still averse here.
Sexuality "heals". It is connective. Bodies unify. It is viewed as "sexual deviancy" because sex to tantric is like sniffing butt to dog. Is like handshake.

This is not the only way, Tantra can be used many ways.

>>18223834
Meat eating is used for a point
I believe to enter a predatory state. To impose oneself when it is !!!time!!!
The animal aspect of human is embraced to carry out certain need.
Meat is a vehicle to enter this state.
Food is it's own form of trance
Fast for days and note your awareness
Then eat many sugars and note how u turn into zombie

To suicide
This is just me speaking now
But I think suicide is very high tier wisdom
U see now people do not respect time. They will not let go when they serve their purpose. They will not accept death.
Tantric accepts death. No fear of death. Flirts with death. Very energetic.
We make the "forces beyond" kill us, or we evade them to cheat death. We are still about our self and we lose our agency as a species by putting these things in the hands of higher power.
Imo suicide is a very fem thing.
If we learned to use it spiritually I think it's Like, u know yourself and have fulfilled. Now you take your own life. This way I believe we find more harmony during periods of change.

>>18222413
>Charting out the precise nature of it is irrelevant
only if you don't care about having logically consistent teachings in the doctrine/religion that you follow

It's clear that you don't have an answer, because there is no answer, because Buddhism is nonsense

>>18223834
>What about things like becoming a warlord or serial killer or something? If there are limits to this stuff wouldn't transgressing them be inevitable and keep pushing things further? It seems kind of like this should all collapse in on itself eventually or lead to a buddhist empire but maybe I'm just misunderstanding how it works.

>warlord
All is equal there is only a wheel and then your own will
Buddhist denounces game because Buddhist knows this. Buddhist also knows that if it played one side, it agitates other side too.

Serial killer is equal
U will have to go beyond morality here
Anything can be normalized but there is a cost to going down any path. We and our planet will reflect. Serial killer can be very thrilling. Maybe we like to evade law. Maybe we like being chased and the threat. To these thought about Tantra, reality is a drama. Everything is normalization. We fear death a lot now and we have been in very lawful times.
If people lose fear of death collectively, everything changes.

But anyway, these things are drama. Forces find a way to feed.

>limits to this stuff
There are no limits. No boundaries.
There are just different ways to use it that will have different results. Choice is yours from there. Don't be surprise if reality acts like a mirror tho.
Imo the only true sin to tantric is stagnation.
The self chooses different path based on who it wants to be. I think perhaps different boons? Perks? Must be.

>collapse
My own experience say: Only a problem when it goes too far. Take it too far, then collapse it.
When I asked it about directions or eating fruits.
But I don't think it is ultimate collapse the way you think. Buddhism can be seen like resting or dissociative period.
The only point of tantra is expand. To have a broader experience. Fulfillment.
Like evolution.
Maybe simulation just like to collect data on us so it say "just act!" And agitate other. Lol

Some tantric play bold. Embrace life. No fear of death no inhibitions but accepting of drama.
You can see masculine and feminine like pendulum that swings. Sometimes it swing far in one direction. It is the contrast.
Sometime things are too "chaotic" (a word we don't understand) and so human spirit say "we need organization!"
Sometime things are too static rigid or enslaving and spirit says "let's shake it up"

Buddhist or tantric all is equal just different things doing different things that have different effects and results
None is superior. You must decide for yourself.
Nature is equal. Then perspective create hierarchy. This is the self approaching life.
The kicker is that this is all normalization.
If u had a taste of power or lightning path of enlightenment, maybe your thought about Buddhist changes
Everything is a projection from your current normalize state
U see how they use meat Now?

Eat vegan for few months. Go in relaxed place.
Then hunt a predator animal, ideally with your hands. Eat flesh raw. Note your change. All opinion change

>>18224347
Bodhi is irrational, however once you have it, it makes more sense than anything else and permanently changes your awareness in a massive way. Contemplate that.

>>18224417
>warlord
>All is equal there is only a wheel and then your own will
Like u are averse to warlord
Go look at Tibetan Buddhist art. Look how powerful and ferocious!!! Look at the conquering.
U have to accept yin yang here
Would we evolve/change without catalyst?
Do we just get to pacificity?
Maybe if humans all decide "we don't want to play anymore" ok.
But we do play so...accept all as open to You, if u want. What matter is if the environment is open to it or not. The mass of perspective on a matter.
This is the true "right" and "wrong" it is all time and normalization relative.
Is why it's stupid to judge morals of past with modern lens. If environment is open to It, is fine. Hence why elite own media bc they can engineer right and wrong and then they can do things they want to because there is less of ....what can you call it..like....karmic cost???
These things are based on what has been normalized by the environment. Like collective consciousness type thing.

But even beyond group morality
If man can, he will
Nature is very, very merit oriented.
Sometime the sun just yank us in his direction, you know? Everyone complaining kicking and screaming lol.
Was European colonization bad? Many people say yes but they don't go back to homelands or remove technology from themself.
Maybe they are like warlord only they use different tool ;)

Also I will add
I said only true sin is stagnation
As tantric is active
There may be "consequences" to certain action though. Reality like a mirror.
Some people just enjoy consequence lol.
Tantric at root "work with energy".
U can enjoy anything, even hellfire.
In fact, you can even transmute sensation. I know how to go for run and when my lung burns, I know how to make it feel good. It no longer painful. The sensation itself change. It now feel good.
All those guys who "fight against" the pain (or whatever), no dummy! Enjoy those sensation they are only sensation and the rest is normalized perception. This way u don't waste energy in friction, you make energy from these things and it is generative. Additional.

>>18224426
>it, it makes more sense than anything else
Then you should be able to explain how its logically consistent if it makes sense then....
>permanently changes your awareness in a massive way.
so does a psychotic break
>contemplate that
I prefer logically consistent metaphysics myself

>>18224347
western logic also agree with the impossibility o a true first cause, just like budha Kant and Hume end up renouncing a logical explanation for a first principle(because you just can't) and instead focus all their efforts on ethics
there's limits to logical thinking, that's why most philosophers today see metaphysics as a bad use of logic
in that regard buddha was ahead of the curve by 2000 years

>>18225093
>western logic also agree with the impossibility of a true first cause
No, only a select numbers of westerners have, other western philosophers and theologians have hotly contested this viewpoint and have affirmed that you can indeed have a logical first cause. “Western thought” is not just Kant and Hume you idiot

>>18224653
>I prefer logically consistent metaphysics myself
Ngmi

>>18225126
Philosophers are still projecting themselves
They are discussing a relationship between them (personally or as humans, or any "factioning" in between) and the environment they're experiencing
Even science falls prey to the hubris. Give humans one extra sensory perception and all of science would change.

I agree with Thales and "water as a first principle". Shape is then given.
Or the void, and then there is light. Which is the same as emptiness and then a self.
MT
TM

Like this pic of Kali ma
From the void (her hair) comes her "philosophy"
Philosophy is all identity btw.

>>18225126
>Western thought” is not just Kant and Hume you idiot
the most imprtant part it is
>>18225126
>only a select numbers of westerners have
you're talknig out of your ass, every important philsopher based his work on them
modern logic is build around them
Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Husserl, you name it, all of them build their work around those logical premises
>>18225126
>other western philosophers and theologians have hotly contested this viewpoint
and all of them have failed spectacularly, that's why you study Kant and not some obscure wacko theologian no one knows

>>18225126
>other western philosophers and theologians have hotly contested this viewpoint and have affirmed that you can indeed have a logical first cause.
They can contest all they want. their result is that they have not found it, they have not establish that logic is not a mental circus and they their circus did not change their behavior, ie they remained hedonistic.

>>18223082
>>Is there any special formula to the rituals they use or do they concoct them by intuiton? Are they divinely inspired or taught psychically by some cosmic Buddha?
Tantras are created by hindus, and you cant get any insight with them. It's the hindu who keep spamming his mental masturbation >>18223288 >>18223484
who can't even distinguish buddhism from hinduism and has zero knowledge of indian history.

>>18225126
>other western philosophers and theologians have hotly contested this viewpoint and have affirmed that you can indeed have a logical first cause
name one solid logical theory then, or at least an author

>>18225126
>No, only a select numbers of westerners have
Yeah, like Aristotle, or literally anyone ever who has taken five minutes to think about the subject.

>>18225683
>>18225367
Why bother putting on this long show and dance and a bunch of hackneyed metaphors for what is reborn if you are just going to admit that you dont actually know and then cite western philosophy to make that seem less bad? Just be honest from the beginning next time. Buddhism,
not even once

>>18225777
nice try, this thread is about Buddhism

>>18227254
tibetan buddhism and buddhism are not even remotely the same thing
tantric buddhism is like an oxymoron
its more androgynous and buddhism is more masculine approach

>>18227556
>tibetan buddhism and buddhism are not even remotely the same thing
I didnt say they were

>>18227254
>what is reborn
This was already explained to you. There's no one thing that is, it's a stream of continuity. It's not going to be the same parts that are reborn person-to-person anyways. This is why it's rebirth and not reincarnation.

What are the specific things that convey the continuity between you and your father?

>>18227579
This thread is not about Buddhism

>>18227592
>This was already explained to you. There's no one thing that is, it's a stream of continuity.
A stream is a singular and continuous entity, both upstream and downstream its the same body of water until it ends or merges into another body of water, saying it’s a stream implies that its the same entity that continues over and over which is what you are denying, so you are contradicting yourself.

>>18227637
OP wrote two sentences, the first asked just about Buddhism, the second made a comment about Tibetan Buddhism, it’s not clear if his first comment was asking about books just about Tibetan Buddhism or Buddhism in general. This thread has not limited itself to only talking about the Tibetan type.

>>18227968
>A stream is a singular and continuous entity
Precisely. This is why it is rebirth, not reincarnation.

What are the specific things that convey the continuity between you and your father?

>>18227989
>This is why it is rebirth
Of what, the same skhandas or something else?

> What are the specific things that convey the continuity between you and your father?
This is a false analogy because my father isnt reborn when he dies into me, if you mean to say that the relation between rebirths is like father and son then the entity who dies isn’t really reborn but a new one is created and the previous is destroyed. Then Buddhism becomes silly because no matter what you are destroyed at death anyway and you personally wont be reborn anyway so there is no reason to seek freedom from rebirth.

Because Tibetan Buddhism isn't even close to what the Buddha taught, at best it's a Hindu Buddhist synchronism

>>18228171
you and your father are the same human

>>18227254
nice way of dodging the question

>>18216329
Soul is immaterial doe

>>18229043
If you want to make a thread arguing that first causes are illogical then go right ahead and you’ll most likely be humiliated by more knowledgeable posters than you. Buddhists typically use sophistic methods of argumentation and I have better things to do than defend every type of theology against your sophisms. Let it be noted that no Buddhist has ever refuted Thomism or Vedanta though.
>>18228912
no, we have a different biology, a different mix of genes etc, I have a mix of his and my mothers generic code, while my father has none of my mothers

>>18228764
what if i told you hinduism itself is what buddha taught

>>18228171
You didn't answer the question. What are the specific things that convey the continuity between you and your father? We can do this with any relationship, because you fundamentally don't understand how relationships and continuity work. You're a materialist atheist, so I'm just using a materialist example to make this easy for you.

>>18229104
>hurf durf i know better than aristotle
No, you don't.

>>18217514
>Tibetan: LARPing
>Tantra: conman

They can be used together
There are So, so many ways to use these things.

>>18229221
Yeah I've expressed that numerous times

What's /lit/'s favorite sutra? I like the Vimalakirti Sutra. It's hilarious and at the same time shows that a layman can attain the highest stages of attainment. It also shows the esoteric side of Buddhism as well.

>>18229221
>>They can be used together
This amounts to rejecting the buddha's teaching.

>>18229593
Lotus Sutra easily. I feel like a good amount of mahayana sutras are dedicated to expanding on just one topic that starts in the Lotus and it has pretty memorable parables. My favorite chapter is Devadatta and also the Phantom City chapter.

Vimalakirti is a good choice since religion overall doesn't have enough humor in it.

>>18229866
It's a great sutra. Vimalakirti trolls some arahants for not pursuing the Bodhisattva path in a way that is conductive towards true Buddhahood. For example:

" Then, the Licchavi Vimalakirti thought to himself, "I am sick, lying on my bed in pain, yet the Tathagata, the saint, the perfectly accomplished Buddha, does not consider or take pity upon me, and sends no one to inquire after my illness."

The Lord knew this thought in the mind of Vimalakirti and said to the venerable Sariputra, "Sariputra, go to inquire after the illness of the Licchavi Vimalakirti."

Thus having been addressed, the venerable Sariputra answered the Buddha, "Lord, I am indeed reluctant to go to ask the Licchavi Vimalakirti about his illness. Why? I remember one day, when I was sitting at the foot of a tree in the forest, absorbed in contemplation, the Licchavi Vimalakirti came to the foot of that tree and said to me, 'Reverend Sariputra, this is not the way to absorb yourself in contemplation. You should absorb yourself in contemplation so that neither body nor mind appear anywhere in the triple world. You should absorb yourself in contemplation in such a way that you can manifest all ordinary behavior without forsaking cessation. You should absorb yourself in contemplation in such a way that you can manifest the nature of an ordinary person without abandoning your cultivated spiritual nature. You should absorb yourself in contemplation so that the mind neither settles within nor moves without toward external forms. You should absorb yourself in contemplation in such a way that the thirty-seven aids to enlightenment are manifest without deviation toward any convictions. You should absorb yourself in contemplation in such a way that you are released in liberation without abandoning the passions that are the province of the world.

"'Reverend Sariputra, those who absorb themselves in contemplation in such a way are declared by the Lord to be truly absorbed in contemplation.'

"Lord, when I heard this teaching, I was unable to reply and remained silent. Therefore, I am reluctant to go to ask that good man about his sickness." "

>>18229947
If it were slightly more modern after the third or fourth guy recounting Vimalakirti pwning them in fortnite Buddha would just say "fuck it I'll go see him myself"

Also the goddess trolling the one sexest guy by turning him into a woman was funny

>>18229947
Then, the Buddha said to the venerable Mahamaudgalyayana, "Maudgalyayana, go to the Licchavi Vimalakirti to inquire about his illness."

Maudgalyayana replied, "Lord, I am indeed reluctant to go to the Licchavi Vimalakirti to inquire about his illness. Why? I remember one day when I was teaching the Dharma to the householders in a square in the great city of Vaisali, and the Licchavi Vimalakirti came along and said to me, 'Reverend Maudgalyayana, that is not the way to teach the Dharma to the householders in their white clothes. The Dharma must be taught according to reality.

"'Reverend Maudgalyayana, the Dharma is without living beings, because it is free of the dust of living beings. It is selfless, because it is free of the dust of desire. It is lifeless, because it is free of birth and death. It is without personalities, because it dispenses with past origins and future destinies.

"'The Dharma is peace and pacification, because it is free from desire. It does not become an object, because it is free of words and letters; it is inexpressible, and it transcends all movement of mind.

"'The Dharma is omnipresent, because it is like infinite space. It is without color, mark, or shape, because it is free of all process. It is without the concept of "mine," because it is free of the habitual notion of possession. It is without ideation, because it is free of mind, thought, or consciousness. It is incomparable, because it has no antitheses. It is without presumption of conditionality, because it does not conform to causes.

"'It permeates evenly all things, because all are included in the ultimate realm. It conforms to reality by means of the process of nonconformity. It abides at the reality-limit, for it is utterly without fluctuation. It is immovable, because it is independent of the six objects of sense. It is without coming and going, for it never stands still. It is comprised by voidness, is remarkable through signlessness, and is free of presumption and repudiation, because of wishlessness. It is without establishment and rejection, without birth or destruction. It is without any fundamental consciousness, transcending the range of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and thought. It is without highness and lowness. It abides without movement or activity.

"'Reverend Mahamaudgalyayana, how could there be a teaching in regard to such a Dharma? Reverend Mahamaudgalyayana, even the expression "to teach the Dharma" is presumptuous, and those who listen to it listen to presumption. Reverend Maudgalyayana, where there are no presumptuous words, there is no teacher of the Dharma, no one to listen, and no one to understand. It is as if an illusory person were to teach the Dharma to illusory people.

>>18230005
"'Therefore, you should teach the Dharma by keeping your mind on this. You should be adept in regard to the spiritual faculties of living beings. By means of the correct vision of the wisdom-eye, manifesting the great compassion, acknowledging the benevolent activity of the Buddha, purifying your intentions, understanding the definitive expressions of the Dharma, you should teach the Dharma in order that the continuity of the Three Jewels may never be interrupted.'

"Lord, when Vimalakirti had discoursed thus, eight hundred householders in the crowd conceived the spirit of unexcelled, perfect enlightenment, and I myself was speechless. Therefore, Lord, I am indeed reluctant to go to this good man to inquire about his illness."

>>18230012
Then, the Buddha said to the venerable Subhuti, "Subhuti, go to the Licchavi Vimalakirti to inquire about his illness."

Subhuti replied, "Lord, I am indeed reluctant to go to this good man to inquire about his illness. Why? My Lord, I remember one day, when I went to beg my food at the house of the Licchavi Vimalakirti in the great city of Vaisali, he took my bowl and filled it with some excellent food and said to me, 'Reverend Subhuti, take this food if you understand the equality of all things, by means of the equality of material objects, and if you understand the equality of all the attributes of the Buddha, by means of the equality of all things. Take this food if, without abandoning desire, hatred, and folly, you can avoid association with them; if you can follow the path of the single way without ever disturbing the egoistic views; if you can produce the knowledges and liberations without conquering ignorance and the craving for existence; if, by the equality of the five deadly sins, you reach the equality of liberation; if you are neither liberated nor bound; if you do not see the Four Holy Truths, yet are not the one who "has not seen the truth"; if you have not attained any fruit, yet are not the one who "has not attained"; if you are an ordinary person, yet have not the qualities of an ordinary person; if you are not holy, yet are not unholy; if you are responsible for all things, yet are free of any notion concerning anything.

"'Take this food, reverend Subhuti, if, without seeing the Buddha, hearing the Dharma, or serving the Sangha, you undertake the religious life under the six heterodox masters; namely, Purana Kasyapa, Maskarin Gosaliputra, Samjayin Vairatiputra, Kakuda Katyayana, Ajita Kesakambala, and Nirgrantha Jnaniputra, and follow the ways they prescribe.

>>18230026
"'Take this food, reverend Subhuti, if, entertaining all false views, you find neither extremes nor middle; if, bound up in the eight adversities, you do not obtain favorable conditions; if, assimilating the passions, you do not attain purification; if the dispassion of all living beings is your dispassion, reverend; if those who make offerings to you are not thereby purified; if those who offer you food, reverend, still fall into the three bad migrations; if you associate with all Maras; if you entertain all passions; if the nature of passions is the nature of a reverend; if you have hostile feelings toward all living beings; if you despise all the Buddhas; if you criticize all the teachings of the Buddha; if you do not rely on the Sangha; and finally, if you never enter ultimate liberation.'

"Lord, when I heard these words of the Licchavi Vimalakirti, I wondered what I should say and what I should do, but I was totally in the dark. Leaving the bowl, I was about to leave the house when the Licchavi Vimalakirti said to me, 'Reverend Subhuti, do not fear these words, and pick up your bowl. What do you think, reverend Subhuti? If it were an incarnation created by the Tathagata who spoke thus to you, would you be afraid?'

>>18230032
"I answered, 'No indeed, noble sir!' He then said, 'Reverend Subhuti, the nature of all things is like illusion, like a magical incarnation. So you should not fear them. Why? All words also have that nature, and thus the wise are not attached to words, nor do they fear them. Why? All language does not ultimately exist, except as liberation. The nature of all things is liberation.'

"When Vimalakirti had discoursed in this way, two hundred gods obtained the pure doctrinal vision in regard to all things, without obscurity or defilement, and five hundred gods obtained the conformative tolerance. As for me, I was speechless and unable to respond to him. Therefore, Lord, I am reluctant to go to this good man to inquire about his illness."

>>18229176
>What are the specific things that convey the continuity between you and your father?
I didn't say that me and my father are continuous to begin with.
>because you fundamentally don't understand how relationships and continuity work.
proof?
> You're a materialist atheist,
nice projection you nihilist
>>hurf durf i know better than aristotle
I didn't say that either

>>18230160
>I didn't say that me and my father are continuous to begin with.
Fantastic, so then you see why you and whoever you will be reborn as are obviously continuous.

>>18230176
>so then you see why you and whoever you will be reborn as are obviously continuous.
No, because you haven't explained what makes them continuous. In order for the rebirths to form a continuous stream, there has to be something that passes from one to the next, you've avoided specifying what that is. The father and son example is a red herring because it doesn't involve buddhist rebirth.

>>18230251
>specifying what that is
See >>18227592. You're the one who got upset when the Skandhas got brought up (which isn't a correct assessment anyways because it's not "just the skandhas", it's a stream of continuity of multiple things). The problem you're running into is you're looking for a Self, which is why you reject the continuity between you and your father ("there is no one discrete thing that is transferred father to son, hence there can be no connection").

Which is just demonstrating the ludicrousness of your own position as even if you could find a thing that passes between father and son, it would only ever be a specific thing for each father-son pair, meaning that by your own criteria it wouldn't be anyways for the same reason that you reject rebirth being different for each pair. Your positions are demonstrably absurd. This is the Buddha's entire point: it's not that there is no Self, as if there were an empty hole or something, it's that the entire system in which an Atman exists is entirely absurd and incoherent. The Buddha instead posits an alternative system.

>>18230397
>See >>18227592. You're the one who got upset when the Skandhas got brought up (which isn't a correct assessment anyways because it's not "just the skandhas", it's a stream of continuity of multiple things).
I'm not upset, I just asked if it was the skandhas since you are contradicting yourself by saying there is continuity but then not listing anything which continues, if there is a continuity there has to be something that continues.

>The problem you're running into is you're looking for a Self, which is why you reject the continuity between you and your father ("there is no one discrete thing that is transferred father to son, hence there can be no connection").
No, that's wrong, I reject continuity between me and him in the sense of rebirth or in the sense of the same entity continuing since we are separate entities existing at the same time, there are some things that continue from him to me like some genetic code, but that's not saying we are a continuous stream like you have said for Buddhist rebirth; for a continuous stream means one entity. Me and my father are not one entity so we are not a continuous stream despite certain things continuing from his entity to mine.

>Which is just demonstrating the ludicrousness of your own position as even if you could find a thing that passes between father and son, it would only ever be a specific thing for each father-son pair, meaning that by your own criteria it wouldn't be anyways for the same reason that you reject rebirth being different for each pair.
That's wrong, there are different types of continuity and you are wrongly conflating all of them together so that you can sophistically try to pigeonhole my position, which you don't even know. What do you mean by me "rejecting rebirth being different for each pair"? You are not making any sense

>Your positions are demonstrably absurd.
You have not pointed out a single thing that is absurd about anything that I have said, you've been the one conflating Buddhist rebirth and biological reproduction and trying to incoherently make arguments about one on the basis of the other.

>This is the Buddha's entire point: it's not that there is no Self, as if there were an empty hole or something, it's that the entire system in which an Atman exists is entirely absurd and incoherent.
No it's not, a Self is the only thing that accounts for the unity of our experience. Buddhism doesn't have any good arguments against the existence of the Self,

>>18230462
>a Self is the only thing that accounts for the unity of our experience
Hume and modern philosophy disagree with you

>>18231315
>Hume and modern philosophy disagree with you
All of their arguments are easy to refute, Guenon is right that modern philosophy is almost exclusively garbage. If they actually had good arguments you would have just posted an example argument refuting the Self instead of invoking their authority.

>>18231332
>All of their arguments are easy to refute
do it then

>>18219852
this is the most retarded criticism against dependent origination i ever read lol

>>18219493
karma an existence are synonymous, if you don't have any more karma you cease to exist the moment your body die, the body is also a karmic formation, in the case of an arhat his last karmic formation

>>18216262
Mahakala, originally a hindu diety.
seems like buddhism can't live without hinduism.

>>18231783
and yet you can’t refute his argument or explain what allows dependent origination to exist, how amusing

>>18231457
> Hume also claims that we never directly apprehend the self. Unlike Descartes, he concludes from this that there is no substantial self. In a famous passage, Hume uses introspective awareness to show that the self is a non-substantial “bundle” of perceptions.
>For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I can never catch myself at any time without a perception, and can never observe anything but the perception. When my perceptions are remov’d for any time, as by sound sleep; so long am I insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist. (Hume 1739–40/1978: 252)
This is easy, Hume is not so much arguing against the existence of the Self as he is admitting his ignorance of it.
That we cannot apprehend the Self as an object or consciousness does not disprove the Self, this is actually to be expected because the subject cannot become its own object since these terms are mutually opposed. The Self is the ground of consciousness in which apprehension takes place, of which all apprehension presupposes. When Hume writes “I can never catch myself at any time without a perception, and can never observe anything but the perception” he is BTFOing himself because he is already acknowledging that there is something that witnesses the perceptions, so those perceptions in bundle-form or otherwise are obviously not the Self, since there is something more prior, more fundamental and more inward which observes those perceptions as Hume himself is forced to admit.

>>18232801
>>18232801
>>and yet you can’t refute his argument or explain what allows dependent origination to exist, how amusing
Dependent origination is verified experimentally, sorry to burst your intellectual bubble. Perhaps care more about reality than your fan fiction.

>>18232830
>Dependent origination is verified experimentally,
Can you give one (1) example of this being true?

>>18232887
>>18232830
That is to say, when was it experimentally verified, by whom and how?

>>18232034
>seems like buddhism can't live without hinduism
Buddhism is just the hindu version of Calvinism, and just as retarded.

>>18232899
What i laugh the most at is how the hindus can't solve the problem of evil. And all the NPCs eager to claim to have lots of critical thinking don't even have a come back to this and still prefer to have a narrative about a Hindu or Semite skydaddy watching over their selves, instead of buddhism.

>Many postmodernists hold one or more of the following views: (1) there is no objective reality; (2) there is no scientific or historical truth (objective truth); (3) science and technology (and even reason and logic) are not vehicles of human progress but suspect instruments of established power; (4) reason and logic are not universally valid; (5) there is no such thing as human nature (human behavior and psychology are socially determined or constructed); (6) language does not refer to a reality outside itself; (7) there is no certain knowledge; and (8) no general theory of the natural or social world can be valid or true (all are illegitimate “metanarratives”).

buddhism is postmodernist

>>18230462
>Me and my father are not one entity so we are not a continuous stream despite certain things continuing from his entity to mine.
Then how many things need to be the same? 100%? Well then nothing is ever the same, because everything is in flux. You're constantly being reborn. Oh, shit, that's... Buddhism... because the idea of a Self is incoherent... because everything is changing... fuck... it's almost as if all relationships are just streams of continuity...

>>18233022
Buddhism completely disagrees with points 1, 2, 4 (let's leave "reason" here as intentionally vague), 5, 7, and 8.

6 is correct only in as much as language does not 100% refer to a non-linguistic reality, but it does to some degree genuinely describe reality ("cat" does describe an actual cat to some degree, just not 100%); so, Buddhism disagrees with the actual statement (that language is 100% garbage). 6 is correct in as much as Whig History is completely garbage, but Buddhist thought rejects Whig History and as such the entire point ("science as tool of Progress vs power") as Buddhism rejects "Progress"; tools and technology can be used to, say, reduce the total amount of famine in the world by an arbitrary amount, and the basic processes of doing so line up with the basic processes of looking at the world to end Dukkha, so "science and technology" can actually be used to make the world "better" (again, being intentionally vague) and are not just "instruments of established power".

So, no, it isn't.

>>18233022
True, and it's excellent for enlightenment

>>18232887
well see around 500BC this dude heraclitus noticed that rivers (like everything else) are constantly in flux because their parts are constantly changing. so all we have to do to repeat this discovery is find anything made up of parts (this describes everything) and look at it. the anon not getting sunyata is a nihilistic materialist atheist so we can use a basic-bitch materialist example. he believes that dogs are made up entirely of atoms and only of atoms because shankara said that only people have atmans. is a puppy born two years ago made up of the same atoms as it was two years ago? no, it has entirely cycled through all of the atoms it was born with and has gained new ones.

so when you grow up and realize that there is more to the world than just atoms you can easily see how this view can be extended to things that arent just atoms.

>>18233161
You should reread the Diamond Sutra. Language is a skillful means of communication, which is useful for transmitting information and commerce, but just like how you may have to explain an idea from multiple different angles to get an idea across, you didnt actually give that person an idea, just tricked them into focusing on it, because we all agree to conventionally use the tool of language, despite that the sounds we speak and words we write are just sounds and scribbles. Super useful, but knowing it has nothing to do with reality, which is bodhi.

>>18233022
Reason and logic are just persuasion and math under different names.

>>18233217
The Diamond Sutra does nothing but confuse people too smoothbrained for Oriental monism. If anon is still caught up in things like "Progress" and linguistic accuracy to reality being a binary then stuff like the Diamond Sutra is casting pearls before swine. He, like the atheist that other anon is arguing with, needs What the Buddha Taught and the Heart Sutra. You climb a ladder at the first rung.

>>18231315
Wasn't that humes argument specifically?
All I known through Self therefore subject to self bias

>>18233217
The diamond sutra is what happens when monks try to understand the dharma 800 years after the buddha died. It's garbage.

>>18233217
>despite that the sounds we speak and words we write are just sounds and scribbles. Super useful, but knowing it has nothing to do with reality, which is bodhi.
language will bias all the way down to the tone
its not "just" this or that
mantras, the shapes, sequence, and tones of language will alter our bodies and perception

>>18233504
Very close to understanding

>>18234745
What am I missing

>>18234745
I am also aware that words have been energized culturally and perhaps through some other unifying process like family/blood
Or the language itself becomes shared and anyone who uses it is altering it. All who use it then alter it's "meaning" through some type of shared resonance.
That stuff is pretty fringe to me but some people have made an assertion about shared language having it's effect on people across great spans.

>>18234841
Also some people have been saying that discoveries or happenings?...through the language...or something, they alter our consciousness

Do we join the consciousness of all those whom use that language? Past and present?
Like if i start speaking Spanish, is all the "energy" past and present that all the users have applied to it going to start trickling into me?
The language altering the body and then altering our action, perception. I guess it could be altering the "consciousness" itself and trickling from there but idk how to define that outside of like vibration plus biology.

>>18234745
A master was instructing a group of monks in the forest. He picked up a stick and asked "What is it?" A monk said "a stick", the master called him and idiot and hit him with the stick. A sharp monk said "let me have it and I'll show you what it is", then he hit the master with the stick. He understood.

>>18234932
No.

>>18234808
>>18235013

>>18235013
Advantageous Tools?
I like how that scenario is like a double entendre or whatever
The words give him advantage and the stick being a metaphor for words being a tool
If I'm right

>>18235242
Back to what I was saying with tones and sequence, isn't this utilization of these tools in a different fashion
For instance the tones act to alter us through vibration. Certain music "keys" will hit us an activate us in some way

>>18232801
lol you didn't refute him, you just din't understand his point
that article you just posted din't explained hume theory of the self
yor whole dumb ass repsonse his grounded in a petitio principii,
>The Self is the ground of consciousness in which apprehension takes place
this one
yet as you pointed yourself, you can't probe that, you're incurring in a logical fallacy
thing's like the induction paradox or the problem of causality show the huge amount of problems deriving a self from consciousness bring to the table
next time actually read Hume instead of the sparknotes
>>18231332
>Guenon is right that modern philosophy
Guenon was a know for his illiteracy in respects to philosophy, even Evola criticized him for that

>>18232801
you didn't refute them bro, you just didn't understand them

>>18235242
No. It's as literal as it gets. Stick is a word. To demonstrate what a stick truly is, he hits him with it. A stick is not a stick, and that is why its called a stick.

>>18232801
>the subject cannot become its own object since these terms are mutually opposed

so you're pretty much recognizing there's no self, you just BTFO yourself

>>18225188
Take ur meds

>>18237056
just because the subject does not grasp itself as its own object doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist you NPC retard, if there is only insentient objects and no subject there would be no subjective (pertaining to the subject) experience of anything whatsoever

>>18214691
>My understanding is that Tibetan Buddhism is heavily influenced by the Tantric mindset of "turn poison into medicine", so it uses a lot of things that are traditionally proscribed by Buddhism and, indeed, other religions. This includes orgies, meat-eating, excessive drinking, etc. with metaphysical justifications.
This definitely sounds like demon worship.

>>18237101
Theye are like eyes in space who believe they don't exist cuz they don't have any mirrors to see themselves

>>18237144
I know right? It’s absurd. I can’t tell if some of them are genuinely clueless or whether it’s just that reading so many Buddhist texts had shaped their mind in such a way that they can’t step outside of the box for a moment when thinking about these things, like at a certain point it just became an engrained perspective that they’re unable to conceive of an alternative viewpoint to.

>>18237101
>just because the subject does not grasp itself as its own object doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist you

subject and self aren't the same thing you absolute idiot, that's why you can't understand Hume or buddhist anatman, you're so fucking retarded it's a disgrace, stop readying evola and guenon and read actual philosophy
or at least be free us of your obnoxious ignorance and stay quiet

>>18237104
bruh youre gonna have to let go of this "demon" and "satan" thing to understand this stuff
meat eating- put you in a predatorial state. useful for battle, even ideological
orgies- mass energy + fusion of bodies/unity
drinking- releasing inhibitions for the sake of dissolve or expansion

the tantrics were about wielding materials as potential tools to use for spiritual development. not cowering from lifes potentials but learning to utilize them properly

>>18237101
>if there is only insentient objects and no subject there would be no subjective (pertaining to the subject) experience of anything whatsoever
Why can't a sentient object be both subject and object? Why can a sentient thing only be a subject? Given that you believe that a sentient object can only be a subject, how does anything occur?

>>18237101
subject and subjective are not the same thing
this particular language gets confusing because we will say things like "i'm going to study this subject"
but subjective experience (experience just as an example) means without goals or expectations. just for the sake of. not approaching something with a filter, or less of a filter.

objective is with a point
subjective is without a point
you can also imagine it like;
objective= /\ to a point
and
subjective= \/ from a point (self)

>>18237104
Not really. "Tantra" is a huge field encompassing everything from reading sutras to stretching. What anon is referring to is practices done by certain sects wherein a high-level monk uses some thing that is normally forbidden to attain some benefit (for example, eating meat in order to conquer the desire to eat meat). Only a small portion of tantra actually involves interacting with entities of any kind.

You're essentially arguing that drinking semen as a ritual to Satan is something every Christian does regularly because 95% of Popes have been homosexuals.

>>18237144
no at all, what crazy schizos like you are doing is seeing those eyes on the mirror and saying, this things are eternal, will always be here and the proof of that is that i'm seeing them right now

>>18237361
>(for example, eating meat in order to conquer the desire to eat meat)
the "poisons" weren't always used to "cast out poison"
I feel like a lot of people gloss this over
the tantrics embraced the drama of reality in all its facets. the path you chose was entirely up to you, but they were specifically non-denouncing of life
they sought to utilize the fruits. be they for novelty, as tools, whatever.
what was to be "conquered" was desire itself, but not specifically desire. this word doesn't do justice to the concept. it's the craving or the "drugs" of it. the "active stagnation" and "clinging" that "craving" brings.
so the "fruits" were very much enjoyed, but it was craving that they were trying to overcome. you profoundly enjoy something, the novelty is fresh, but you can let it go at any point, particularly once it is no longer "fruitful" or becomes "like drugs"

they would understand how to utilize these things to have a broader experience. to expand. that was basically one of the core tenets of tantrics, was to expand. "stretch" is not hindered to yoga, it was meant spiritually as well.

some of the more "masculine" sects, like monks or buddhists may have used these things as a means to conquer them, but the tantrics genuinely enjoyed it and then let them go.
you then understand how you can utilize these things as tools if need be
but you are also used to "breaking" or "letting go" of something you become very attached to, which can aid to mimic the enlightenment process of dissolve.

i am also with you that tantra is many things and is no thing, and i understand you said "certain sects", but i just want to add that not all of them did this with the sought intent of conquering, but overcoming craving or being able to "break addiction" (essentially) was part of the process of creation/dissolve, and getting used to transience.
HUGE energy is produced this way, life becomes non-static and always fresh. imo the tantrics were big on energy and immersion.

>>18237412
for anyone curious, fight club absolutely has both tantric and fascist elements about it, and imo, fascism is at root extrapolated from tantra as well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=damCcHgUHQA

>>18237341
co's he's a retard unable to grasp basic metaphysical principles
>>18237345
again you're just doing a petitio principii
you think you're explaining something but just establishing principles without any kind of proof, empirical or rational
you're just saying, i feel like i exist so i must exist, but that goes nowhere really fast, cos you can't provide the actual foundations of said existence, at that point saying i exist, something exist or nothing exist is pretty much the same, if you can't articulate the basis of conciseness then you can articulate the self, and that's why modern philosophy and buddhism don't use the category of self n their ontologies
ttldr; you're an obnoxious retard that think can explain things but actually just begging everyone else to belie their shitty axioms blindly

>>18232920
>What i laugh the most at is how the hindus can't solve the problem of evil.
literally solved in the Gita

>>18237431
>again you're just doing a petitio principii
i'm not the anon you were conversing with
youre way too emotionally involved to have this conversation

>>18237329
“bruh” my ass, you fucking zoomer. You have no idea what you’re talking about or what kind of spiritual wars are being waged since time immemorial. If you fuck with this shit at this point in history, you’re retarded.
>no no you don’t get it it’s an enlightening experience
No.

>>18237361
>You're essentially arguing that drinking semen as a ritual to Satan is something every Christian does regularly because 95% of Popes have been homosexuals.
Ooof I know you believe that was smart

>>18237481
You will never be a woman.

>>18237450
>i'm not the anon
yeah sure

>>18237501
lmao Buddhism is a tranny religion, anon

>>18237399
Cringe

>>18237636
nice comeback, i bet all your friends on 9gag think you're super cool

>>18237679
God you're embarassing

>>18237481
>or what kind of spiritual wars are being waged since time immemorial
and they will continue to because that's the nature of expansion

>If you fuck with this shit at this point in history, you’re retarded.
look man, you maintain your POV for the sake of what you're here to do and that's fine
but there's no sense in trashing on something you're inwilling to understand

"enlightenment" is a self dissolve. that's it. there's many ways to do it. tantra just potently strikes while other methods are more relaxed in their approach.

>>18237703
another great comeback, now go back to 9gag and let the grown ups talk

>>18232920
>What i laugh the most at is how the hindus can't solve the problem of evil
In 'The Problem of Evil and Indian Thought' by Arthur Herman the author examines various philosophies and religions and he concludes that only Hindu Vedanta satisfactorily meets the conditions needed to solve the problem of evil.
>>18233129
It would have been nice to reply to your silliness earlier but I was at work.

>hen how many things need to be the same? 100%?
Only for complete continuity, not partial continuity
>Well then nothing is ever the same, because everything is in flux.
Consciousness is ever the same for one, change is only detected in things through consciousness, but consciousness doesn't detect change in itself, only in other things. Moreover if everything really was in flux then flux itself would be unchanging and the first part of your sentence would be falsified.
>You're constantly being reborn.
No, I'm not. I'm the same person I was earlier today and yesterday
>Oh, shit, that's... Buddhism... because the idea of a Self is incoherent
Except that it's not, Anatta is incoherent because it can't explain why our sentience is undivided and continuous throughout time
>because everything is changing... fuck...
It's impossible to assert that without contradicting yourself (see above)

>>18233215
>well see around 500BC this dude heraclitus noticed that rivers (like everything else) are constantly in flux because their parts are constantly changing. so all we have to do to repeat this discovery is find anything made up of parts (this describes everything) and look at it.
That's not true, that doesn't describe everything, consciousness is partless, no parts can be identified in consciousness as such but only parts in things other than consciousness are witnessed through consciousness. Shankara refuted atomism btw
>he believes that dogs are made up entirely of atoms and only of atoms because shankara said that only people have atmans.
That's not true, Shankara affirms that animals, plants, bugs etc have an Atman
>is a puppy born two years ago made up of the same atoms as it was two years ago? no, it has entirely cycled through all of the atoms it was born with and has gained new ones.
It's consciousness is the same consciousness

Your posts are hardly making sense, they are getting increasingly incoherent. I get though that on some level it's deliberate because when you argue with wild strawmanning it's more tiresome for the opponent to sift through it to address the implied arguments so you use strawmanning like a protective shield instead of being both honest and straightforward.

>>18237894
>>18235313
>that article you just posted din't explained hume theory of the self
So? It's accurately describing that Hume was skeptical of the self because he couldn't grasp it like a tangible object, it doesn't matter if the article that it's from isn't from Hume.com. If you had just posted or summarized one of his arguments instead of just invoking Hume's name I could have responded to that, but no you'd rather just make appeals to authority instead so I ended up pulling some random summary up.
>his grounded in a petitio principii,
No, I'm pointing out that Hume's claim that the self is just a bundle of sense-perceptions is evidently wrong and contradicted by Hume himself since he refers to himself observing those sense-perceptions (If it's not Hume's self who is observing them who is? "Not Hume who is inside Hume"? Give me a break)
>you're incurring in a logical fallacy
No I'm not
>thing's like the induction paradox or the problem of causality show the huge amount of problems deriving a self from consciousness bring to the table
No they don't
>Guenon was a know for his illiteracy in respects to philosophy,
No he wasn't, he offered many incisive critiques of western philosophy.
>even Evola criticized him for that
I consider Evola to be a dilettante when it comes to metaphysics.

>>18235316
>b-b-but I can't see the Self so it doesn't exist!! That "I" that sees isn't myself though.. because.... when I look for it I can't find myself!?!? I know this because my Self thought this through very carefully and refuted itself

>>18237904
>>18237287
>subject and self aren't the same thing
I agree and so does Advaita Vedanta, the Self or consciousness is the ground in which subject-object distinctions take place, the concept of subject ultimately refers by proxy to the underlying Self though, when we talk about the "I" or subject it's ultimately referring to our indwelling Self which is pure consciousness. Subject-object distinctions are imposed onto non-dual consciousness by the mind, the sense of being the subject is relative to the witnessed object, but this distinction only occurs via the light of consciousness/awareness-presence which is immediate, steady and unchanging.

The Self illumines subject-object distinctions through its presence being conceived of by the mind as the subject which witnesses objects, and so in this sense the Self assumes the role of subject and makes things know via the subject instead of through the object. Self/Atman and subject are closely related for this reason and for the sake of brevity the latter can sometimes be used a shorthand for the former even though they are not strictly equivalent; and some things affirmed about the subject are true of the Self. Without a subject there is no knower of objects, the same is true of Atman/consciousness. The subject is mutually opposed to objects and so to say the subject is its own object is a contradiction, similarly the Atman does not know itself as its own object but rather it has immediate, intuitive and continuous self-revealing knowledge of itself in a way that is prior to subject-object distinctions.

What are your reasons for considering the Self and subject to be separate?

>that's why you can't understand Hume
what do you mean?
>buddhist anatman
Oh yes I do, that's how and why I'm able to explain why it's nonsense
>you're so fucking retarded it's a disgrace
kek
>stop readying evola and guenon and read actual philosophy
I do, but to play devils advocate for a moment, why bother when the Hindus already solved metaphysics and when Guenon refuted modern philosophy?
>or at least be free us of your obnoxious ignorance and stay quiet
but then you would be free to indoctrinate hapless anons into your foolish and sophistic nihilism, and I have too much empathy for my /lit/-bros to let that go unchecked. Plus, it's actually entertaining for me to refute Buddhists and watch them sputter. It brings me great amusement.

>>18237907
>>18237341
>Why can't a sentient object be both subject and object?
"Sentient object" is a contradiction in terms, because objects only appear to sentience as things opposed to it and as qualitatively different from it. Sentience is not an object, period.
>Why can a sentient thing only be a subject?
Sentience is non-dual and prior to the distinction of subject and object, but using the shorthand way (see the distinction explained above) of considering sentience as the subject, only a sentient thing can be a subject who knows objects because insentient things don't have the capacity for subjective experience, insentient things don't have any knowledge. Or to use a different terminology to make the point more clear, only a conscious being can be conscious of things (objects).
>Given that you believe that a sentient object can only be a subject, how does anything occur?
No that's wrong, sentience is not an object, "sentient object" is an oxymoron. "Things occurring" are just subject-objects appearing within and being illuminated by non-dual self-revealing consciousness/sentience; the metaphysical answer that is the most logical is that these things are occurring because of the power of this consciousness, which Hinduism teaches is God.

>>18237345
Subjective has multiple meanings, in some senses it can refer to the subject,

>: peculiar to a particular individual : PERSONAL
>i.e. subjective judgments

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective

>but subjective experience (experience just as an example) means without goals or expectations
According to the definition above subjective can be used properly in the sense of (that which is) "peculiar to a particular person" (or subject), i.e. like one's experience is subjective insofar as it is peculiar to the subject that is oneself.

>>18237399
>no at all, what crazy schizos like you are doing is seeing those eyes on the mirror and saying, this things are eternal, will always be here and the proof of that is that i'm seeing them right now
Wrong, no empirical evidence can be found of consciousness ever changing or of it being produced. That implies but doesn't automatically prove that it exists as unchanging and unproduced, i.e. eternal. Hinduism accepts it on the basis of scripture that the "eye" is eternal, although they successfully shoot down every argument that attempts to prove that it isn't. But that's not the same as believing that it's eternal just because its seen in the mirror.

>>18237431
>co's he's a retard unable to grasp basic metaphysical principles
LOL, says the person who wants to pretend that a beginningless cycle of contingency (co-dependent origination) can exist just because (which is refuted by the PSR), also see >>18219852

>>18237904
>>you're incurring in a logical fallacy
>No I'm not
yes you are

>>18237917
*"Things occurring" are just subject-object distinctions occurring

>>18237918
Well then, demonstrate what it is then anon if you are so confident that I am making one

>>18237907
>but then you would be free to indoctrinate hapless anons into your foolish and sophistic nihilism, and I have too much empathy for my /lit/-bros to let that go unchecked. Plus, it's actually entertaining for me to refute Buddhists and watch them sputter. It brings me great amusement.
then maybe try to form some real argument instead of this cheap sophism, cos there's no way anyone can take you seriously with shit like this

>>18237969
>then maybe try to form some real argument instead of this cheap sophism
maybe you should read a dictionary first, so you can learn that sophism refers specifically to arguments and the lines of mine that you just quoted are not an argument but were just me explaining my motivation for doing things, hence that cannot possibly be considered sophism

can you guys take this highly irrelevant argument somewhere else
you're clearly not changing each others minds or coming to a conclusion

>>18238018
>can you guys take this highly irrelevant argument somewhere else
It’s relevant to the topic of Buddhism/ eastern philosophy which this thread is about. Read a medieval text from India and you’ll see some of these exact same points argued about.
>you're clearly not changing each others minds or coming to a conclusion
I know and I’m okay with that. I’m not arguing to convince the other anon, but am arguing for a combination of my own amusement and for the purpose of demonstrating to lurkers which is the correct view so that they can be dissuaded from nihilism and so that they wont fall for someone else trying to gaslight them about the existence of their own consciousness. I consider in leu of any contrary evidence that the other poster is a lost cause who is beyond saving, he is also the same person who is often found in philosophy-of-mind threads arguing that consciousness is either a) not a thing) or b) reducible to matter, I can tell because he recycles the same arguments and writes similarly in both kinds of threads.

>>18238198
>Read a medieval text from India and you’ll see some of these exact same points argued about.
Yeah and one day you'll stop caring about fiction and care more about reality.

Since you hate practice and prefer to stay an impotent reader, then you have no say about buddhism.

>>18238198

>Read a medieval text from India and you’ll see some of these exact same points argued about.
Yeah and one day you'll stop caring about fiction and care more about reality.

Since you hate practice and prefer to stay an impotent reader, then you have no say about buddhism.

>>18237949
i already told you, a petitio principii

>>18237412
>>18237424
Fight club is piece of shit film by 90s atheists who are obsessed with power and doing another sterile revolution.

>>18238198
>purpose of demonstrating to lurkers which is the correct view

if you think you can convince anyone with those schizo arguments you're actually insane, you only repeat again and again that subjectivity equals the existence of the self as an eternal being, dodging all the plethora of problems that simplistic view of being entails
that shit was already debunked 2500 years ago

>>18235013
>>18235153
this passes as insight for the 20 yo atheist

>>18237412
>imo the tantrics were big on energy and immersion.
The tantrics are gurus who can't understand buddhism.

>>18219852
>Now, we have already shown in the course of our criticism of the Vaisesikas
Vaisesikas are hindus relying on the vedas so they embrace only rituals and reject karmas and rebirth since those are not in the vedas.
You really suck at Indian history.

>>18238511
>then you have no say about buddhism.
Buddhism has already been debunked, most notably by Sri Shankaracharya (pbuh), that’s why most people in India abandoned it ages ago

>>18238515
Yes but you havn’t explained how, merely involving the name isn’t enough, you would actually have to show which claim or argument of mine leads to that, which you haven’t done, just like with Hume you prefer to vaguely invoke things without backing it up, and since you are known for ridiculous strawmanning none of this can be trusted so you actually have to substantiate claims like “hurr durr you’re making a logical fallacy” if you want them to be taken seriously, you’ve already strawmanned me once again already

>>18238963
>you only repeat again and again that subjectivity equals the existence of the self as an eternal being, dodging all the plethora of problems that simplistic view of being entails
Again with the strawmanning, I never said that the existence of subjectivity proves that the self is eternal, all I said was that there is no empirical evidence that can be found of consciousness changing, being produced or being destroyed.

>>18239585
>You really suck at Indian history.
That passage you quoted from was written in the 8th century, I didn’t write it, and the author of it was well aware of what doctrine the Vaisheshikas hold to, English is not your first language right?

>>18220716

The Yungpseuda School

READ FOUNDATIONS OF BUDDHISM
YOU MIGHT GET LOST IN ABSTRACT DEBATES BUT ITS WORTH READING YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE BASICS

>>18237917
You didn't answer the question. If, as you say, sentient object can only be a subject, then how does it every become an object? How can two sentient objects ever interact? How can a sentient object ever do anything?

>>18238530
K dude I never said it was profound art I said it demonstrated tantric elements

>>18214672

Theism is for people who don't believe in themselves enough and need something to justify their existence. virgins who need to feel that everything is beautiful and need to delude themselves that there is an omnipotent being looking out for them. its like a son begging for a father that never showed up to show up. Buddha never really denied the existence of God either, he just simply said he didn't know and the only thing that matters is that we are in this samsara and need to escape this cycle of suffering. Salvation in Buddhism, at least Theravada, is your own and you don't need to pray to some skyman in the sky and hope that's he kind to you. Hinduism is for virgins who need to console themselves by saying they will one day be with their one God. And people who need to listen to music, recite mantras to feel better about themselves.

>>18240178
>Theism is for people who don't believe in themselves
Ironic that a Buddhist would write this
> is your own and you don't need to pray to some skyman in the sky and hope that's he kind to you
In Advaita Vedanta enlightenment is not attained through God's grace, although in some other schools of Hinduism it is
>he just simply said he didn't know
I guess he wasn't omniscient then like Buddhists claim

>>18240178
> thinking you are above God
Imagine being so deluded and unclear of mind!

>>18240178
>bro, just believe in urself bro
ridicule egotism

>>18239939
>You didn't answer the question.
I did, but I did so in a way that involved pointing out that the question is based on the wrong premise, so it would have been a mistake for me to answer the question in terms of how you phrased it. I can elaborate though if what I said was unclear.

>If, as you say, sentient object can only be a subject, then how does it ever become an object?
Sentience is not an object, which has to be made clear before I can proceed to answering your question, which is about sentience. One sense of object is a "physical object delimited by spatial conditions". Another sense of object is "that which appears in opposition or in contrast to the subject" as in subject-object distinctions for example.

In both of these senses, sentience is not an object. Sentience or consciousness is not a physical object which can be measured and grasped; so in this sense sentience is not an object. Nor is sentience an object in the sense of that which appears to the subject, since sentience is the knowing entity to which "subject" refers; all objects appear *to* knowing entities, but the very awareness of that entity, which it possesses as its essence, does not appear to it as an object like other objects do, just as the eyeballs sight reveals other things instead of the act or function of seeing itself being seen as an object by the idea like the visual appearances of physical objects are.

So, for the above reasons, "sentient object" is an oxymoron, a contradiction-in-terms which doesn't actually refer to anything, it doesn't exist. You can use it in a loose or figurative sense to refer both to the sentience inside a living being and the physical body of that living being as a collective aggregate spoken of as being together, but in doing so you are lumping together an insentient thing with sentience; a human body for example is not actually a sentient object but its an insentient object existing in a seeming association with sentience (consciousness).

To answer the second half of that question about "how does it ever become an object?" The answer is that it doesn't, sentience does not ever become an object in either of the two ways listed above because it's not ever a physical object that can be measured or interacted with, nor does it ever appear in opposition to itself, as an object opposed to the knowing subject. Only insentient things can be objects and appear as objects to sentience.

>>18240178
>he just simply said he didn't know
You've never read a single primary Buddhist text.

>>18240388
>>18239939
>How can two sentient objects ever interact?
As I have explained, "sentient object" is a meaningless term which doesn't refer to anything, so I have to assume you are asking about how does sentience (associated with a body) interact with another sentience (associated with another body). The answer is that it doesn't.

The literal meaning of "interaction" is reciprocal action or influence, if the relation isn't reciprocal in the sense of impacting or producing a change in both parties involved then it's not an interaction because it lacks reciprocity. So for example when the sun emits beams that warm the earth, that warming of the earth is not an interaction between the earth and the sun because the sun is not effected or changed by that. Whether those beams hit the earth or continue indefinitely in space, either way it produces no change in the sun.

So there is never any interaction between sentience and other things, either objects or the sentience of other people, because there is never any change in sentience itself that would make it into a reciprocal interaction (which would affect or produces a change in both parties). Instead, sentience is just aware of things while its essential nature as the presence which is aware of things is not changed by variations in the things appearing to it.

If you ask "If sentience does not interact with anything, how do living beings who possess sentience do anything?" The answer is that volition (will) is separate from sentience/consciousness/awareness and volition is what impels the mind and body to action. So even though sentience is separate, unaffected and does not ever have an interaction with anything, the willpower residing in the mind is what impels the body to action. Sentience is aware of will and the body and mind without exercising willing control them. People often superimpose volition, doership and agentship onto consciousness though and make the mistake of thinking that their consciousness is a willing agent that acts, instead of realizing that it is the luminous presence to which the mind and its volition appear as something separate from sentience.

>How can a sentient object ever do anything?
This is explained above, sentience doesn't ever do anything but things simply appear to it and are known by it. Volition (which is not sentience) is what does things and which allows the body to do things.

>>18240388
*seen as an object by the eyeball like the visual appearances are

>>18240394
>>18240388
>The answer is that it doesn't.
So then there's absolutely zero point to any of this because nothing actually happens. There's no mental activity in any meaningful way. The atman you posit ends up becoming entirely pointless because it's not actually necessary for anything. It's just a defense of p-zombies: an entity without a Sentient Object is identical to an entity with a Sentient Object. All you're suggesting is that these Indian P-Zombies are a step further in that a P-Zombie itself can't tell that it's a P-Zombie.

This sort of incoherence is why Shankara's thought never took off in India. If you want an actual Monist, why not look into Ramanuja? Unlike Shankara, he has an actual workable theory to explain how the mind works.

>>18217514
>Tibetan buddhism: method acting
>Tantra: improv
i want to expand upon this a bit

when they say "craving" and "clinging" and "lust" are problems in things like that, that's not quite hitting the mark
the problem is that you are somewhere else. you are not present. you are not experiencing transience.
so you can be present in engaging in lust
but say if you are chasing orgasm or something, you are no longer present, you are somewhere else
when you can have a "subjective experience", you can experience this transience
anyone who has done improv will know a similar feeling because you must be very present
the tantric way is, imo, the fem way to enlightenment, and you can probably see why then they seek out more stimulating situations, because it causes them to be present and experiencing transience. in the moment. you will know what it means when you experience it. you feel alive.
the rest of the time we are walking around in our heads, somewhere else, always going somewhere. we are not being.
when we are not being less, we are less attuned and attentive to what we're feeling or whats going on around us.
so the "method acting" comment becomes like you are having a semi subjective experience because you are either growing in some specific way (so you have a filter), or you are focused on a specific point and everything is to grow that thing, but it, imo, is seen as temporary.
you then are more developed so when it comes time to shatter this filter, you can have a more immersed experience while engaging in transience.

let go of your thoughts. especially during fasting periods. stop "going" somewhere. you will start to understand transience because you will become immersed.
usually our bodies are stressed and it causes body dissociation. or we are satiated and it sucks us out of immersion through pacificity. or our environment forces us to consistently adhere to it

>>18240394
>>18240388
>i am an npc and am not conscious
you didnt need to write fifteen paragraphs of gibberish to say that lmfao

>>18240440>>18229221
>>18217514
>>18240440

>>
>when they say "craving" and "clinging" and "lust" are problems in things like that, that's not quite hitting the mark
>the problem is that you are somewhere else. you are not present. you are not experiencing transience.
>so you can be present in engaging in lust
>but say if you are chasing orgasm or something, you are no longer present, you are somewhere else
>when you can have a "subjective experience", you can experience this transience
No, This is not buddhism at all. buddhism doesnt give a shit about ''being present''. Bhuddhism is about insights into what is the root cause of dukkha. Tanha is the root cause, so to remove dukkha, tanha must be removed. And tanha is removed by seeing the aggregates as they are, ie as conditioned, ie as dukkha, ie as not self. The way to get this insight is to do sati sampajanna.

In buddhism, being ''present'' is just doing non buddhist abortions, called ''being in the here and now'', and the buddha shits on this calling it ''not practice for effacement'', because there is no sati in this.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.008.nypo.html

At least try to read one goddamn sutra in your life for fuck sake.
And your tantra crap has no place in the buddhist method.

>>18237481
>spiritual wars are being waged since time immemorial
Fucking chr*stfags. Do you want fanfics or do you want answers?

>>18240431
Basically everything you said is wrong

>So then there's absolutely zero point to any of this because nothing actually happens.
Things do happen, the phenomena that occur as known/witnessed images to consciousness are what happens, why would you assume otherwise?
>There's no mental activity in any meaningful way.
That's not true, mental activity is part of the phenomena that are known by consciousness, that doesn't make it non-meaningful.
>The atman you posit ends up becoming entirely pointless because it's not actually necessary for anything.
That's not true, it's necessary to have a Self/Atman of pure knowing consciousness for us to know things and to have an undivided unity in our experience of things, which we do have.
>It's just a defense of p-zombies: an entity without a Sentient Object is identical to an entity with a Sentient Object.
That's not true, a p-zombie is somebody with no inner conscious experience, what I'm talking about is the opposite of that since the Atman as pure consciousness is the locus where conscious experience takes place. The Buddhist model of mind more closely resembles a p-zombie. As I've explained already "sentient object" doesn't mean anything just like "filled emptiness" or "non-existent existence" don't mean anything.
>This sort of incoherence is why Shankara's thought never took off in India.
That's not true, the three main branches of the Dashnmi Sampradaya have centers all across the length and breath of India and Advaita has been very influential throughout Indian philosophical history as most Indologists will readily admit. If you mean "took off among the masses" that's by design because it's an initiatory esoteric doctrine which is aimed at a spiritual elite and which excludes the masses by design.
> If you want an actual Monist, why not look into Ramanuja?
I have looked into Ramanuja, I don't fully accept his teachings because among other reasons I'm not fully comfortable with compromising the transcendence of God by equating him with physical objects or matter; and I don't find it logical to say as Ramanuja does that God is either a) comprised of parts or b) eternal but portions of Him are subject to change in the form of motion etc. I dont criticize others for following him though but I'm just not super enthusiastic about him. I view him as a more normie-friendly version of non-dualism which makes concessions for the popular masses, although of course a Vishishtadvaitin might disagree.
>Unlike Shankara, he has an actual workable theory to explain how the mind works.
Shankara's theory is workable, what do you mean by that? You have not explained why Shankara's theory is not workable.

>>18240530
>>i am an npc and am not conscious
That's the Buddhist position, the Advaitin position is that you are pure consciousness and that the mind and body are not you but rather that they appear to you as something which is not you

>>18240592
Again I am not talking about Buddhism
I've distinctly prefaced Tibetan Buddhism and Tantra
You have your methods that gather insight and that's fine. It's not the only way.
Enlightenment itself is infinite. Beyond Buddha is possible. You much wouldn't experience that if you didn't expand.

>>18240603
I do like the Vajrayana idea about the cosmic war between Dharma and Abrahamism. It's a rather neat answer to the whole "if your religion is true, how come this other religion converted some group of people who follow your religion?" thing.

>>18240625
Star with What the Buddha Taught, then read the Heart Sutra.

>>18240625
>That's not true, a p-zombie is somebody with no inner conscious experience
so an advaita vedantin.

>>18240592
>And tanha is removed by seeing the aggregates as they are, ie as conditioned, ie as dukkha, ie as not self.
also self becomes the compounding of your efforts
so i assume you get more insight when you go back and ACT
even being led to a buddhist path is conditioning. a buddhist is still taking preference and bias

If there is no soul what reincarnates?

what does beyond existence and none existence even mean?

How is nirvana any different from the atheist idea of nothing after death

>>18214691
>Traditional Buddhism rules out sex, drinking, astrology, black magic, browsing /h/ and /x/, etc. from the get-go.
kek

>>18240818
>If there is no soul what reincarnates?
Precisely. If you want an actual answer, nothing. Buddhism rejects reincarnation, it posits rebirth. What is reborn? The parts that make up what we call you.

>what does beyond existence and none existence even mean?
Precisely. If you want an actual answer, it's a transcendent state and as such can only be described through metaphors and poetry or direct experience. This means you have to actually DO something if you want to find out what it's like.

>How is nirvana any different from the atheist idea of nothing after death
There is continuance in Nirvana. The how of that continuance is where the detail lies.

>>18240716
>Star with What the Buddha Taught, then read the Heart Sutra.
I have already read Rahula's book and it was nihilist garbage, also you've already spammed that once in this thread, see >>18220786

>>18240726
No that's wrong, because the Atman in Advaita Vedanta is the innermost consciousness to which experience is presented, Buddhism doesn't admit any such innermost experiencer but Buddhism just says that there is just thoughts and sensations without an abiding consciousness which knows them, i.e. a p-zombie. A p-zombie's brain may have thoughts and sensory perceptions but the p-zombie has no abiding consciousness which knows those thoughts just like Buddhists say it doesn't exist.

>>18240905
Buddhists are unable to name anything that continues into Nirvana, and they they contradict themselves by saying that there is continuance, if you want to say there is continuance you have to identify what continues in order for it to be logically consistent, otherwise it's nonsense.

>>18214605
I tend to think explaining any other religion or supernatural belief system to the average Christians (or any Abrahamic faith) is futile because a binary thinking of "This is A: demonic/Satanic, or B: Holy" is the foundational framework of viewing the world.

>>18240966
>>18237104

>>18214605
Why do you need books specifically for christians? Just read the pali canon

>>18240726
>>18240716

Even the scholar of Buddhism Mark Siderits (author of Buddhism As Philosophy) admits that the Buddhism position on mind is equivalent to a p-zombie, that's why he titled this article that he wrote here "Buddhas as Zombies: A Buddhist Reduction of Subjectivity"

https://philpapers.org/rec/SIDBAZ

All the quarreling and dishonesty in this thread would stop if everybody in it experienced enlightenment. It's great.

>>18240716
> Vajrayana idea about the cosmic war between Dharma and Abrahamism.

Where can I read up on that?

>>18241043
A hypomanic episode is not enlightenment, avoid becoming deluded.

>>18241122
>t. hasn't experienced enlightenment

>>18241122
It's genuinely impossible to understand until you have enlightenment. If any of the writers of the Bible or Jesus had it, it would explain their convictions 100%. It feels like God personally touched you and showed you his true nature, it feels like meeting every Buddha at once in all universes and all times and singing om mani padme hum in great harmony forever, it stops words, erases time, shatters illusions and you see the perfection and oneness of the entire universe. Your body feels light and you get the giggles for a year straight as you're stuck in blissful rapture and you see the same thing in everybody else, they just don't realize it yet.

Up until you die, which is just an illusion that doesn't bother you any more, participating in this world is just for fun, and every waking moment is poetry of the highest order. Everything is a grand celebration.

Is it true that the Buddha said only Brahmins and Kshatriyas can be Buddhists?

>>18240949
See >>18240716

>>18241279
>in great harmony forever, it stops words, erases time, shatters illusions and you see the perfection and oneness of the entire universe. Your body feels light
this
your body feels LIKE light. you feel like light
it feels energetic. blissful

>>18240205
>>he just simply said he didn't know
he kinda said it wasn't important rather than an epistemic claim

>>18240391
True, buddha talks with the hindu manifestations of god a lot and they often prostrate themselves before him and praises him

>>18241095
It's Kalachakra stuff. There's a book, Kalacakratantra, that goes over this. It's also got a lot of stuff that could be used as a justification for war if you take it as something other than an esoteric spiritual manual (which many have). I BELIEVE it also goes over the specific prophesy of Islam swallowing all of the world except Tibet, from which Buddhism shall lead a holy war out of to reclaim the world from ruin. That might be in the Vimalaprabha, though.

>>18240949
>>18241040
Sounds like cope for being a hylic who can't find his atman. I'm sorry to inform you sir, but you've been retroactively refuted.

>>18241295
No, anyone can. All sentient beings can become Buddhists. Something like 40% of his original students were Brahmins, 30% were Kshatriya, and the remaining 30% were split evenly between the two. Having said that, traditional Theravada reckonings of prior historical Buddhas only have them as being Brahmins or Kshatriyas (there are a few whose caste was unknown, however).

>>18241351
The Buddha is bros with Hercules and Indra, and is good friends with Krishna.

>>18241379
How does one do a hercules dharmapala puja? does anyone know?

>>18241279
>>18241329
How did you get enlightened?

>>18241587
I was contemplating my eventual death and suddenly fully realized transience and then my soul exploded.

Practicing Dhyana (look up absolutely everything about it that you can find), or also some Mahayana Chinese and Japanese Sudden schools like hui-neng, reading koan, etc, I think have the highest chance of causing someone spontaneous awakening.

When I started studying buddhism, I saw that all the virtues buddha preached, as well as all the practices and buddhist logic and philosophy all intellectually prepare you to have this experience to increase the chances of it happening, but it is truly random when or if it happens to you. It's not excessively rare, however, many people pursuing Buddhism end up having it at some point.

>>18241587
I am second anon and I've been talking about Tantra ITT
I want to state there are many paths, I am far from that state now, and the state is infinite

Mine come from being in a relationship with someone very loving. A very beautiful soul. She had a wild side too but ultimately such a ray if sunshine in my life.
I was not doing well and did not treat the relationship well.
Once we broke up (she cheated), she basically inverted everything that I was, what I stood for, etc. It wasn't like...intentful just natural.
She did everything under the sun that was just "wrong" to me at the time.

I begun down this path of contempt, pain, love, anger, hatred. I had very malicious thoughts for someone else in her life. Very extreme emotions.

She started spiralling bad but I was still angry and in pain. I was just focusing in myself. It was like experiencing horror to me the things she was doing.
I then visited my mother for Xmas who lives in a very serene place. I come from a single mother and we are close.
Because of this environment with less stress (my place was in industrial area, stress of rent, still in the same apartment as my ex and I lived in, now 8 months later), I think I was able to explore it a but more without those sorts of other stress chains.
I told my mother what was happening and she said "it sounds like she's in pain"
And at that moment I let go of myself and my feelings and I began to understand her and what she was going through.
From there it was like an explosion I can't even begin to express it. I started to understand perspectivism, how language and thoughts bias us. Words shattered from my mind and I became pure sensory and present.
I felt like light I felt blissful. This carries for awhile I became very self aware, and aware of environment impact on me. I went into a store and a lady put a shopping bag in my hand and I felt how it "activated" me into this shopping state.
This went on for probably a week or two.
I was so present and in the now, outside of myself, giving to others things that were for them specifically. Very outside "myself" but still acting through myself.

I would spend a lot of time in nature. I asked so many questions and was given so many answers. It was like as soon as I asked the question, The answer was being layered on top.
And of course these are somewhat specific to me but some of them are bigger questions and answers that are beyond me or my situation.

The experience itself is "nothing" but pure bliss. Words and thoughts escape. You feel transience and you feel life is happening. Being written as we Go, not automatic like we feel now, but actively altered on the go.
From that state you can like...communicate. what you are communicating with idk. Nature. Your blood and all it's knowledge. Spacetime. Something acting through nature. I don't know.
But that's where "wisdom" comes from.
The state itself is truly empty and unbiased aside from bliss. Then YOU enter it

>>18241780
It's like in understanding this person and why she did these things, it's like I became her. It's like her "soul" fused with mine and now many of her characterists stick with me.

But anyway I think there are many ways to reach this state and you will know because it will feel like an explosion of bliss and you will experience transience.
I think the vehicle biases the destination.
So the state if enlightenment is the same, but different people approach it through different means and are given, or create, different knowledge or understanding.
One thing that is common with my experience that others say too is "help others reach enlightenment"
There are some commonalities but it's not the same for everyone
Hence why Buddha say find your own buddhahood

I don't believe enlightenment is like a "level" but a spectrum

Go out into nature and let go of words. Try fasting for a day or two.
You Will get some degree of taste foe this state. You will feel a bit blissful and experience some transience and you may gather some insight
I think this is what it means to "act in accordance with nature". Like the state will guide you through bliss.
The more places you know to find and conjure this bliss through certain action, I think, the more you will be able to experience a "higher state" of enlightenment or, imo more to the point, enlightenment with a higher volume.

>>18241780
Time slows way way way down. You will know when you experience it. Time doesn't even exist here just change in state and the relative rate at which.
There is so much I can say about it but ultimately I think you are just letting yourself go
Jesus says kingdom of heaven through me
It's sacrifice of self.
How you self dissolve and in what direction, I think, is what offers you different wisdom and insight.

>>18241392
Hercules was considered to be the same as Vajrapani, so I suppose you could just swap the names.

>>18243095
Maybe make a combination of the homeric hymn and vajrapani

>>18214605
Go to a Buddhist.

>>18241699>>18241587>>18241780


getting enlightened is not random and mahayana and tantras are not based on renunciation so you cant get enlightened with those. Buddhism is and its jhanas are based on renunciation only.

>>18241379>>18241351

>>The Buddha is bros with Hercules and Indra, and is good friends with Krishna.
No, Indra is not enlightened, like any other hindu god.

>>18241329>>18241279

>>your body feels LIKE light. you feel like light
Yeah so it's not buddhism. Nirvana is not luminous consciousness.

Stop spreading brahmin crap.

On a related note, is there a recommended "realpolitik" history of Buddhism? I've been trying to find a history of buddhism as institutions and political entities but pretty much every single book I can find is almost exclusively the teachings and philosophy with history providing context instead of the other way around.

>>18245197
how many times do i have to say this
i have specifically prefaced over and over again this is not buddhism

i didn't even have some kind of established "method" to approach enlightenment
it just happened
it was spontaneous
it was both energetic/light/bliss, as well as "gnostic" in that i was receiving wisdom

stop being so dogmatic

>>18245197
Stop being schizophrenic about relgious sectarian fanwars?

>>18245184
renunciation isn't the only path to enlightenment and what people fail to acknowledge is TIME
i can spend time distant and unattached from these things and still achieve these states
but things go on

yes enlightenment can be random
the state of bliss, love, and "knowledge", self awareness
EVERYTHING buddhists or any enlightened talkers discuss, all of that was present. i don't care about what rules you say are necessary to get there. you are talking about ONE METHOD and your sacrifice (renunciation) is particular aspects like life itself, therefore you will come to different knowledge.
it is still the same state of enlightenment. the same "feeling", love, bliss, light. you still receive great "knowledge"

all that matters is a "sacrifice"
buddhists "renunciation" is a "sacrifice"
jesus said "kingdom of heaven...through me"
the implication is that self surrender is necessary to enter the state of enlightenment, but how you self-sacrifice, surrender, in what direction, to what, will change the knowledge you get

this is what all enlightened thinkers, imo, miss out on
is that there are different paths and methods into sacrifice and you will receive "high knowledge" in all of them, but they are different
the state is the same. the experience is the same. of bliss. it's all the same
the knowledge will change


and yes tantras incorporate "renunciation"
why do you think kali ma has a skirt made out of arms? this is desire
tantra is active, but it is not clinging or craving
buddhist do more clinging than tantric

>>18246706
So you just felt it?

>>18246744
what happened felt like a whirlpool, like i was naturally chasing a stream that was vortexing into some swirl above my head. this is the image i can give
then i was coming to understandings left and right, but the understandings, imo, are specific to the channel you take. buddhist is one channel. buddha still said find your own buddhahood
and then i came to my biggest understandings. and from there i could see how language biases us, can be seen from so many directions, and immediately language shattered in my mind and i became pure sensory and attuned to nature
from there it was bliss like i felt "on". connected to reality. like i was hooked up to a grid that i had been disconnected from.
i became very aware of my bodies relationship to my environment and how the environment was making my body feel
I was aware of the "undercurrents" happening inside people, like i could see the pain and stress happening to them and all these identities conjured by our environment and how much our environment caused us suffering.
there was time i was out in nature asking questions and as soon as i asked questions i got answered. like the answer was layered on top of the question at the same time.

so there was "knowledge" and there was sensation. but the state itself is nothing it is empty. i was attuned to nature

but for me i do not denounce these cultures or identities or something.
like tibetan buddhist, i see it more like character to play in or develop oneself
then oneself can return to enlightened state if they are able to wield these transitions
and i think the knowledge you get or the state of enlightenment can be "expanded" because you are "expanded"
something like that. it is challenging for me.
but one same thread is that there is so much pain in peoples lives and to help reduce it or dont add to it.
what that means will change depending on the !!!times!!! we find ourselves in

I assume at some point humans will want to en masse dissociate from this drama and then buddhist will be more forward.

>>18246776
Interesting. This recalls a lot the experiences with some drugs I have heard about. I just did not understand where is buddhism there, this seems to be something special that different people can reach in many different ways.

>>18246865
just for the record i had never taken psychedelics before that and have only tried mushrooms once since that

you know how christians talk about "falling from heaven"
they are talking about leaving the state of enlightenment
but this does not put enlightenment on a hierarchy because it embraces the drama of reality and sees it as equal. but that life should be fulfilling and a fruitful experience
that enlightenment is a state just like any other state. we put it on a pedestal because we put love on a pedestal and because we are all very far from the enlightened state generally.

it accepts the ebbs and flows
so i think the idea is to go "get naked in nature" and you will attune more to the enlightened state
and then you enter back in the drama of reality, for the sake of others. you develop for the sake of others. but this is not the just "nice guy" thing we assume from buddhism or christianity.
some people want to compete, some people like dark jokes
i would say i lean more towards social, connections, experiences, and less toward material. material as a tool for transformation or energy generation but not obsession and fixation.
so someone wants to be this way and i help them be this way. i help give them the experience or i help them create it in themselves. help them find their own independence.
tibetan buddhists get caught with "slaves" all the time but i do not care for this. i want someones independence and freedom, but people can play -mutually-

so i go out and listen to my experience. people in my life. i try to add fruit to theirs, relative to the individual and what would make them have a more fruitful experience. like improv and giving. "yes, and.." (improv line)
but giving is just not as typical as religion paints it. don't have to enable everything but it accepts other things like i said dark humor or playful fighting and stuff like that.

then i can go into nature again to see what i need and gain more insight
can go back into the drama and develop myself.
but the development and these things, its seen as for the people around you and this is the point is that despite engaging in lust and stuff like that, all of these things are for other people, its just unique to the specific person.
i am, or try to be very outside myself but still playful. so i "renunciate" the same way but it is an active "renunciation" because other people still want to play in the drama. so i help them have an enjoyable one and be more for their needs.

see even "renunciation" the way buddhists put it can be clinging. even that can cause suffering because it can be seen as repressive/oppressive.
some people enjoy that pain and suffering because they embrace life.

It is not superior, just different. different ways for different people.
like i said earlier there are probably as many paths to enlightenment as there are people as there are points in time.
there is commonality across it all, just different ways