/lit/ - Literature

>>18388822
https://youtu.be/6FgiG7QY8f0

https://youtu.be/Y5_57craCak

Ajahn Nyanamoli Thero has some really good ones

>>18388841
https://youtu.be/UObLjg5umb0

https://youtu.be/fs-DA5ISZVE

https://youtu.be/f8R1za5f9sI

>>18388822
https://youtu.be/puetcrGQKvs

https://youtu.be/USC5MJVZLy8

>>18388822
https://youtu.be/kHqM7uL7n-o

https://youtu.be/n_llBSCXt6c

https://youtu.be/8wUIMgnENjw

https://youtu.be/nHtLpL9Ehe0

>>18388822
https://youtu.be/W5Lg9P-VekA

this one is for all the anons

>>18388896
that 2nd one thx

I still can't believe that guy from a thread the other day was trying to explain Indra's Net to some girl on a dating app. Needless to say, his suffering will continue.

>>18388920
>>18388928

i really like sirimangalo's method of noting, in my own experience the technique allows an easy transition of mindfullnes form meditation to the everyday life

>>18388822
https://youtu.be/ptnSWSvbTdY

here's a pretty good talk about the deathless state

>>18389025
Are all those religious texts?

Hinduism and Buddhism don't make it easy with the amount of books they have for non-believer trying to gets bits of wisdom for each of those religions.

I'm not interested in buddhism per se but some aspects of vajrayana/dzogchen/mahamudra seem interesting, especially their practices, any good books on the subject?

>>18389025
where is short discourses

>>18390061
you don't need to read all those text to get a good grasp on buddhism, the dhammapadda is considered the best sutra for beginners

>>18388822
https://youtu.be/7ooCodjgjkY

this version of the heart sutra is amazing

>>18390268
this book is heretical trash which denies rebirth and kamma and attempts to transform buddhism into a materialistic socialist liberation movement for indian dalits. there's some guy who always posts it in these threads, avoid it.

>>18390224
pls

>>18388822
Buddhism is refined, distilled nihilism.
Anything said in defense of Buddhism is cope.

The Lotus Sutra tickles my pickle every good way

>>18392147
You haven't learned anything if it doin that to your pickle Rick.

>>18391616
Don't tell this anon about Ecclesiastes

This book, man...

>>18391603
you read a wikipedia page

>>18390312
This
I have a small pocket one I bring with me when I go out

>>18393271
why? it takes 15 minutes to read

>>18393303
because it's pocket size and i like re-reading it's passages and thinking about them. Why does a christian keep a small bible in their pocket?

>>18393353
christcucks are delusional retards though

>>18393260
you are a pathetic dalit street shitter

>>18393478
i’m not dalit i’m not indian and there’s nothing wrong with being a dalit, caste is evil

>>18390224
you have to receive direct initiation for vajrayana practices, generally speaking. you can't really find methodology in a book

>>18393777
holy checked

>>18393777
But I don't want to become a buddhist I'm just interested in some parts of some specific vajrayana schools

>>18393777
Rolling for initiation

>>18393763
>caste is evil
this, fuck the caste system

>>18393763
>caste is evil
bad birth conditions proceed from bad karma accumulated previously according to the founder of buddhism

ive been reading The Doctrine of Awakening by Ebola. is Buddhism really the true religion of the Aryan warrior caste or is he just larping hard as fuck? to me the Buddha seems like a universal-love preaching hippy just like Jesus.

>>18394771
>Buddhism really the true religion of the Aryan warrior caste
places for all of the castes were properly accorded to them in Hinduism, texts like the Bhagavad-Gita present the path of the warrior caste as a different path towards the same goal that is spoken of by the more Brahmin-centric Upanishads

>>18394771
That depends. The founder of the Pali Text Society wanted to use Buddhism as a vehicle to wipe away the Jewish poison that had sickened Europe and renew the Indo-European global conquests. Evola has a lot of baggage and ends up disagreeing with the Buddha in a number of ways (he ends up just completely rejecting Sunyata because it implies that there cannot be a caste of spiritual vermin who exist solely to be oppressed). Having said that, yes, Buddhism is definitely a "warrior religion".

Early Buddhism tried really, REALLY hard to make itself seem cool and manly. The Buddha is best bros with Indra and Hercules, and he fights lions for fun and stuff. He had a hot wife and 1,000 concubines (his father gave them to him to keep him from fucking his wife, which would result in her impregnation; at the time, a man could not become a renunciate unless you had fathered a son and thereby fulfilled his duties to his clan). He's so chad that he dabbed on war and lust by becoming a pacifistic celibate. Oh by the way he snuck up on Mara (the God if delusion himself) one time and wrestled him until he made the fucker cry; Brahma watched and laughed.

Early Buddhists portrayed their entire effort as a warrior's one. Enlightenment is fundamentally a violent act. Buddhism rejects the whole "you have to let someone hit you before you can fight back" thing. There's nothing immoral about striking first. The very act of setting forth on the Buddhist path IS a hostile action, after all.

So, yes, it is an Indo-European warrior religion, but it is certainly not about going around killing Dr*vidians and drinking from their skulls in the name of *Dyews-Phter.

>>18394863
In SEA, Buddhism has a sort of royal role. Buddhists and Buddhist kings were patrons of law, order, hospitals, schools, and orphanages (during Colonialism, the destruction of these things in the name of Christianity created a revival of lay interest in Buddhism), so Buddhism is less of a "warrior religion" and more of a "Royal religion". There's a lot of stuff involved in political theater and pageantry, so there's also a level at which Buddhism is a "parade religion".

In Japan, Buddhism today is considered to be a violent warrior religion. From the Meiji Reforms on, there has been an attempt at creating a firmer divide between Buddhism and Shinto as doctrines (in actual practice they're completely inseparable, which the Japanese are fine with). This isn't an attempt to get rid of Buddhism but rather to assert a native ethnic character independent of Buddhism (found in Shinto). Buddhism was seen as the religion of the Shogun and of the Samurai, of warlords and bandits, whereas Shinto is the religion of the Japanese people and of the Japanese nation.

In China, Buddhism is not a warrior religion. China doesn't have warriors, it only has soldiers, and soldiers are just bandits with full bellies. Buddhism is a religion of scholars and mystics. Interestingly, there's also strains of thought that view Buddhism as a religion of punishment and rigidity, as opposed to Confucianism which is a religion of care and love.

In Tibet, well... Tibet is Tibet.

>>18394750
citation needed

>>18394771
Is this the only author /lit/ reads? You've really got to expand your horizons. I wonder how many of you read him without having read any other philosophy.

Seeing That Frees by Rob Burbea, or his many great dhamma talks here: https://airtable.com/shr9OS6jqmWvWTG5g/tblHlCKWIIhZzEFMk/viw3k0IfSo0Dve9ZJ
Jay Garfield's translation & commentary of Nāgārjuna's MMK
Nāgārjuna's Madhyamaka by Jan Westeroff
Anything by Bhikkhu Ñaṇananda (seeingthroughthenet.net)
Anything by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu (just don't take him too seriously)

>>18394927
Forgot this too

>>18394913
>citation needed

>Among the discourses in the Majjhima-nikāya, the Cūḷakammavibhaṅga-sutta stands out for having the highest number of parallel versions (preserved in a range of languages: Chinese, Khotanese, Sanskrit, Sogdian, Tibetan, and Tocharian).19 This range of versions offers clear testimony to the popular appeal of the discourse’s exposition on the effect particular deeds have on one’s future life. The Cūḷakammavibhaṅga-sutta establishes the following relationships in this respect:
>Killing others—one will become short lived.
>Hurting others—one will become sick.
>Being angry—one will become ugly.
>Being envious—one will become uninfluential.
>Being stingy—one will become poor.
>Being arrogant—one will be of low birth.
>Not asking questions—one will become stupid.


>b-b-but when buddha says that doing bad things make you be reborn as poor, stupid, ugly and low birth, he uh... didn't mean caste! or there is a special exclusion for caste!
give me a break, if karma works like buddha says it does, then everyone deserves precisely what caste and birth circumstances they are born into, based on their previous karma

>>18395536
you're talking to a follower of ambedkar, he denies rebirth and karma in the first place

>>18388822
http://www.nippapanca.org/uploads/2/4/5/9/24591864/av_path_press_edition.pdf

>>18394966

Cabezón BTFO the translator of 'The Emptiness of Emptiness" and the reading of Chandrakirti it presents in his review of it here

https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/download/8776/2683

>>18395695
I don't think so? He praises the translation and calls the intro clear, well-written, and provocative. His 'criticism' is that Huntington's interpretation is different than the traditional Gelug one. But so what?

>>18394750
then why wasn’t he a brahmin bc he was the most perfect person in the world

>>18395853
I used BTFO in a tongue and cheek way there and not to mean that he seriously attacked him. He does cite from Tibetan texts providing serious attacks on the readings of Chandrakirti which Huntington takes though. To me it increasingly seems like Huntington and the likes of him are reading French deconstructionists, logical positivists etc positions into Madhyamaka that never was there to begin with, and which results in absurdities as his review points out. Do you have any examples of the counter arguments that could be presented to Cabezón by someone representing the Huntington side?

>>18395927
>bc he was the most perfect person in the world
pro-tip, he wasn't, the most perfect person in the world was Adi Shankara (pbuh), who was born into a Brahmin family

>>18395927
that would imply in a former life Buddha was non-perfect

Buddha himself implies this in the sutta where Devadata throws a rock and a shard of it splinters and cuts Buddha's foot, when this happens in the Pali Canon Buddha said that this was the fulfillment of past karma in which he harmed or attempted to harm someone in a past life, that this led to his foot getting cut by the splinter from the rock that Devadata threw

>>18395976
This thread is now blessed by Jamgön Ju Mipham Gyatso. Understanding that Consciousness and Emptiness are non-dual will rise from the ocean of nectar like a white lotus, but only if you post "/lit/ forced guenonfag to read a book" in this thread

>>18395970
It's one thing to reproduce Tibetan doxography for the sake of translation and understanding sectarian differences among Tibetan Buddhism. It's another thing for Western scholars of Buddhism to actually simulate Tibetan doxography and proceed to argue about Chandrakirti. That sounds like an enormous waste of energy.

>>18395536
karma is a form of cause and effect, even if we go by your logic and accept that karma makes you born as a low caste (being born in a high caste also makes you sick, ugly, stupid, etc) that doesn't mean you shouldn't fight and surpass those inadequacies just because karma brought them to you, on the contrary, you should go beyond them and see them just as conditioned phenomena which will change and can't define you, condemning the caste system embody that core buddhist principle

By birth one is not an outcaste,
By birth one is not a Brahmin;
By deeds alone one is an outcaste,
By deeds alone one is a Brahmin
vasala sutta

I'm not seeing any absurdities.
>If there is a major drawback to his presentation it is only that he gives the reader little clue as to the fact that there are living contemporary inter-pretations of Candrakirti, traditional Tibetan readings of the Madhyamaka, that are substantially at variance with his own views.
Personally I am not much interested in these traditional Tibetan readings. But Huntington is not the only one to draw parallels between Madhyamaka and say, Wittgenstein. (Idk about Derrida. I don't think he's mentioned much in the book anyway.) See Garfield's Engaging Buddhism or the Jan Westeroff book I mentioned earlier.

Also I believe Huntington responds to Cabezón directly to some extent in this paper, which is very good (but also itself is later criticized by Garfield in another very good paper):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226885162_The_Nature_of_the_Madhyamika_Trick

>>18396070
>"/lit/ forced guenonfag to read a book

>>18395970
This >>18396145 is me replying to you btw.

This person is not me:
>>18396094

>>18396094
>It's another thing for Western scholars of Buddhism to actually simulate Tibetan doxography and proceed to argue about Chandrakirti. That sounds like an enormous waste of energy.
Only if you don't actually care about the truth of the matter being discussed, and the truth of which interpretation is actually the correct one. If you actually cared about which one was correct than it would have importance.

Does being western invalidate Cabezón's earnest attempt to simply repeat verbatim Tibetan arguments which show that Huntington's interpretation of Chandrakirti produces visible contradictions and absurdities? No, it doesn't.

>>18396171
It just seems kind of superfluous, since it's been done to death for a thousand years. The amount of reading you'd have to do just to bother with what they're arguing about, assuming it hasn't already been argued about in Tibetan, seems like a big detour from reading primary texts and commentaries.

>>18396145
>I'm not seeing any absurdities.
mKhas grub rje describes the position espoused by Huntington as an absurdity in the passage quoted here

>I have shown in the introduction to my translation of mKhas grub rje's text, A Great Dose of Emptiness, that the dGe lugs pas hold several claims to be corollaries of each other: (1) the methodological claim that the Prasarigikas have no philosophical view—relativism, (2) the epistemological claim that they repudiate inference and syllogistic reasoning—skepticism, (3) the soteriological claim that the proper method of Prasangika meditation is to empty the mind—quietism, and (4) the ontological claim that they negate the existence of all phenomena—nihilism. All of these views are considered by them to be related, and all are rejected as faulty.

>Consistent with the dGe lugs pa analysis of these problematic areas, Huntington at times also seems to subscribe to the fourth view by taking the catuskoti at face value (i.e., literally):

>Most contemporary scholars believe that the term emptiness refers neither to existence nor non-existence, (p. 18)

>>18396204
>Contemporary dGe lugs pa scholars, however, do not hold to such a position. It is precisely in response to someone who does that the following dialogue takes place in the sTong thun chen mo:

>[mKhas grub rje:] By advocating that the sprout does not exist one is advocating that it is non-existent...,
>[Opponent:] These are not in direct contradiction, for although the Svatantrikas and all the lower schools understand reality in terms of the law of excluded middle, in the Prasangika system reality is not understood in terms of the law of excluded middle. Hence there is no fault.
>[mKhas grub rje:] Then it would follow, absurdly, that (two things) could never be in direct contradiction, that they could never mutually exclude each other, for (according to you) one is unable to understand something to be non-existent by negating its existence Desist (in claiming) that the Prasangika refutes the realist by relying on internal contradiction. Moreover, it follows, absurdly, (from your views) that there is no difference between right tenets and wrong ones, whether they be Prasangika or realist tenets. This is because (for you) the point expressed by a philosophical tenet can neither be disproved by a valid cognition (pramana) nor established by one.

>According to the dGe lugs pa interpretation of the catuskoti, the "existence" that is repudiated must be qualified. It is "inherent existence" that the Madhyamika refutes, not existence in general. This is how the dGe lugs pas manage to uphold the principle of the excluded middle in their interpretation of the tetralemma. Later in this same section of the sTong thun chen mo (pp. 107-108) mKhas grub rje cites a variety of passages from Candrakirti in order to show how Candrakirti himself distinguishes "between existence and inherent existence," upholding the latter and rejecting the former.

>For mKhas grub rje and the dGe lugs pas that follow him the repudiation of existence is tantamount to nihilism:

>Nowadays it seems that quite a few Madhyamikas also accept, as do the realists, that if something is essenceless it must be non-existent. However, the realists, being expert philosophers, accept that things inherently exist without being nihilists in regard to karma and its effects. The Madhyamikas of today, however, advocate that karma and its effects do not exist, and yet these idiots consider theirs the highest view!

>>18396204
>>18396209
Right... so are these two writers just simulating a prasangika/svatantrika debate but in English using the same sources Tibetans would? That's my issue with this; it already exists so why make an elaborate copy?

>>18396184
>since it's been done to death for a thousand years
so has everything else in buddhism except gay buddhist modernism which is new, does that make all of buddhism superfluous except the modernist western hip kind?

> seems like a big detour from reading primary texts and commentaries.
Actually it sounds pretty important to make sure you are actually reading them correctly to begin with instead of blindly accepting western translators trying to assimilate Madhyamaka to their respective preferred anti-foundationalist western thinker.

>>18394887
>Tibet is Tibet
tibet is really violent too

>>18396235
>so are these two writers just simulating a prasangika/svatantrika debate but in English using the same sources Tibetans would?
They would disagree that it's a prasangika/svantrika debate, and mKhas grub rje's position is that people like Huntington actually misunderstand Prasangika

>that's my issue with this; it already exists so why make an elaborate copy?
It seems the reviewer wanted to draw the attention of interested readers to the possibility that Huntington's reading may be very off, and that the mainstream Tibetan sect would appear to say as much. And quoting some of mKhas grub rje's arguments saying as much suited his goals.

>>18396001
oh okay, still BS though even if caste oppression is karma so is ending caste.

is it evil for me to murder children? duh even if it’s their karma it’s still evil and should go to jail

>>18396249
Well the only Madhyamaka specific translated stuff I've read was put out by Wisdom/Snow Lion/Shambala etc. not the PoMo University Press, so hopefully I'm getting reasonably authentic English renderings. What would be a reading list to follow what the two translators are arguing about?
>>18396267
Are there actually any novel arguments being made though? Or is it a simulation of a Tibetan debate?

>>18394887
>In Tibet, well... Tibet is Tibet.
Before I really started reading, like a decade ago, one of the first things I got interested in was tibetan buddhism. It started because I had the random thought of "what if you meditated in a lucid dream", boy that was a rabbit hole.

>>18396286
>is it evil for me to murder children? duh even if it’s their karma it’s still evil and should go to jail
In neither the Hindu scriptures nor in the Pali Canon is it ever clearly stated that every single thing which befalls people in life is the result of karma from a past life. From what I remember and have read, they both leave open the possibility that certain things happen because of natural causes in the world, and they leave open the possibility that someone acting out and harming others wouldn't necessarily be because it was the karma of those other people to eventually be harmed in that way and in that moment by the person in question (that Buddha perceived Devadatta's action as connected with his past karma should not be taken as implying every single good and bad thing that happens to you ever is a fructifying karma), in some circumstances people can be impacted by things which they had no karma to be the recipient of. Karma seems mainly to express itself through one's birth circumstances, outside of this it can have further effects on one's life but it doesn't determine every little single thing.

> caste oppression is karma so is ending caste.
why?

>>18396342
>what if you meditated in a lucid dream
Unironically demonic possession

>>18396338
>What would be a reading list to follow what the two translators are arguing about?
I'm not an expert on the topic, but I presume you can learn more about this by reading Cabezón's other articles or his translation of mKhas grub rje's text, "A Great Dose of Emptiness", available here to read and its also on amazon and other sites for purchase, as Cabezón's arguments against Huntington's interpretation consist of his mostly repeating some of mKhas grub rje's arguments from that text.

https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/religion.occult.new_age/Buddhism/A%20dose%20of%20emptiness%20[tibetan%20buddhism].pdf

>Are there actually any novel arguments being made though? Or is it a simulation of a Tibetan debate?
It's neither a novel creation, nor a "simulation" of something else, Cabezón just briefly quotes some of mKhas grub rje's arguments attacking Huntington's interpretation so that the reader can decide for himself with an open mind which is able to make informed judgements when it is aware of both possibilities, you won't find this in the 'The Emptiness of Emptiness', as the author/translator apparently avoids mentioning that his interpretation of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti is one which the most mainstream school of Buddhism in Tibet condemns as a foolish one that had long ago been taken apart and refuted by their dialecticians.

>>18396353
>he's never fucked his waifu in his dream then afterwards made experience itself fade away as Pure Light engulfs the dream
git gud scrub

>>18396117
>doesn't mean you shouldn't fight and surpass those inadequacies
You can't surpass inborn inadequacies consisting of a lack of intelligence or capacity for spiritual understanding. You can only fight against and ultimately surpass exterior inadequacies in the form of exterior circumstances to do with occupation, wealth, one's relations etc. But the caste system assigns to people the exterior circumstance that is most befitting their interior adequacies or inadequacies, so where is the logic in rebelling against it then? Doing so would seem to create unnecessary disorder and a lack of harmony.

>>18396406
No I did that but she turned into a car and drove away

>>18396348
you literally just said the buddha getting cut with a rock is karma, so obviously every little thing that negatively or positively effects you is karma

>why

because if caste or class or any kind of oppression is karma, that’s one person hurting another to fulfill karma

if an oppressed caste rebels and kills their oppressors, that’s the oppressors karma

stop trying to have it only one way. this is hypocritical and obviously a brahmin kshatriya lie to get people to submit

>>18396403
>his interpretation of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti is one which the most mainstream school of Buddhism in Tibet condemns as a foolish one that had long ago been taken apart and refuted by their dialecticians.
This is EXACTLY my point though. If the debate was done already why simulate it again

>>18396348
What the Pali canon says about this is arguable. See Thanissaro's introduction to this sutta: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN36_21.html

>>18396451
You're looking at the caste system from a modern egalitarian lens. From an ancient Hindu/Buddhist perspective, there is no "oppression" regarding the caste system.

Here's an example. In Hinduism/Buddhism an animal birth is the result of bad karma. If an animal kills a human, then it's result of the human's karma that he met such a fate. But that doesn't change the fact that animals are inferior to humans.

The caste system as experienced in Buddha's time is similar. A person of low birth is simply a person of low birth, he is not "oppressed". An "oppressed" caste rebelling and killing does nothing to challenge the idea of karma.

I'm completely against the caste system myself, but this is how it was (and is) interpreted with respect to karma.

>>18393763
where did word caste come from

>>18396558
the ancient perspective is the perspective of brahmin and kshatriya scholars. they are delusional and don’t want to admit what they’re doing is wrong because it’s easier than changing

>an animal is the result of bad karma
humans and animals are different species, castes are not different in the same way. bad example

also we did not disagree even. a lower caste rebelling isn’t challenging karma, it is karma that is what i said when you replied to me. you may have misunderstood me

>>18396431
Low caste is not an inborn inadequecy it is imposed, obviously in ancient and modern india dalits and shudra have poor access to education and social resources

And this can be challenged, as in the case of picrel who probably makes you seethe

Rebelling against caste oppression is literally inevitable even if i was against this, this is what is going to happen regardless of whether people like you and me like it or not. Remember the Kali Yuga? Not even Brahmins disagree with their fate they just think it’s an “evil” era when it’s really just the negative karma they’ve been accumulating for so long

>>18396666
You just doomed a man to hell >>18396667

>>18396666
The digits don’t lie. Kali will make the br*hmins pay

>>18396431
>the caste system assigns to people the exterior circumstance that is most befitting their interior adequacies or inadequacies
no the caste system is a social construct

>>18396431
then stop trying to surpass your inadequacy to get laid incel. you are creating unnecessary discord for chads and women

>>18396117
Well by your definition casteism is real and suck thus buddhism appear where man could be free from the shackle of casteism and therefore be liberated. But be mindful, the one who able to conquer themself is the only one who free from casteism therefore casteism as a social hierarchical structure cannot be denied since the release from suffering and karma implies we need to be shackled in the first place. So casteism is real guys. Dont need to look to india for example, like seeing people of other race and tradition as inferior or superior already imply we use casteism subconciously, so i dunno where you see casteism as indianshit theory appear

>>18396666
Well i see caste in the frame of modern buddhist mindset as people who born in a good environment (high caste) and a very bad environment (lower caste). However bad you want to make an equal society, a difference between social strata will always appear since it was there from the begining of time. Trying to fight against it is useless, since it is how we human is as we were. Its is IMPOSSIBLE to make the environment of each person exactly equal as each other and expect the same people with same quality appear from it, thats why the teachings of brahmavihara appear to guide buddhist way of living. Ambedkar is just a social justice warrior who use buddhist as a device to liberate dalits and other lower caste from oppression int he mainframe of HINDU society. Therefore as a buddhist his eaching and shit is just a political tool, hell he could use christianity and islam as well. But why buddhist? Its is well know that india in his age has very few buddhist adherent locally, where muslim people existing in certain region and disliked with the existence and partition of pakistan, christian being viewed as outsider religion being brought by british conqueror. So thats leave ambedkar with 2 religion as a tool for his unsubtly political manouver, sikhism and buddhism. Well fuck if he use sikhism as his tool he would probably beheaded by mainline hardline sikh at once. While buddhism without a clear organization in india and a few devotee would be a perfect tool for him, no one would talk shit about him if he use buddhism as his tool, no buddhist would fight him for it. Therefore anyone who use/recommend ambedkar as a frame for his/her buddhist knowledge is a hack, disingenous, not in a good faith and need to be punished with a sandal to his/her face. That is my case

>>18397724
>However bad you want to make an equal society, a difference between social strata will always appear since it was there from the begining of time

wrong this is just what you want to believe

> Trying to fight against it is useless, since it is how we human is as we were

learn english

> Its is IMPOSSIBLE to make the environment of each person exactly equal as each other and expect the same people with same quality appear from it, thats why the teachings of brahmavihara appear to guide buddhist way

nobody wants that

> Ambedkar is just a social justice warrior who use buddhist as a device to liberate dalits and other lower caste from oppression int he mainframe of HINDU society

yeah

> Therefore as a buddhist his eaching and shit is just a political tool, hell he could use christianity and islam as well. But why buddhist? Its is well know that india in his age has very few buddhist adherent locally, where muslim people existing in certain region and disliked with the existence and partition of pakistan, christian being viewed as outsider religion being brought by british conqueror. So thats leave ambedkar with 2 religion as a tool for his unsubtly political manouver, sikhism and buddhism. Well fuck if he use sikhism as his tool he would probably beheaded by mainline hardline sikh at once. While buddhism without a clear organization in india and a few devotee would be a perfect tool for him, no one would talk shit about him if he use buddhism as his tool, no buddhist would fight him for it. Therefore anyone who use/recommend ambedkar as a frame for his/her buddhist knowledge is a hack, disingenous, not in a good faith and need to be punished with a sandal to his/her face

just read him if you want to know stop talking to yourself

>>18397755
By the time he told story about buddha work in his father farm i stop reading it since it is bullshit filled with the purpose of putting buddha as proletariat and he's of ksatriya caste. Like what every 4 year sudhodana elected as a monarch? Truly kid teached without belt and sandal really have a stunted growth

>>18393983
Come on I can't seriously believe that no guru or initiate has ever written about the practices in some book
There are already various books about dream yoga, so there must be books for other esoteric practices

>>18396353
Huh? explain

>>18396456
>. If the debate was done already why simulate it again
To point out to interested readers that they may be missing out on crucial information that Huntington omits! I already answered that question once, did you not pay attention the first time or consider it not enough of an answer that you had to ask the question again? Why would the above reason not be sufficient to justify him writing what he did in that review?

>>18394863
How did Buddhism acquire the stereotype of a pacifistic hippie religion?

>>18396449
Based Utenachad

>>18394750
>bad birth conditions proceed from bad karma accumulated previously according to the founder of buddhism
Yes, and we should treat those compassionately, not opress them even more with the caste system.

>>18398168
By actually not being the retarded bravado machisimo religion that Evola and other incels delude themselves into worshipping.

>>18398298
>Yes, and we should treat those compassionately, not oppress them even more with the caste system.
Best done by recognizing them for what they are and embracing them as they are, not denying their limitations but allowing them to fulfill the role which has been laid out for them while treating them respectfully. Trying to uplift them into something they are not has unintended consequences, like when low-IQ minorities get into Ivy League universities because of affirmative action and then they end up consistently getting failing or near-failing grades because they are being graded on a curve against other students who got in to the school because of their intelligence and not affirmative action, Sowell has mentioned this being an issue before.

I don't think that people of whatever caste should be legally bound to pursue only that occupation, but I do think they should be encouraged to do so and that this ultimately leads to a more wholesome and harmonious society where everyone sees themselves as playing a role in society that is a microcosm of the order and hierarchy within the cosmos, instead of everyone being fed the falsity of innate equality which is demonstrably untrue, leading people to become greatly unhappy and resentful when the supposed equality turns out to be not true because of consistent disparities in outcomes in all areas.

>>18398168
In the East? It doesn't.

In the West? A combination of bad scholarship and hippies.The Anglo-Sphere's contact with Buddhism was largely through Hindu and Islamic intermediaries who just repeated the whole "Shankara is a crypto-Buddhist" thing; Shankara's thought is about dissolving the self because nothing is real and achieving union with the divine consciousness, ergo Buddhism is just that. This is completely wrong, of course. When Anglos found out about Buddha Mind and Buddha Nature (neither of which are at all similar to Shankara's Atman=Brahman) this just confirmed their suspicions. You can find old books from the early 1900s that are 99% about monastic lineages and listing out the (untranslated) Sanskrit terms used in complex systems with only a single line about how Buddhism is about achieving oneness with the universal Buddha Mind. Actual engagement with Buddhism came first through the Germans, which gets it tied up with the whacky racialist stuff like the beginning of >>18394863.

In America, certain schools of Zen decided to proselytize in the 70s. The Imperial government was trying to use Shinto to bolster Japanese nationalism (this is a great simplification but it works). Buddhism was the religion of greedy warlords and shoguns, whereas Shinto was the religion of the Japanese people, nation, and state. Certain schools of Zen painted Zen as authentic Japanese Buddhism, thereby cozying up to the Imperial state. Books like Zen At War paint this as a great betrayal of Zen's principles (and to be sure, pacifism IS encouraged by Buddhism), but remember that 99% of the anti-Imperial factions within Zen thought war was absolutely okay when the Shogun and bandits and warlords were doing it.

>>18398685
So, these pro-war factions within Zen saw themselves of making a simple calculation: Maximize Buddhist engagement by working with the Imperial government. When WWII was ended, a few of them made the exact same calculation again: maximize Buddhist engagement by going to the new imperial hegemon, the US. This ends up with people like D.T. Suzuki going over and teaching Zen. In order to appeal to Americans, they emphasized it as a non-theistic doctrine of self cultivation. This isn't an incorrect description, but it is a lie by omission in order to create a Buddhist foothold in the US. It was a success. Something similar was done in France, which resulted in a small but very dedicated and very serious ethnic-French Buddhist community (it's in the tens of thousands, quite large for a non-Abrahamic religion).

The problem with this is that this doesn't fit into the American religious dialectic, which itself is just part of the American political dialectic ("Finklethink"). So while this does on the surface play into what the hippies were after, remember that "Hippy-ism" was an antinomian Abrahamic movement created by the CIA to get the Finklethink that we have today. This means that, to avoid precisely what happened in China (the Confucian-Daoist dialect getting disrupted by this third party of Buddhism), Buddhism has to get folded into one of the wings of the dialectic. It got folded into the High Church Progressive Liberal wing. In order to accomplish that, Buddhism has to be percieved by Americans as a soft hippy dippy faggy peace-and-love-maaaaaan religion.

This is obviously not what Buddhism is, but it's what is is percieved as by Americans in both camps of the dialectic.

>>18398081
It's how American Christianity handwaves away the question of "if your religion is true then how come practitioners of other religions experience mystic phenomena?". There doesn't have to be a mechanism to explain it, it's just a simple fact that within American Christianity any mystic phenomena that occur that aren't Christian MUST be demonic.

>>18388822
>the Buddha looked like this

>>18398407
how do Buddhists actually respond to this criticism?

>>18398714
But demons exist and it's easy to get fooled by them

>>18398739
The Bible also says that Yahweh plays tricks on people to intentionally damn them to hell and that his influence is indistinguishable from that of a demon, what's your point? Buddhism has a long tradition of exorcisms and fighting off demons. Hell, it's why Hercules is a Buddhist: to fight off demons and defend Buddhists.

>>18398769
I don't care about Yahweh I'm just saying it's reallly easy to fall prey to demonic influence when you do things like yoga, projection and so on and that if you're not experienced and knowledgeable you'll most likely get misled
See: new agers, RAW, Jung (?)

>>18394771
Buddhism is pretty antithetical to being a warrior though. Even in Japan it was pretty much understod that even muh based and redpilled Zen samurai warrior went to hell when they died.

Difficult to be a warrior given the first precept.

>>18398714
Thank you, this cleared it up. It seems hard to find good sources on Buddhism tho, mostly because there is so much misconception and bias. What stuff would you recommend?

>>18394863
>Buddhism rejects the whole "you have to let someone hit you before you can fight back" thing. There's nothing immoral about striking first.
Where are you getting this from?

Volition is what makes something create bad karma or not. And you can't really kill or hit something without volitionally intending to kill or hit something, which is why Buddhism rejects killing wholesale but is specific on "wrong speech". So you can make someone get offended and cry without accruing any bad karma, technically it is better to not intending to offend someone and offending them than it is to intend to offend someone but failing. You can't really make the same distinctions with killing/hitting though.

>>18398911
Buddha himself said the second best thing to an arahant is a warrior.

>>18398938
Where? He also said that a warrior will go straight to hell if he dies as a warrior, which was him directly contradicting Vedic warrior caste ideals.

>>18398552
I hope you don't believe that the utopia you just described actually happens in real life.

>>18398831
Lmao.

>>18398933
You're right, I was hasty in what I was saying there. I'm running off of later Chinese and Central Asian ideas here rather than Pali Canon doctrine. I was more so intending to get at that the idea of an action's morality as being rooted in dualistic poles is rejected in favor of an alternative schema.

>>18398912
As far as doctrine goes, start with What the Buddha Taught, then read the Heart Sutra.

>>18399059
Where do I go from the Heart Sutra?

>>18398723
"So it is with an arahant whose mental effluents are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis. Whatever desire he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular desire is allayed. Whatever persistence he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular persistence is allayed. Whatever intent he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular intent is allayed. Whatever discrimination he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular discrimination is allayed. So what do you think, brahman? Is this an endless path, or one with an end?"

>>18399059
You know warrior monk type appear when the nobility serve as abbot of leader of monastery to legitimize and controlling the peasants right? They are literally using buddhism as tool, the same as ambedkar using buddhism as a foundation of indian marxism. It was already clear that in panca sila the 1st one is to vow to train oneself to avoid ones killing living creature.

>>18399071
From the Heart Sutra you either go into Theravada (the Heart Sutra is a polemic against the Sarvastivadin atomism of the time; the Theravada tradition was simultaneously objecting to Sarvastivadin atomism independent of the Heart Sutra at the time) or further into the Mahayana. If you just want texts, the Diamond Sutra ("what is everything made up of if everything is Empty?"), the Flower Garland Sutra ("so wait, doesn't all of this imply a multiverse?"), the Lotus Sutra ("this metaphor of the raft is really cool, how far does it go?"), the Three Pure Land Sutras ("holy shit all of this is too much i need help"), the Mahaparinirvana Sutra ("so how does this 'buddhahood' work?") are all examples. Having said that, there's an enormous literary tradition outside of these texts, and many, many, MANY more minor sutras. At that point, you need to move into an actual "Denomination" so to speak.

You need to view "Buddhist Literature" as on the same scope and scale as "Chinese Literature" or "Western Literature".

>>18399039
Nice rebuttal, underage faggot

>>18398723
>He doesnt know stages of jhana
Also who says desire is bad or good, the teaching of buddha as what i know is to recognize, watch and control our desire so we dont get shackled by it. Being free from it is good since it marks one achieving nibbana, but as long human live in this world he will still have some desires no matter what. The monks job is to watch, recognize and taming them by training via meditation. Over and over and over again. When ones able to recognize desire as it is and able to tame them, not being lead by them. On milindapanha there are ten thirst that unconquerable even by an arhant all of them are categorized on things that affect human nature as a living creature (pain, hunger, thirst, old age, and so on). What does makes monks/arhant different from other being is that their mind still and serene even when those stuff afflict them, of course logically they would find they way out of it in the frame of brahmavihara, since those affliction would eventually disturb their mind faculties. Even ananda said that monastics attain nibbana through developing 1 of 4 ways, 1) serenity preceding insight, 2) insight preceding serenity, 3)serenity and insight come in stepwise 4) one excited and seized by dhamma, thus achieving serenity and developing insight. The ones at the 4 is interesting since it imply nibbana achieveable by having desires (to knew more about dhamma). So its also imply all the thread may already having seed toward nibbana, anumodana dear avuso

>>18399442
>So its also imply all the thread may already having seed toward nibbana, anumodana dear avuso
*So it also imply all of us in this thread
Sorry im ESL

>>18393983
>>18398078
"i don't want to be a buddhist i just want to involve myself in extremely high level esoteric buddhist practices"
well you don't get to, so there

>>18399303
thank you anon

Just a thought, in cunda kamaraputta sutta, buddha elaborate about right act, the one involving the 4th sila, avoding sexual misconduct. The Buddha said :"Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man." But theres no context on what sexual activity considered misconduct within husband and wife. So can we conclude anal and bdsm is halal as long its done between consenting husband and wife?

>>18398685
>>18398714
good posts, thanks anon

>>18391616
>Buddhism is refined, distilled nihilism.
wrf i love buddhism now

>>18399571
Well I disagree with buddhist metaphysics but I'm extremely intrigued by some of the tibetan practices and concepts.
>extremely high level
Yeah dream yoga is allegedly high level but pretty much anyone can do it with the proper methodology so I'm not sure what your point is
Rainbow body stuff I suppose is less accessible but it also has a direct equivalent in western esotericism which I'd be more inclined to pursue, so it's not an issue

>>18392194
>everyone who isn't a buddhist is a christcuck
This is like reddit atheists calling all non-atheists skydaddy worshippers all over again.

>>18399449
that's a comforting thought anon. Ajahn Punnadhammo made a comment like that in one of his videos on Buddhist cosmology, basically to the effect of "Being born as a human is very auspicious, but being born as a human with an interest in the Dhamma is an even better sign."

keeping this in mind, let's not get discouraged.
Aum Vajrapani Hum

>>18399643
Well at least he tried to tell you another religion that percieved as nihilist in its nature as an example. He doesnt defend buddhism, hes merely deflecting the issue a.l.a JIDF, chi-com, ameriKKKa and putinlander do in general
>Did i do good masquerading as /pol/tard?

>>18393777
There are plenty of books on the Six Dharmas of Naropa which are pretty much the core and highest level practices in Vajrayana.

>>18399670
>Vajrapani
The wielder of vajra, the one that cuts away ignorance, thats an interesting mantra to chant and visualize. I prefer gate gate parasamgate though, the aspiration for all of us to cross the river of suffering and achieving nibbana, its to train my metta mind (seeing sometimes i regret the bad things that ive done, which is totally lack of loving kindness), anumodana

>>18399643
There is a lot of bad faith in Buddhism threads where nihilists (pretend theologians) come in and insist Buddhism is illogical. But to your point the AmaZen Therapeutic school of Buddhism is reddit as a religion.

>>18397862
thats page 3 theres 599 pages

>>18399716
metta is an area in which i'm lacking. i'm overly empathetic, but it usually manifests as a sort of sickly self-destructive agonizing over the suffering of others while wallowing in the inability to change it. perhaps my attraction to Vajrapani (Indra) is because in my current stage of development, i largely see practice as waging war against the defilements of my mind. i think i actually say Aum Mani Padme hum and Tara's root mantra more overall though.

>>18399711
Is it true that according to some lineages you can receive initiation through visions and dreams directly while doing practices that belong to the completion stage in tantra?

>>18398552
go to pol and have sex incel

>>18399022
not presently in the modern era, but that doesn’t mean that its not possible or ideal

>>18399860
cringe

>>18399891
> not presently in the modern era, but that doesn’t mean that its not possible or ideal
you would still be an incel

>>18399973
I’m tall and handsome and so it’s actually easy for me to acquire sex whenever I want. I have even turned down many opportunities for sex because I was more interested in doing something else at that moment.

You will never be a real woman

>>18399985
> I’m tall and handsome and so it’s actually easy for me to acquire sex whenever I want. I have even turned down many opportunities for sex because I was more interested in doing something else at that moment

>>18400006
I’m the Guenonfag, my 6’5” body has been posted here before. I’m sure a gay/trans person like you would have paid close attention to it when it was posted.

>>18400048

>>18400070
oh no! young men with glasses! whatever will i, as a non-glasses wearing person do!?!?!

>>18400048

>>18400090
>whatever will i, as a non-glasses wearing person do!?!?
go back to pol and have sex incel

>>18400096
Im not an incel, and /lit/ isnt your safe space. You are just making Buddhists look like a bunch of faggots who can’t handle any disagreement with their ideas without resorting to muh “have sex”

>>18398723
because it's not even a legit criticism, it's just a play on words, buddhist don't condemn desire as pure will, that is the desire or will to do something, every buddhist indeed desires to be free from suffering, and desire don't produce suffering on itself
it's craving(tanha) which is a particular form of desire related to our misconceptions of the world and ourself as separated from the flux of time, which cause suffering
desire to get rid of craving is totally reasonable, everyone does it one way or another, we all want to be free from our shortcomings and the material things that enslave our minds and not let us see the world on a more coherent realistic way

tldr: it's just a dumb play on words, buddhist don't want to get rid of desire but of "craving", which is a different thing

>>18400171
lol the guenonfag got mad, once again

>>18400171
You already live in a hierarchical society, you just happen to disagree with who the current nobles, priests, and financiers are. Which if anything makes you the counter-traditionalist, for defying the caste system, while have-sex posters are defending the sanctity of the established order.

how do resolve being a shitposting chantard with buddhism?

>>18399623
>Disagree with buddhist metaphysics , but at the same time interested in dream yoga.
Tell me how i know you are a retarded autistic westerner

>>18400290
why are 4chan buddhists the most stuck up faggots on this board? seriously you can't even say you disagree with anything they believe in without retards like you spazzing out and screeching, what the fuck? you have issues

>>18400182
No, I pressed my argument and the other anon gave up and devolved to insults. You cant truly ever get mad if you fully accept ontological non-dualism because there is nobody else to get mad at.

>>18400217
>You already live in a hierarchical society, you just happen to disagree with who the current nobles, priests, and financiers are.
That’s only one part of it, the greater issue is that its not ordered on the basis of any higher principle, but instead the guiding ideology is greed, individualism, materialism and consumerism are all promoted by the ruling class. A hierarchy ceases to be justified if its consistently being used to promote bad ideas and to harm society.

>>18399816
Why should i read him? As a practicing and culturally buddhist person, reading his 3 page already makes me sick and labelling him as a man who use buddhism as a device for his own gain, thats what i gain from reading his first 3 page without knowing who he is, and thats 4 years ago, why should i continue reading him? What did you gain from obfuscating ambedkarism and buddhism? If ambedkar is a buddhist, then hitler is a vajrayana adherent. Go away ambedkar, go back prowl your cemetery

>>18400300
nice meltdown. pick and choose spiritual tourists are annoying and deserve disdain, that's it really.

>>18400326
>nice meltdown.
yeah well being an unhelpful cunt and screeching autistically at anyone who doesn't 100% buy into your religion is a retarded move, faggot.
>pick and choose spiritual tourists
you're the one having a meltdown, I said I was interested in knowing more about some practices, you turned this into some kind of new age boogeyman or whatever the fuck
seriously you're fucking insufferable, fuck off

>>18400311
have sex incel

>>18400311
>A hierarchy ceases to be justified if its consistently being used to promote bad ideas and to harm society.
You feel harmed because of your slave morality. Have more faith in the master, he has earned his caste through good breeding and prudence. Any other opinion is you being counter-tradition. Now as has been said, have sex, produce more shudra. Someone has to do the work around here while I contemplate how based the vedas are.

>>18400356

>>18400311
Youre talking nonsense. Tell me in natural state any creature who love without social hierarchy. Ill wait. Dont tell me human arent animal, were a luckier animal than the others since were having the gift of achieving insight. Also who said without the current hierarchy the greed and individualism, materialism and consumerism would be gone? Clearly youre delusional at every aspect of your way of thinking. What happened when the next hierarchy that will be instated to enforce your way of thinking started to rot? Remember theres nothing permanent. Will you be forever seething? Might as well go dilate then.

>>18400300
Consider im your personal wrathful deity, be thankful that i slap you with online metaphysical rambling to dispel your delusion. No go burn me an incense

>>18400405
these threads were honestly a big part of what put me off from pursuing buddhism any further, putting aside metaphysical disagreements which could most likely be resolved through direct experience

>>18400391
have sex incel, or else

>>18400472
Its true personal experience is what the most important, all things being written here merely observation of each practitioner being distilled toward words. But your statement of "disbelief of buddhist metaphysics and the interest of dream yoga" clearly show how much your understanding of buddhist lineage and its main core tenets and practice. Imagine ordinary buddhist metaphysics at the level of very hungry caterpillar, vajrayana buddhist is literally infinite jest of buddhism metaphysics. Its called esoteric buddhism for a reason. That why i think buddhism isnt fit for you.

>>18400472
don't blame people on 4chan for your own lack of practice, no matter what cope excuse you come up with to justify it.

>>18400805
I understand that those practices are used to realize sunyata for yourself. Since the buddhists were the only ones to have such practices though it interested me and I wanted to learn more about it since I was always interested in the interstitial states between consciousness and unconsciousness that tibetans describe as bardos
And yeah I know it's not a good fit for me, no matter how much I think about it I just can't accept anatta and emptiness, which is not to say I dislike everything about the doctrine
>>18400904
Stop projecting, I was never a practicing buddhist

Faggots

>>18400911
On my own word anatta similar to how matter made up of atom, there is no cheese so to speak. The cheese merely an agglomeration of milk and rennet, which in turn made of other substance. So what is it made of me, since me as a substance is not existing, me in the past post already dissapear, exchanged with me in the present whos already exchanging philosophical stuff with you. On emptiness its merely the way of buddhist seeing stuff as things in its essence are empty, not so important for beginner. All of which understanding came naturally by applying noble eight paths on your daily live. But well by my initial assesment youre probably incapable of accepting the theory of anatta because of certain attachment toward something, either a theory, or a practice. Me myself realizing anatta i became more relaxed since i realize, everything, that i have and didnt have isnt really matter since the preconception of eternal "i" simply impossible to exist, clearly by discussing, living live and meeting with people of other tradition open my mind more ,and the "me" of the past already gone. Think positively, by accepting anatta youre accepting that the lazy, selfish, immature you is not permanent, it is subject to change, and its up to us to change it toward the better or worse, this is the beauty of anatta. The notion of original sin of men which uneraseable which latch unto someone merely because hes being born, the one that fallen from grace is denigrating to humanity as whole, thats makes me seeing christianity in a shit tinted glasses, even there are some beauty in its tenets. Also the muslim makes no sense culturally to me at all. Hope this help you to understand the concept of anatta

>>18401034
I understand the concept of anatta, the impermanence of the skhandas and all that, I just don't believe that just because you cannot grasp an immaterial self by deconstructing what mistakenly appears to be its components means the self doesn't exist. It's a matter of perspective, not attachment. But I don't want to spark an autistic argument and I understand the buddhist viewpoint anyway

>>18399856
you have some sort of connection to a guru tho

>>18401056
So it boils down to matter of faith whether permanent soul (atman) exist or not. Could enlighten me how does atman exist? It cannot fit into my mind whether soul could exist in its permanent unchanging form since i learn the theory of anatta in the early childhood. Probably me clinging onto the notions of anatta.

>>18388822
Also in the spirits of this thread my favorite buddhist book definitely what the buddha taught by walpola rahula, it help to rekindle my spirit toward buddhism from merely cultural to more spiritual in my teenage years.

>>18401106
>it boils down to matter of faith
This is the case in all religion really, at some point you have to admit that some of what you take to be true is predicated on faith, it's true for everyone
>whether soul could exist in its permanent unchanging form
It's my belief that the soul can change because it exists within time, but it emanates from and interacts with the intellect which is unchanging and eternal. Pic related. As I said though I don't want to start debating this so I'd like to stop discussing it here since it isn't the thread for it, I guess if you're interested you can look at plotinus' cosmological model

I believe I am an essentially self-initiated sotapanna. syncretic, but successful nonetheless. I do not know what to do now. One thing it says on the wiki for sotapanna is that it will give a person certainty in the value of the method. But I did not really have a method. The muslims say the same about the equivalent experience, it will give certainty in Islam.

>>18398552
>embracing them as they are
you're taking for granted what "they are" which is the main problem with the caste system, take for granted a lot of things about individuals ans society, just like some people taked for granted that the earth was flat just because they couldn't conceive it as a spherical object or that there's some magical dudes at the top of some mountain that decide the destiny of the universe
what i'm trying to say is that all of that is just myths and folklore designed so one group of people could use and oppress other group of people
just a bunch of fairy tales designed for social control, someone who search for the liberation of the mind don't need to believe such misguided superstitions
>>18397678
>Well by your definition casteism is real
not at all, and i can't fathom what kind of contrived mental gymnastic you had to do to arrive at that forced conclusion

>>18401151
>what i'm trying to say is that all of that is just myths and folklore designed so one group of people could use and oppress other group of people
but you are just taking this for granted though

>>18401056
read hume if you want a western approach to this same problematic, kant and hegel if you want to see how western philosophy resolved the problem

>>18401140
>I do not know what to do now
then you're not a sotapanna

>>18401136
>It's my belief that the soul can change because it exists within time,
that's the viññana in buddhism
but it emanates from and interacts with the intellect which is unchanging and eternal.
that's the dammahakaya in buddhism

>>18401183
well, I saw it and then I came back. now the question is what to do with being back. does it achieve anything if I manage to see it again? for whom? I was very affected by hindu thought at the time, and so my understanding was that I am Brahman. Then I came back. But I know I am not this, so what to do with this and for what reason, if anything at all

>>18401208
If the Nous is the dharmakaya, what is the One?
Are you implying mahayana is compatible with the view I expressed?

>>18390312
I didn't undesrtand buddhism remotely until i read the Mulamadhyamakakarika.
the dhammapada and even selections of suttas didnt really make sense until i understood emptiness.

>>18401234
somewhat, there's gonna be some differences, but those basic points can be extrapolated to a buddhist point of view
the one is a little more difficult,. but someone could make a point that sunyata or boddichitta in a more personal level could be categorized as a force similar to the One

i'm not trying to convert you tho, Plotinus is pretty great, did you read meister Eckhart? he articulated some pretty neat angeology from Dyoniso Areopagita which was in turn heavily influenced by Plotinus, a lot of buddhist scholars study mesiter Eckhart as someone with ideas closely related to buddhist tough but in the european middle ages

>>18401221
just keep practicing, keep being skillful and aware
this dhamma talk make greats point of what's the big picture behind the practice

https://youtu.be/ptnSWSvbTdY

>>18401307
>https://youtu.be/ptnSWSvbTdY
cool, I'll check it in the morning

>>18401289
>not trying to convert you
It's interesting either way, though even if you can find rough equivalents, I doubt the problem of the soul and spirit can really be addressed without overlooking anatta. Was it shingon that said there actually is atman? Either way they're a minority
>did you read meister Eckhart
Not yet, but I definitely will. I was told his ideas can be loosely connected to some buddhist concepts especially concerning death

>>18390268
based
>>18391603
seething

>>18401322
>I doubt the problem of the soul and spirit can really be addressed without overlooking anatta
it's indeed an interesting problem, but we shouldn't forget that when we're talking about emptiness in buddhism we're talking about thing being empty of any barriers with the rest of things, not empty or meaning or existence, the impermanence creates a flux that absolutely exist and give us identity,maybe taking that into consideration one can build some bridges between different traditions, since most of them in one way or another study the dialectics between particulars and universals

>>18401151
Im sorry i didnt give you the context of varna that i believe in, the context of varna in indian sense of rigid hereditary system is highly flawed and evil. But now modern varna didnt have the constraint of heredity. It is highly fluid and all people could easily fall into lower caste (lower socio economic bracket) and move up the caste bracket, but does the concept of people of high born and low born dissapear? No, sure all people being born the same, but their condition of growing up affected by their environment and so on is different which mold them into what they believe and what they became. like one could easily deduct one's future by knowing the environment they born. Like its hard for a goldsmith being born in a family of fisherman, thats where the notion of karma works in. Being born in a good family will make one have a tendency for being quite succesful at life. Note the word tendency, it isnt 100% accurate, the indian caste tho enforce those by including hereditary. Now how about modern society? When you pull someone up and hold some one down for the sake of equality, would that makes your society equal? No, since there has to be someone or something that LIFTS/HOLD that person status, whether its an individual or an organization. Your notion of a perfectly balanced society is impossible to occur. Class struggle is real, but if you struggle up, some definitely will fall. That my point of why casteism shall always there in another form, categorization and hierarchy shall always exist one way another.

>>18401234
It is tho, the buddha nature is permanent in ev

>>18401430
Unless I understand it wrong, buddha nature doesn't constitute an individual soul, it's more like an essence that permeates everything but is not individualized
>>18401395
Actually yeah the problem of universals is probably the most important thing when comparing traditions and I think you'd be hard pressed to fit buddhism into any kind of realist framework without distorting sunyata

>>18401234
Well thats what i digest from learning about budha conciousness recently, about vairocana and stuff which is mind boggling but made sense in the framework of buddhist thinking. Which the quality of buddha exist out of space and time. My frame work of buddhist knowledge from early age is like this
"Buddha is a god that will bless us bla bla bla(early parenting)>Well buddha is a kind of godless prophet with dharma as his messages (school mandatory theravada teachings)>holy shit buddha r' us (bodhisatvahood and dharmakaya and all those mahayana mumbo jumbo)>certain realization that when i follow the noble eight path all those stuff arent matter anymore

>>18394966
>>18395695
>>18396171

Check out the Madhyamaka symposium from smith college they talk the issue to death
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTtG1Iakgx0

I read the Huntington book. I've also read a few of Garfield's who's view aligns with Cabezons and who I understand was more the progenitor of bringing about this specific debate with Huntington's work. I've learned a lot from reading both, and especially am thankful of Garfield for his rigorous scholarship translating Tsongkhapa's Ocean of Reasoning. I decidedly am on the side of Huntington. At the heart of the debate I see Garfield et. al. representing an Anglo-American analytic sensibility who while largely agreeing with the thrust of the Madhyamakan argument, can't give up a subtle clinging to and reification of logic and argument. The Madhyamakas, Indian and Gelug, wrote and debated extensively using a logic of the finest possible tips. Read Tsongkhapa's commentary and his Central Philosophy, you cannot hardly parse things finer then the analysis in there does. So when Huntington says that these are just mere arguments and that logic is mere logic, it seems like well that can't be the Madhyamaka take or that can't be the Gelug take - those guys were arch logicians. So they see Huntington as cheapening rigorous thought and flattening the interpretive framework into a kind of "you can't say anything about anything". I disagree and think that's uncharitable. Garfield talks about the salvific project saying Reason "is there in the beginning, the middle, and the end" hinting at, if not Reason, then small r reason, serving as SOME KIND of philosophical ground. Huntington's approach seems to emphasize the conventional nature of these teachings which isn't to diminish their import in the least, but actually is a significant aspect of the teaching itself.

Both identify with the Prasangika and with Chandrakirti; but while less explicit, Garfield et. al. seem to have a subtle Svatantrik bias which I believe stems from the strong positivist bias in anglo-american academia.

>>18400386
>You feel harmed because of your slave morality.
No, I feel as though society is harmed because I consider atheism, individualism and consumerism to be horrible trends for society to follow which lead people to an infra-human existence; that has nothing to do with slave morality. Buddhism's opposition to the caste system is actually a clear-cut case of slave morality.

>>18400394
>Youre talking nonsense
No I'm not
>Tell me in natural state any creature who love without social hierarchy
Irrelevent to my point
> Also who said without the current hierarchy the greed and individualism, materialism and consumerism would be gone?
If they are not being promoted by TPTB, they would be less common
>Remember theres nothing permanent.
I guess you can never obtain everlasting freedom from rebirth then like Buddhism promises huh?

>>18401034
>since the preconception of eternal "i" simply impossible to exist
Why?

>>18401106
>Could enlighten me how does atman exist?
As unconditioned unending consciousness in which the intellect/mind appears, without that appearance effecting or conditioning the consciousness in question.

>>18401448
the general conception of universals has conceived by plato, specially in the parmenides could still be found in buddhism tho, that is universals as a force and not as a perfect version of something in other world, this dynamic force that unify things (to hen) could be compared in some ways as sunyata, i personally don't care to much about those type of connections, but i think they could be made

>>18401978
>No, I feel as though society is harmed because I consider atheism, individualism and consumerism to be horrible trends for society to follow which lead people to an infra-human existence; that has nothing to do with slave morality.
Well how dare you! Those are the values of the ruling hierarchy as communicated from its priests to its administrators to its procurers to its producers. You are attacking caste and therefore a dissolutionary, degenerative counter-traditional force in our society. Away with you before you do any more damage to confidence in our primordial traditions
>Buddhism's opposition to the caste system is actually a clear-cut case of slave morality.
Only in the sense of discrediting the ritualism and scriptures of the brahmins. But Buddhism is quite clear about renunciation, one cannot be a ruling potentate and achieve enlightenment, which actually is something the caste system would have agreed with anyway, since enlightenment was for the priests and not the warrior aristocracy. So who here is really being ressentiment-filled and trying to usurp? Is it the Buddhist, or is it the priest telling everyone how to limit themselves for his benefit?

>>18402168
>Those are the values of the ruling hierarchy as communicated from its priests
They aren't priests you idiot. The values now come from megacorporations, the media and wall street, none of them are priests in the true sense of the word, if you are forced to use 'priest' figuratively, which you are doing, your whole argument becomes meaningless sophistry.

>Only in the sense of discrediting the ritualism and scriptures of the brahmins.
major cope, Buddha followed a slave morality in attempting to devalue the Brahmin status of the Brahmin caste by denying its connection with birth and in attempting to equalize everyone by saying that everyone can be a Brahmin if they just behave the right way

>>18401668
Okay, I may watch it later thanks.

Can you explain to me why Kalupahana called Chandrakirti a "crypto-Vedantist"? I don't get it. Are you able to briefly elaborate on Kalupahana's reading of Madhyamaka in relation to Huntington on one hand, and what seems to be Garfield, Cabezon and the Gelug on the other?

>>18388822
Do you guys know of anymore Buddhist novels and epic poems?

Siddhartha is another well known example but have no interest in reading Hermann Hesse.

>>18402255
About slave morality i kinda agree with you, but on the mega corp and priest stuff i think them as the one and same in the different package. One offer earthly pleasures and on offer heavenly pleasure as the reward.

>>18401978
What is the difference of atman and buddha nature then?

>I guess you can never obtain everlasting freedom from rebirth then like Buddhism promises huh?
Thats seems disingenuous, im talking the freedom of individual (which is anatta), while were talking about casteism and its eternal re-occurrence in different shape on human society.

Yeah it isnt relevant im reaching out too far on that point, im sorry on that point

So you agree that it wont be gone, but based on what evidence those stuff would reduced instead of increasing rampantly? On what bases reducing order would instead increasing social order? Its like boiling water hoping it to cool down.

Well as i said, you before and you right now is different in every facet. Even your conciousness. So how about deaf people who able to hear using helping device or blind people who suddenly can see? They never had the concioussnes of hearing nor sense of object to see, what part of it unchanging and unconditioned since it became concious from unconscious? Hopefully i could convey my point across quite clearly

>>18402255
>your whole argument becomes meaningless sophistry.
Kind of like your "if only we had authorities that agreed with me then I would support the hierarchy because tradition"
>Buddha followed a slave morality in attempting to devalue the Brahmin status
Devaluing priests is a negation of a slave morality. All priests are keepers and advocates of life devaluing doctrines which feed on the ressentiment of slaves.

You're all going to burn in hell. Find Jesus before it's too late! PLEASE!

Making my way through the 'In the Buddha's Words', it's better than I thought but still, it seems like the Sutta's were less the exact word of the Buddha and more an adaption of the Buddha's words in order to be memorised in some cases.
The part where the Buddha asks Ananda to repeat the wonderful and marvellous qualities of the Buddha made me laugh.

>>18402353
Lol I have found Jesus, read Deuteronomy 13
He was a failed Messiah, a blasphemer and idolater who lead to billions of people likewise to become blasphemer's and idolaters according to your own books

>>18393478
>>18394750
>>18395536
>Being so Buddhist that you go full circle and embrace the caste system
Holy fuck my sides

>>18401354
silence, adharmic dog

>>18402320
>What is the difference of atman and buddha nature then?
Many of the different buddhist schools and sutras interpret and explain buddha-nature quite differently, so I would have to compare it to specific buddhist schools interpretations of the concept to be accurate, and I don't know enough about the details of how each school understands the concept differently to speak on this at length.

>but based on what evidence those stuff would reduced instead of increasing rampantly
Well, people tend to be heavily influenced by the greater culture around them and what its authority figures promote, it seems quite logical that if anything which is being heavily promoted were to stop being promoted, and the opposite values promoted instead, one would expect to eventually see that reflected in the populations behavior.

>you before and you right now is different in every facet. Even your conciousness.
I don't think so, by all indications I am the same consciousness now that I have always been.
>So how about deaf people who able to hear using helping device or blind people who >suddenly can see? They never had the concioussnes of hearing nor sense of object to see, what part of it unchanging and unconditioned since it became concious from unconscious?
Hearing and seeing are not consciousness, they are objects or phenomena presented to consciousness, changes in the things presented to consciousness (which knows those changing things) is not in itself a change in consciousness, just as when you see a blue car drive by you, and then a red car, that change in witnessed cars did not mean that you now have a different eye than the eye you had when you saw the blue car. Differences of known content in no way imply variation in the knower.

In the example you give, the consciousness of deaf and blind people is the exact same as people who can see and hear, and even after the deaf and blind people regain their functions through medical devices, their consciousness remains the same; the only change is in the type of information being presented to their consciousness.
>>18402341
>if only we had authorities that agreed with me then I would support the hierarchy because tradition"
I never said "all hierarchies are good everywhere even when they promote globohomo"

>Devaluing priests is a negation of a slave morality. All priests are keepers and advocates of life devaluing doctrines which feed on the ressentiment of slaves.
Retroactively refuted by Nietzche who coined the phrase slave morality and who praised the caste system and the Manusmrit that lays out caste rules as life-affirming

“Close the Bible and open the Manu Smriti. It has an affirmation of life, a triumphing agreeable sensation in life and that to draw up a lawbook such as Manu means to permit oneself to get the upper hand, to become perfection, to be ambitious of the highest art of living.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power

>>18402393
I'm not Buddhist, I just think that one of the reasons that Buddhism is sort of silly is because its implicit in the metaphysics that people deserve what caste they are born into, but then Buddhists dont seem to want to accept the consequences of this.

>>18394924
Nah, it's the only author /pol/ reads, /pol/ just feels the need to shit up every board. At least we've been relatively resistant, unlike boards like /tv/ which are basically /pol/ colonies.

>>18402393
caste is still a reality of birth, the Buddha just made his teaching available to everyone. none the less, the vast majority of his early followers were brahmin and kshatriya. people are born with varying degrees of potential ability in all aspects, including spiritual ability, because of karma. Buddhism doesn't deny this.

>>18402456
>don't understand buddhist metaphysics
>makes his own conclusions anyways
>none of it makes any sense to him or anyone else
>nngghh those damn buddhist!!

>>18402484
Does early buddhism link caste to spiritual ability?
>>18402456
Why?
Being reborn as a lower caste person hardly seems that important compared to the fate of being reborn in a hell for a ridiculously long number of years

>>18396266
Lol this, it's always funny when Western media portrays Tibet as some peaceful enlightened society that did nothing wrong when it was really a brutal theocracy built on serfdom.

>>18402505
do you know any good books on Tibetan history and or Tibetan Buddhism? I wanna learn more about it but I can't find anything good online

>>18402446
>Retroactively refuted by Nietzche
Nietzsche contradicts himself all the time, he praised buddha and hated him at the same time, the same with spinoza, that was in a way part of his system against rigid forms of logic, so what he refuted or agree upon must always be taken with a grain of salt
you can take a quote form nietzsche agreeing with something and inthe same book another one condemning it

>>18402498
>>don't understand buddhist metaphysics
how so? Buddha himself says that bad actions cause you to be born as low-status, deaf, dumb and ugly. Whether or not this justifies the caste system is not a question of metaphysics, the metaphysical component is simply whether karma functions that way

>>18402504
>Does early buddhism link caste to spiritual ability?
no

By birth one is not an outcaste,
By birth one is not a Brahmin;
By deeds alone one is an outcaste,
By deeds alone one is a Brahmin
vasala sutta

>>18402521
>Nietzsche contradicts himself all the time,
He never contradicts himself by saying that the Manusmriti and caste was life-denying and slave morality, he consistently affirmed the exact opposite about them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8aN9O73lgg especially part 3
>>18389025
Please link
>>18396342
Any recommendations for dream yoga/lucid dreaming? I know michael holecek.

I'm really confused about how I'm meant to see meat eating in Buddhism
At least in the Theravada tradition, obviously it's not good for me to be buying meat from someone but is it as bad as violating the first precept?
When the Buddha accepted donations of meat, meat that wasn't slaughtered for him but just gifted to him, if the family that is giving him the meat violated the first precept by slaughtering one of their animals is the Buddha not essentially advocating for it's violation?
I just don't understand how it's ok to eat meat in the Theravada tradition but then have a bunch of slaughterer's who condemn themselves to awful karma
Unless of course the meat was roadkill in which case I suppose it'd be ok cause the driver didn't have the intention to harm the animal but no society that I know of is formed around eating roadkill

>>18402446
>>18402521
>>18402553


also his notion of Orientalism where heavily influenced by Schopenhauer who was had a lousy knowledge of eastern metaphysics, as a general rule you shouldn't take seriously any western work on orientalism prior to 1950

>>18402579
just don't eat meat then

>>18402597
The Buddha prohibited vegetarianism from being a rule in the Vinaya though

>>18402531
all people have the potential to become enlightened, all people do not have equal ability.

Are there any texts about the past lives of Arahant btw?
Were they born with good karma?
Or were they just completely ordinary in terms of their birth as humans?

>>18402383
N-n-no... Veneration of the cross isn't i-idolatry!

>>18402607
yeah but you can still be vegan if you want

>>18402608
yeah but that skill is not related to caste as the vasala sutta expose quite clearly

>>18402446
>I don't know enough about the details of how each school understands the concept differently to speak on this at length

So do me, but its interesting seeing original buddhism he try to refute the existence of atman suddenly going to east the existence of it reinserted into his teaching

>Well, people tend to be heavily influenced by the greater culture around them and what its authority figures promote

Well probably in your culture actor/tress and social media influencer are the main influence out there eh? In here its still held by religious figure. So consumerism still held quite at the bay. By removing them from the seat of authority we probably will got WAP

How did you know youre the same conciousness the one as before? Its unable to be quantified and to watch, merely stream of conciousness that you try to grasp and keep changing all the time? So by definition whenever one fell asleep you're dead then? Since you are unconcious. If you are concious while asleep , by what metric we could be assured that you are concious while asleep? Any stimuli given while youre asleep has no host to accept it, only receptor who act on reflex. Where did the conciousness go? Does it back to atman whenever you fell asleep? This is fascinating topic to talk about

About slave morality and master morality, what is their main difference? If master morality taken to extreme, it remind me of nazism, is nazism the solution toward the degeneration in the modern era? Also manu smrti literally a rambling of a madman. Only half of the content of it that were consistent, the other half of them keep negating each other. Its just a commentary. Not a literal law book. What is the manu smrti edition that you reccomend for people who interested in it? Thx

>>18402531
This one i agree. Thats why the ideal lifestyle for a buddhist is a medicant. Since all of people start on the same starting point. Its this part that also considered as slave mentality according to kant

hello, i converted to Buddhism.

NAMO TASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA
NAMO TASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA
NAMO TASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA

read this with your palms together on your heart if you wish to convert.

>>18402655
Yeah but nor all people have equal opportunity and condition that make them able to delve dhamma accordingly. Like the buddha only appear at the right time in the right condition. At least we agree that casteism is bad.

>>18402673
Nietzche not kant im high from insomnia. Im so sorry

>>18402699
Buddhism aint muslim. As long as you do more good deed, avoiding bad deed, and practice sila and samadhi youre basically a buddhist

>>18402708
yes, this is true.

>>18402579
The Buddha knew that there would always remain some people who won't follow the precepts. By allowing them to offer meat to the monks, he provided an opportunity for them to partially atone for their bad karma.

>>18402446
>I never said "all hierarchies are good everywhere even when they promote globohomo"
So why are you in charge of deciding which hierarchies are good and which are not? Tradposting is self-refuting things-I-like-ism.
>Retroactively refuted by Nietzche who coined the phrase slave morality and who praised the caste system and the Manusmrit that lays out caste rules as life-affirming
The Law of Manu doesn't encourage the weak to overthrow the strong, and neither does Buddhism. Perhaps much like you yourself are doing, Buddhism attacks a hierarchy it considers arbitrary, not on grounds of who finds their oppression unbearable, but on the demonstrated inability of members of the so-called highest caste to uphold spiritual values.

>>18402579
The animal wasn't killed for him, it was already killed for the people that made it for him. If he went asking for meat specifically it would be supporting animals being killed for his sake which is a no go. He accepts it anyway because he can't turn down what was begged for and accepting a donation of any kind is considered a compassionate action because it gives the giver merit for having given something to the Buddha/sangha

>>18402579
>At least in the Theravada tradition, obviously it's not good for me to be buying meat from someone but is it as bad as violating the first precept?
the first precept is I undertake to observe the rule to abstain from taking life
not "do not eat meat" or "do not buy meat"

>When the Buddha accepted donations of meat, meat that wasn't slaughtered for him but just gifted to him, if the family that is giving him the meat violated the first precept by slaughtering one of their animals is the Buddha not essentially advocating for it's violation?
In the Theravada tradition monks ask lay followers to not slaughter an animal specifically for their consumption but if they have a portion of their house hold meat given to the monks this is ok.

>I just don't understand how it's ok to eat meat in the Theravada tradition but then have a bunch of slaughterer's who condemn themselves to awful karma
well "refrain from eating meat" is not a precept. like I said above the precept is I undertake to observe the rule to abstain from taking life

>Unless of course the meat was roadkill in which case I suppose it'd be ok cause the driver didn't have the intention to harm the animal but no society that I know of is formed around eating roadkill
Its not the meat eating that is ever the problem it is the killing that is against the first precept.
Even if accidently kill something that is breaking the first precept

>meditating
>sudden strange feeling
>feel like it’s always been here
>eternal feeling
>cant explain it
>now always feel it
this feeling is getting in the way of my meditation!!!!!! >:((

>>18401151
You're fitting the paradigm of tradition and man's attachment into the caste system. 'Lower' castes are depicted as lower only from a frame of perspective of pride. Every role has it's purpose and there exists no inherent shame in it other than what the conceptual notions of man place upon it.
Consider a different perspective, one lacking of the conceptual and ego bound positions.

>>18398407
>>18398723
Understanding that desiring to be free of desire is contrary to becoming free of it. The Buddha does not desire to be free of desire, he just frees himself of desire, in which he desires nothing.

>>18398723
The paradoxes and conflicts within Buddhism are completely intentional. They are tools used to point at the folly of the conceptual world man is often trapped in. Awakening is a process of letting go but is often seen as a path of progress instead. You don't 'reach' awakening or understanding, but instead you start to realize the inherent truth you had all along.

The overall reason it is this way is because no one can walk the path for you, similar to how a Christian develops a personal relationship with God/Christ. One has to unlearn or realize the folly of the paradigm held in order to get rid of it.

>>18398723
"If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire."
"In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular desire allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have persistence, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular persistence allayed?"

"Yes, sir."

"Didn't you first have the intent, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular intent allayed?"
"Yes, sir.”
"Didn't you first have [an act of] discrimination, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular act of discrimination allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"So it is with an arahant whose mental effluents are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis. Whatever desire he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular desire is allayed. Whatever persistence he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular persistence is allayed. Whatever intent he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular intent is allayed. Whatever discrimination he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular discrimination is allayed. So what do you think, brahman? Is this an endless path, or one with an end?"
"You're right, Master Ananda. This is a path with an end, and not an endless one."

>>18402589
>also his notion of Orientalism where heavily influenced by Schopenhauer who was had a lousy knowledge of eastern metaphysics
So? Nietzsche read the Manusmrit himself. He doesn't need someone else to tell him how to understand it, it doesn't even really talk about metaphysics much in that but its a legal text. It sounds like you are just coping about the fact that the inventor of the notion of 'slave morality' praised the caste-system that buddhists seethe over as life-affirming

>>18402888
>So why are you in charge of deciding which hierarchies are good and which are not?
My values align with what the religious traditions of the world all largely promote.
>but on the demonstrated inability of members of the so-called highest caste to uphold spiritual values.
Where was this not demonstrated? In the Buddhist scriptures attacking them? That's not a very reliable source

>>18403063
>Consider a different perspective, one lacking of the conceptual and ego bound positions
i do, that's why i consider the caste system to be unjust and tyrannical, no one has the right to tell anyone else he's from a different status, specially when said status aren't dictated by merit but by pure social conventions, caste system was designed by brahmins pride and ego

>>18403350
>My values align with what the religious traditions of the world all largely promote.
Speaking of which...
>Where was this not demonstrated? In the Buddhist scriptures attacking them? That's not a very reliable source
Just so, the scriptures praising the caste system are not a reliable source!

>>18403338
>Nietzsche read the Manusmrit himself
he read a translation, a very bad translation
>>18403338
>He doesn't need someone else to tell him how to understand it
every ancinet text need some sort of hermeneutic tool to be understood properly, which in times of nietzsche were non existent

>>18402663
>How did you know youre the same conciousness the one as before?
Because I’ve observed everything enter in and leave the presence of my consciousness while the fact of my presence being there has never changed

>Its unable to be quantified and to watch, merely stream of conciousness that you try to grasp and keep changing all the time?
Consciousness is separate from the mind/intellect, the mind grasps things but consciousness is unchanging, spotless, undivided, and simply illumines the mind and body like light
>So by definition whenever one fell asleep you're dead then?
No, because consciousness remains the exact same during sleep, consciousness is the unchanging witness of waking, dream and deep sleep, it is the transcendental 4th in which all the others are contained. In sleep the intellect withdraws into a quiescent state but consciousness remains without any object to illuminate. Memory is also part of the intellect (neither are consciousness) and so the memory does not capture a record of this state, but its revealed by how our sense of presence and being always precedes the sense of waking up from deep sleep, as the previously existent presence to whom waking up is occurring, its not generated by the very time of waking up. You always feel like you precede your waking up, that waking up is something you observe happening because there was an observer prior to the waking up.

> If you are concious while asleep , by what metric we could be assured that you are concious while asleep?

>Where did the conciousness go? Does it back to atman whenever you fell asleep?
Consciousness/Atman never goes anywhere because its omnipresent and infinite, according to the Upanishads

>>18403457
>Because I’ve observed everything enter in and leave the presence of my consciousness while the fact of my presence being there has never changed
all of this is a fabrication of your mind and in no way an empiric or rational proof of a transcendental awareness

>Because I’ve observed
this is the illusion of ego, the "I" in here is an reflection of experiences that >>18403457
>enter in and leave the presence of my consciousness
this is the second movement of that illusion, once the illusion of ego is in place the thought of a system that allows experiences to "enter and leave" is rooted
>while the fact of my presence being there has never changed
there's nothing factual here, just an a priori syntethic concept and a reflection allowed by said concept

just like shankara you think the concept you create to understand consciousness are on itself something that has an existence onto themselves, instead of being ways of the experience to manifest

all the rest of your point are based on this first misconception of what constitute awareness and consciousness
you think the last part of viññana/conspicuousness is the begging, and fail to see the illogical conclusions and forced mental gymnastic your whole system has

>>18403366
It's unjust and tyrannical in such a system, yes. But there is nothing inherently wrong with the caste system itself, and rather the abuse of it. Typically, one would be allowed to move out of their caste system if they have proven themselves not to belong in the one they were born in or indoctrinated into. Often one would not because they have spent the early portion of their lives within the caste they were born in. The issue isn't the system itself, for anyone can live a fulfilling life no matter the system they are in, and rather the problem lies within the abuse of authority and the pride of those who hold more material wealth.

are anons on /lit/ smart enough to differentiate between a buddhist and a buddha? and anyone can attain vimutti and become a buddha, and "the buddha" is called gautama buddha.

t. a newfag

>>18402589
>as a general rule you shouldn't take seriously any western work on orientalism prior to 1950
Seems like you shouldn't be taken seriously on orientalism

>>18403573
yes that is how the caste system works

>>18403487
>all of this is a fabrication of your mind and in no way an empiric or rational proof of a transcendental awareness
Where is the evidence for that? You are just pulling that out of your ass

> this is the illusion of ego
Wrong, the ego is observed by consciousness, by “I” I am referring to consciousness and not the ego.
> the "I" in here is an reflection of experiences
This doesn’t make any sense, because in the absence of a presence who was different from the experiences, the divided experiences could not themselves give rise to the unity of presence and experience that we have, so it’s obvious that there is a presence who the experiences are presented to.

> this is the second movement of that illusion, once the illusion of ego is in place the thought of a system that allows experiences to "enter and leave" is rooted
If that’s an illusion, who is witnessing the illusion? There must be a non-illusory thing witnessing the illusion, which is consciousness, i.e. the Atman, because illusions have no sentience or self-awareness and they are incapable of perceiving themselves.

> there's nothing factual here
The fact of me having a continuous presence has been true at least for as long as my memory extends back, it has been confirmed in my own experience

> just like shankara you think the concept you create to understand consciousness are on itself something that has an existence onto themselves, instead of being ways of the experience to manifest
Buddha didn’t understand consciousness at all, and he lists things as consciousness which are not conscious at all like ear-consciousness and eye-consciousness, those things have no awareness but they are presented to and known by consciousness. It’s partially because Shankara clearly and correctly described the nature of consciousness that he was able to refute Buddhism so easily and drive it from India when many people realized that the Buddhist conception of consciousness makes no sense.

>all the rest of your point are based on this first misconception of what constitute awareness and consciousness
I could say the same about you

>you think the last part of viññana/conspicuousness is the begging
consciousness is actually undivided and partless, no parts in it can be identified but upon analysis all the so-called ‘parts’ are actually non-conscious phenomena which are known by consciousness, this is quite easy to show

>and fail to see the illogical conclusions and forced mental gymnastic your whole system has
such as?

>>18403669
>If that’s an illusion, who is witnessing the illusion? There must be a non-illusory thing witnessing the illusion, which is consciousness, i.e. the Atman, because illusions have no sentience or self-awareness and they are incapable of perceiving themselves.

illusions delude themselves thoughts think themselves feelings feel

>This doesn’t make any sense, because in the absence of a presence who was different from the experiences, the divided experiences could not themselves give rise to the unity of presence and experience that we have, so it’s obvious that there is a presence who the experiences are presented to

experiences experience themselves

My favorite Buddhist text is the spinny spinny roll roll rollers. Hahaha, I read all the sutras while going up the stairs, roll roll roll. Hahaha I read them all again going down the stairs, spin spin spin. I'm enlightened now hahaha.

>>18403734
Based

>>18403734
I myself also wannna be spinny spinny enlightened one. Such a grand aspirations, wow

>>18403687
>illusions delude themselves thoughts think themselves feelings feel
That’s wrong, mirages have no self-awareness, at no point in the meeting of light and heat that causes a mirage is there any awareness of consciousness that the mirage possesses. You cannot name a single example from the world of an illusion being self-aware, why should we accept the fanciful notion that illusions can be self aware when there is no evidence for it?
>thoughts think themselves
>experiences experience themselves
Okay, who is aware of those thoughts and experiences then? Since we self-evidently have awareness of thoughts and experiences (otherwise we couldn’t even have this discussion) that means that either thoughts and experiences must either (a) be known by an awareness/presence who is separate from them, or (b) the thoughts and experiences have their own individual awareness that knows themselves. One of these options has to be true to explain how we are aware of having thoughts etc.

You won’t accept option A on the basis of buddhist dogma, but option B makes no sense, it’s completely ridiculous!

If there is no separate sentience and instead thoughts and sensory perceptions are self-knowing, how can they know each other in the way that they necessarily must do in order that they can all be integrated into the united understanding and knowing of them that we possess? The sense of smell being based on the olfactory organ cannot comprehend or witness thoughts and the sense of sound. The different self-knowing sense-organs based sensations and however many self-knowing types of mental phenomena you enumerate would be like a bunch of tiny lamps burning in tiny little holes far away from each other inside the recesses of a mountain, with no way for them to witness each other, the incapability of the senses to observe the others would not be able to produce the integrated sense of knowing all of them that we have.

>>18403687
>>18403827
Also, if thoughts are self-knowing without being witnessed by any sentience or self, how do thoughts know each other such that it allows us to form patterns of rational and structured thought? Does the self-revealing thought witness both its own self-knowing content as well as the content of the previous thought with which it is connected during deliberation and rational thought? Then if that were true we would never be able to stop thinking about whatever specific content we thought about until going to sleep because the content of the previous thought would invariably form the content of the next self-revealing thought, since the next thought would consist of itself as well as the knowing of the previous thought, which since that previous thought itself is partitioned into itself and the content of the previous one and so on ad infinitum going back in time. You could never unthink about the first thing you saw or thought of when waking up in the morning. Sentience being different from thoughts doesn't face this same problem since if sentience observes thoughts then sentience is not invariably identical with and constituted by the contents of the former or current thought by it is that which illumines them.

>>18403827
>The different self-knowing sense-organs based sensations and however many self-knowing types of mental phenomena you enumerate would be like a bunch of tiny lamps burning in tiny little holes far away from each other inside the recesses of a mountain, with no way for them to witness each other
Amazing how you will argue against a point no one is even making to defend the priestly negations of mayavada. But I suppose that is necessary in order to defend objects which do not actually exist.

>>18403842
>Amazing how you will argue against a point no one is even making
When you say that thoughts and sensory perceptions know themselves without being known by a separate awareness, that is actually the practical implication of what you are talking about, there is no longer any way for them to combine into the united experience that we have. Their inability to know each other may indeed be accurately compared to a bunch of lamps cut off from each other, with no vision of each other.

>>18403827
a mirage is not illusion you just think it is

> You won’t accept option A on the basis of buddhist dogma, but option B makes no sense, it’s completely ridiculous!

nobody is aware of them perception is a process that is from the process of consciousness that is from the process of reaction

just processes no presence no beings only becomings

>>18403857
they don’t know themselves that’s not what i said i said thoughts think themselves. everything after that is wrong because you thought wrong first

>>18388822
How can I begin with the Buddhists?, I've tried to follow Buddhists schools and monks in Japanese books, but after a while I still don't get what exactly Buddhism Is for Buddhists.

>>18403857
Why would anatman result in everything getting its own atman? Aren't you the one who believes that?

>>18403687
>If that’s an illusion, who is witnessing the illusion? There must be a non-illusory thing witnessing the illusion, which is consciousness, i.e. the Atman, because illusions have no sentience or self-awareness and they are incapable of perceiving themselves.

the consciousness(viññana) we don't need a second type of consciousness(atman) when we understand that awareness is an act on itself (bhava) that arise from and thanks of the intrinsic nature of existence(Pratītyasamutpāda)

>>18403827
you're just putting a lot of random axioms in your arguments to make it sound valid while avoiding the arguments you suppose to be refuting, you'll go nowhere with that type of rhetoric

>>18403892
because japan is far from buddhas home india. read theravada avoid zen and tibet

>>18403892
go to wikipedia, read the articles about the 3 main schools, theravada, mahayana and vajrayana
then search some vids on youtube of monks of those schools giving dharma talks, see what you like, every concept you find interesting or it's hard to grasp, go to the wikipedia
then when you have that general notion of what buddhism is, start thinking about what kind of school and practice you'll like to do, read some more about that and then find a place that can give you that practice(vajrayana initiations, zen dojos, theravada meditation centres etc)

>>18403870
>nobody is aware of them
How am I aware of reading your post right now then you NPC?

>perception is a process that is from the process of consciousness that is from the process of reaction
repeating the word ‘process’ a bunch of times does not excuse you from the foolishness of denying that there is awareness of thoughts when this is self-evidently wrong. If you aren’t aware of reading my post, who is? How can you even reply to my post and exercise volition in that regard there is no awareness of the thought of reading it?

>>18403882
>they don’t know themselves that’s not what i said i said thoughts think themselves
How do you distinguish between thinking themselves and knowing themselves? How can a thought think itself but at the same time not know itself? An unknown thought is something that is not thought of because its not known, so how can thoughts think themselves without knowing themselves? Sounds like nonsense. I’m still waiting for you to explain how these self-thinking thoughts and self-perceiving perceptions give rise to a united experience by the way.

>>18403929
>then you NPC?
you know guenonfag is melting when he has to use edgelord pol/ buzzwords

>>18403929
>How am I aware of reading your post right now then you NPC?

you aren’t. awareness of my posts is happening it’s just happening, you is not needed

> foolishness of denying that there is awareness of thoughts when this is self-evidently wrong. If you aren’t aware of reading my post, who is? How can you even reply to my post and exercise volition in that regard there is no awareness of the thought of reading it?

nobody is aware of your posts, but there is awareness of your posts. no i or you or me or anyone is needed for awareness. it’s not hard

> How do you distinguish between thinking themselves and knowing themselves? How can a thought think itself but at the same time not know itself?

because know is humanizing the thought. it’s just a thought and it thinks itself and then it’s gone that’s it

> I’m still waiting for you to explain how these self-thinking thoughts and self-perceiving perceptions give rise to a united experience by the way

what united experience? every experience is difffent the next moment. show me

>>18403896
>Why would anatman result in everything getting its own atman?
Because us being aware of thought and experience is what allows us to gain knowledge of the world and act on it. There has to be something which is aware of the content in order to explain how we have knowledge of the world, even if you say the content knows itself as some Buddhists do, I’m just examining the implications which that leads to.

>>18403899
>the consciousness(viññana)
So are you saying now that the vinnana is what is aware of or conscious of the thoughts? What is the relation of vinnana to thoughts and sensory perceptions as you understand it?
> awareness is an act on itself (bhava)
an act of what on itself? what is the thing acting on itself? How does it act on itself? You are just being vague, I know that Buddhists thrive on ambiguity but come on

>>18403908
>while avoiding the arguments you suppose to be refuting
such as?

>>18403929
>How am I aware
you're not really aware, there's an action of awarness than tricks itself into developing an ego, that action indeed exist and his dependent on something, but it's not dependent on an atman but on karma, you think you exist as a persona thanks to karmic formations, your cowardice to let that go and see yourself as part of something bigger is what betrays you as spiritually immature

>>18403960
>>the consciousness(viññana)
>So are you saying now that the vinnana is what is aware of or conscious of the thoughts? What is the relation of vinnana to thoughts and sensory perceptions as you understand it?
>> awareness is an act on itself (bhava)
>an act of what on itself? what is the thing acting on itself? How does it act on itself? You are just being vague, I know that Buddhists thrive on ambiguity but come on

you are so confused read this first and then

>>18403951
Buddhists only find NPC edgy because its personally scandalous to them because it cuts to the foolishness at the heart of buddhism

>>18403972
read this

>>18403963
prety much every argument anyone here made,you just backtrack to your only point, who experience the experience?! it must be a soul!! it must be a fucking soul!!
what sad is that argument was refuted by buddhist, western philosophy, science and even some medieval scholars

>>18403919
Sri Lanka and Thailand are as offshore as Japan and Tibet
>>18403960
>there has to be something which is aware
And this is an eternal permanent self? That is what the Buddhists are refuting. For if there is an eternal permanent self it could not experience anything in the first place. So your solution is actually a problem!

>>18403980
>>18403960

explain more for you consciousness is not aware, consciousness is conscious of things but it’s not aware of things. no atman no brahman

>>18403973
seethe guenonfag, you'll never be a woman and always be an ugly incel

>>18403989
>Sri Lanka and Thailand are as offshore as Japan and Tibet
culture difference SEA is more like india than china and japan

>>18403960
>I know that Buddhists thrive on ambiguity but come on
you're talking like the concept of bhava was only articulate by buddhism, modern philosophy, german phenomenology, a lot of the pre socratics like Heraclitus, also used that concept
it's not that is vague, is complex, and your fixation on dualism can't let you even fathom the concept, a lot of people understand it pretty easily even when they not agree with it

>>18403952
>you aren’t. awareness of my posts is happening it’s just happening, you is not needed
I am my awareness, why should I not consider my awareness which knows things to be me? That doesn’t seem reasonable. How does awareness that “just is” lead to actions like me typing?

> no i or you or me or anyone is needed for awareness. it’s not hard
you avoided my question, if there’s no ‘you’ or ‘me’, why did your awareness which isn’t you cause your body to post that and how did it even do so?

> because know is humanizing the thought. it’s just a thought and it thinks itself and then it’s gone that’s it
What do you mean by ‘humanizing’ it? That’s not attributing anthropomorphic qualities to it to say known instead of thought. If it just “thinks itself and then its gone and thats it” then how do we form strings of connected and complex thought over time? One thought while its briefly thinking itself and then vanishing cannot think about or recollect earlier thoughts, so there is not any clear way for us to have complex chains of thought.

> what united experience?
Well, for example, you are aware of multiple types of sensory experience at the exact same moment, like you feel the temperature of the air at the same time you see color/light or feel yourself in the chain, these are simultaneously occurring, since multiple sensory info plus whatever thought you may have are all occurring at the same moment, they are united in the fact of all being known at once, if they were not known at once and had to be known or occur in order, then when hearing music you couldn’t see colors etc at the same time, but this is not how we experience things. Since an integrated display of multiple sensory data and a thought can occur at the same moment, there must necessarily be something that integrates them into such, and as these individual thoughts and senses are incapable of doing the integration by themselves for reasons which have already been mentioned, only a separate knowing witness-consciousness satisfactorily explains it.

>>18403969
>there's an action of awarness than tricks itself into developing an ego,
awareness doesn’t act or trick, awareness simply means to be aware

>>18398723
These responses r all kind of over complicating a very simply point. There's nothing wrong with desire in Buddhism, after all the Buddha desired to spread Buddhism and help people. That Is mistranslation the actual root of suffering is attachment.

T. Im a tibetan who was forced by his parents learn abt Buddhism his whole life

>>18404043
>I am my awareness, why should I not consider my awareness which knows things to be me? That doesn’t seem reasonable. How does awareness that “just is” lead to actions like me typing?

meditate and you will know it’s not true it’s illusion

> you avoided my question, if there’s no ‘you’ or ‘me’, why did your awareness which isn’t you cause your body to post that and how did it even do so?

awareness of your post made sensation sensation made reaction, reaction made the post. where is i?

> What do you mean by ‘humanizing’ it? That’s not attributing anthropomorphic qualities to it to say known instead of thought. If it just “thinks itself and then its gone and thats it” then how do we form strings of connected and complex thought over time? One thought while its briefly thinking itself and then vanishing cannot think about or recollect earlier thoughts, so there is not any clear way for us to have complex chains of thought.

why not? it’s just a lot of thoughts thinking themselves

> Well, for example, you are aware of multiple types of sensory experience at the exact same moment, like you feel the temperature of the air at the same time you see color/light or feel yourself in the chain, these are simultaneously occurring, since multiple sensory info plus whatever thought yo

no i’m not. awareness of things happen at the same time that’s it you said it so what is the question?

>>18404064
>How does awareness that “just is” lead to actions like me typing?
there’s awareness of my post then perception then sensation then reaction and that reaction is typing. where is you? it’s not you its just something happening

>>18403980
Your page literally says “consciousness is just undifferentiated awareness which registers phenomena”, which is what I’m saying, how the hell do you get from that to saying “there is no awareness or consciousness of thoughts but just thoughts thinking themselves? It sounds like your own book disagrees with you and it actually agrees with me

>>18403988
>e,you just backtrack to your only point, who experience the experience?!
Im not backtracking but Im pointing out the absurd implications which result from the Buddhist theory, which show its wrong, the Buddhist theory also cant account for how the various senses are known at the same time in an integrated experience

>>18404058
Same person here, I'm noticing a lot of misinformation in the thread in general. Part of the issue with Buddhism is its not like Christianity or Islam with one well known holy book and God. Aside from the story of the Buddha that most Tibetan Buddhists follow, there are so many different branches, Buddha's, and gods from different parts of Asia throughout history. It can definitely be overwhelming to someone new and they can easily be misinformed. Real Buddhism is not as mystical and glamorous as what westerners often get drawn into but that's not to say it doesn't have great spiritual benefits for the average person. I would recommend those of you interested look at books by the Dalai lama, its what I would do if I was a beginner.

>>18403989
>And this is an eternal permanent self That is what the Buddhists are refuting.
They failed to offer a single good refutation of it
>For if there is an eternal permanent self it could not experience anything in the first place.
Why not? The experiences are not the same as the Self so variations in the separate experiences don’t in any way violate the eternality of the Self

>>18404075
it says it’s a process in the first page. it’s not you it’s not atman it’s something happening

> there is no awareness or consciousness of thoughts but just thoughts thinking themselves

it’s not your awareness or consciousness it’s just awareness and consciousness of thoughts which also think themselves, you don’t think them

this is from the same book

>>18404099
so more if consciousness is just a process then how is it atman how is it a being? it’s a becoming, so where does that leave you? you can’t be there is no room for you to be in this

>>18389025
Indeed

>>18403998
>bleep… bloop…. bleep… *programming error*
Hey Jim! We got a malfunctioning NPC on aisle 3!

>>18403991
consciousness is awareness, to be aware of things is to be conscious of things, to have undifferentiated consciousness is to have undifferentiated awareness, the intellect is what grasps and conceptualizes and processes sensory input and the Self consisting of consciousness is what illumines the intellect with the light of its awareness, thereby allowing the intellect and its actions and thoughts to appear within consciousness

>>18404120
monkcels writing fanfiction
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jataka_tales

>>18404121
> Self consisting of consciousness is what illumines the intellect with the light of its awareness, thereby allowing the intellect and its actions and thoughts to appear within consciousness

lost me here. i don’t think this makes sense

>>18389025
Don't hate on a man who tried his best. Chasing after women isn't good but he shared knowledge and maybe it will take root someday.

>>18404121
i can’t find the self. i see consciousness and intellect and sensory input but not the self. where is it? you are forcing it it’s not needed for the process

>>18395976

>>18404064
>meditate and you will know it’s not true it’s illusion
That’s not a real argument, Hindus who meditate will say the opposite.

> awareness of your post made sensation sensation made reaction, reaction made the post. where is i?
The I is the awareness, you never had an argument against this but just said meditate but people reach many different conclusions from meditating

> why not? it’s just a lot of thoughts thinking themselves
I already explained this above when I mentioned (a) and (b), if a thought arises for just a moment and then vanishes then its impossible to form complex string of advanced thoughts are are required for prolonged logical deliberation and doing philosophy. Thinking about these things involves thoughts and concepts that one carefully considers at length, if your thought vanishes right after it arises then thoughts cannot build upon one another to lead to conclusions, one thought wont have knowledge of the previous one.

> awareness of things happen at the same time that’s it you said it so what is the question?
The point is that, your senses like the sense of smell cannot itself know your thoughts, nor can your sense of smell hear sounds, so how else can there be awareness of multiple types of sensory data at the same time if there is not a separate awareness which is integrating them? Thought itself cannot do so because even when thinking about eating you can still hear music and feel the chair you are sitting it, it’s not that you have thoughts for each sensation, so then the million dollar question which you’ve been avoiding is how the hell is there awareness of multiple different types of things at the same time, if there is no separate knower and if the particular knowledges are incapable of knowing eachother (your hearing doesnt see sight) there is no way for awareness of multiple different things like sight, sound and thought to occur all at once like we regularly encounter every day in life.

thoughts on Doctrine of the Duddha: The Religion of Reason ?

>>18404099
>>18404099
>it says it’s a process in the first page
how can it be a process if it simply consists of undifferentiated awareness as your book says? Undifferentiation implies a lack of change. No change = no process.

> it’s just awareness and consciousness of thoughts which also think themselves, you don’t think them
So now you are admitting that awareness/consciousness is aware of thoughts, which think themselves? You are contradicting what you just said earlier here >>18403870 when you said there is “no presence”, undifferentiated consciousness is exactly what pure “presence” is. Undifferentiation is the opposite of becoming.

>>18404148
Well you can ask questions if you want further clarity, Im about to go to bed though it may have to wait until tomorrow

>>18404163
Consciousness is the Self, because we are living intelligent beings endowed with sentience, we have selves of consciousness, which allow us to be conscious of things. Consciousness has an inescapable subjective component to it, it’s experienced, consciousness experiences itself as the conscious ‘subject’ who is the Self, and through this window that is provided by its light the world appears, this world is the ‘other’ or ‘non-self’ in contrast to the self-revealing, self-illuminating light of the Self, i.e. consciousness

>>18404195
>That’s not a real argument, Hindus who meditate will say the opposite.
yeah but meditate anyways

> The I is the awareness

if you want to say awareness is you do that you will suffer you have no control over this process it goes without you wanting it. consciousness is a part of samsara if you think it’s you you will never stop suffering

> I already explained this above when I mentioned (a) and (b), if a thought arises for just a moment and then vanishes

it makes more thoughts because the thought is perceived, then a sensation happens, then there’s a reaction that reaction is a new thought this is a process that makes “complex string of advanced thought” not hard

> is how the hell is there awareness of multiple different types of things at the same time, if there is no separate knower and if the particular knowledges are incapable of knowing eachother (your hearing doesnt see sight) there is no way for awareness of multiple different things like sight, sound and thought to occur all at once like we regularly encounter every day in life

the process of awareness is aware of sounds taste and smell. there’s one process of awareness but it’s not separate

>>18404230
>how can it be a process if it simply consists of undifferentiated awareness as your book says? Undifferentiation implies a lack of change. No change = no process.

confused again. undifferentiated means it does not differentiate the things it is aware of. no good and bad only things. perception is the differentiated

> So now you are admitting that awareness/consciousness is aware of thoughts

wrong. awareness/consciousness cannot “is” because it’s a process not a being it’s a becoming. there is still no presence. to be present you have to be but this is just becoming

you completely misunderstood what “undifferentiated” means, please read the page again and try another post. undifferentiate means there is no categorizing things just awareness or consciousness of them, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t change every moment because it does and it’s not you

>>18404251
>Consciousness is the Self, because we are living intelligent beings endowed with sentience, we have selves of consciousness, which allow us to be conscious of things. Consciousness has an inescapable subjective component to it, it’s experienced, consciousness experiences itself as the conscious ‘subject’ who is the Self, and through this window that is provided by its light the world appears, this world is the ‘other’ or ‘non-self’ in contrast to the self-revealing, self-illuminating light of the Self, i.e. consciousness

so wrong. consciousness is one of the processes of samsara. it’s not me. your consciousness is driven by reaction which is craving and aversion. what are you conscious of? where do your eyes go? what do your ears look for? you’re conscious of my words because your craving to prove me wrong drove your eyes to read this post. your consciousness is not you. you are conscious of your fingers tapping the keyboard because you crave to win. i am guilty of it too but with meditation sila samadhi and vipassana, we can end the painful cycle of consciousness, perception, sensation and reaction. don’t you want to be free?

read this to understand what this consciousness you cling to is. you are calling this thing I when it will only make you die and feel pain. it is a process just like your body

>>18403669
>Where is the evidence for that?
in Kant's critic of pure reason, one of the most important books on logic and metaphysics, the whole book is designed to explain that, probably the last book universally accepted by all forms of philosophy and science

Why did the Swastika get inverted as Buddhism progressed?

>>18403669
>it has been confirmed in my own experience
your experience confirmed consciousness nothing more, any substance you derive form it comes from your mind and is indeed a reflection, a conceptualization this pron to be false, since concepts can't understand the thing on itself, but for the system of consciousness and thus is subjective, you're trying to make objective something that's by definition subjective

>>18404316
this anon gets it

>>18404251
guenofag you're repeating yourself, all your point are just the same thing over and over again, every time anyone responds to one of your arguments you just backtrack to the same basic concept that
>awareness must prove there's a self!!
but your prove that "awareness is evidence the self" is that "awareness evidence the self"

you're stuck in a circular reasoning bro
you need to develop some kind of answer that's non dualistic since giving a dualistic answer already takes for granted that awareness and self exist as two different substance, thus just doing a "circulus in probando"
also you're a faggot crypto nihilist scared of his own mortality, stop wasting your time being an NPC and get laid, and you'll never be a woman

guenon faggot is cybermara

>>18403631
more like you shouldn't take seriously any western work

>>18404327
So say I live a pretty joyful and happy life and I'm content with it all. For me, I think its worth feeling the pain of death because all the joy of my life weighs out death.
So why would I then turn my happy life now into an empty one with no joy, no past, not future? I will end up dying painfully while living a sad life because I chose this path

tell me about the one they call "dhamma"

>>18404316
but are you sure you mean the same thing by consciousness? what is there that is and which I am not conscious off? and what manner of being can there be that does not involve an awareness of that being? It's the "does a tree that falls in the wood make sound" question. I would argue that it does if someone hears it, otherwise the waves in the air do not conduce that consciousness becomes aware of it, and therefore they don't exist, at least not as sound. Making sound requires someone that hears. Perhaps we can safely make the assumption that the waves in the air exist, but not sound.

Personally I believe that to exist is to be known by God. I get that this stands out in a buddhist thread and I don't even know if it's right. But this appears to be the relationship between the absolute and the relative. Because we still recognize that there is something absolute, right?

>>18404277
>you will suffer
Why? Being awareness produces no suffering
> then there’s a reaction that reaction is a new thought this is a process that makes “complex string of advanced thought” not hard
if they fall as soon as they arise it makes it impossible to form complex thoughts because you cant think about the same thing for more than a second, and you wont have time to relate the previous thought to the next one before that relating vanishes and is replaced

> there’s one process of awareness but it’s not separate
too late, you are contradicting yourself again since you already said the vinnana isnt identical with the thoughts and sensory perceptions

>>18404293
>cannot “is” because it’s a process not a being it’s a becoming.
What makes it becoming? If you cant identify how it changes it seems you have misidentified it as becoming
> because it does
How does it change if its just awareness?

>>18404374
it amazes me how mad NPCs get