What do you think of Buddhism

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=foJDhI3EW_s
youtube.com/watch?v=jW56LunBYqM
youtube.com/watch?v=gHzhcMb0uuo
youtube.com/watch?v=w97VI-YZuqM
youtube.com/watch?v=re2j9GKVto8
webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/heartsutra.html
webdelprofesor.ula.ve/humanidades/elicap/en/uploads/Biblioteca/bdz-e.version.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=_NVsyMalJXo
youtube.com/watch?v=tfdMdbSnNSw
ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/The Buddhist Philosophy of Thought_Piatigorsky.pdf
jaygarfield.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/limits-of-thought.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

its not about thinking its about being

I'm not OP, but what books would one suggest I start with in pursuing Buddhism or its philosophies. Approaching it like a philosophy rather than a religion, is what I mean to say.

>Approaching it like a philosophy rather than a religion

You're in for some frustration. How about you just approach it as a religion and not be so afraid of its supernatural themes?

its not a religion in rhe western sense, your fear is ungrounded

supernatural themes?

It's basically the "giving up" of all philosophy

>While this explanation was being given, there arose to Sakka [king of the gods] the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye — "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation" — as it also did to [his following of] 80,000 other devas.

The Buddha spends plenty of time teaching celestial beings, of which there is a vast and complicated hierarchy. The Buddha can read minds, teleport, recall past lives, etc.. When he renounced the life element, the world literally shook.

There's a devil, named Mara, who acts more or less like the Abrahamic devil. The Buddha even had an immaculate conception.

People who talk about Buddhism as a "philosophy" are basically unwilling to admit they like a religion. It's silly. You can learn valuable things from a religion.

This but buddhisticly

life denying pleb garbage
hurr durr you are not you, you are not emotions you only experience them muh ego death

youtube.com/watch?v=foJDhI3EW_s
youtube.com/watch?v=jW56LunBYqM
youtube.com/watch?v=gHzhcMb0uuo
youtube.com/watch?v=w97VI-YZuqM
youtube.com/watch?v=re2j9GKVto8

How is it life-denying to embrace the universal?

Buddhism has many forms. Some forms, such as Zen, have less "religious" elements

>life denying
Buddhism is possibly the single most life affirming religion. It is only through double negation that there can be true affirmation.

"Dude lmao like just shut off your brain": The Religion

But if Buddhism is a religion then how can I shallowly adopt its trappings to serve as a self-congratulatory Orientalist mask to cover up my own middle class white liberal Boomer apostate Christian nihilism?

Read this first; webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/heartsutra.html
Then to understand it in terms of a philosophy read
Zen and Western Thought and Zen and Comparative Studies, both by Masao Abe.
Mahayana Buddhism is highly logical, check out Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, too.
For Tibetan Buddhism, start out with the Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra

>"Dude lmao like just shut off your brain":
nah that's catholicism

gautam should have removed karma from the doctrine, absolutely inane concept

Zing! Good one. How do you give gold on this site?

I have never seen a buddhist who doesn't look like a nu-male.

t. 20 year old intellectual

that's right render unto Caesar, pleb

This is the beginning of meditation. You don't know what you're supposed to do, so what can you do? Well, if you don't know what you're supposed to do, you watch. You simply watch what is going on.

When somebody plays music, you listen. You just follow those sounds, and eventually you understand the music. The point can't be explained in words because music is not words, but after listening for a while, you understand the point of it, and that point is the music itself.

In exactly the same way, you can listen to all experiences, because all experiences of any kind are vibrations coming at you. As a matter of fact, you are these vibrations, and if you really feel what is happening, the awareness you have of you and of everything else is all the same. It's a sound, a vibration, all kinds of vibrations on different bands of the spectrum. Sight vibrations, emotion vibrations, touch vibrations, sound vibrations -- all these things come together and are woven, all the senses are woven, and you are a pattern in the weaving, and that pattern is the picture of what you now feel. This is always going on, whether you pay attention to it or not.

Now instead of asking what you should do about it, you experience it, because who knows what to do about it? To know what to do about this you would have to know everything, and if you don't, then the only way to begin is to watch.

Watch what's going on. Watch not only what's going on outside, but what's going on inside. Treat your own thoughts, your own reactions, your own emotions about what's going on outside as if those inside reactions were also outside things. But you are just watching. Just follow along, and simply observe how they go.

Now, you may say that this is difficult, and that you are bored by watching what is going on. But if you sit quite still, you are simply observing what is happening: all the sounds outside, all the different shapes and lights in front of your eyes, all the feelings on your skin, inside your skin, belly rumbles, thoughts going on inside your head -- chatter, chatter, chatter. "I ought to be writing a letter to so-and-so.... I should have done this" -- all this bilge is going on, but you just watch it.

You say to yourself, "But this is boring". Now watch that too. What kind of a funny feeling is it that makes you say it's boring? Where is it? Where do you feel it? "I should be doing something else instead." What's that feeling? What part of your body is it in? Is it in your head, is it in your belly, is it in the soles of your feet? Where is it? The feeling of boredom can be very interesting if you look into it.

Simply watch everything going on without attempting to change it in any way, without judging it, without calling it good or bad. Just watch it. That is the essential process of meditation. ~alan watts

That is because the philosophy and the magical elements of the Buddha that are more common to religions come out of separate primary texts but also overlap. The Abhidhamma's do not concern themselves with the Buddha's ability to walk through walls but to elucidate the words of the Buddha, sometimes by referring to older suttas and teachings but also to write original philosophical treatises to iron out any inconsistencies.

>It's not idolatry to pray to a statue of a saint because saints help convince God, who is omnipresence, all knowing, and all benevolent to let me accept his grace and forgiveness so that I can get into heaven through faith but I also need to produce works because there needs to be evidence of faith in one god I mean three gods no wait three and one god(s) and maybe Mary too and it makes sense just accept it on faith, and we're not pagan even though our liturgical language is latin which was never spoken by God just by the pagans who killed God and one bible translation we liked but hey we are true to Jesus' words because our church is based off a Pharisee who knew Christ better than anyone but only after he died and no on else saw him
surely topples Buddhism by sheer means of logic

And you are not? Buddhists are Chads anyway.

yep, buddhists are chads
>The Buddha is an outstanding example of a royal ascetic; his natural counterpart in dignity is a sovereign who, like a Caesar, could claim that his race comprehended the majesty of kings as well as the sacredness of the gods who hold even the rulers of men in their power. We have seen that the ancient tradition has this precise significance when it speaks of the essential nature of individuals who can only be either imperial or perfectly awakened. We are close to the summits of the Ariyan spiritual world.

>A particular characteristic of the Aryan-ness of the original Buddhist teaching is the absence of those proselytizing manias that exist, almost without exception, in direct proportion to the plebeian and anti-aristocratic character of a belief. An Aryan mind has too much respect for other people, and its sense of its own dignity is too pronounced to allow it to impose its own ideas upon others, even when it knows that its ideas are correct. Accordingly, in the original cycle of Aryan civilizations, both Eastern and Western, there is not the smallest trace of divine figures being so concerned with mankind as to come near to pursuing them in order to gain their adherence and to "save" them.

>Then the Blessed One, when he had heard Brahmâ's solicitation, looked, full of compassion towards sentient beings, over the world, with his (all-perceiving) eye of a Buddha. And the Blessed One, looking over the world with his eye of a Buddha, saw beings whose mental eyes were darkened by scarcely any dust, and beings whose eyes were covered by much dust, beings sharp of sense and blunt of sense, of good disposition and of bad disposition, easy to instruct and difficult to instruct, some of them seeing the dangers of future life and of sin.

>As, in a pond of blue lotuses, or water-roses, or white lotuses, some blue lotuses, or water-roses, or white lotuses, born in the water, grown up in the water, do not emerge over the water, but thrive hidden under the water; and other blue lotuses, or water-roses, or white lotuses, born in the water, grown up in the water, reach to the surface of the water; and other blue lotuses, or water-roses, or white lotuses, born in the water, grown up in the water, stand emerging out of the water, and the water does not touch them,--

Start here:
webdelprofesor.ula.ve/humanidades/elicap/en/uploads/Biblioteca/bdz-e.version.pdf

This is a terrible selection. Buddhist masters and Buddhological scholars themselves greatly emphasize the need of starting with commentaries first before main texts for many valid reasons.

You aren't going to get shit from just reading a heart sutra right off the bat, nor will have any understanding of what Nagarjuna is getting at in his MMK.

>Mahayana Buddhism is highly logical
This is misleading, Mahayana Buddhism isn't a tradition but a huge number of very different sects, including Vajrayana (aka "uncommon Mahayana"). Some of them are highly topical and frankly don't place emphasis on logic, others are very logical and critical.

And the Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra isn't a Tibetan text. While earlier Indian commentators had great influence on Tibetans it is misleading to start there for several reasons.

>"Dude lmao like just shut off your brain": The Religion
This is an embarrassing caricature even for this board and is on par with the embarrassing caricature so many dumb Westerners where they imagine Buddhism is a feel-good "all is one" psychology that is all about being happy.

what you say little boi?

Alan Watts was never a scholar of Buddhism and half the time pushes new-age stuff dressed up in Buddhistic language.

what's the difference between mahayana and theravada? which of those 2 memes do westerners more often fall for? or are western interpretations too degenerate to actually meet any of those 2 memes?

convoluted nihilistic death cult

Theravada is a specific tradition within the category of Nikayana. Mahayana isn't a specific tradition but rather a larger category like Nikayana.

>or are western interpretations too degenerate to actually meet any of those 2 memes?
Actually Western Buddhological studies have improved by leaps and bounds over the past 25 years and is now in fact extremely impressive, something that highly regarded Buddhist masters actively assert. Monks unironically take classes by leading Western academics in the field.

The problem is the huge disconnect between academia and more 'scholarly practitioners' and the average Western "Buddhist", who tend to be very shallow in their practice and study. This isn't really unlike other religions, the issue is that most Buddhist traditions place so much more emphasis on the details for its soteriological efficacy (both in practice and study) than say Christianity soo the "average" follower is really left behind.

>which of those 2 memes do westerners more often fall for?
A couple of decades ago Mahayana traditions were clearly more popular. Now most of the Indo-Tibetan crowd are much older, majority of the youth are tending towards other Mahayana traditions like Zen or are going for Theravada... The reason is due to popular misconceptions about historical consistency, directness in practice, and lacking rituals and other religious elements. Also I suspect that considering the Indian Mahayana and Indo-Tibetan traditions are so much more robust and complicated makes it less appealing to the average person who wants to be "into" a religious or contemplative tradition at the level of a minor hobby.

That said there is a fairly decent swelling of the Ukranian and Russian youth embracing Indo-Tibetan traditions at a much higher rate than they are Zen and Theravada etc.

was Evola redpilled about buddhism? or was he just projecting his own beliefs into it?

He BTFO Nietzsche

Given the time, Evola was so ahead of the curve in his analysis of Buddhism. He is far less prone to error and projection than his contemporaries were in analyzing Buddhism.

Perfect? No, but that isn't exactly possible given the scope of Buddhist writings and thought. He was right on the money far more than he was not.

Don't poison minds with your little vehicle garbage. Greater Buddhist masters just as equally disregard commentaries and texts as further clouding the way. Even the hinayanists themsleves don't want to read their texts. The user asked for Buddhism as a philosophy, and I gave him valid suggestions.
>Tibetans it is misleading to start there for several reasons.
Oh really? Tibetans start there.

lol this is on par with Zeitgeist

>embarrassing caricature
It's a joke. Did you detach from your sense of humour already?

>Don't poison minds with your little vehicle garbage.
You must be responding to the wrong person here.

>The user asked for Buddhism as a philosophy, and I gave him valid suggestions.
No you gave him meme suggestions that were shit.

>Oh really? Tibetans start there. (because Tibetans share one tradition and all schools function similarly)
You're a goddamn joke mate. Neither one of my Tibetan teachers have ever emphasized this text and during Ch.NN's SMS teacher program the text is never studied. I know for a fact that neither Mindrolling nor Tsechen Chokhorling start with that text because I've been there personally and the GBI and IBA don't because I am familiar with the curriculum.

All that can be said is that it isn't rare for Gelugpas and Shakyas to work on commentaries of this text, but it would be absurd to believe they generally start with the text. While the work and its commentaries are virtually absent from most Kagyu and Nyingma curriculums fullstop.

>You must be responding to the wrong person here.
I am, I apologize.
>No you gave him meme suggestions that were shit.
Look buddy, you're the guy suggesting Tibetian buddhism, like that's not a shitty meme.
>. Neither one of my Tibetan teachers have ever emphasized this text and during Ch.NN's SMS teacher program
Okay, from my experience with Tibetian refugees the Bodhicaryavatara is the go-to introduction in their early studies. But I defer to you.

Like it or not Tibetan Buddhism is the best depository for the majority of old Indian Buddhism and also holds by far the most innovation in Buddhist thought after the 12 great Indian philosophers themselves.

I agree that it's interesting, but I find chan/zen more spiritually fulfilling and innovating, at least for me. To each his own, I suppose. Both have a rather misleading image as they were marketed to the west, which is why I believe we both can freely call the other memes.

There is very clear knowledge of Chan in Tibetan Buddhism at least as early as Nubchen Sangye. Despite the popular Tibetan story Hashang never left Tibet, his writings have been found and it is clear parts of Tibet had an explicit Chan lineage.

I would seriously consider taking a close look into Dzogchen and forms of Chagchen. In particular the subtle criticisms of Chan coming out of Dzogchen (which end up affirming Chan to a significant extent). The approaches between Chan and the basis of Dzogchen (first half of Dzogchen) are extremely similar. The big divergent point is the non-visualized visionary component that Dzogchen approaches far more carefully (via thogal, second half of Dzogchen) was left fairly undeveloped in Zen/Chan.

I'm convinced at this point that thogal (practiced after the basis of Dzogchen is somewhat stabilized) is the greatest contemplative discovery in Buddhist history and is unsurpassed by any other tradition.

>Both have a rather misleading image as they were marketed to the west
Agreed, fortunately there are movements within both to push back against this. The Korinji Rinzai Zen Monastery for example is doing some amazing things.

Thinking about converting

Western esotericism is superior.

tfw you will never go to tibet and be taught by monks

how is a dead tradition superior to a living one?

Western esotericism is taken from Egypt. It's rubbish.

I'll wait until that shit is de-culturalized.
probably good stuff but not going to waste my time. (same with zen)

That's probably not going to happen in our lifetime. The vehicles that have been developed for preserving the good stuff certainly isn't perfect as it has those cultural frills you mention. However there currently is no serious alternative being developed that has anyway to preserve and safeguard the rigor required to maintain and properly transmit the good stuff.

The best options at the moment is something like the Dzogchen Community headed by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu or Anam Thubten's Dharmata Foundation. Both have lived much of their life in the West and have semi-secularized and streamlined considerable portions of their curriculum while maintaining the necessary rigor for those that actually want the good stuff. Yet both aren't fully de-culturalized by any means and it is hard to imagine how they could go about furthering that without jeopardizing the integrity of the good stuff.

It will probably take very serious Western practitioners like Robert Olds or Lama Drimed Norbu (Alwyn Fischel) to do that properly. Problem is people like that tend to come out of their decade retreats with no desire to entirely de-culturalize the material even if they do peel it back quite a bit. Olds went fairly far with it only to then turn and re-wrap it in a sort of gaia/neo-paganist presentation.

It is one of the many reasons I respect the work of Elias Capriles so much, because he preempted the concerns laid out by the speculative non-buddhist crowd before they were on the scene. In fact he seems to take Laruelle's work more seriously than they do.

>read crowley
>magick is just a skeptic approach to meditation
wew

Buddhism is the layman's Taoism

>pleb Taoism
kek

Elite Buddhism is the patrician's Taoism.

Meme trash
It is a fucking religion in the 'western sense' you stupid nu-agers.
*nglos can do no such thing, only fail.

...

Buddhism is a cult used by Indo-Tibetan cartel of wizards to use commoners as spiritual capacitors, meditation is simply harvesting the biostability of practioners for THEIR uses. Few know this!

oh shit, the demiurge deleted his post, now it points nowhere

Source?

it is what it is
youtube.com/watch?v=_NVsyMalJXo

>sharing based Indo-Tibetan secrets
DE:LET THIS NOW

youtube.com/watch?v=tfdMdbSnNSw

Holy shit Alex Jones is actually a zizekian-tier genius.

>But if Buddhism is a religion then how can I shallowly adopt its trappings to serve as a self-congratulatory Orientalist mask to cover up my own middle class white liberal Boomer apostate Christian nihilism?
All you need is your ego for that. Welcome to samsara.

I've heard about Dzogchen on the boards a couple times. What's so special about it?

ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/The Buddhist Philosophy of Thought_Piatigorsky.pdf

Buddhism is something that can't be understood by Western society/perspectives. Everyone who tries to commandeer the religion in the West is a hack and needs to stay in their lane or get the fuck out.

>Dzogchen
thogal and yangti are what is so special

To get the real run down read:

webdelprofesor.ula.ve/humanidades/elicap/en/uploads/Biblioteca/bdz-e.version.pdf

and then the first two volume of the Beyond Mind Papers.

In short though it is the heir to all of the innovation of Buddhist thought. The first half of it is the summit of Vajrayana yet is a distinct path based on much more direct and sudden principles. While the second half is truly in its own class and entails meditative technologies that are simply unparalleled.

It has the most in-depth understanding of the arising of ignorance, sentient beings, and the process of the path, and the most direct understanding and modulation of the subtle phenomenological anatomy so critical to tantra.

This is why almost all Tibetan masters, no matter their lineage tend to practice at least the first half of Dzogchen, even modern Gelugpas, who historically oppressed it because it threatened their political dominance.

Its origin comes out of a group of tantrics out of Nalanda that began to seriously question the need for generation stage practices and began to realize that completion stage practices were sufficient themselves, and it exploded from there.

The only real groups in the West to have accepted or even studied Buddhism are occult in nature. Some have been around for quite awhile and predate modern 'western' thought

not life denying, just tries to have you realize that the higher your highs, the lower your lows. if you keep everything on the level you wont be in bliss but overall in a happier state. or a less sad state

not to mention that mindfulness will have you stop 'procrastinating your happiness' and realize that being in the moment and spontaneous will make life more pleasurable than waiting until some date in the future to enjoy your life

/x/ please /out/

Western occult groups are notorious for bastardizing Buddhism. They were never and have never been much in the know. Aside from formally trained Western retreatants, there are several academics that are also very serious practitioners.

JLA is a perfect example of this, he is the world authority on Bon and leading scholar on Nyingma, and is one of the most serious Western practitioners of Dzogchen alive by far.

>muh ego death

Buddhism doesn't assert ego death you fucking asshat. Advanced Vajrayana practitioners also have the best orgasms.

You stated those two as comparatively the same man, cmon

Holy fuck some people are bat shit crazy

«Annoyance, morbid susceptibility, incapability for revenge, the desire and thirst for revenge, the brewing of every sort of poison— this is surely the most injurious manner of reacting for exhausted men. It involves a rapid depletion of nervous energy, an abnormal increase of detrimental secretions as for instance that of bile into the stomach. To the sick man resentment ought to be more strictly forbidden than anything else—it is his particular danger: unfortunately however it is also his most natural inclination. This was fully grasped by that profound physiologist Buddha. His "religion” which it would be better to call a system of hygiene in order to avoid confounding it with a creed so wretched as Christianity depended for its effect upon the triumph over resentment: to make the soul free from this was considered the first step towards recovery. "Not by hostility is hostility put to flight; through friendship does hostility end”: this stands at the beginning of Buddha’s teaching—this is not a precept of morality but of physiology.»

I saw you, Ulandino

So are we talking about better explicative and practical methods here or is there something new discovered?

why people in human resources love to get the workers on meditation ?

i mean it's fun to read and it's liike a minor lsd trip but im not sure it contains too many truths.

> Of course Mahāyāna is the word of the Buddha.

What do people here think of Taoism? Any book recs? Thank you in advance.

>Alan Watts was never a scholar of Buddhism and half the time pushes new-age stuff dressed up in Buddhistic language.

I don't see how that long quotation is different from pic related

>you will realise you are not you
>not ego death

sounds boring, mediocre, bourgeois and middle class as fuck

Read the Tao Te Ching and then Zhuangzhi.

>being so intellectually limited that you refer to 2000+ year old metaphysical teachings with sterile and economical language like 'middle class' and 'bourgeois'.

stress-reducing, concentration enhancing, helps with regulating emotions, etc.

>you will realize you are not you

That isn't Buddhism nor is it anatta. Buddhists are not eliminative about the person. Buddhism isn't Vedanta.

>I don't see how that long quotation is different from pic related
That's on you.

Tilopa is talking about something very specific for experienced yogis, it isn't general advice, it is a precise calibration of the state of non-conceptual chagchen. Most of what Watts is saying there is coarse analysis.

The last sentence of his is a subtler but critical divergence. He talks about "watching everything", a kind of mindfulness of the present moment, but this is abandoned in chagchen. Mindfulness entails a subtle sense of maintaining presence and is wholly conceptual, which is why in the advanced practices such as chagchen mindfulness itself is explicitly dissolved.

The lesson of Mahayana is that clinging to the words of Shakyamuni is a mistake.

Nietzsche had no clue what the fuck he was talking about in regards to Buddhism.

Both.
As for the latter, thogal and critical features of the subtle tantric-phenomenological anatomy were new discoveries.

>being so intellectually limited that you refer to 2000+ year old metaphysical teachings with sterile and economical language like 'middle class' and 'bourgeois'.
i was speaking about that guy's definition of buddhism, not about actual buddhism, of which i know nothing

who is the best buddhist ever?

It depends in what respect you mean, for example the person that probably influenced Buddhist philosophical innovation the most was probably Nagarjuna.

he looks pretty cool

He also appears to be the first in world philosophy to take seriously the idea that reality may be fundamentally paradoxical and that arriving at the limits of thought (where paradoxes lie) won't necessarily indicate an error of reasoning.

Zen (mahayana) is the biggest meme in the west that there is.

Zen in general is a meme (this is merely my zen of zenning the zen so that zen can never zen again).

That was already postulated by Zhuangzi some 500 years before, even if he wasn't systematic about it.

>He whose mind is thus grandly fixed emits a Heavenly light. In him who emits this heavenly light men see the (True) man. When a man has cultivated himself (up to this point), thenceforth he remains constant in himself. When he is thus constant in himself, (what is merely) the human element will leave him, but Heaven will help him. Those whom their human element has left we call the people of Heaven. Those whom Heaven helps we call the Sons of Heaven. Those who would by learning attain to this seek for what they cannot learn. Those who would by effort attain to this, attempt what effort can never effect. Those who aim by reasoning to reach it reason where reasoning has no place. To know to stop where they cannot arrive by means of knowledge is the highest attainment. Those who cannot do this will be destroyed on the lathe of Heaven.

I'm just reporting what leading Buddhological scholars assert, in this case Jay Garfield.

That said, Zhuangzi doesn't at all seem to be talking about reality being fundamentally paradoxical. Merely that the highest attainment is beyond the limits of thought.

To be on the same page, what do you mean when you say reality is fundamentally paradoxical?

jaygarfield.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/limits-of-thought.pdf

To me it seems like Buddhism attempts to overcome suffering by avoiding rebirth and thus never having to be subjected to "this whole mass of suffering" again. And I get that suffering actually means unsatisfactoriness. Things cease as they arise, decay as they grow, go as they come and that means no one can ever be satisfied permanently as long as they abide by the reality of becoming, and to overcome this reality is to intercept the chain of becoming (attachment) which leads to the state of unconditional phenomena (nirvana) and the prospect of avoiding rebirth and thus suffering.

In the end it just seems like spiritual anti-natalism to me because it implies that birth is ultimately undesirable since it leads to "aging, sickness and death". And for all of this to work we have to accept te idea of rebirth and by extension karma, both of which are unsubtantiated by science. Not too mention the fact that it proposes a life denying path toward nirvana (you have to be a monk until you die).

It isnt necessarily a bad religion, hecks its the most contemplative and least dogmatic religion out there but its main premise is flawed and its solution is really defeatist.

I don't have time to read all of this atm, but man

>The emptiness of emptiness means that ultimate reality cannot be thought of as a Kantian noumenal realm. For ultimate reality is just as empty as conventional reality. Ultimate reality is hence only conventionally real! The distinct realities are therefore identical.
Nagarjuna sounds like he's everything I've heard him be hyped to be.