Buddhism

>Buddhism also values compassion above all else,
No, only christians, japanese and tibetans.

...

You can argue that compassion is attachment
and Nietzsche is hardly a misanthrope, he doesn't hate humanity or existence, if anything he claims to have more "compassion" or love for it than Christians do

Buddhist Compassion is not equivalent to Christian, this is the issue with translations because ideas get changed, same with Emptiness causing confusion

I don't think you mean 'mutually exclusive', that phrase is used to describe two concepts that cannot appear together.

The meritocratic nature of Confucianism comes from emphasis on selecting the most talented and cultivated people to rule the state.

I'm not sure you could say Buddhsim as an organisation is meritocratic. The rules governing the administration of Buddhist monastic communities emphasise consensual descision making guided by 'elders', those who have been a monk the longest.

But you could say the spiritual path of Buddhism is elitist, in that some people are closer to awakening than others. This constrasts with Christianity where everyone is equal before God.

I will now read OPs essay.

Confucianism is about self-cultivation for its own sake, trying to live up to impossibly high personal moral standards, even at the expense of losing your life. The motivation is not liberation from this word, or paradise in the next. It's something like fear of the shame of failing to live up to your role in society, and the joy and pride you take in living righteously and being a model for others.

Buddhism is just a renunciant tradition trying to escape the cycle of birth and death. The tradition contains fascinating insights into psychology, epistemology, ontology, but I find it hugely lacking as an all encompassing framework. Mainly because it originates from communities of meditating monks, and issues relating to day to day life 'in the world' are an afterthought.

In the Song dynasty in China some attempts were made to combine Confucianism with Buddhist psychology and meditation. Unfortunately, this being already quite a late stage in the development of both Buddhist and Confucian philosophy, the theory surrounding Song dynasty Neoconfucianism is quite hard to follow. I find it too complex to be practical.

The roots of these traditions - the Pali Canon and the Analects of Confucius - are enough for a lifetime of study.

In OP's essay, it's interesting that the writer tries to equate Nietzsche's Will to Power with Buddhism's Taṇhā/Desire/Thirst, and in my opinion he fails.

>Understanding taṇhā in this way, we can see an affinity between this Buddhist notion of 'thirst' and Nietzsche's notion of man as 'will to power': both are characterised by a primitive and innate striving, a striving from what is perceived to be a less satisfactory to a more satisfactory state, from a less powerful to a more powerful state. The 'will to power' in its crude and basic human form is concerned with conquering others, cruelty, tyranny, enmity, revenge, sex, crude selfishness, etc. However, it can be transformed into expressions of love, justice, gratitude, forgiveness, generosity, independence of spirit, etc., all of which Nietzsche considers as manifesting a greater quantum of power than the cruder aspects. ... Traditionally, in Buddhism, 'thirst' is practically always negative as it is seen as the subjective ground for the arising of mental states coloured by greedy self-centredness, aversion and animosity, and mental confusion with regard to what life can become. As such it is detrimental to one's spiritual development.
>However, one can look at it in a more neutral light through the lens of pratiitya-samutpaada. Putting what is a very detailed argument into a short formula, we can say that without taṇhā there would be no beings; without beings there would be no Buddhas.

In Buddhism it would be a good thing if there were no beings - being is the problem.

>In Buddhism it would be a good thing if there were no beings - being is the problem.
No, at least from my understanding, being is the answer. It is discriminating thought, that clouds pure being (and pure experience) with desire, that is the problem.

Yeah, its fun to talk about Buddhism generally, but when you get on to specifics you quickly bump into different approaches in different schools.

The Buddhism referred to in the article is basically the Pali canon, 'pure being' and 'pure experience' or 'pure mind' are concepts in Mahayana Buddhism. Obviously Buddhism is just as diverse as Christianity, and even within Mahayana Buddhism the diversity of views is hard to comprehend.

In the Pali canon I think it's fair to say that the aim of the practice is to escape the cycle of birth and death. The great victory at the end of the Buddha's life - parinirvāṇa - is achieving a state where he can die and never wake up in a new body.

The Boddhisattva path still has that in the background, but it's deferred until all other beings are saved. And then later in Mahayana they redefine parinirvana competely and Buddhas are whizzing around the sky like aliens and no one cares about final liberation.

Within Mahayana I guess you've been exposed to the Zen tradition? I really like the Zen approach, but I think the background metaphysics are a bit dodgy - Buddha-nature and Tathāgatagarbha. Luckily the best Zen literature keeps things concrete and poetic rather than academic and conceptual.

>being is the problem
No

Yeah, I read what I can and so far Zen appeals to me the most. I think it also has the most parallels to western philosophy in how it sees being and time. Its uniqueness can be traced to its early Taoist influences, so I recommend that if you haven't looked into it already.

Yes, I went thru a Zen phase. I can read Chinese so I have an affiliation with Chinese buddhism from a literary/imaginative point of view.

bampu

Idk of Zen is the most "western" but it has been developed by western influenced Japanese to appeal to westerners and probably has the best material available in English right now

I've heard other people make this comparison and it's very apt but it's hard to make the leap from the largely positive "will to power" which can have negative elements, to the largely negative Thirst which can have vaguely positive byproducts

But being isn't the problem, Buddha wasn't anti-life like some western gnostic saying people shouldn't have children. The purpose of being for the Buddhist is to develop your power and strength until you can achieve enlightenment, then do with that power whatever you will.

this is my interpretation

translate.google.com/translate?hl=pl&sl=pl&tl=en&u=http://zmianynaziemi.pl/forum/zakladanie-ludziom-pieczeci-czakry-przez-kosciol

>Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā,
>manoseṭṭhā manomayā;
I translate this as:
Things [are] mind-preceded,
[have] mind-as-foremost, [are] mind-produced.
Whereas the usual translation would be something like:
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought
or
All things are preceded by mind,
Mind is their master, they are produced by mind.
In my opinion, the use of "All" is unjustified.
"Mano-" is the compound form of the noun "manas", meaning "mind".
Dhamma in this context means either "mental states" or "things generally", and is the subject of the sentence.
The other three words are attributes of the subject (adjectives), and as the verb is omitted, we assume it as "to be".
"-pubbaṅgamā" means "preceded", composed of "pubban" meaning "before" and "gama" meaning "going" (from gam-, "to go"). Thus, Manopubbaṅgamā could be translated as "mind-preceded" or "preceded by mind".
In a similar fashion, manoseṭṭhā is translated as "mind-as-foremost" because "settha" means "best, excellent, foremost". Here, the usual translation is "mind-as-master". I'm not sure why do they jump from the literal translation to "master".
"-maya" means "produced by, made of or consisting of". Here I still don't fully understand the original meaning. "Made of" implies substance, material [of which something is -, not as in not-immaterial]. "The ocean is made of water" is true, the material of which the ocean is made of is water. "The ocean is produced by water" is incompletely true, as there are a bunch of other factors that produce an "ocean". While we can say that fundamentally ocean's substance is water, we cannot say the same about water being the condition on which it's produced.
"Made of" is understood as something that's inside the object, and stays in the same state as it was before it became part of the object while inside it. "Produced by" signifies cause and consequence and that whatever produced the object stays outside of it, or gets transformed to something else while inside of it.
Help.

I'm living in Asia right now in a place where both Confucianism and Buddhism are very common and there is a lot of syncretism but I can't say I understand how this combination works.

from my perspective it seems as if Buddhism has been reduced to idolatry and folded into the Confucian system of deities/ancestors to be worshipped
not everywhere is like this but since many people practice both systems there is a lot of mixing.
though I should say that Pure Land Buddhism is the most common form here which is a bit wonky for me to say the least. there seems to be a kind of Millenarian tradition here as well with the Buddha Maitreya being more of the focus and receiving lots of devotion compared to Gotama Buddha

how do I get strength?

Those people use the same word for the same idea and they refuse to change their vocabulary.

its not some magical esoteric kind of thing. strength is exactly what you think it is, honing the mind and body.
there is a reason monks do lots of physical training, letting the body slip into a state of weakness only serves to hold back the mind and spirit (or will), you need all three to be strong if you want true power.
the way I see it, physical exercise, constant education, and meditation/spiritual practice all serve to make you more powerful as a being.

Cool, I'm living in hk for another month.
I think it is important to distinguish lay Buddhism from the Buddhist priesthood. Lay practice is ideally accruing good karma in this life, paying attention to your karmic bonds to living and deceased relationships, and paying homage to spiritual beings. The thought process is that with enough good karma, one reincarnation you will have less karmic attachments and be able to be a monk or otherwise receive Buddhist teachings to their fullest extent, and one day become enlightened. Lay practice aligns pretty well with Confucian ideology imo.
I prefer Budai to Gautama desu, his portrayal of enlightenment is a good juxtaposition for those who fall for the "buddhism is edgy" meme.

>"buddhism is edgy" meme.
one thing I enjoy about Buddhism is how it covers the full range of emotion, it can be extremely serious but also very lighthearted and humorous as well
with Christianity you never see that sort of variety, it feels artificially sombre which makes it naturally detached from most of day-to-day living.

Maybe how others interpret Christianity, but not as Christ taught it.

>with Christianity you never see that sort of variety, it feels artificially sombre which makes it naturally detached from most of day-to-day living.
probably because the christian world view is that we have one life and depending on our actions we will wither reach heaven or eternal damnation at death

>Buddha wasn't anti-life like some western gnostic saying people shouldn't have children
Again, maybe in Mahayana, where you have the extreme elevation of laymen like Vimalakirti, but in the Pali suttas you cannot achieve awakening unless you are a celibate monk.

>The purpose of being for the Buddhist..
In Mahayana the picture is so diverse it's hard to summarise, but in early Buddhism as preserved in the Pali canon and other places, the stock phrase upon achieving enlightenment, becoming an arhat is:

>birth is destroyed, the Good Life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.

I can't read Pali, but you may find these links helpful. Especially the linked google doc in the first one:
discourse.suttacentral.net/t/dhp1-dhammapada-001-glossed/4687
discourse.suttacentral.net/t/dhp1-dhammapada-yamakavagga-discussion-from-dhamma-wheel/942

>we have one life and depending on our actions we will wither reach heaven or eternal damnation at death
Nobody actually believes this, lol.

>from my perspective it seems as if Buddhism has been reduced to idolatry
I think that's accurate. For the majority of Chinese, religion is just about burning incense for whichever deity will do most for you.

never ever use the word mind or consciousness when you want to translate. stick to mano, vinnana and citta so that you do not translate them. samething for metta, same thing for atman: do not use compassion, do not use self.
if you really want to use English terms, you translate them at the end.

That's just a different way of expressing religiousity, it don't think it is "reduced to idolatry". The greeks weren't "reduced to idolatry" for offering libations to the gods and participating in hero cults. You're looking at religion from a Christian perspective as if all religion was the same.

i dunno, perhaps if its a purely transactional religiosity - i give the god incense, he gives me luck in exams - i think thats just worse than a religiosity that involves personal and social transformation.

i do think greek and roman religion were primitive and superficial. Apart from the mystery cults.

the mystery cults were a load of rubbish for women and social outcasts.
they are what developed into Christianity.

Roman and Greek religion was very refined and devoid of all the moralizing nonsense of latter semetic faith.

>with Christianity you never see that sort of variety, it feels artificially sombre
But that's wrong you delusional fuck

Seriously have you ever even looked at Christianity or do you just spout memes about Nietzsche you've half-glimpsed on Veeky Forums

Yeah, in Thus Spoke Neetchuh said that love for both enemy and friend is the key to becoming the Superman (which in a sense is similar to Nirvana on earth.)

but in Will to Power he says to hate your enemy is most natural

>semetic

No, love has nothing to do with nirvana. What people call this love relates to the ''Four sublime states of mind'' that people experience through various religious exercises. This love is the weakest experience and people still misinterpret and some even claim it is the end point of ''spirituality'' because they are very weak at going beyond it.

He says to love your enemy and hate your friend too, he wants people to be jaded towards both.
I think the Budda said at some point that love and action through love is a way to reduce suffering, though definitely not the key to reaching nirvana.

bump

Yes, but this definition of "love" is very badly interpreted through translations, and according to Buddhists love is an emotion that should be let go and not attached. I believe what you are referring to is "metta" (see "metta meditation"). As another user said, this is the cultivation of compassion and kindness for others without the sense of self.

>Buddhism is just a renunciant tradition trying to escape the cycle of birth and death.

no Buddhism is about the liberation of Chitta, start with the Pali canon

Thanks! These resources are indeed very valuable. I didn't know suttacentral had a forum.
It's not as much as reading Pali as understanding the real meaning of the words used in the discourses. Some concepts get translations that don't fully represent what they mean. A classic example would be dukkha.
You say "do not translate them", but don't provide the meaning of those words. I would not translate them, but I lack the understanding of what these words are trying to convey. Do you know what they mean?

>uddhism is just a renunciant tradition trying to escape the cycle of birth and death. The tradition contains fascinating insights into psychology, epistemology, ontology, but I find it hugely lacking as an all encompassing framework.
Your lack of research in Buddhism is not an excuse for thinking it is a superficial tradition. The Mahayana can certainly feel very superficial and it fits your reason of it originating from communities of meditating monks. Theravada, however, is not superficial in this regard whatsoever. Start with the Pali Canon.

And what is the purpose of liberation?

If you want to boil down what Buddhism is 'really about' you need to grapple with the four noble truths. The problem is suffering, the only reason why suicide is not the answer is that it will not free you from the cycle of rebirth.

I don't find Buddhism of any kind superficial at all, and Early Buddhism preserved in the Pali canon is my favourite flavour.

However, over the years I increasingly feel that something like confucianism provides a better framework for living as a social and political being. That's what I mean by 'overall framework'. The knowledge I have gained from studying Prajnaparamita, Zen, Pali Buddhism is very valuable to me, but personally I file it away in the extremely philosophical or contemplative part of my brain. I find it too esoteric to guide my action 'in the world'.

There's mindfulness that helps control unskilful emotion and be sensitive to your surroundings, but that's not enough. One needs a model of ethical conduct in the world of family relationships, career, politics etc. I don't think the Pali stories of virtuous laymen are enough for that - they are too peripheral.

And Mahayana stories of laymen like Vimalakirti are even less useful - even if they are fantastically trippy literature.

the four noble truths is the Vedantantic parallel of the Hippocratic oath, not a essentially Buddhist concept, canonical Buddhist teachings being a neo-Vedantic metaphysics investigating the insights of Vedanta and other early Asian philosophic traditions

Buddha was like the Jesus parable of his time for an equivalent of Asian theology from a source of hundreds of different schools, just like how both Gnostics and Catholics claim Jesus as one of their own

>reason why suicide is not the answer is that it will not free you from the cycle of rebirth.
no one has tested this and come back to give us an answer on this so it ain't in line with Buddhist/neo-Vedantic metaphysics, which is empiricist

>And what is the purpose of liberation?
Pali canon explicitly says Chitta is its own end, the focus on suffering is a physiological meme added on to neo-Vedantism, it ain't metaphysics

>confucianism provides a better framework for living as a social and political being

confucius was the ultimate soyfaced bugman

>However, over the years I increasingly feel that something like confucianism provides a better framework for living as a social and political being.
How's that?

>>reason why suicide is not the answer is that it will not free you from the cycle of rebirth.
>no one has tested this and come back to give us an answer on this so it ain't in line with Buddhist/neo-Vedantic metaphysics, which is empiricist
He's saying that in reference to Buddhism specifically, in which the aim is to be free from all forms of attachment and control unwholesome behaviors. Suicide violates this sort of precept -- that is why "suicide is not the answer" specifically to Buddhist thought. And your comment on rebirth shows that you are ignorant on the concept of it precisely in Buddhism.

The origins of the four noble truths are irrelevant to their centrality to the Buddhist tradition from the beginning. They are frequently quoted throughout the Pali canon.

>Pali canon explicitly says Chitta is its own end
No it doesn't. Quote me a sutta.

The 'end' of the early Buddhist path is described repeatedly in the following set phrase:
>...his mind is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’”

eg. suttacentral.net/en/sn35.28

now read the pali/sanskrit version of that, oh wait you're an anglo who thinks he can know everything from translations

I just feel that the most pressing issues in my life are related to fulfilling my duties as a son, brother, friend, wage-earner; cultivating my personality not in an introspective sense, but in a way that prepares myself to act in society.

Buddhism certainly has social applications, but I find Confucian concepts a little more practical and motivating.

>my duties as a wage earner

sad

>but I find Confucian concepts a little more practical and motivating.
How do you find Confucian concepts helpful to your aforementioned duties, is what I'm asking. What is in those teachings that makes you find them practical and motivating?

>Pali canon explicitly says Chitta is its own end
>No it doesn't. Quote me a sutta.

Pati-A 2.478 “The sovereign-mind which is its own support (an-without + a’rammana=support) means the sovereign-mind is the foundation”. Dh-A 4.26 “Ones own mind is the foundation of the Soul”. MN-A 2.297 “Nibbana is the foundation, that being the emancipated-mind (citta)”. Sn-A 2.583 “Emancipation is meant the foundation, that being the establishment of the emancipated mind”. Theragatha-A 1.138 “Supramundane samadhi is the foundation of Nibbana, that being the exceedingly quelled mind (citta)”

AN 1.124] “What, followers, is a being who has a diamond-mind (vajiru’pamacitto)? That one who has destroyed the taints (asavas) and has both a liberated mind (citta) and is liberated by wisdom. Just as there is nothing which a diamond cannot cut, be it stone or gem; so to is one with a diamond-mind who has destroyed the taints and has both a liberated mind (citta) and is liberated by wisdom. This is one who possesses a diamond-mind.”

MN 1.197 “Followers, the (The Noble Path) is not lived for sake of gains, honors, or acclaim; nor is it lived for virtuousness, nor for absorptions, nor for gnosis and insight. This Brahma life is lived for the sole preeminent purpose of emancipation of the mind alone, which is the quintessential final core”. [MN 1.301] “What is samadhi (the culmination of the entire Aryan path) for? Samadhi, friend, is for making the mind (citta) sovereign”

MN 1.279 “When his steadfast mind was perfectly purified, perfectly illumined, stainless, utterly perfect, pliable, sturdy, fixed, and everlastingly determinate then he directs his mind towards the gnosis of the destruction of defilements. Knowing thus and seeing thus his mind is emancipated from sensual desires, his mind is emancipated from becoming, his mind is emancipated from ignorance.”

DN 2.49. “How is it that one is called a ‘Buddha’?...gnosis that the mind (citta) is purified (visuddham)…such is how one is deemed a ‘Buddha’.” [MN 2.144] [AN 1.6] "I do not have, followers, insight into anything or any dharma which, when made to become and made to expand that brings greater bliss than the mind (citta). The mind, followers, when made to become and made to expand, brings the greatest bliss."

Not at all.

Reading between the lines, is this a Hindu nationalist thing, trying to philosophically reclaim Buddhism? Interesting!

nothing nationalist or reclaiming about it, but you can follows the advice of a bunch of braindead illiterate monks so you're healthier and sleep better at night and your neighbors like you more, or you can actually try to learn buddhist metaphysics and learn the truth about the mind (citta)

It's hard to find those references because the numbering system is different from the two different systems on suttacentral.net.

Anyway, yes the mind is where the asavas are destroyed, where greed, hatred and delusion are ended. But that doesn't mean that citta is the 'end' (ie. final goal) of Buddhism - citta is a name for a group of phenomena, it is not a state or a condition. The final state or condition, the final goal is Nibbana - extinguishing.

youtube.com/watch?v=8tw7LIykvBw

"samadhi is the foundation of Nibbana, that being the exceedingly quelled mind (citta)"

purified Citta = nibbana now for the love of literacy and non-anglos everywhere, please actually make an attempt to learn sanskrit/pali and read this shit

It's hard to explain in a sentence or two.

I think it's similar to how taste in music varies - depending on past experiences, temperament etc. some ideas just resonate with you but not with other people.

I think the Confucian emphasis on responsibilities resonated with me. But it doesn't cancel out or override the Buddhist part of my mind.
It helps that I read Chinese, so there's a kind of cultural affinity that helps as a motivating factor.

You know I seriously considered going on a Pali summer school run by Richard Gombrich

ocbs.org/courses/pali-online-school/

But there's not enough time.

I don't think we disagree about anything, it's just that for whatever reason you want to keep mentioning the word Citta - probably because it relates to ideas in Hindu philosophy?

no because it's the most referenced and important word in the Pali canon, connections to Hindu philosophy are unavoidable because they developed this vocabulary, even most chinese and japanese words are correlates or cognates of pali/prakrit/sanskrit words

everything else is meme dharma buddhism

I wanted to do this course too

it is the citta which is liberated

Has anyone bought anything from this site? burmese-art.com/catalog
Looks legit, but I'm worried about shipping and shipping costs.

Some upsides to living in the Orient, my profane idols.
Might post some of the Buddhist stuff I've seen around

...

...

...

...

Nope, sorry.

Some interesting blogs on topics in this thread:
loveofallwisdom.com/blog/2017/09/in-defence-of-buddhism-without-rebirth/

loveofallwisdom.com/blog/2017/10/beyond-the-removal-of-suffering/

loveofallwisdom.com/blog/2017/10/the-political-path-vs-the-buddhist-path/

What is the difference between state, phenomena and condition?

How do you teach Buddhism to people? I was trying to teach about some Buddhist principles but found myself blabing and talking about things seemingly unrelated to the untrained mind. Where do you start? The Noble Truths? A historic introduction? Is there some resource that teaches how to teach Buddhism?

I was just trying to draw out that fact that it doesn't make sense to say
>The goal/end of Buddhism is mind
Any more than it would be if you said 'the goal of Buddhism is leg'. Because leg and mind are objects or processes or collections of phenomena - however you want to imagine them. It just doesnt work gramatically or conceptually.

You would need to say something like
>The goal of Buddhism is the liberation of the mind
or
>The goal of Buddhism is Nirvana
Because these are (theoretically) identifiable states or conditions or stages of development.

I don't have airtight definitions for the differences between state, phenomena, condition beyond their conventional use. And I find that kind of semantic philosophy pretty boring

>And I find that kind of semantic philosophy pretty boring
Your whole discussion was about the semantics of "citta" wtf

not enlightened

might have a chance with a beautiful, good values and stem studying girl, i literally want to start a family with her i think

what's my next move boys

true.

>tfw western buddhist, do zazen daily
>tfw neoplatonist and kabbalist and sufi and hermetic scholar
>tfw attend catholic mass as my birth faith
>tfw practicing hatha yoga for flexibility and balance and fitness
>tfw gonna be the Thomas Merton of Zen-Sufi Catholic Yoga^tm

Redpill her on sexual metaphysics.

Broke option: Evola's Eros and the Mysteries of Love
Joke option: Weininger's Sex and Character
Patrician option: Solovyov's Meaning of Love

>Patrician option: Solovyov's Meaning of Love

might go with this but if anyone feels like giving any advice feel free to write something, i am between the tiny veil of shitposting and serious life thining

Why do you presume you should teach before you are enlightened?

Talk about your future and your dreams while you lie together in bed after sex and tell her you want to help her with hers. Create your own private fantasy world. Ask her what she wants her wedding to be like. Whether she wants kids.

Note: don't do this the first time you have sex, your post is ambiguous

>Life is suffering
>Aim is to stop existing

Why not just kill yourself?

Cuz like if u meditate bro u'll realize everything reincarnates but somehow u can stop. Nothing lasts. Except the dharma. The dharma says nothing lasts.

Ananda used to teach before he was fully awakened. If only Arahants/Buddhas could teach Buddhism then it would have never lasted until today.

dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/46.1-Dhamma-Desaka-Udayi-S-a5.159-piya.pdf
suttacentral.net/en/an5.159
>“It’s not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be taught to others only when five qualities are established within the person teaching.

>“[1] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak step-by-step.’
>“[2] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].’
>“[3] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak out of compassion.’
>“[4] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak not for the purpose of material reward.’
>“[5] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak without hurting myself or others.’