Devas or Boddhisattvas?

That first paragraph is pretty indicative of how heretical mahayana is, as opposed to theravada true buddhism master race. mahayana piggu go homu

Retard didn't even make an argument to begin with.

It really is, considering Boddhisattvas have essentially become deities - in all but name - for practitioners of Mahayana. They take all the hard work out of (Theravada) Buddhism: after all, who needs to meditate and let go of attachments when one can just pray to some God- I mean, Boddhisattva and reincarnate in a Pure Land when one dies and reach nirvana with minimal effort?

Mahayana is a bit more nuanced than that. Some of what you said applies to a few Chinese schools of thought, but in Tibet the sheer difficulty of the bodhisattva path is emphasized.

Why not just become an arahant and then help other people? Bodhisattvas seem unneccesary and most people that I've met that give themselves the label have been poor Buddhist practitioners.

Devas are stuck in one class (out of 6) in the Samsara's cycle of rebirth.

Bodhisattvas are like hackers who can willfully choose which class they want to pick.

>most people that I've met that give themselves the label have been poor Buddhist practitioners.

They're already doing it wrong.

Ideally, Boddhisattvas are supernatural beings who have already reached enlightenment: they simply choose to remain in the world to teach the dharma and save souls, postponing their own Buddhahood. They have a variety of paranormal abilities/powers such as omniscience and omnipresence and others, and the characteristics of a Buddha.

Why is there a distinction made here? Why does becoming a Buddha mean that you can't help others achieve enlightenment?

THE GWEILO KNOW

SHUT IT DOWN

Mahayanafags are so massively arrogant that it is almost lamentable instead of just being funny. So you have these "bodhisattvas" that refuse to achieve full enlightenment because they want to stay in samsara so that they can come back to help people reach the other shore. They think that it can take multiple lifetimes to build up the paramis to the point where they can truly help many people.

As noble as they think that might be, the fact that they look down on arahants and theravadins for trying to achieve nibbana is laughable and ironic. It's ironic because I'm pretty sure arrogance and conceit aren't paramis. And that's what they are like. I've met quite a few "bodhisattvas" that I would characterize as below lay believers. So full of shit are they. But how could you not be full of shit when you personally believe that you are going to spend multiple lifetimes trying to improve yourself in order to help others achieve the thing that YOU YOURSELF DID NOT ACHIEVE.

They degrade the Theravadins by making them seem inferior. And yet the Buddha said that he teaches only about two things: suffering, and the cessation of suffering. Four noble truths, eight noblefold path (which ends in nibbana/nirvana, which the boddhisattvas refuse to attain); complete the path and be done with it. Teach others afterwards if you'd like.

This bodhisattva bullshit (specifically the Mahayana view of it) seems like a contrived, unnecessary, and harmful addition to Buddhism.

accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/arahantsbodhisattvas.html

based theravada masterrace

B-But it sooo soo hard to become Buddha

Why not just worship someone for automatic nirvana?

>you can also strongly visualize some pure land and you'll totally go there when you die, man :^)

Who was that one buddhist monk who decided that it is best to detach and go full nirvana instead of sticking around in samsara? Oh thats right: Gotama.

at stream entry, you understand that you must avoid being exited through your five senses and basically this means being alone where you can summon the jhanas

But that's wrong you fucking heretic

Who was that enlightened teacher who helped directly and indirectly liberate billions? Some Nepalese Prince

OH RIGHT

Go jack off to Guanyin

>enlightened teacher who helped directly and indirectly liberate billions?
he helped them to do what?

Reading comprehension is your friend, my misguided brother

so you agree that the ideal is to be liberated form samsara, not to teach others on how to be liberated from samsara.

You make the mistake of thinking they're mutually exclusive

Zoroaster pls go

He then died and experienced parinirvana

What is the worst denomination of Buddhism, and why is it Pureland?

Praying shit to be reborn in Heaven and then they can reach enlightenment there is dumb as shit. Its purely for the people who are lazy and stupid.

Mahayanafags on suicide watch

For all of you Abrahamics here's the rundown

Theravada = Early Christianity

Mahayana = Catholics/Orthodox

Vajrayana = Mormons

Vajrayana is a branch of Mahayana.

There is...
Hinayana (small vehicle)
Mahayana (large vehicle)
Vajrayana (diamond/supreme vehicle)

Hinayana no longer exists. Mahayana is prevalent in South East Asia and Vajrayana is in Tibet.

Mahayana and Vajrayana are similar, but the major difference is that Vajaryana included Hindu Tantric practices into their rituals. Vajrayana also originated in India, but today is predominately found in Tibet. Pic related is Ganesh (mostly known in Hinduism) found in Tibetan texts and depictions.

More Ganesh in Vajrayana Buddhism.

>>Theravada = Early Christianity
Theravada= Jews
>Mahayana = Catholics/Orthodox
yes

Vajrayana = Muslism

tibetans are smart to dilute the dhamma for the normies, since the theravadan are less appealing to normies.

the goal of Normies is to be tibetans

the goal of tibetans is to be theravadans

the goal of theravadans is nibbana.

normies love to think of themselves as followers of buddhism, while still being total normies

tibetans monk are pleased because they have followers while doing a bit of the dhamma

theravadan monks are pleased because they do not have do deal with most of the normies (especially the western normies who love tibetans)

you butthurt Hinayanists are such salty-ass bitches, how hard is it to understand that it's impossible to achieve your own, personal enlightenment since these concepts themselves restrict you. You've been history for approximately 2 thousand years, and you still can't get over it.

but that's wrong you silly person.
Hinayana still exists, they just call themselves Theravadins nowadays cause they don't wanna look inferior compared to Mahayanists

Because a Buddha has already "passed on", and is no longer considered present in the world, whereas a Boddhisattva has reached the point in which he could "pass on" if he wanted to, but postpones it to stay in the world to help lower life-forms.

This is why Mahayana is stupid.

Because Mahayana appeals to people who have a historical tradition of having gods and deities, since these gods and deities can be assimilated into the Buddhist cosmology and turned into Boddhisattvas, wrathful deities, devas, etc., much like happened in China (where Taoist and traditional Chinese gods became associated with Boddhisattvas or wrathful deities) and Japan (where the kamis became either Boddhisattvas or reflections of Buddha-nature).

>lalala I'm ignoring the Buddha's authentic teachings lalala I only accept heretical doctrines that came hundreds of years later lalala
You mahayanists are butthurt because it takes five minutes to poke a hole in your bullshit. Mahayanists are like protestants or something equally homo. You're the one who should be called hinayana because your vehicle is the smart car of Buddhism.

Fucking this. Brahmin and sraman normies get smitten REEEEEE.

t. Farrokh

MUH HEART SUTRA

> not being based Zen

bro do you even koan

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want to embrace Pure Land Buddhism.
I am guaranteed rebirth in Amida's Pure Land, wherein I will surely attain enlightenment. And it doesn't matter how badly I fuck up, how evil I am or how little I try.

Seriously, there's no downside. Lord Amida guarantees this rebirth to all who desire it and call his name.

NAMU AMIDA BUTSU

How fucking insane do you have to be to believe this horseshit? Gautama Buddha is rolling in his grave at your faggotry.

On the contrary: Sakyamuni Buddha is the one who first proclaimed these teachings. Pure Land Buddhism comes directly from the sutras, and Sakyamuni was very explicit in his explanations: Amida will save anyone who desires it.

Oh yeah? Show me the sources.

NAMO AMI TOUFOU SHINDI

*tips fedora*

web.mit.edu/stclair/www/meditationsutra.html
web.mit.edu/stclair/www/larger.html
web.mit.edu/stclair/www/smaller.html

These are the three basic sutras of Pure Land Buddhism. In them, Sakyamuni explains the history of Lord Amida, the nature of the Pure Land, and the practice and purpose of nembutsu. This isn't some fringe sect - it's by far one of the most popular traditions in Buddhism and is completely in harmony with orthodox Buddhism as a whole.

>pure land
>buddhism without ascesis

pls go

Not sure if you're trolling...
Sakyamuni tried asceticism once, before he attained enlightenment. Needless to say it didn't work, and so Buddhism recommends a middle path of moderation, rather than asceticism.

No, ascesis a unifying will towards some transcendental goal, such as nirvana.

Never heard the term used like that. And dictionaries are just describing it as a synonym of "asceticism".

In any case, Pure Land Buddhism seeks Shinjin, Bodhicitta and - like all other schools of Buddhism - ultimately Nirvana.

>here are three fanfics that were written long after the Buddha lived. They have him as a main charachter and that means that the historical Buddha said this stuff.
Pure land...pure autism.

Okay, it's become apparent that you're trolling.

Idiot.

Daily reminder to lrn2 Jhana or else you're a pleb.

I doubt many religious scholars would take seriously the idea that the core concepts of pure land Buddhism originated with Sakyamuni.

Justification for Pureland is only found in Mahayana fanfiction.

You can say it's not a fringe sect as much as you want, as well as saying that it is in harmony with orthodox buddhism, but it won't make it so. Why are the oldest scriptures so incredibly silent about everything related to Pure Land? Why is it that the entire concept of the Pure Land doesn't come into existence until many hundreds of years after the historical Buddha? You don't actually think the historical buddha had anything to do with these sutras that were clearly written by chink mayahanists, do you?

If it's truly one of the most popular traditions, then that's really disappointing. Although I guess a large majority of Buddhists today are basically trash, so why would Pure Land be any different?

>Hinayana still exists, they just call themselves Theravadins nowadays cause they don't wanna look inferior compared to Mahayanists

No, that is a misconception. Calling a Theravadan a Hinayana is an insult to Theravada Buddhist.

Theravada has existed since 250 BCE
Mahayana only began since 500 CE

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhist_schools

>even the buddhism threads get swamped with pure land shitposters

Veeky Forums was a mistake

bro just say amida's name ten million times and you'll be reborn in a pure land. it's so simple even a mahayanist could do it!

u_u

Why isn't anyone making the case for bodhisattvas here?

SHOW ME YOUR ORIGINAL FACE BEFORE YOU WERE BORN

Honest answer: chinks can't use Veeky Forums, Korea is like 30% christian, Vietnam is too poor for Internet, and japs can't speak English for shit

Meme answer: we're not retarded

It's right there in the sutras, and I've never heard a lama or a Zen master disagree.

If your idea of discussing Buddhism involves trying to shit on half of it then you're probably not a very good Buddhist. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder.

As far as I can tell, bar maybe one other I'm the only Pure Land poster here; and this is the first time I've posted in a Buddhist thread.
And there's really no good reason to have such contempt for Pure Land anyway.

Actually, 10 times is enough.
>it's so simple even a mahayanist could do it!
Your reliance on self-power to achieve progress is self-defeating. The idea of other-power is difficult for you because your ego doesn't like the idea of being powerless.

>you're probably not a very good Buddhist

I'm not a Buddhist at all. I can shit on whatever I want.

It's just that Pureland (Mahayana in general) is chink fanfiction, so if the opportunity to shitpost about it arises I'll gladly take it.

Uninformed pleb here.

So Boddhistavas don't exist in Theravada buddhism? I suppose that devas do?

Where is Theravada popular apart from Sri Lanka? Could you simplify the whole thing saying Theravada is indian buddhism and Mahayana eastern asian buddhism like catholicism is latin christianity and orthodoxy is greek christianity? (although it's probably not 100% correct in both cases)

The western yoga moms and hipsters that call themselves "buddhist" are mostly Mahayana or Theravada?

>So Boddhistavas don't exist in Theravada buddhism

The concept exists but has different meanings and connotations.

>I suppose that devas do

Yes, Devas are a fundamental part of Buddhist cosmology no matter what tradition.

>Where is Theravada popular apart from Sri Lanka

Think like mainland South East Asia. Thailand, Burma, Laos, etc.

>Could you simplify the whole thing saying [things]

Theravada bases it's teaching upon the Pali canon. It's the earliest 'canon' we have, and therefore it's the most historically accurate conception of Buddhism we can have. The 'canon' was established in the first century about 500 years after the original Buddha.

Mahayanafags have a 2 different canons. The Chinese canon, and the Tibetan canon. Mahayana is practiced in China, Japan, Tibet, etc.

>The western yoga moms and hipsters that call themselves "buddhist" are mostly Mahayana or Theravada?

They would probably classify themselves as 'secular Buddhists' or something, which is on par with those Christians that don't believe in Jesus and think that literally the entire bible was a metaphor.

So you didn't know that Pure Land was extremely popular and mainstream, but you know enough about Mahayana to dismiss it?

>The western yoga moms and hipsters that call themselves "buddhist" are mostly Mahayana or Theravada?
I get the impression that they don't adhere to any particular school or doctrine beyond "like, peace and meditation and stuff"; though Zen - which is Mahayana - seems to be the most popular school for them to identify with.

The Tibetans seem to flood the western market with their books, far more than the Zen people.

There's actually a bunch of us trolling the Pure Landers. While this guy doesn't know shit about it and is just trolling out his ass, I know enough about Pure Land to be able to dismiss it.

>i've never heard other incorrect people tell me that these sutras are incorrect therefore the historical buddha said all that pure land stuff
also:
>discussing buddhism
>on this shitty website
>with a bunch of heretics & laymen
no thanks m8, got better shit to do. This thread is dildos anyway.

>the sutras that are true are the ones that I like

Thanks to both.

>Mahayanafags have a 2 different canons. The Chinese canon, and the Tibetan canon. Mahayana is practiced in China, Japan, Tibet, etc.
So could one say that Mahayana is actually two branches of buddhism? I've seen maps and people here distinguishing between Vajrayāna and Mahayana (I suppose that means the chinese one), and in fact wikipedia does it too. Other maps and people do not make this distinction though.

>The concept [of boddhistava] exists but has different meanings and connotations.
Care to introduce me to the basic differences? My impression was that they were basically buddhist gods (or divine beings) of a different category than the devas, but it looks like it's way more complex.

that's exactly what the pure lander was saying. here's your (You).

I AM that Pure Lander.
What I'm saying is that we have no reason to believe that ANY of the sutras are fabricated. You can't pick and choose the sutras that you like.

alright i'll put a stop on the trolling because now im legitimately curious. there are sutras written after the main pure land ones. are we to say that those are not fabricated? where do we draw the cutoff line? how do we figure out which sutras are authentic?

see, to me, having read the first four of the five nikayas of the pali canon in their entirety, i have noticed the stylistic consistencies of the writings. then after hundreds and hundreds of years, there appeared new sutras that departed considerably from the earlier ones in terms of both stylistic choices, structure, and even vocabulary.

if they were authentic teachings of the buddha, why are they not included in the earlier transmissions? why do they seem like they're "penned" by a series of different people and not the buddha? even if his disciples were the ones who received the teachings, they seem to have tried to maintain an accurate rendition of them, so as to not change the meaning or something in the process.

so i guess based on all of this, how do you come to the conclusion that these sutras are authentically buddhist and not later fabrications?

Early 20th century and 19th century was the Theravada time. (Indic fever, considered scientific of the time)

Mid 20th century to 70s was the Zen time. (Japanese plight, considered minimalistic)

Late 20th century to current is the Tibetan time. (Tibetan plight/immigration, considered elitists and knowledgeable)

Veeky Forums- Religion

Veeky Forums - History & Humanities

Religion is part of the humanities.

So if devas are gods, how much control do they exert over the human world?

Not much in Buddhism simply because they're too high on pleasure to take interest in lesser beings. This is one of the reason why they're stuck in samsara. Deva may be attractive but because they're long lived and full of unworldly pleasures, they can't focus their hands at task and show little to no interest in anything productive. Aka DUDE WEED LMAO.

Deva realm is considered harmful for growth of status in reaching nirvana/enlightenment.

>are we to say that those are not fabricated?
I don't see why not. Buddhism had a long period of primarily oral transmission before even the Pali Canon was written down. Unless we're talking about a super secret brand new sutra that was written last week then I don't see why pretty much all the mainstream sutras shouldn't be taken as authentic. The fact that the Pali Canon was committed to paper first doesn't mean it was any more original or pure than Mahayana teachings, which probably coexisted with it.

I find it hard to believe that a group of Indian monks intentionally fabricated sutras that they knew were false for some reason, and I know of no other non-Buddhist tradition that they might have been imported from. In addition, there are apparently about 290 sutras that mention Pure Land teachings. Am I to suppose that not a single one of them is genuine either? And all the centuries of writings from generations of Mahayana Patriarchs who corroborated Pure Land teachings?

>new sutras that departed considerably from the earlier ones in terms of both stylistic choices, structure, and even vocabulary.
If they were written by different people at different times then I don't see why that wouldn't be the case.

>why are they not included in the earlier transmissions? why do they seem like they're "penned" by a series of different people and not the buddha?
But Sakyamuni didn't write the sutras. His followers, of which there were reportedly thousands in the first generation alone, transmitted them orally. Sakyamuni taught for many years to many people in different places, so we can assume that out of the thousands of people who heard him there were many different groups of disciples and monks, who no doubt preserved and focussed on different teachings. After some time, different groups began to write the teachings that they had preserved down, starting with the Pali Canon.

There are fabrications in Theravada texts too. Its not really the monks doing it for personal gains, but rather due to political causes. I believe one such sutra is one regarding whether to support a war or not. These are minor additions that shouldn't change the overall theme/message but still its there. The mahayana is same in regards but with bit more division due to diversity of cultures. The mahayana scriptures as a base has roots in older schools that later gathered into a larger group named "Mahayana". Technically they're just as authentic as theravada since there is a direct lineage. Even the Tibetan cannons, which some consider as non-buddhists, are mainly authentic due to direct lineage that traces back all the way. Now obviously there are some later additional texts, but for the most part, both of them stick to similar message with slight differences. Methods might be different however due to cultural differences.

On another note, if the muslims hadn't taken over some of the islands near Sri Lanka/India, there would be more VAJRAYANA around Sri Lanka. There are some islands with VAJRAJANA relics where the buddhists population used to practice but later muslims got hold of the island and the artifacts are now being destroyed. Division between the Theravada/Mahayana/Vajrayana was created due to the death of Buddhism in India and the coming of Muslims.

But the devas are still 'gods', in that though they are not all-powerful and flawed and trapped in samsara, they still control aspects of the world. For example, it is written that the Buddha went to preach the dharma to Trayastrimsa Heaven, where many of the gods of Hinduism reside (for example, Indra, the god of fire or Varuna, the god of water).

So they are 'present' in the human world, in that they control aspects of it and can grant material favors (wealth, luck) to devotees; however, they cannot grant liberation or enlightenment, nor are they all-knowing; and after their very long lifetimes come to an end, they will most likely be reborn on Earth or in the Hell-realms.

>So you didn't know that Pure Land was extremely popular and mainstream

Of course, I knew that you faggot. Where did you get that from.
Just because I'm not Buddhist doesn't mean I can't be academically interested in Buddhism.

Pureland is a meme for layplebs. That's exactly why it's so common.

>So could one say that Mahayana is actually two branches of buddhism?

Some people make that distinction, some people consider it a subset of Mahayana.

Vajrayāna is more commonly associated with the Tibetan tradition, by the way, not the Chinese.

>Care to introduce me to the basic differences

Not even cheesing you, read the Wikipedia article on it. It's decent enough.

biuop

>guy who just keeps shit posting about "mahayanafags"
>calling others faggots out of sheer anger

This thread was doomed from the start.

If anyone is actually interested

>With this introduction, we can begin to appreciate how the Hinayana schools of Theravada and Sarvastivada really are in the full flavor of the Buddhist teachings. This can help us to avoid making the mistake of forsaking the Dharma by saying that any of Buddha’s teachings are not Buddhist teachings. When we understand different schools properly from their own point of view, we develop a great deal of respect for all of the teachings of the Buddha. This is very important.

studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-studies/abhidharma-tenet-systems/comparison-of-buddhist-traditions/hinayana-and-mahayana-comparison