What does Veeky Forums think of buddhist malas?

What does Veeky Forums think of buddhist malas?

I don't know how Veeky Forums it is but I wear this every day

Pretty cool is you're an actual Buddhist.

I mean, you wouldn't wear religious jewelry if you weren't part of it right...?

I don't think you have to be a buddist monk to practice buddhism.

But yeah I think you are right, it's literally the equivalent of wearing one of those cheap plastic rosary's around your neck.

nigga just do whatever you want there aren't rules in fashion

when raf released his unknown pleasures parka, do you think most people in the fashion industry had actually heard that album? it became a fashion symbol simply because it was good looking, not because people had any connection to the music
same principles here

is that an accessory choice or is it genuine religious belief? if not latter than stop

Unknown Pleasures is a highly regarded album and the cover art for that album is popular on a global scale, the only reason Joy Division isn't Nirvana levels of popular is because Ian killed himself before they got big. I'm sure all these 30 year olds were heavily into Joy Division back when the band was still together.

About as cringey as when guys ironically wore rosaries or when girls ironically get hennas and wear hindu shit.

buddhism isn't religion
and no buddhist gives a flying fuck if someone wears those for fashion reasons

I follow many teachings of the Buddha, though I would not consider myself a full on Buddhist. Sometimes I use it to chant during meditation, but I just wear it to remind myself of the teachings throughout the day. But I do like how it looks aesthetics wise as well.

Anyway it's literally just a bunch of wooden beads, so if someone wants wear it as purely a fashion accessory I don't see the problem. Maybe it will lead them to spirituality later down the line

Yeah, well, that's just like your opinion man

meant to reply to

>that reddit lebowski quote after asking for opinions
yeah, you know what you just dress like you act. Passive-aggressive people like you deserve to be humiliated.

I didn't ask for anyone's opinion, I simply stated I wear mala beads because I follow the teachings of Lord Buddha. Also I'm not OP

When I see it I immediately think of the wearer as dirty and lice infested.

they look cool. but I prefer the normal single pearl thread bracelets (or what ever you call them) because they are not religiously charged and so you can just make sure you wear something you can absolutely identify with.

that would be thanks to rasta locks wearing far-left degenerate idiots who also could wear that stuff.

>buddhism isn't religion

bitch pls.
of course it is.

>Maybe it will lead them to spirituality
Hardly. The reason they are wearing it is vanity.

I like New Order better

Buddhism isn't a religion.

Fill in the blank. Buddhism is ____________

____________
The idea that you can fit things within rigid categories is philosophically a very Western concept. Buddhism is Buddhism, especially when religion usually means the beliefs and especially the worship of a supernatural God or Gods. Even if you're stubborn and still want to categorize it, some branches particularly the Indian ones are closer to what one would normally call a religion, while Zen is closer to what in the West is called a philosophy.

>Religion is any cultural system of designated behaviors and practices... that relate humanity to the supernatural or transcendental.

There are most definitely practices and cultural systems around buddhism relating the human to the transcendental

I would say that it depends on your meaning of religion. When you say transcendental it almost seems as if you were talking about spirituality. Your mistake seems to be twofold, first of all is that you're confusing Buddhism which is an umbrella term for a lot of different practices with maybe a particular branch of it; second and maybe more importantly that anything transcendental or supernatural is religious. Transcendentalism and spiritualism are not necessarily religious, although I suppose some people will argue that they are.
Personally I follow the dictionary's definition of religion, which is belief and worship of a supernatural God. Buddhism as a whole doesn't fit that definition.

and religion itself is a large umbrella term.

in the simplest sense, is it not correct to say buddhism instructs a series of practices for the purpose of attaining a transcendental state? When buddhism was created I assume the aim was to achieve something beyond normal human experience

>and religion itself is a large umbrella term
well that's one thing i can agree with, especially when you're arguing on the internet this is a very difficult topic because for some people like you religion is just anything transcendental and for others it must include a certain set of practices, like ritual offerings, etc