Is Buddhism one of the most based and practical systems for overall well-being there is ?

Why did you post this? Are you so ignorant of Buddhism you think it spurns rationality?

Any step in the right direction is a step in the right direction.

But real Buddhism is genuinely full of demons and divinities, some of them rather silly

It's also pretty polytheistic

It depends. "Real buddhism" is described in different ways by different people, so it's true description is always unmatched to our limited definition.

Some "buddhist" say no deities and others say deities, it all depends.

Some not all.

>thinking Buddhist deities aren't just visualizations/entifications of metaphysical principles

This meme again

>Bodhisattvas.
>Gods.
The closest equivalent would be Catholic Saints.

Hell, the closes equivalent would be Ancient Greek Hero Worship

What in the...

All authentic Buddhists believe there are multiple gods. Please don't give me this trash about Buddhism being atheistic or potentially atheistic, it's not.

>Buddhism is theistic/polytheistic

lol

It's another episode of "autists can't into symbolism" everyone

>muh no true Scotsman

which gods?

Wrong.

First of all, Buddhists may accept the fact that there are devas in the Heaven-realms, and that they have some measure of power over the human world. However, these 'deities' themselves are unenlightened and trapped in samsara: as such, they are not worthy of respect or worship, and they cannot deliver an individual from his karma or from the cycle of rebirth. They are not all-powerful or omniscient. They are not creator deities. They simply accumulated good karma in past lives and were reborn in the realms of bliss, and after their lifetimes end and their good karma has expired, will be reborn either in the human world or in the Naraka.

Even these 'gods' needed to be taught by the Sakyamuni, and found their power to be vastly inferior to his.

So no, your entire post is just wrong.

It isn't that user.

You can have a "buddhist" monk say to you there is an absence of divine intervention in life coming off as atheistic. You can have another monk mention countless divinities.

Both become generizations, whether or not they are polytheistic or atheist.

The divinities can be symbols and the divinities can be sentient beings.

MAHAYANA BUDDHISM IS A CREATION OF MARA

AKA MARAYANA ALL THERAVADA MONKS KNOW THIS THIS IS A MAINSTREAM VIEW IN THERAVADA STAY AWAY FROM MARAYANA!!!!!!!

youtu.be/wj8ROh7dyHE

What are the main differences between Buddhisms like Marayana, Theravada, Zen, etc.

They are still gods desu

As a scholar of Buddhist sutras the idea of non duality is present in Hinduism and much as Buddhism. We can all this non duality "True Self" or "No self/Void" but we are talking about the same state. So I do feel like Buddhist are talking about the same thing as eastern theists.

There are many cultural reason for not calling that state God because Buddhism was a cultural backlash to Bramins. This topic is to broad for a Veeky Forums post but I hope you guy get the idea.

this

can you show a few suttras mentioning this non-duality, especially in SN and AN.

>Abrahamic religions being theistic
Psh, fucking plebs just can't understand the symbolism of real Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. They're all pure and completely without theism or any supernatural elements. It's all just symbols.

I think you're mistaking Buddhists monks for average Buddhists in the East, which is like using Orthodox monastics to represent average Orthodox Christians.

t. Reza Azlan

what is tha pali word for non-duality

Buddhists are people and indulge just like we do.
monks argue with each other, play tricks on lay-people and go up to the mountains to ignore questions.
I think you have a misconception of what a Buddhist is.

bump

Any opinions on Evola's book on buddhism (Doctrine of Awakening)?

Most patrician book on Buddhism there is to be honest blood relation

Sorry just got home.
"anatman" meaning no atamn or no self.

The problem the Hindus and Buddhist are trying to solve is the fact that we have a ego separating us from the Totality. The Hindus call the Totality the The True self, Brama,Krishna, Shiva, Vishnu etc and that everything is the True self and God. The Atman is your individual soul or your Ego. So when Hindus Say The Atman is Braman. They mean that your real soul is the Totality and that you and everyone is God.

Now on to Buddhism they say that there is no Atman or Ego (Anatman) and that it is just an illusion. So if you see the Ego as a flame on a candle, when you blow out that flame you Nibbana it. Nabbana means to extinguish or to blow out. Now that there is no ego there is just the Totality and Wholeness of the Universe and deep peace.

So this state of Self realization or to know that your are one with God and the State of having no Ego and then becoming one with the Totality
are the same thing. It is called non duality because there is no more You or me, Heaven or Hell, Nirvana or Samsara etc there us Wholeness.

Buddhism starts with the Ego and works its way to the Totality and Hinduism Starts of with what being one with the totality is like and you work your way there. No again this is a lot the explain in a Veeky Forums post and of course I generalized in a lot of areas.

This user is right.

With both Buddhism and Hinduism, we are dealing with a rejection of what is, in the ultimate sense, illusory and proceeding to the ineffable nature of what "you" ACTUALLY are behind the illusion. What that is is just called different names in different cultures and systems

It's not like Buddhism is saying nothing exists and were just hallucinating ourselves or whatever other, bizarre shallow understanding of no-self plebs will peddle

Absolute bullshit. He covers the basics pretty well but veers too far into his own philosophy which is incompatible with buddhist doctrine. His theory of "aryan Buddhism" is largely baseless as those types of racial or status-dependent characteristics are expected to be abandoned by the serious practitioner. The Buddha explains over and over again that one should not seek support in the skhandas or claim ownership of particular physical qualities. The Soma sutra explains in clear terms that anyone who delights in defining him or herself in any way at all is under the grip of illusory thoughts.

Ariya as a noble spiritual constitution, unless you're telling me some gangbanger is as likely to embark on the path of askesis as someone whose got their shit together, which is absurd

>real buddhism cannot be integrated with western living

This is awfully presumptious. There are many ways to go about it and people who might not meet your high standards of spiritual practice may very well be bodhisattvas working in their own way, or at any rate have their own karma to deal with. Since emptiness is the final truth, there is no ultimate right or wrong in samsara. There is consequently no sphere of human activity which is incompatible with Buddhism. Your responsibility is with your own practice, not to judge others.

Continued

Now in my opinion Stoicism is getting to the same thing as Hinduism and Buddhism.

The idea is that we have reason just like God has, so that makes us God like or like the Totality, True self etc. So if we use reason we can bring ourselves closer to the totality. Good in Stoicism is proper judgement and evil is error is judgement. Using reason properly is called virtue. Virtue brings us closer to living in harmony with nature and this is call tranquility. The stoics even talk about how wanting causes us to be unhappy etc.

The reason I bring this up is because eastern society is built around Buddhist/ Hindu/Taoist customs and practices. Stoicism is a ancient western way of achieving the same aims with out having to live in a monastery or homeless.
Finding a bikku or a saddhu in the west is a pretty hard thing and the training is pretty hard, so I feel like stoicism is easier in a sense and works better in the west.

The problem is that Evola does not keep to this definition of a "spiritual constitution" but obsesses with it as an actual caste based on historical depictions of the Shakya clan. No such emphasis or demand is placed in the Pali canon. If anything, the Buddha renounced his Shakya heritage when he went forth. The Dhammapada explains the criteria for a Brahmin or holy man in clear terms, that it's not dependent on lineage, clothing, etc.

My sides

>Buddhism threads on Veeky Forums

Absolutely cringe worthy m8's. At least read the Wikipedia entry about Buddhism before you let loose your rampant shitposting.

Good posts user.

Ty :)

>another user who understands all religions and (most) philosophies are just slightly different ways of tackling the eternal human problem of reconciling the particular with the universal

We are a dying breed user

...

I'll rebut this.

Nondual tradition of Hindu arose after Buddhists did. Buddhist nondual didn't point to God because it wasn't talking about God. Hindu nondual talks about God because it was based off of Buddhist nondual and implanted on to a Hindu theism.

So the reason why it feels the same is because one is directly taken from another.

There are many invalid reasons for not calling the state God in Buddhism. A valid reason is because when nondualism was being created and used by Buddhists, hindus didn't have an equivalent. This was a later adaptation by hindu.

continuing from I'll disagree with your assessment once more. anatman doesn't mean no self. It means "not self."

Buddhists aren't trying to separate their ego from "Totality." They posit what people consider to be their ego is based on false premise and the reality is merely the impermanance and the emptiness (buddhist variant not annihilistic or nihilistic variant) of self.

Both hindu and buddhist say ego is an illusion, although it was the buddhist that said it first. In anycase, the meaning behind the word "illusion" is completely different. Hindus adapted this to mean the ego is merely part of the greater god. They view re-joining with god as total peace. Whence the buddhist version posits an totally impermanant variant that's simply limited to the current situation, not part of something greater god.

Stoicism is "same" as Hindu/Buddhism because Stoicism is a product of Greek-Indo meeting. Specifically from the Greek incursion into India by the Alexander. This great contact lead to people like Pyrrho and others to get more intimate with generic Sramanic(jain/buddhism) thought of the time. Those greeks that went to India and learned those later influenced Epicureanism/Stoics/Skeptics/etc. Read the Shape of Ancient Thoughts for more.

Don't yell at me Brian.

>>Stoicism is "same" as Hindu/Buddhism because Stoicism is a product of Greek-Indo meeting.
stoicism has no meditation, which is the key tool to get awaken. meditation is what westerners miss, instead they spend their time dwelling in their intellect...

How do I into buddhism?
I know about Siddharta Gautama, I know about a few schools, but which sutras do I start to read?
I heard the Pali Canon is Theravada, Mahayana also has it's own "book".
How do I even choose a school to follow?
Also, is the believe of a creator against the buddhist theory? I heard it is, and frankly I do believe the world was created and not coincidental
That, however, doesn't mean I believe in a poweful God that dictates us and smites us if we sin

Hey does anyone have that post saved where they talk about the judeo-christian tradition as developing mantra meditation. I thought it was a fascinating idea and wanted to fact check it.

Don't worry so much about a particular school to follow, focus on practicing meditation first and later on try to reflect on various texts and see which ones resonate the most. It's important that you get good face-to-face instruction on buddhist meditation so try to find a local center.

Notable theravada sutras:
Dhammapada
Anapanasati
Snake Simile
Rhinoceros

Mahayana:
Diamond
Heart
Lotus
Lankavatara
Surangama

Zen:
Platform
Bloodstream sermon
Denkoroku
Shobogenzo
Faith in Mind inscription
Mirror-jewel Samadhi
Transcription on harmony and differences

In theravada, metaphysical beliefs are advised against, but they are not incompatible with Mahayana practice. I know a lot of christians who also practice Zen buddhism for instance.

I'm going on thursday to the only meditation "temple" in my city. It's a zen practice apparently.
In the meantime you reckon I should give the ones you mentioned a read and not go for the whole pali canon and the chinese mahayana book? (Forgot the name for the mahayana text)

read this for anapanassati
warosu.org/lit/thread/S8147309#p8147868

and read this to understand the dhamma in one post :
hedonism is the opposite of the dhamma

>Is hedonism a "valid" philosophy as long as the person practicing it has enough foresight?

the dhamma is about the failure of hedonism. what is hedonism ?
-to have pleasures
-to have pains
-to fancy pleasures
-to hate pains
- fancy pleasures and hate pains to the point of taking them seriously, in saying that they matter.
because you take seriously what you feel, your deliriums form your mind and your consciousness. you choose to care about all this, about what you think and feel, to the point that you choose to identify with all this.

once you understand that, in order to be happy, there is no point in clinging to your desires which are always fading, and uncontrollable, once you understand that no matter your behavior, there will never ever be a fix to your discomfort nor to your boredom, you dive deeper and deeper into a state of of stillness which installs equanimity+compassion (these words are the usual words describing the states).

for people saying that hedonism is relevant,
>life=what you feel+what you think+what you expect from your desires from what you feel and think
therefore,
>grade your desires
and
>non acting on your favorite desires = non life = death

hedonism is not an effective doctrine to be happy. Hedonists believe that you literally die if you ''do not think nor do feel''. They have faith that 'no moving' is death.

of course, doing the opposite brings you a better life:
>perpetual evanescence and lack of control of what you think and feel, therefore cannot be taken seriously (to be happy) => stay still towards what you think and feel.

Once you try to reach stillness, you are more equanimous and benevolent.

Zen centers are great. Shikantaza, which is the essential form of zazen meditation, can be very demanding, but it they can get you started on breath counting you'd be off to a good start.

The Pali canon is very extensive and repeats itself through various similes, but there's a lot of great stuff in there beyond the small slice I recommended. The Dhammapada is a compendium of key Buddhist doctrine and can be a companion throughout your whole buddhist "career". The Anapanasati sutta is the Buddha's original guide to breath-centered meditation that later lead to branches like Zen meditation. The Rhinoceros sutta is the oldest sutra that we know of and describes, quite beautifully, life for the wandering monk. The snake simile sutta has a few good sayings. But yeah, there's LOTS more in the Pali canon that are some of the most important buddhist teachings ever committed to text, wouldn't be able to cover all of it.

Lots of Mahayana sutras are long-winded sci-fi stories that can be difficult to appreciate for the beginner just looking for clear advice. The Diamond and Heart sutras are the most important exceptions. I wouldn't know which chinese book you speak of as there are several that were brought into China at the same time and created Ch'an and Zen. The Lankavatara may be the most notable one. The chinese Platform sutra is one of the most important actual chinese texts.

Zen sutras often veer off into being Zen books or poems rather than traditional sutras, but tend to be concise and beautiful. They can be difficult to appreciate if you don't practice a lot of meditation, but for that reason I think they serve as excellent guides to gauge the quality of your practice.

Thank you so much.
I started with the Diamond sutra which is somewhat long and story-like. But I like it so far.
I guess I'll continue with the Mahayana texts you've recommended and then move on to others.
Google has brought me "all the buddhist sutras from a to z" without mentioning which school they belong to or any details

practical for what?

not Theravada

yes

Your white buddhism is showing there user.

poo in loo

Beautifully said user.

Because ancient Whites invented Buddhism. Certain spiritual and metaphysical themes are common everywhere in the White diaspora.

>>"anatman" meaning no atamn or no self.
how do you go from no-self to non-dualiy?

...

It's the same thing eventually

You're thinking of Christianity m8

>Christianity
>more practical than Buddhism

wew

Not the other guy but, anatta(non self) is tied to sunyata (emptiness). Since duality is more a category, you can go either monist (hindu all is one) or empty (all are empty) route.

not going to hell is pretty practical

You'll still land in hell, just not the Christian hell. Muslim hell is there for you. So is the Buddhist hell, the hindu hell, the atheist hell as well.

The goal of Buddhism is to become a rock, dead and pointless.

To carry the burden of the cross is to live.

this; emotions matter to hedonist who think hedonism is a good life style.
But of course, most people love hedonism far too much to stop being scared of leaving hedonism. Most people are not meant to be something else than hedonist. In fact, the whole humanity is here because people love to cling to what they feel and think and refuse to do something else with their life.

for people saying that hedonism is relevant,
>life=what you feel+what you think+what you expect from your desires from what you feel and think
therefore,
>grade your desires
and
>non acting on your favorite desires = non life = death

hedonism is not an effective doctrine to be happy. Hedonists believe that you literally die if you ''do not think nor do feel''. They have faith that 'no moving' is death.

of course, doing the opposite brings you a better life:
>perpetual evanescence and lack of control of what you think and feel, therefore cannot be taken seriously (to be happy) => stay still towards what you think and feel.

Once you try to reach stillness, you are more equanimous and benevolent.

Which ties nicely into the idea of the ultimate nature of reality as a living void, void because it is empty of any qualities and distinctions, living because it is the source of being itself

In death, one finds the life that conquers death

butthurt normie

Quit implying eastern buddhists are so special. Many take bribes (pmuch indulgences ala old catholic), shitpost (normal style) on cell phones and live modern lives. Rich superstitious in china and india / wherever else fucking force money into the hands of """"""high ranking"""""" guys upon sight for them magical tithe:reward gainz

That's about as incorrect as you can get and is motivated by your idea that only a rock can be free of suffering/stress. No such statement can be found in buddhist doctrine.

This isn't about personal lives of buddhist but rather the Buddhist ideal itself.

enlightened as fuck

i believe this is a direct excerpt from the buddha's teachings

youtube.com/watch?v=yxloUBCYuFM

what is the buddha nature, i hear you ask?

I'm just afraid that all it'll lead to at the end of the day is a lonely and self absorbed existence.

then do samatha mediation beforehand, it makes you happy with no exterior means

Reminder that Zen people are such plebs that they allow nuns and monks to get married.

I do like it, all mysticism aside. I'm having a nice discussion in a /pol/ thread right now based on master Hsuan Hua's warning of avoiding homosexually.

Western infidels

Buddhism is all about controlling desires tho

I think you're confusing Buddhism with Taoism

Buddism has more in common with Christian Gnosticism really

what with the world being shit and trying to find a way out of it.

Only how hipsters and "cultural buddhists" practice it.

Genuinely devoted Buddhists are pretty interesting.

>what with the world being shit and trying to find a way out of it.

its the opposite of trying to find a way out

Tantric Buddhism is probably the most similar to Gnosticism since it along with other forms of occultism involves rituals and a permeant concept of dualism such as that of void and non voidness and other yinyang like philosophies.
The mainline Buddhist practices are more compatible with biblical precepts though not necessarily those emphasized by the churches or by Judaism.

Cuck religion

Daily reminder to not fall for the dry-insight meme and go do Jhana.

Loving yourself is being a cuck?