When people criticise the Abrahamic religions, they often bring up supposed inconsistencies within their scripture...

So let's just reduce it to the Pāli canon.

Are there any known conflicting teachings in the fairly large amounts of suttas?

there are two teachings, the teaching for the plebs who do not want to be anything but plebs while still feeling good about this so they want to call themselves non-plebs, then there is the teaching for the very few people who want to stop being plebs and who are more or less gifted with what the plebs call meditation.

>I'm actually rather curious about it. I started reading the Dhammapada and am watching this video series where a monk explains each verse.
watch this series too

youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ_Y6m62B_MVZVGIzfjqrpoUmszVMcxWV

Translator's note: A number of discourses (among them, SN 35.191; AN 6.63) make the point that the mind is fettered, not by things like the five aggregates or the objects of the six senses, but by the act of passion & delight for them. There are two ways to try to cut through this fetter. One is to focus on the drawbacks of passion & delight in & of themselves, seeing clearly the stress & suffering they engender in the mind. The other is to analyze the objects of passion & delight in such a way that they no longer seem worthy of interest. This second approach is the one recommended in this discourse: when the Buddha talks of "smashing, scattering, & demolishing form (etc.) and making it unfit for play," he is referring to the practice of analyzing form minutely into its component parts until it no longer seems a fit object for passion & delight. When all five aggregates can be treated in this way, the mind is left with no conditioned object to serve as a focal point for its passion, and so is released — at the very least — to the stage of Awakening called non-return.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Radha went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up[1] there, tied up[2] there, one is said to be 'a being.'[3]

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

"Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles:[4] as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them. But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play.

"In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for form.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish perception, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish fabrications, and make them unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness — for the ending of craving, Radha, is Unbinding."

The Pali canon is tight as fuck. That's what I find so beautiful in the Pali scripture, is the consistency of style, language and doctrine.

That being said, I find some inconsistencies in the doctrines of reincarnation and non-self, but this is perhaps due to the very nature of the doctrines.

There are inconsistencies, and very big ones, between the Pali and the Sanskrit literatures, but this is not the fault of the Pali canon, but the fault of the Mahayana sects that came later, that don't even agree amongst themselves.

Well, first of all 'Buddhism' is actually dozens of sects spread over dozens of countries. Then there are ofcourse different teachers within every linage who sometimes hold different believes. So yes, there is massive shitposting within the Buddhist community, but this not a new phenomena. This started happening as soon as the Buddha died. 18 (20 depending on who you ask) schools of 'Buddhism' -Buddhism only being a term coined in the 18th century- arose after the Buddha died, Theravada being the only that is still going on today.
Initially the disagreements were about the vinya (monastic code/rules) but then some simulation and simulacra shit starts happening and doctrinal disagreements start making their way to the forefront.
And this not even getting into the Theravada vs. Mahayana shitposting and the historic validity of the latter.

But all else aside, simply looking at the Tipitaka we do find some internal inconsistency. This internal inconsistency is how early-Buddhist scholars try and date some of the suttas. 'This and this teaching is found in the Pali canon and in the Chinese canon several times, this one off text contradicts it, it can then be assumed that it might be a
newer text'. That's a very simplified way of putting it, but that's part of their methodology.

Other than that, the Pali Canon is pretty tight, coherent, and consistent- especially compared to some other religious texts.

>That being said, I find some inconsistencies in the doctrines of reincarnation and non-self, but this is perhaps due to the very nature of the doctrines.

Sincerely no offence, but if you think these notion conflict you either don't properly understand the concept of anatta, or the concept of rebirth (or both).

Also, daily reminder to not fall for the dry-vipassana meme and go cultivate jhana.

No offense taken. But you sound like the Christian that, when confronted with the logical absurdities of the dogma of trinity, rather than trying to explain them, are content in saying that it just sounds absurd because you don't get it.

The Quran and the Pali canon are some of the few religious texts that pass the test of consistency that one would expect from an inspired scripture. The Hebrew bible doesn't last two chapters without contradicting itself, and the NT gospels writers couldn't so much as get the genealogies of Jesus and the resurrection accounts right, thus being ridiculous and unworthy in the eyes of any intelligent and non biased reader.

I'm not a Buddhist and have no allegiance to Buddhist axioms, so it's not about dogma for me.

It's just an extremely, extremely common mistake that -9/10 times- is indicative of ignorance/lack of proper research into the material.
Whenever the 'issue' is brought up anywhere Buddhism is discussed it's always some guy who gets all his knowledge about Buddhism from watching Alan Watts videos on Youtube who brings it up.

It's an extremely common issue who's answer is just a google search away.

>y-you just don't get it

I don't know of any inconsistencies within the individual traditions themselves, but you could call Mahayana teachings "inconsistent" with Theravada, and to some extent other Mahayana schools. The main example would be the idea of the bodhisattva, fundamental to Mahayana but not really found in Theravada.
But IIRC this has less to do with dogma than the mixing of local, indigenous beliefs into Buddhism

Doctrine of reincarnation describes the process of creation/formation of skandhas across multiple bodies. The non-self, anatta describes how the self is made of five aggregates, that are ever changing.

Do you see the inconsistencies between the two because you believe reincarnation only works with a perma-self?

In the Pali canon the Buddha states that one who attains the four dhyanas remembers all of his past lives. So the Buddha refers to a series of past lives. Now the elements of this series can either have nothing in common or something in common. If they have nothing in common than it is meaningless statement and there is not a Buddhist doctrine of reincarnation. If they do have something in common, then what is it? Surely not the self, as there is not a self, but five impermanent aggregates. Then it must be one or more of the aggregates. But by hypothesis the aggregates are impermanent and therefore they can't be the common element in the series. Therefore the doctrine of reincarnation is inconsistent with the doctrine of non-self.

Yes, you just don't get it because you're a retard who can't use google.

There has been plenty of writing on how the concept of anatta relates to rebirth and kamma.

I love to watch this german monk telling some thai laywomen that they are basically shit for 150min

youtube.com/channel/UC9XqRMjIiJI1s4jm9_kz3bA

>there is something common in reincarnation
>there is nothing common in reincarnation
A famous answer that people seem to know is the parable of candle lit up by other candles. When the flame is transferred to another candle, is the flame the same as the original or is it completely different? The answer to that was neither same, nor completely different.

As nonself talks about the non-perma fixtures, this also applies to reincarnation. There need nothing same, nor completely different through the process of reincarnation. As to how the knowledge of past lives is found is something I've thought about a bit. The four jhanas are meant to make the mind into a machine, so to speak. The jhanas are there to put the mind at peak conditions, without bias, without hinderance, fully concentrated, and clam. So I assume that person can reverse lookup the chain of rebirth through the process of cause-effect or some type.

However those in Jhanas are said to have many powers in Buddhism, so these could all be flowery language added later on.

You have weak argumentative skills.

>The answer to that was neither same, nor completely different.
Everything that changes can be said to be neither same, nor completely different. Aristotle solved this problem by positing that there is the change and there's the subject of change. That which is "neither the same" can be said to be per accidens, and that which is "nor completely different" can be said to be substantial. Otherwise we couldn't speak of change at all - namely that there is something that changes - only of discontinuous non-related finite states. Suppose one would take the latter as being the meaning of the Buddha (as I've seen some argue that it is). In this case the statement "he remembers all his past lives" actually means "no subject sees visions of unrelated random things in not-his-mind", in other words it is rendered perfectly unintelligible and the jhana doctrine comes off as a gratuitous doctrine. Another explanation is that reincarnation and non-self are two concurrent doctrinal traditions, and that Pali canon compilers didn't notice or didn't care about the contradiction, since resolving logical problems would amount to "sterile intellectualizing" not conducive to enlightenment. In any case there they are and there it is. The two are inconsistent.

The doctrine of two truth is there as well.

Ultimate and conventional, as they say. Both are side of same coin, yet seen in different manner. On one end, there's the self, the suffering, the karma, the samsara, on the other, they are all insubstantial

If the non-self doctrine is true, it follows that no-one knows and not knows not-their-past-lives, because no-one reincarnates. No-one reincarnates, because no-one is subject of no-thing. It follows that no-one suffers as well. But suffering doesn't exist without a subject (unless Buddhism posits that suffering is a permanent separate substance, which I don't think it does). If no-one suffers, there's no suffering. If no suffering, no noble truth of suffering. If no noble truth, no dharma. If no dharma, no Buddhism.

If the doctrine of no-self holds, it follows that Buddhism is mere gibberish. If Buddhism is mere gibberish, so the doctrine of non-self.

A solution to this problem is attempted by the later, Mahayana mahaparanirvana sutra. The doctrine of non-self is a mere tool for novice students to exercise detachment. Actually there is a self, and what is said to be non-self is just the five aggregates and the mass of mental and material phenomena.

>gibberish
For everyone, including the enlightened, the samsara, although ultimately may be gibberish, is the only discernible one. So ignoring it leads to more suffering, ironically.

Before enlightenment, mountains were mountains. Rivers were rivers. During path to enlightenment, mountains were not mountains, rivers were not rivers. After enlightenment, mountains were mountains, rivers were rivers.

>But suffering doesn't exist without a subject.
this is true
If no-one suffers, there's no suffering.
this is false

This is very well put. I found that building a foundation of mindfulness through meditation will allow me to better apply the Buddhas teachings in my life.

To be honest I have only truly reached ego death once during one of my first meditations but the feeling of peace that I found followed me for two weeks and I have been trying to achieve that same feeling ever since.

OP, in regards to your question I don't believe the texts are very important at all. The Buddha and the Dalai Lama both have suggested to avoid getting caught up in such trivialities as inconsistencies in text as it is a distraction from the Path.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, though, as I am a very novice layperson.

Can someone please tell me whats up with those deities?
On some sites says they are said to be just illusions made from our own vices that test us after death without an own conciousness.
On other places I read they are incedible advanced souls (so former humans?) in the reincarnation cycle who exist and feel but decided to stop their ascension to help lower beings.
On other places I read they are just a construct by your mind so not divine at all nor relevant after death, just some reminder for a certain virtue.

Still people dance, chant, prostrate and offer fruits and incence for them apparently.

Are deities (some obviously taken from asian pagans) and their conciousness in the sense of how you might see a deity of a polytheist pantheon only regarded as real by certain schools of bhuddism or by peasant hillybillys who never were impressed by the very gentle persuation tactic to drop their gods?

Im not even biased against that stuff, just wanna know how and who sees it like this.

For lay levels, the local gods (prebuddhist) became guardians/guides. The local traditions still continue to venerate their old gods even though the old tradition faded away. For the novice monks, they are simply humans who are rebirthed as higher beings, yet still trapped in samsara like everyone else. For the higher level monks/gurus, these become construct of the minds, etc.

What you're reading is information distilled for western reading, so you have three different versions that say different things, yet they're all right/true.

So this makes Bhuddism some kind of mystery religion were the polytheist peasantboy was accepted into the monastery and then shed off the concept of spiritsm further and further while ascending the ranks of the clergy making it only about you and your ego while keeping a pokerface towards people still adhering to the deities as literal gods who are delighted by their daily incense?

Depends on the sect.

Theravadins acknowledge the existence of heavenly beings as beings that exist in different realms of existence. Some believe that these deities sometimes try to help humans, but they're not the focus of Theravada.

Mahayana adherents tend to focus worship towards bodhisattvas instead oof general deities. Bodhisattvas are beings who have chosen to postpone their own enlightenment in order to help others reach theirs.

Vajrayana I really have no idea. It's a very different flavor of Buddhism.

Reincarnation and the dualism it requires are incoherent concepts. As such the purported goal of achieving release from the cycle of rebirth is also incoherent, but the actual practises of Buddhism have been found to have many valuable benefits even when practised by non-believers, and freeing yourself from the stress of suffering is demonstrably beneficial, so I'd say if you take its spiritual teachings as "metaphors" and practise the physical methods such as meditation, yoga, and breathing exercises then it's a religion that is perfectly in sync with modern understandings of the nature of reality.

>Vajrayana
wew

books.google.de/books?id=RA81DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=Vajrayana sacrifice&source=bl&ots=L8DLlrWNrx&sig=zca463EXQO6rm1ttPErelmfEcyA&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwia6Y_03bXQAhXJPBQKHUlJC9EQ6AEIPTAE#v=onepage&q=Vajrayana sacrifice&f=false

i don't think an inconsistency in religion isn't really a bad thing. i think that all religions were meant to be interpreted in metaphors, so an inconsistency in one religious text doesn't necessarily negate another story's message or moral.

Buddhism, Stoicism and Schopenhauer are absolute patrician tier.

Emperor Marcus Aurelius and prince Siddharta walked into a bar. There they found Schopenhauer sitting at the table. Let me tell you about women lads...

Not quite.

It doesn't matter if people believe in gods or not in Buddhism, as Buddhism isn't about whether or not you believe in god/not. Rather the process is whether something helps you achieve enlightenment or not.

As a lay, if you have no interest, then you are simply emulating what's good/selfless act, etc. Those acts lead you closer to selflessness, kindness, etc in the mind which is one of the core component in enlightenment. So it works out fine in the end.

I read a bit, looks like some varjayana tantra sutra ask for sacrifices of animals and such, however in Tibet around 1000AD, those fell out of favor. This was probably due to Atisa's teachings in Tibet. Tibet at the time was declining in Buddhism due to internal strife, Atisa rejuvenated it and started a new lineage as well as leveled the playing field by removing non-buddhist practices.

Explain more how they are incoherent.

Why is dualism and reincarnation incoherent concepts in Buddhism? Why is release from cycle of rebirth incoherent?

You forgot Epicurus and Seneca

C-can Plato join in the conversation?

Plato: yeah, women suck. The form of woman is pretty hot tho!
Siddharta: noble Plato, the form of woman is emptiness, the idea of woman is emptiness.
Plato: I know! Tell me about it!
*the four laugh*

Also Zen is very different from all of them.

How is it different?

More on next week's episode of
Philosophical encounters of the first degree

If plato "knew" the form of women are emptiness and the idea of women is emptiness, then why did he say "the form of woman is pretty hot tho"?

Seems you are trying to project your own retarded into this?

In a lot of aspects. In Zen they worship nor gods, nor boddhisatvas. They focused on present moment and awakening in this life. Also concept of reincantation is almost irrelevant for them, a big part of zen buddhists don't believe in it or thing it's not important to believe.

Someone doesn't have a sense of humor...

Pretty sure all Buddhist school seek their best in this life and awakening as soon as possible. The mahayana/vajrayana/theravada also has the "focused on present" aspect too, as well as other meditative practices as well such as compassion, equanimity, concentration, etc.

The concept of reincarnation isn't the focus of most buddhist schools either, that's left as deserts/after thought for most.

The bodhisattva ideals are found in nearly all mahayana schools. That includes Zen as well. Emphasis may not be placed there by the Americanized/Westernized Zen, but its there.

I think those distinctions are false, Zen is another aspect of mahayana branch.

This is very important. Americanized zen is basically atheism + a laid back attitude + meditation + healthy foods, which is basically the lifestyle your average bearded hipster vegan and gym-going Stacy already lead.

This MUST be a German.

Bodhisattvas are literal contradictions
>I totally reached enlightenment guys
>but I'm sticking around to help you instead of ignoring you because I no longer care about worldly matters

reminder that Vajrayana is the outcome of mahayana

Vajrayana is the only good one because it acknowledges chakras

But chakras don't exist so this isn't a good doctrine.

>chakras don't exist
says you

The Pali canon is very centered and direct which leaves no room for inconsistencies. The alleged Hinayana sects at the time, which were believed to contradict or deviate from the teachings, eventually died out and weren't committed to the canon. The doctrines that came about with later Mahayana schools could be argued to contain various inconsistencies or contradictions, and Buddhist sects themselves have always been the first to point out these inconsistencies within "rival" schools, often with scathing criticism. But it's important to look at these differences in the light of upaya or skilful means, which demand that the teachings be adapted to different situations and temperaments, as well as the equalizing effect of the core teaching of emptiness, which guarantees that the teachings acknowledge their own illusory and provisory nature.

I am very curious what you're referring to when you speak of westernized Zen. I have been practicing Sōtō Zen Buddhism in the west for 7 years and can assure you that actual Zen schools and practitioners, westerners or not, are thoroughly anchored in the bodhisattva ideal. We take the bodhisattva vows just like other Mahayana sects and It's near-impossible to attend a Zen lecture that doesn't involve some mention of bodhisattva practice and a tremendous amount of respect and veneration for the ideal, as it's the aspect of Buddhist practice that connects the easiest to daily life.

reminder that the zen people believe that

>if you have any goal of achieving anything in meditation then you completely miss the point. meditation and zen is about non-achievement.

which is false and even retarded. The whole point is of the path is to prepare for the jhanas which culminate as nibanna

Then how do you suppose we make affect on the metaphysical realm?

By westernized Zen I mean those internet Zen masters who've never actually been ordained and speak only about what the know from what the TV tells them.