What is your opinion of Buddhism? Which branch is superior?

What is your opinion of Buddhism? Which branch is superior?

Other urls found in this thread:

accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf
theravada-dhamma.org/pdf/Ajahn_Thate-Bio_of_a_Forest_Monk.pdf
buddhistische-gesellschaft-berlin.de/downloads/brokenbuddhanew.pdf
youtu.be/2Dn9kqVrKzE
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Tibetans give evertyhing that people love.

accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf

a few enticing pieces -

pg 399:

"One who wants to make the mind-made body should emerge from the basic jhána and first advert to the body in the way already described, and then he should resolve, “Let it be hollow.” It becomes hollow. Then he adverts to another body inside it, and having done the preliminary work in the way already described, he resolves, “Let there be another body inside it.” Then he draws it out like a reed from its sheath, like a sword from its scabbard, like a snake from its slough. Hence it is said: “Here a bhikkhu creates from this body another body possessing visible form, mind-made, with all its limbs, lacking no faculty. Just as though a man pulled out a reed from its sheath and thought thus: ‘This is the sheath; this is the reed; the sheath is one, the reed is another, it was from the sheath that the reed was pulled out’” (Paþis II 210), and so on. And here, just as the reed, etc., are similar to the sheath, etc., so too the mind-made visible form is similar to the possessor of supernormal power, and this simile is given in order to show that. This is success as the mind-made."

pg 394:

"He wields bodily mastery even as far as the Brahmá-world’: if this possessor of supernormal power, having reached mental mastery, wants to go to the Brahmá-world, though far, he resolves upon nearness, ‘Let it be near.’ [402] It is near. Though near, he resolves upon farness, ‘Let it be far.’ It is far. Though many, he resolves upon few, ‘Let there be few.’ There are few. Though few, he resolves upon many, ‘Let there be many.’ There are many. With the divine eye he sees the [fine-material] visible form of that Brahmá. With the divine ear element he hears the voice of that Brahmá. With the knowledge of penetration of minds he understands that Brahmá’s mind. If this possessor of supernormal power, having reached mental mastery, wants to go to the Brahmá-world with a visible body, he converts his mind to accord with his body, he resolves his mind to accord with his body. Having converted his mind to accord with his body, resolved his mind to accord with his body, he arrives at blissful (easy) perception and light (quick) perception, and he goes to the Brahmá- world with a visible body. If this possessor of supernormal power, having reached mental mastery, wants to go to the Brahmá-world with an invisible body, he converts his body to accord with his mind, he resolves his body to accord with his mind. Having converted his body to accord with his mind, resolved his body to accord with his mind, he arrives at blissful (easy) perception and light (quick) perception, and he goes to the Brahmá-world with an invisible body."

pg 398:

"When this possessor of supernormal power, while remaining here sees a visible object with the divine eye, hears a sound with the divine ear element, knows consciousness with the penetration of minds, he does not wield bodily power in doing that. And when, while remaining here, he stands with that Brahmá, converses, enters into communication with that Brahmá, he does not wield bodily power in doing that."

how do I into vajrayana and what the fuck is tantra?

there is objectively no karma nor should anyone care about their soul reincarnating because they forget it all anyway

Every action has a reaction, that's a physical law.

>actions don't have effects
>he fell for the literal transmigration of souls meme

Mahayana best school fuck the lesser vehicles

I guarantee my car wins.

Mahayana is my favorite branch.

I'd race you but I've already arrived

E, race you're self.

C. U. at the finishline, slowpoke

there is no Finnish line

The book of secrets by Osho can teach you what tantra is.
Its expensive tho.
Just know that tantra is not just "how to fuck for real". Thats only a small part of it.

As someone who's new to Buddhism, where should I look to start?

the winner is the one who figures out where the brakes are

Tibetan. They have cool black magic, super-weapons, levitation combat, and into hollow earth.

>physical law has anything to do with justice

what is the karma of balls smacking against each other? It is nothing.

DANK

that's the one that realizes brakes are for everyone else

Any books or talks by thich naht hanh are really great imo

>confusing physical causation with effects of immoral action

You're comparing apples and oranges

Not the Han though

Does anyone else feel that the idea of reincarnation cheapens the life you have on earth?

Reincarnation isn't a thing in real buddhism.

>Does anyone else feel that the idea of reincarnation cheapens the life you have on earth?

I'd ask you to define reincarnation.
From what I read I interpret reincarnation merely as a form of progressive existential succession, instead of spiritual return.
For me, reincarnation isn't about being born as another being, but being succeeded by another form in the dharma. I don't see it as a soul or essence of a being transmigrating to another body after their death to live again.

What do Buddhists think of Schopenhauer's writings on Buddhism?

if it's justice then it's blind justice. karma is just a force, no different than gravity. karma isn't some god watching you and punishing or rewarding you based on your actions. it's simply the consequences of your actions

Temptation by Satan.

I think Schopenhauer is one of the greatest philosophers of all time and I admire his writing.

tantra just means "special"

you didnt even fucking mention buddhism

Women do not suffer enough to be enlightened

:O
Sexist pig.

buddhism is literally a meme dumbass, and its hollow without talking about souls in any context

and no, karma is not action/reaction

kek

Soul is just a concept with no independent existence, like all objects

Yes it is

Women are exactly the same as men before and after enlightenment. Dogen wrote about this in particular

Pffhahahaha.
Go read a book, retard. Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, have one thing in common: they're not corrupted by feminism, they acknowledge the nature of women. You can shove your feminist propaganda up your ass.

>Dogen is feminist propaganda

You need to work on your understanding of reality and compassion

If women are to give up their feminity and their motherhood, then they too can become arhant. Men also give up their masculinity and their fatherhood.

Older Buddhism says females have it more difficult so its better to be reborn as a man, as they have less restrictions from society, and then try for enlightenment.

Its more a realism of society rather than "women can't into enlightenment" as basic truth.

As long as you're willing to sacrifice your societal obligations, you too are welcome to be an arhant.

Ok.
I dont think its that simple, but whatever.

I wont deny any of that.

It is harder for women to avoid following their desire for sex

Is that why religious people say men have authority over them?

It is though. It's just we become various forces and energies after we die. Look up the samsara cycle

Question of authority is based on society's social structure.

>Which branch is superior?
Probably Sautrantika and the subsequent idealist sects. Although I also have a soft spot for Nagarjuna and the culling of all the crap that had built up since the abidharmaic schools started interpreting the Pali canon. Most Mahayana influenced by Madhyamaka, however, is such a mess of indigenous and folklore influence that it's barely even coherent.

Societies social structure is based on nature.

Society's*

theravada-dhamma.org/pdf/Ajahn_Thate-Bio_of_a_Forest_Monk.pdf

buddha BFTO
buddhistische-gesellschaft-berlin.de/downloads/brokenbuddhanew.pdf

>"Karma (Sanskrit, also karman, Pāli: kamma) is a Sanskrit term that literally means "action" or "doing".
fuck off to another thread if you're going to be a retarded antagonist

Thanks for posting this in my Veeky Forums thread 10 minutes ago, but what does it have to do with the topic of which school is superior?

B-but nature doesn't exist!! It's ALL a social construct!!
You must be one of those woman-hating virgins!

You don't need to be an arhat to be enlightened/reach nirvana. In fact, positing arhathood as a goal is an impediment to this.

Women don't need to do anything different from men.

Make a study of nonduality and you will find this to be true.

1. No it's not
2. How do you know?
3. It doesn't matter
4. Repressing desire is not the goal
5. Women are not hindered by their condition, but you are by setting them apart from yourself conceptually. Dharma is not seen clearly this way.

>It's just we become various forces and energies after we die.

This is true, but in a very material sense. There is no transmigration of souls. (The relevant principles here are no-self, dependent origination, and emptiness)

youtu.be/2Dn9kqVrKzE

Samsara is a mental state. Samsara is not a different place from nirvana, and nirvana is not a different place from samsara.

Tldr?

Buddhism has nothing in common with monotheistic religions.

>Sautrantika
I prefer Nagarjuna because I think he got closest to the Buddha's ideas. You have to take the idea that everything is not eternal (by itself true) seriously, including ideas.
But I see your point. Very few people who came after Nagarjuna understood the things they were talking about.

He isn't speaking about their belief in a deity, but simply the way their still dominated by male clergy. A lot of Buddhist temples and centers are very traditional in that way if they're filled with non-Westerners (and if they cater to immigrants.) I've gone to a Vietnamese temple that has a lot of wonderful nuns, but they all defer to the one resident monk.

>study nondual

>I shouldn't care if I'm going to wake up tomorrow morning in an inferno as long as I wake up with amnesia

and thats not karma

>This is true, but in a very material sense. There is no transmigration of souls.

there is no transmigration of souls in buddhism but there is reincarnation.

what hes saying in that video is not literally the buddhist doctrine of rebirth. He's using an analogy

this desu, follow him on memebook

Therevada is closest to the way. The truth lies in the Buddhavacana. You may indulge in other sects, but you will inevitably return to The Teaching.

bumping this thread for further interest

>
>not ignoring cause and effect
>he fell for the trapped in words meme

When Shakyamuni Buddha was at Vulture Peak, he held out a flower to his listeners.
Everyone was silent.
Only Mahakashyapa broke into a broad smile.
The Buddha said, "I have the True Dharma Eye, the Marvelous Mind of Nirvana, the True Form of the Formless, and the Subtle Dharma Gate, independent of words and transmitted beyond doctrine. This I have entrusted to Mahakashyapa."

I've studied Buddhism somewhat rigorously and here's my thoughts

Dzogchen and Tibetian Buddhism offers the clearest way to interpret the dharma in modern terms and is invaluable, but Theravada is obviously also the core of both of them. In my opinion, Mahayana strays from the original teachings by emphasizing the Bodhisattva path. It is well-intention and noble to delay one's own liberation for the sake of others, but it is ultimately pointless and each individual walks his own path towards enlightenment and must go about it himself.

>individual walks his own path towards enlightenment and must go about it himself.

>individual
>Buddhism

I spotted your mistake.

That's out of context. He's speaking of how bodhisattvas put of liberation in order to reborn over and over again in an effort to aid others in their own liberation. It's a somewhat foolish, idealistic undertaking because no matter what you do to help someone they're still very much alone on the path of liberation.

Perhaps I am displaying my ignorance but many Mahayana Buddhists dont even view samsara and nirvana as purely separate states because that in itself is a form of dualism

personally, I still haven't decided whether Buddhism is an improvement on or a bastardization of Hinduism

monism > nirvana

Baron Sternberg's syncretic mix of Orthodoxy and esoteric Buddhism is the best.

they are separate in terms of liberation. being bound to samsara means you cannot achieve nirvana.

I've always looked at it as an improvement that stripped away the pantheism and pageantry in order to get to the truth.

can Hinduism be too idolatry sometimes, yes, and seeming pay more attention to the rituals themselves than the meaning behind them...but...

Buddhism is overtly psychoanalytical, haughtily practical, and very holier-than-thou in my opinion

also, Hinduism is not pantheist, it just often seems this way from the Western perspective

Hinduism is so diverse I'm certain some sects of it might be really pantheist, a real waste of the rich polytheistic thought it has.

Yeah i used to interpret it like you do but now I'm leaning more towards that the Buddha said what he literally meant

...but what if user is Buddhist? all that was asked for was their opinion.

Reminder that the hīnayāna is a strawman crafted by the followers of the mahāyāna, only to feel good about themselves

Because there is no literal doctrine of reincarnation. Transmigration of souls is the same thing.

You can study it intellectually, see nagarjuna. It can only be experienced directly though, which is what you mean i think.

What did he say?

Being bound to the idea of samsara means you cannot achieve nirvana

>alone

No, he was right. You both do not understand dependant origination properly and hence create conceptual separations where there are none.

>dont even view samsara and nirvana as purely separate states because that in itself is a form of dualism
This is part of Nagarjuna's point but saying that 'Mahayana' in general believe this is wrong because, for example, Tibetan Mahayana definitely believe in some sort of 'enlightened' state. Obviously Pure Land buddhists do too.

it's actualy the opposite

human women need to be more careful about finding a good partner since they give up a lot of resources and time to bring up a child, that's why their threshold for finding men attractive lays higher and general sex drive becomes lower. Basic biology

It's based on a combination of memetic influence, biological nature and environmental (including economical) circumstances.
A society that desperately needs more humans can either make bringing up children personaly profitable for women or use good ol' sexualy motivated oppression if their is no other way.
It's just that people in general dont like being oppressed.

Can someone give me a clarification between different schools of buddhism specifically on the issue of nirvana? I'm reading the diamond sutra right now and I'm confused because it says to become enlightened you cant think in terms of enlightenment or non enlightenment so what is the point? I think I'm just missing the point but the way this shit is worded is so confusing. Is enlightenment actually a thing or just some kind of way to get people to think in a different way?

also is it something that is attainable in this life or is it over multiple rebirths

Zen Buddhism a best.

Life-denying crypto-nihilists a shit.

satan says you're judgemental

ya but by the time of the Upanishads it had evolved into full fledged monism

Did you skip all the basics? This is what happens when you do that.

Good foundation is needed if you want to understand all the intricasies of Diamond sutra or any sutra for that matter.

Idk about buddhism, but I know something about tantra: enlightenment is available to you NOW. In this exact moment. You just need to open your eyes. How? Listen to all these experts on buddhism that you have in this thread.
Ignore everything that is not direct and practical. Deities are irrelevant. Your state of consciousness is crucial.

This.

how the fuck do i learn to meditate properly?

does meditation start once i am able to block out external distractions/noises/thoughts, or is the process of blocking them out itself considered meditation?

also does meditation have to be that typical cross legged hands on me knees position or is it whatever position i can hold for a long time and stuff?

any resources or anything on how to properly meditate?

just for clarification, yes i am an idiot

This is a really good book to learn how to meditate imo:

amazon.com.au/Mindfulness-Eight-Week-Finding-Peace-Frantic-ebook/dp/B005NJ2T1G


It's not about blocking out at all. It's about accepting and observing anything that arises, pleasurable or painful.

There's no right or wrong way to do it. Just be comfortable. I like to lay down and do it. Having your back straight helps to breathe deeply.

Good luck!