Why do most students of comparative religion become Buddhist if Christianity is true?

Why do most students of comparative religion become Buddhist if Christianity is true?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=yd1rCCWX0bo
youtube.com/watch?v=2KU-sSsSVow
youtube.com/watch?v=QOQiZbAPtW4
youtube.com/watch?v=-v-iNe1wVZ0
youtube.com/watch?v=Oi0V3Pycru0
myredditnudes.com/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Because the Dharma is eternal

They don't.

Because Buddhism didn't abandon its praxy in favor of rational materialism like Christianity did. This is why the Buddha not being an actual person is irrelevant to Buddhism, yet Jesus not being real invalidates the entirety of Christianity.

Because &Humanities was a mistake.

Because only Mongols knew how to be both.

buddhist monks are less likely to diddle their kids than Christian "fathers"

because it is hip and trendy

>Said the increasingly nervous christcucks since the 60's

Its not.
Stole eveything from hindus
*tips*
Hey rabbi

>hip and trendy
tell us more, daddy-o

It's a practical philosophy that doesn't require the intervention of a church or other human agency. It also invites skepticism and encourages people to try it to see if they think it's beneficial.

More of them become pic related Muslims nowadays it seems

More victim points

Plus Buddhism fell out of favour when the Dalai Lama started talking about immigration

They're hipsters.

good, those faggot tibetan buddhists in the west are the fucking worst. they'll become catholic next so they can keep practicing some form of paganistic bullshit

Actually most students of comparative religion become atheists

Neither are mutually exclusive.

>The problem, as far as I can tell is that the flesh, the medium of desire, has stimulating factors and true virtue/righteousness is a constant adjustment. A constant nursing so to speak, removing the pins that have you pinned agaisnt the wall. That's not a easy task for someone who enjoys desires.
You've pretty much pinpointed the trouble I have with the whole "remove desire for pleasure" thing. On one hand, the logical conclusion seems to be the sort of hard asceticism of Catholic saints. On the other hand I understand Buddhism (and if not, other world views) teach a sort of middle way between asceticism and partaking of food/drink/games/ect. Yet the question because "what is enough?" After all, if I can jerk off with no problem and repercussion why shouldn't I? On the other hand I see clearly that some benefits would exist if I stop jerking off but is it really worth the hassle if none of it really matters?

Buddhism believes in states of being after death senpai.

Atheism only implies a rejection of belief in gods sempai.

Atheism isn't about after life but the state of existence of God.

True. But I understand Buddhism accepts god and god like beings, just doesn't require you to worship them and has the ultimate goal of nirvana.

Depends on the form of Buddhism.

No Buddhism is said to be atheistic but more accurately its agnostic. It just doesn't care if there is a God because the ultimate God will reconcile everything in time anyway.

I hear what youre saying user...

Sorry though, I obliterated my post cause' I really didn't want to sound like was offending anyone. But yeah, my description in relation to the topic of desires was general and lacking. There's more to it, logic even, that I can fundamentally understand. But I just can't explain as well as I'd like...

But I think the enemy in both narratives is degeneracy though. Like a unchecked sexual appetite, I'm starting to see how it's linked to something like murder...as both are a abandoning of self control. So if a individual entered a society where they don't check their sexual appetite, this new individual is going to have a identity of his own right? Traits and pathology of his own from lessons learned and lessons he hasn't learned. And he may have a more destructive response to the idea of not exercising self control...basically it may bleed into his emotional spectrum and cause an out break of violence. That could be the by product of being in this new society.

Then you have the society itself, a society that doesn't exercise temperance or self control in just a single category....years down the line I can see how newer generations could be even worse at exercising self control and therefore the inevitable collapse occurs.

So discipline to stay in the middle (Buddhism), which ironically is a "letting go" and a sacrifice of the flesh (Christianity) which translates as an elimination process to prevent desires to steal, murder, exploit etc etc...it's all a constant adjustment to maintain peace.

Now I don't think recreational activities or creation is to be shunned. I just think people would play and create differently with new and different motives. I don't know, I'm so tried right now that I feel drunk. Anyways take it easy bro.

Buddhism's middle path isn't just some sort of compromise because the Jains were dying of starvation. Rather it was an attempt at realizing a way of life which does not recognize the self. Buddha said because the Jains made self-denial such an ultimate goal they were ironically emphasizing a negative image of the self, it was more or less being maintained as a standard of "evil". So the Buddha realized that it was important to not engage in self-gratification but to deny the self too explicitly would not allow for one to pass into nirvana as it would still be a manifestation of the ego.

>Rather it was an attempt at realizing a way of life which does not recognize the self.
Why do Buddhist want this? I'm all for eliminating desires and egoism but i'd rather just go about it in the stoic sense of accepting things for what they truly are as opposed to seeking to the complete unrecognization of myself.

Accepting things for what they truly are is what Buddhist are doing.

Buddhist realized that the idea of "self" as a perrma fixed identity was the core of the problem. Not only does this idea not exist in humans but it also doesn't exist in any existence. The gap between our assumption, what is real is what causes suffering and assumptions made due to this error causes suffering.

If Christianity is "the one true religion", how come there are very Buddhist like sects (Quakerism, Religious-based AA/NA, Mormanism) within Christianity? Doesn't that make Christianity just obfuscated Buddhism?

The Lotus Sutra even states that there are many paths, all by different name. In the eyes of the Buddha, all paths eventually lead to enlightenment, some just take longer/more incarnations, give praise to different boddhistiva/buddah ect.

Middle path Buddhism preaches letting go of physical pleasure, yet there is "Diamond/Thunderbolt vehicle (Vajrayana) buddhism" which talks about achieving nirvana through sex, and "negative emotion" (pleasure)

TL:DR: There are many flavors of Buddhism, and if they all lead to the same end, does that mean there is a "true" path among the many?

>Buddhist realized that the idea of "self" as a perrma fixed identity was the core of the problem.
So I take it they have no concept of an eternal, pre-existent soul?

that is correct

>does that mean there is a "true" path among the many?

yeah, the one that helps you the most

>Buddhism fell out of favour when the Dalai Lama started talking about immigration
...with the goal of saving both Europe and Buddhism.

Based.

>Why do most students of comparative religion become Buddhist?

Source: My ass

The thing i like about buddhism is that it's internally logically consistent. So i would imagine that logical consistency and more than a millenia and a half of introspective commentaries attracts the educated.

>In the eyes of the Buddha, all paths eventually lead to enlightenment, some just take longer/more incarnations, give praise to different boddhistiva/buddah ect.

That's probably the greatest strength of Buddhism. It doesn't outright reject other religions or belief systems, rather it acknowledges them with just the right amount of magnanimity and holier-than-thou-ness.

It was pretty cool how Buddhism cucked Confucian ancestral worship in China, honestly.

Stuff like rebirth and caring about ''completely eradicating defliments'' are not important to be a good buddhist.


youtube.com/watch?v=yd1rCCWX0bo
youtube.com/watch?v=2KU-sSsSVow
youtube.com/watch?v=QOQiZbAPtW4
youtube.com/watch?v=-v-iNe1wVZ0
youtube.com/watch?v=Oi0V3Pycru0

>seuclar buddhism
>humanistic buddhism
Buddhist don't even believe in the ego. Why would they put man before all?

Why must plebs defile Buddhism with their secular, humanistic, utilitarian, atheistic ideology. Why can't they just be Humanist and move on?

Because the philosophy works even if there is no supernatural element

>Buddhism accepts god and god like beings

No. Devas aren't gods, they are sentient beings that are born and die and birth again as something else.

And no, even emanations of a buddha are not omnipotent or even close to it, there is very little it can do to affect your liberation aside from teach you.

Buddhism rejects a substantial self, like Hume did, it in no way rejects persons. Nagarjuna talked about a difference between self, non-self, and non-non-self, and only non-self is the Buddhist way.

>the complete unrecognization of myself.

Fortunately that has nothing to do with Buddhism.

That guy is an idiot.

>Buddhist realized that the idea of "self" as a perrma fixed identity was the core of the problem. Not only does this idea not exist in humans but it also doesn't exist in any existence.
This is what has puzzled me.
If the self is a lie, who or what is getting enlightened, then?
Doesn't that mean even Siddhārtha Gautama never reached Nirvana, because the guy that became a sage was a different dude from the one that started Buddhism?

(((students of comparative religion)))

this.
Thank a theosophist twat and some japanese monk that started preaching new yorkers how buddhism is "philosophical", "scientific","secular" and "rational", "doesn't need you to believe in supernatural elements", and super compatible to western humanism(the first twat's friend tried to do the same with Islam, but the bullshit was too obvious).

hinduism is superior

>When you tell your lover you love roached anal

Buddha's teaching is one like that of a boat. Once you get to the other side, you have to discard it.

Buddha teachings are for the unenlightened.

So you're right in that observation. In a sense nobody is enlightened, reaches Nirvana, nobody suffers, etc.

If you read into the buddhist works you begin to see these subtle things. Buddha refers himself as "tathagata", one who has thus gone, when referencing himself. It's to show that 'self' idea no longer really applies.

And... What's wrong with that?

>practical philosophy
t. knows nothing about Buddhism

bump

>Buddhism rejects a substantial self, like Hume did, it in no way rejects persons
But they don't ultimately don't believe in any person, saying its all an illusion. Meanwhile Christianity, Hinduism, many other religions believe in an eternal soul/spirit so the person still has something.

Ultimately and conventionally are used differently and for different situations.

Buddhism ultimately teaches there are no persons, no suffering, no substance, no suffering, etc. Yet conventionally teaches people suffer, animals suffer, there is suffering, etc.

Buddhist teaching is one that is of a conventional teaching. The ultimate teaching is merely after you've reached the Buddhist goal and have you have to discard the raft which you used to crossover the river.

>If the self is a lie, who or what is getting enlightened, then?

The person, that particular consciousness, the conscious agent.

Jay Garfield, one of the world's leading Buddhologists states clearly:

"Buddhists are eliminativist about the self, but not about the person. That is an important distinction."

The reasons why this basic element of Buddhism is lost on so many Westerners are kind of complex, but they deal with poor scholarship starting decades ago, sloppy translations, teachers with poor English, and a Western fascination with conflating Buddhism with Neo-Advaita.

>Buddha's teaching is one like that of a boat. Once you get to the other side, you have to discard it.

This is misleading though as it suggests that buddhadharma in general is discarded, when that isn't remotely true.

The positive wisdom that comes along with buddhadharma, remains and isn't discarded. This means the metaphysical model Buddhism is predicated on remains, it isn't merely provisional.

Furthermore, a distinction between tathagatas and sravaka arhats is that tathagatas love meditative equipoise and so persist to abide in it post-enlightenment.

As such, both primary elements of Buddhism, meditative equipoise and wisdom, are actually not discarded at all.

> In a sense nobody is enlightened, reaches Nirvana, nobody suffers, etc.

Misleading.

> It's to show that 'self' idea no longer really applies.

Yet the Buddha also uses "I" and possessive nouns.

atman= I/me/mine
anatman= not I/notme/not mine

it is not hard.

>But they don't ultimately don't believe in any person, saying its all an illusion.

Ugh, to understand what they really mean you need to study the tenet systems carefully.

Indian and Indo-Tibetan Buddhism is a species of nominalism. By ultimate (bracketing Tsongkhapian deviations here) they just mean post-analysis, and by illusion they mean ontological undecidability. As such, ultimate truth is just a statement about conventional truth and nothing more.

So when they say illusion, they don't mean to negate it in contrast to some void-like non-illusion (East-Asian deviation sneaking in pre-Buddhist native ideas), but to point out that phenomena are completely equivalent to illusions, and that it is illusion all the way down.

That is, that reality is free from ontological extremes (existence and non-existence, both, and neither) and fundamentally paradoxical. (Nagarjuna appears to be the first in world philosophy to explicitly take this notion seriously.) This is what the entire metaphysics of Buddhism is predicated on.

The important take away here is that it doesn't reduce everything to some homogeneous appearance or non-differentiated, substantial emptiness, rather the heterogeneousness of phenomena and their individual dharmatas are maintained.

Sorry user, but you don't understand the Heart Sutra.

>Buddhism ultimately teaches there are no persons, no suffering, no substance, no suffering, etc. Yet conventionally teaches people suffer, animals suffer, there is suffering, etc.
>Buddhist teaching is one that is of a conventional teaching. The ultimate teaching is merely after you've reached the Buddhist goal.

Madhyamaka thinkers are the ones that championed the two truths, Nagarjuna, nor any of the Indian commentaries on his work assert what you are talking about. Ultimate just means post-analysis of conventional phenomena, and so ascertaining their ontological undecidability, and is a critical factor in the common Mahayana Bodhisattvayana, even prior to the weak heat on the path of application.

The point is that as conventional phenomena is analyzed, they are seen to have never actually come into existence at all, and due to this basic non-arising, have been pure from the very beginning. This is where the two kinds of nirvana come in that are explicitly discussed in common Mahayana. Overcoming ignorance of this fact, this nirvana qua basis, via the path, leads to nirvana qua fruit. Hence Nagarjuna saying "Nirvana is Samsara properly understood."

Nyingma and Sakya try to practically speak of post-analysis by discussing "clearly apparent nonexistents" and "nonexistent clear appearances". In other words, there are ontologically unfindable persons, animals, and so forth. All there is are functionally apparent imputations that are as 'real' as anything could possibly be.

Vajrayana expresses this overtly by talking about the union of the two truths from beginningless time, and Atiyogatantrayana doesn't even bother and just plainly asserts "one truth".

The number of western Buddhist vonverts is absolutely miniscule.

Why do buddhists worship a fat guy?

>thinking Buddhist santa clause is the Buddha

Because some ancient chinese folk monk are revered in Chinese culture.

Vajrayana, a path of transformation, is taught as the practical option for people in our era because conditions aren't conducive for a path of renunciation.

The point is that nothing is rejected if understood properly, and instead of renouncing things you use methods to cannibalize them into the path. So there is yoga of eating, shitting, having sex, and so forth.

>After all, if I can jerk off with no problem and repercussion why shouldn't I?

The path of renunciation's response is about how the mere want to do these things in the first place is predicated on a fundamental ignorance. Not a passive one, but an active misengagement with reality, by unskillfully engaging in it you are just perpetuating this misengagement, creating more unconscious imprints that perpetuate the ensnaring delusion. As such, they reject that there aren't repercussions, but rather that such repercussions are subtle and only directly discernible through intensive and structured contemplative introspection.

The point of Vajrayana, path of transformation, is to again only skilfully engage in whatever arises, transforming it like you turn venom into medicine. However, most Westerners just use Vajrayana ask an excuse to do whatever and still call themselves a practicing Buddhist. When in actuality doing this is considered much worse in the long run, like taking bits of venom on top of being violently sick.

And shrinking, it is too involved and demanding for the younger generation. Since academia is increasingly making clear than ever that the 'Beat Zen' of Alan Watts is intellectually fraudulent, even Zen isn't so appealing anymore since it isn't sufficiently secular and non-religious.

Most of them are far better off embracing a lazy stoicism or new-age platitudes coupled with mcmindfulness.

how does one into vajrayana? do you have to be initiated?

I think Buddhist cosmology and ontology are extremely subtle and difficult to grasp, and probably vary a lot across time and place.

In the earliest presentations of Buddhist ideas, it sounds like Buddhism is fully compatible with philosophical materialism and scientific discoveries like the evolution of humans.

But if one really gets into it, I don't know how Buddhist ideas of the person (the skandhas, anatman, Buddha-nature) or causality (dependent arising, karmic acts influencing other dimensions of existence), or cosmology (Pure Lands, eternal Buddha) really have much in common with the modern west's secular outlook.

Yes, you need initiation for Vajrayana proper. There is an interesting logic and history of innovation leading to this that is rooted directly in taking very seriously common Mahayana.

Broken down, an initiation requires some sort of wang (empowerment), lung (in this context a tantra-text transmission), and tri (oral instruction), and from a qualified vajra teacher, dorje lapon, of a living lineage.

While it is ideal to do it in person, a concurrence of intent between the guru and student is the critical factor. So for example H.E. Garchen Rinpoche does livecasts of initiations and is quite clear that this is sufficient provided that one participates as instructed.

Before livestream, some lamas would prerecord tapes and later VHS and have you watch and participate in them at a specific time that the lama was giving the live initiation somewhere else. Before that it was written instruction to be enacted at a specific time. So, despite the fantasies of some people, it has nothing to do with transmission over media, or a video stream, or anything like that. It is all about concurrence of intent and instruction.

Because Buddhism, like Stoicism, is enlightened as fuck and stems from a understanding of the world rooted in philosophy and not iron age semitic deities.

>In the earliest presentations of Buddhist ideas

We can't really say much about the earliest presentations with much confidence, we know there were 18-20 early traditions, and Theravada wasn't among the earliest at all. In fact it was so late on the scene that several pro-Theravada scholars have shifted and begun to argue that it cannot even be considered Hinayana in light of the fact that it didn't even exist when Mahayana began using the term.

That aside, the point is, I can't really agree that it is any more compatible with philosophical materialism and scientific discoveries than other presentations. In fact, from what can be gathered about the early presentations, in some meaningful respects you can argue them as clearly less compatible.

Thanks for the info, man. Do you have first hand experience?

>philosophy

The hell?

Buddhism is a highly dogmatic, spiritualistic creed--be it Theravada, Mahayana, or Vajrayana. It's grossly inaccurate and diminutive to the tradition to present it as being some kind of Oriental Stoicism.

>It's grossly inaccurate and diminutive to the tradition to present it as being some kind of Oriental Stoicism.

Totally agree.

>Buddhism is a highly dogmatic

This is overly simplistic, there has been a tension between pragmatism and dogmatism in Buddhism since likely the earliest times.

>Theravada, Mahayana, or Vajrayana

It is worth noting that categories like these, though can serve as useful heuristics, are a hell of a lot messier than the rigid categories a lot contemporary people seem to demand.

i though Veeky Forums was interesting and all i see is a bunch of straightforward simpletons (not all, of course, i do appreciate the thoughtful comments) arguing about things they haven't even begun to understand
it gets even worse when straightforward western rationalistic atheist simpletons argue about eastern religions applying every western cliche to it, the cancerous plague of OR-OR binary logic for example
you don't even have to like Rene Guenon or Mircea Eliade or that whole esoterism and tradition, it's just that the pre-guenonian paradigm is stupid and outdated as shit
you can say that about the guenonian paradigm and move forward, but you have to understand it first
(having said that, i do know, the man himself hated buddhism, it's not the point)

and do i have to say, buddhists probably influenced hindus more than hindus buddhists?
google fucking s(h)ramana, you plebe

>buddhists probably influenced hindus more than hindus buddhists?

This is a given to anyone even remotely familiar with contemporary scholarship on the matter.

Yes

>the letting go of desires
is also a form of desire. It was discussed by Siddharta himself.
>It's fundamentally equal with letting the flesh go, which is what Christianity teaches.
The desire of Christianity is the desire of love. Of loving God and their fellow humans.
>letting the flesh
The body is resurrected, not discarded. The body follows the goal of the apotheosis. Unless you're a Gnostic or something (I'm not familiar with that).

It's one of the things that triggered the Hindhus, namely the rejection of Atman.

>is also a form of desire.

The Sanskrit (and Pali in this case) terms involved here are two, that is there are two distinct sanskrit/pali terms being translated into English as 'desire', and this causes undue confusion for people.

>earliest presentations

means initial curriculum in this context. probably not a great phrase, sorry.

>initial curriculum

Can you clarify what you mean?

>students of comparative religion
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>There are many flavors of Buddhism, and if they all lead to the same end, does that mean there is a "true" path among the many?

No. A cursory understanding of emptiness invariably reveals that all paths, tenets and sects are illusory.

>are illusory.

Exactly what do you mean by illusory?

>namely the rejection of Atman.
I think it has more to do with the rejection of Paramatman not simply atman. The veneration of the Paramatman and all his avatars and related dieties required oblations and ritual committed by brahmins to sanctify and complete, this was in direct contradiction to Buddhist precepts where the class system was abhorred and found no purchase in the early years. This along with the supposedly 'dharmically' unassailable theory of Ahimsa became more widespread and began to draw more adherents to buddha the brahmins had to convene and agree to make changes to the traditional orthodoxy around 5th to 4th century BC.

I guess they never read the prophecy in Daniel 11 and checked it against history.

Anyone have studied comparative religion? What have you learned in a few words? I have studied it but it seems that I've only collected myriad facts, concepts, names, and stories and coincidences, but haven't learned any wisdom (which was the original project). As a matter of fact I've become increasingly skeptic and ironic about religion in general, when in the beginning I had at least a sincere respect for the world's religions and mythologies.

>So there is yoga of eating, shitting, having sex, and so forth.
Can you explain this in greater detail?

(Me)
I used to stay up all night reading ancient texts. As one book lead to another, I thought that I was getting closer to the ultimate truth with each new book, and the meaning of life and the universe was only one book, yea one page away from being revealed to me.

I read all the classics of ancient philosophy, mythology and religion, beginning with the epics, the Iliad, The Epic of Gilgamesh, then the sacred texts of the world's major religions, then the more esoteric and philosophical stuff. Plotinus' Enneads, the upanishads... I remember the ecstasy I felt when I first read the upanishads. But then the magic slowly waned as a begin to read the more academic, textual-critical stuff and now I'm close to completely skeptic and cynical about religion.

A key point in Vajrayana is turning all aspects of life into the path without exception, even things that are transgressive. As such there is a yoga for every single aspect and activity of life, both in applying the general principles, and often applying very particular approaches best suited to that activity.

Very basically: one aspect of this is the yidam practices of the two stages (one class entirely rejects the creation stage as being unnecessary), which is approached fairly differently depending on the class of tantra and the tradition and sect in question.

So one lower class approach to this is to impute everything as the deity, turning everything and everyone into symbols of the yidam (and thus the dharma) to help and remind you to integrate into the path every single moment.

In short, crudely creating a simulacrum of a pure buddhafield to let go of, and transform, attachment to phenomena that initially appear impure for one, and for two to release the entombed natural purity of said phenomena.

An example from a different class of tantra, for non-celibates, a common sex practice in Nyingma and Kagyu is called Passion Yoga (not to be confused with Karmamudra, which is a very different practice). This practice basically involves imputing (which often includes visualization) your partner as a yum dakini while you transform yourself into the yab yidam.

There are many levels and aspects of this practice depending on the realization or lack thereof of both parties, some very elaborate and others extremely unelaborate.

I have. One thing I learned was how intellectually fraudulent perennialism was.

Another was that though pluralism is fine and no tradition or religion has a monopoly on spiritual profundity, the distribution of such is by no means even remotely equal.

Some religious traditions are far more complex, nuanced, profound, and potentially transformative than others.

Christianity can be a profound transformative religion or not. Shintoism can be a profound transformative religion or not. Buddhism can be a profound transformative religion or not.

Things are what you make of them.

Not disputing that any one of them can be a profound transformative religion (no monopoly on profundity).

I reject the idea however that magically they are equally profound and equal in transformative potential (some are more so than others).

Eastern buddhism is dogmatic because they essentially worship the buddha. They are ATTACHED to the word of the buddha. Which is why they complain about never reaching enlightenment.
Buddhism in the sense of what the buddha taught is, like stoicism (im gunna agree with the other user here) , true by being simple. Cant suffer if you have no attachments, if you are not invested in anything. Its simple, true and if you take time to reflect on it, can reshape your life.

>It's all same man. Dude lmao
Fuck off tryhard centrist

>Eastern buddhism is dogmatic because they essentially worship the buddha. They are ATTACHED to the word of the buddha.

These are strange assertions considering substantial portions of Buddhists don't actually have that much interest in what Gautama the monk even taught, many explicitly consider it a mistake to cling to the teachings of only one Buddha or realized person.

> Which is why they complain about never reaching enlightenment.

Who is this 'they' that is complaining? In Indian, Indo-Tibetan, and East-Asian lines of Buddhism in no uncertain terms many people are considered to have achieved awakening and even Buddhahood this life. Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche and Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche both were considered to have achieved Buddhahood, and someone like Kunzang Dechen Lingpa was considered awakened (enlightened) to a great degree (high bhumi bodhisattva).

only liberals think that books get you closer to truth

Catholics actually have a lower chance to molest a kid than average. The whole thing is a meme because of the cover-ups.