Buddhism is true redpill

Buddhism is basically ancient Scientology.
I think of both groups as insane.

So literally kill yourself? What the fuck Buddha?

no,
nononono
screw that.
Hinduism,
"same thing"
no.
just. no.
"existence is suffering"
bullshit.
total non logic.

get free of your desire to life.

killing yourself would convey another desire. Just let yourself die.

I'm gunna die anyway? Why would I rush it in the pursuit of nirvana?
Moreover this whole Buddha thing doesn't make sense.
Basically if I stop caring enough, this somehow means I'll break the cycle of life and death and just exist as a soul that shows up here and there fuckin with people and shit.
This in itself is absolutely retarded.
How do the two actions
Accepting lack of control
And
Gaining control
Get connected in Buddhism?

There is no soul and no self. Once you escape, you are done.

Oh so I don't exist period.
That's just atheism.
We live we die, we never come back. No matter what you want or do, total acceptance will be reached because we'll die.

karma is bullshit and so is reincarnation

without these, which no westerners believe in, the buddha would simply advocate suicide

life is suffering
ergo,
kys

Retard christcuck throwing the baby out with the bathwater

Whether the whole karma and reincarnation thing is bullshit or not, the mental discipline and equanimity advocated by buddhism are very healthy and useful.

jews beileve in reincarnation

>The four noble truths

>oh yeah baby suck it, oh yeah
>this is suffering baby
>oooh, I desire your butt
>and suddenly he is in nirvana

>don't be too good but don't be too bad and eventually you'll get there

that's basically the abrahamic religions, Buddhism actually requirea hard work instead of just following a moral code

Is there a good page or something I can visit to learn Buddhism?

Also for the edgy nerds trash talking: Its craving the problem, not so much desire, don't be so literal guys, try to use the brain

It's basically eastern stoicism with magic and elephants.

>Existance
Stopped reading there

In my view, Buddhsim offers the only true answer to the post-modern question of everything being arbitrary.

I recommend Access to Insight.

This website focuses on the Theravada school of Buddhism (which is the oldest school of them all). It contains nearly all of the Theravada canon, and also has many supplementary texts and essays made by scholars and real Buddhists.

Just find an article you like and go from there.

accesstoinsight.org/index.html

Depends on the branch but you accumulate merits for a long time (Mahayana and Vajrayana)

In Theravada you must actually have an human precious existence (most humans don't qualify, you must be able to know the buddhidharma, being born with at least the first three roots of goodness, not naturally clinging to wrong views, not overwhelming mental and physical problems) and at least manave to attain stream-entry.
(there is a minor stream-entry but that just leads to true stream-entry in the same life)
Yeah Buddhism really doesn't without reincarnation, almost everyone there back then believed in reincarnation but with time they thought of it as a bad thing and buddhism is all about escaping that + a total subversion of hindu metaphysics.

Which is?

thanks user.

In the Buddha's own words:

"All fabrications are subject to decay. Bring about completion by being heedful."

Why are christcucks and atheists so triggered by buddhism?

Very good website indeed but you drank a little too much of the Theravada koolaid.

Sure they base themselves in the pali canon, but the most ancient partial pali canon is super generic and the most ancient buddhist text is from an early buddhist school that accepted mahayana sutras, the oldest theravada pali canon is only from the middle ages.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhāran_Buddhist_texts

Most theravada traditions also make buddhism pointless because of how much they downplay the possible attainments of the lay followers for the not really backed up promise of them being reborn as monks later and donwplaying practice even for monks despite its necessity for Liberation being stressed in the pali canon.
And theravadins tend to be overly pessimistic about the odds of even stream-entry for monks...completely defeating the purpose of the dharma.

Again I don't think the canon pali is bad and some therava traditions are good, just that theravada has its own problems not making it the only good form of buddhism to consider.

I have actively avoided most of the Mahayana canon because I viewed it as the Hindus infiltrating Buddhism.

Are there any parts of Mahayana which you find compelling?

>Resign yourself and fit the world
no
>you'll know one day
Already been there

There are good mahayana thinkers like Nāgārjuna (and the philosophy behind tibetan buddhism is unironically a good developement of his thought).

Mahayana is a lot less despairing if you believe in it because you have more assurance of ever being liberated (theravada cosmology is very pessimitic about that) and the boddhisatva ideal is cool.

Just avoid most pure lands schools because they go the opposite way as most theravadins and promise quick buddhahood in the pure land of amithaba despite it being a lot more hard in the Lotus Sutra, again I don't like that because it's lying to the believers.

Zen Masters tend to go full retard even in Asia but especially in the west and there it's the other stronghold of secular buddhism with theravada stripped down to vipassana and samatha.

Because they are still chasing after happiness and fleeing from thier impending sense of doom, respectively.

I wonder if the idea is, because these are eastern world people who might actually believe in dharmic reincarnation (unlike many western people), that you take little steps, but very sure steps in each life, so that the over all path of your attainment, though long, is also very believable and assured to some degree.

I mean blow out swing for the fences Zen is alright with me, but setting unrealistic goals often leads to unrealistic expectations and dramatic crashing back to earth of the all or nothing go for bust style of Mahayana.

I think there is value in all traditions, but only Theravada seems to be grounded in a clear mind to the human reality. I didn't go into my first piano lesson thinking I would leave with my fingers dancing Rachmaninoff. Ir would be nice, bit not terribly realistic expectations to have. And I'm not saying it never happens because it does. And nirvana has been achieved in one lifetime. I just think its not a practical message.

I can understand the idea and it's certainly the reasoning of the people and you can see that even in their fiction but it's mostly at odd with the pali canon.
Even managing to get a rebirth in a heaven is ultimately pointless because it's temporary and the buddha never talked about being reborn as a monk if you are a nice person, just a form of mutualism between the monks striving for enlightemnent and lay people mostly getting wordly benefits but the dedicated ones were still supposed to be able to get the attainments below arhathood, rebirth in a heaven being kind of a consolation price for those who fail.
You can technically cultivate paramitas through several lives but it's not reliable at all and how rare a precious human existence makes wanting for an optimal life to become a monk or do nothing rather absurd.
And rather than eventual arhathood being guaranted, a real risk to never meet the Dharma again after a precious human life is implied.

The idea of slow progression through many lives including ones as householders ironically works a way better in the Mahayana, Mahayanists just like to make a point about how buddhahood is not only for monks but even then it's just only relevznt in the endgame of the path.
If anything Theravada is really the all or nothing one even if people think otherwise.

>Religion invented by a literal street-shitter.
No, thanks.

I agree 100%. But is this the place for this?

Not sure what you mean here. Can you expand? Literally everything I've read from the Pali Canon is summed up with "Keep going! This shit gets even better! We promise!"

It wasn't meant to be profound. It was meant to be a plainly obvious solution so simple that an IQ 100 human can easily understand it intellectually (if not directly) after a few hours worth of lectures by a decent teacher.

The desire to end suffering is the last thing to be discarded at the moment of nibanna. The Buddha likened the Dhamma (all his teachings and the meditation and stuff) to a raft. You're stuck on one side of a river, shit is bad here, the other side is cool, but that rive is huge and swift. You build a raft and cling to it for dear life to make it across. The raft was really useful. Do you pick it up and put it on your back and carry it with you after you're on the safe side of the river? No, you leave it on the shore since it served its purpose. Desire is like that. So long as the desire leads you continually down the path it is considered "skillful". Eventually that desire is snuffed, but it is a helpful tool.

Form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications, and consciousness are all empty if you slice them thin enough. The stuff about being good is to make it so you have even a hope of directly seeing this. It's really, really, really hard to concentrate everything you're feeling and the cause and effect of the breath when you've been a terrible person to other people. Speaking from personal experience, it's very distracting.

Desire is a movement of intention in the being (I am intentionally being loosey goosey and not defining "movement" or "being") which compels an action. Its input is kamma, the output of past actions, and its output is kamma, the input of future desire.

Don't say that my friend. A thousand grains of self-view is better than one grain of non-self-view.

The Buddha never said there is a self. Or that there is not a self. Or that there is neither a self or not a self. He instead went to great lengths to tell us what is not self: the five clinging aggregates. Form, feeling, perception, (mental) fabrications, and conciousness. Form is what we would think of as concrete matter, stuff, whatever it is that makes up your physical body. Feeling is the sensation of contact with form, pleasant, unpleasant, or neither pleasant or unpleasant. Perception is your brain chunking feeling into categories and turning it into "things". Fabrications are is anything created by the mind really, but particularly directed thought ("i'm going to do ___") and evaluation ("that is pleasant/unpleasant/neither pleasant or unpleasant"), and consciousness is the higher level awareness that constructs a coherent narrative out of all this. The core of the Buddha's teachings is that none of these things are you and that realizing this, like in the direct experiential way that you experience the color red, is what leads to nibanna.

And for totally different reasons to. As I said before, it's hard to meditate on anything if you're distracted by thoughts of horrible shit you've done. So, if you want to get good at meditating it really helps to not be a jerk to others, at least not intentionally. Also it turns out that metta feels really good.

It's pretty rad.

That all metaphysical frameworks are themselves fabrications and no matter what you do you will always have one. Might as well embrace it so long as it's one that leads to less suffering.

If you like this stuff I highly recommend santifm.org/santipada/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Sects__Sectarianism_Bhikkhu_Sujato.pdf

>hard to concentrate everything you're feeling

I meant "hard to concentrate on anything if you're feeling". Yikes.

>karma is bullshit and so is reincarnation
how do you know?

Reminder that Theravada Buddhism is the way to go, fellas. Vipassana meditation is the most effective and fast way into enlightenment

Even in the Canon Pali vipassana alone is not enough to be enlightened, you must use the Jhanas too.

Growing out of Buddhism was the same thing but less painful than growing out of atheism.

True, but you gotta be careful and under the supervision of an experienced monk. Vipassana only is safer to do alone

small brain: Abrahamic religions
medium brain: Buddhism
Big Brain: Sanatana Dharma / Atma knowledge

It's not really that the material world itself is an illusion. Rather the notion that the world is "material" is an illusion lived by us. Our individual worldview is a result of sense perception and this is NOT the real world, but in fact an illusion masquerading as the real world.

>>medium brain: Buddhism
>>Big Brain: Sanatana Dharma / Atma knowledge
this is what hindus trapped in jahnas believe

There are only two ways to get to stream-entry:
1 - being a samaṇa on alms & rags, with faith in the Buddha, Dhamma, etc. (SN 55.1)
2 - destruction of the three fetters. Of wich “sakkāya-diṭṭhi” is concerned with getting rid of the “mine” part.

If one understands what “I” and “Mine” means in Buddhism; then one has done 90% of the understanding on how to leave the kama loka.
For, to get to nibbāna, you have first to leave the kama loka; then the rupa loka loka; then the arupa loka.

Nibbāna is beyond “neither-inquiries-nor-non-inquiries” ( aka “neither-perception-nor-non-perception” ) about this paṭiccasamuppāda (Dhamma).
Or should I say more properly, that nibbāna is beyond “neither inquiries” about paṭiccasamuppāda, nor “non-inquiries” about something else.
For the transcendence of the spheres of experience (āyatanāni), are usually done (in Buddhism,) by getting rid of something - in this case non-inquiries about paṭiccasamuppāda - and looking for something else - in this case the avyakata (the unsaid - which is out of paṭiccasamuppāda).

Dhamma, or ध dha (or √ dhā) - √ मन् man - being a somewhat "performed & established “thinking” , in Indian philosophy at large.
Paṭiccasamuppāda being one of these धर्मन् dharmán (dharma).
“Neither-inquiries” about paṭiccasamupāda - (and the assumptions attached to them); as well as an inquiry beyond paṭiccasamupāda - is the last and highest of the higher jhānas.

So you have to get there to get to nibbāna.

The first big step is to get out of the kama loka.
And that is done by getting rid of the “mine” and the “I”. See SN 22.89 (and SN 22.47), and get a good grasp of what “I” and “Mine” mean.

This illusion is called Maya. From Maya arises our sense of dread in regards to the knowledge that we will one day die. For when we die, our individual view of the world (the result of our sense perception) will end. Thus we think the world ends when we die. But in reality it does not.

Realising the “Mine” part has nothing to do with concentration. It has to do with understanding that khandhas & ayatanas are not “ours” (SN 22.59, SN 22.3, SN 35.138). That we are just made to be felt (SN 12.37). It is about paññā - It is about discernment.
There is no continuity of “self” between nāmarūpa and saḷāyatana. So it is ridiculous to want to appropriate the khandhas of nāmarūpa (as “mine”) - as much as it is ridiculous to want to appropriate the ayatanas of saḷāyatana (as “mine”).
Buddhism is not like late Vedism, where Ka/Prajapati is the continuous Self/self all along. Where the Self, khandhas and ayatanas are “I” and “mine”.
There is nothing in Buddhism that belong to Ka (Kāya) - Neither continuity of Self/self; nor bliss.
What we experience sensorially is not “ours”, says Buddha.

The second part, as seen in SN 22.89, is to get rid of the “I”. And this time, it involves being aware that the dhammas, made out of the khandhas (that are not ours), are impermanent.
To get to that, one must gain concentration and gain a citta, caused to become one.
Note:
Here, bhikkhus, the noble disciple, having undertaken the relinquishing of the support, gains concentration and gains a citta, caused to become one. This is called the faculty of concentration (SN 48.9).
Idha, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako vossaggārammaṇaṃ karitvā labhati samādhiṃ, labhati cittassa ekaggataṃ—idaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, samādhindriyaṃ.
Here, we have the particular case of a genitive absolute; with nouns (samādhiṃ & citassa,) and a participle (ekaggataṃ), both inflected in the genitive.

Samādhi is that pro-active meditative oneness of concentration that helps get to the oneness of the citta.

Getting rid of the “I” is the passage from samadhi to vipassana. From the pro-active" meditation to the “contemplative” meditation.
justpaste
.it/zcue2

Buddhism truly is one of the best things ever created by an atheist.

This is the moment when the citta gets transcended (liberated from mano), in the second jhāna (cetaso ekodibhāva).
Then vipassana can settle in.
Vipassana, that is to say the meditative concentration free of the dross of the sensory “world” (SN 35.107 & SN 12.44). justpaste
.it/1cmhg
This is when the citta gets rid of its impurity (viz. get rid of the tie with the purely sensory orchestrator of khandhas and ayatanas, that is mano - suttacentral.net/en/mn43/21), and become one, and become “mudu”. AN 3.101

This is the end of the kama loka and the entrance in the factors of enlightenment per se; that is to say, the entrance in the rūpa loka.

And yes! Jhānas, particularly the higher ones, are necessary to reach nibbāna.

Liberation by discernment (paññavimutti), and liberation of citta (cetovimutti) are not nibbāna.
As one can see above, paññavimutti is about the “mine”; while cetovimutti is about the “I”.
When one has discerned that the khandhas and ayatanas are not “his”; and that dhammas, made of those, are impermanent; then one passes through the higher jhānas of the rupa loka (viz. somewhat third; and fourth Jhānas).

Then one has still to jhāna (“make an end of”) each sphere left, to get to the arupa-loka.
Each particular jhāna (absorption) carries its own jhāna (“making an end of” something). For jhāna has two meanings indeed.

The complete transcending of perceptions of form (matter), and the vanishing of perceptions (based) upon the organs of senses [internal āyatanāni] (viz. paṭighasaññānaṃ atthaṅgamā) - and the unstriving with the mind (manasa/mano) to perceptions of manifoldness (lit. (what is) differentlythan one) (nānattasaññānaṃ amanasikārā) - is the passage from therūpa, to the arūpa loka. And that takes place in the 5th jhāna.

And lastly, one must get rid of each of the arupa loka spheres - to reach the last higher jhāna. For nibbāna is beyond the sphere of neither-inquiries-nor-non-inquiries (aka “neither-perception-nor-non-perception”) .

Buddhists are degenerate escapists that deserve no respect. They're hypocrites and are cancerous. At least Schopenhauer deserves some respect.

Literally soulless version of hinduism.

>praising a resentful beta

Why liberals love mediocrity so much?

bum;p

So how I stop desiring to eat without starving?

Whenever most Westerners talk about Buddhism, I get pissed off.

why?

Because you're just regurgitating some of the passages from sutras or teachers when they're telling you to rely on your own understanding beyond imitation and not grasp or dwell on insubstantial, transitory phenomena, thoughts, or feelings. There is no overall comprehensive apprehension on an experiential level with you people, and you treat it in a dogmatic way like Christianity. You just come off as icchantikas trying to prove something rather than pacifying your own minds, and this fosters the delusion of a self in competition with others.

You people ruin everything from the East that you touch. Just stick to your own decadent traditions.

Same as chinks and japs ruining Buddhism by mixing it with their local senseless superstitions and zero understanding of indian logic and metaphysics. Xuanzang was ok, though

t. Pajeet

how does it feel the satori?

>You people ruin everything from the rest of the world that you touch

fixed.

t. Guenon

>keep lower castes from rebelling and make them accept their shitty lives: the religion

whoa never seen this before

Is it possible to find your way through the tunnel with jhana? Can jhana alone help guide your path?

Ive practiced meditation for several years but I have never entered a jhana-state. I also find the teachings of the Buddha (such as mindfulness and non-clinging) to be cold and dry, and I have a hard time following them in day to day life.

Being a lay practitioner is not easy. As a lay practitioner, samadhi is experienced during retreats with hours upon hours of Shikantaza or other meditative practices. One is also surrounded by Buddhist literature in between sitting too. However, as an actual monk or hermit with the financial means, discipline, and health, samadhi can be sustained more easily.

This reads like a YouTube comment

>castes

experiencing dispassion towards sensual pleasures

bump

came here to bump too

>Buddhism is true redpill
>The four noble truths
>>Existance is suffering
stopped there

Why would I NOT want to constantly reincarnate and partake in the delights?

>Not sure what you mean here.

Look up "Vinegar Tasters." It's a traditional Chinese religious painting of Confucius, Buddha, and Laozi. Confucius, who saw life as sour and in need of rules, has a sour look on his face. Laozi saw life as fundamentally good in its natural state, and enjoys the vinegar simply because it is vinegar. Buddha, who saw life as bitter, dominated by pain and suffering, has a bitter look on his face.

Buddha starved himself, stuffed himself until he was fat, and experienced all the extremes of life. It was only when he found a balance that he started Buddhism. But isn't killing ALL desire an extreme in itself? I can understand removing desires for extremes or other harmful behaviors, but that isn't what we hear. All we hear is "Kill ALL desire. ALL of it."

You spend 99,9999% of the time as an animal, an hungry ghost or a hell being, good human lives are real and even if you miraculously manage to be born in a heaven, devas are so spoiled by the abudance of their life that they end in a hell after a few millions of years.

Nonsense.

the delight in jhanas are not permanent and only hedonists claim consciousness and sensuality are worth it

hii. I have a few questions about Buddhism and,reincarnation.
This obviously varied from branch to branch but do men and reincarnate to the same gender each time or either?
How much of one's past life is believed to manifest in the reincarnation besides karma?

>>Existance is suffering
As I red, this is a wrong translation.
It is not like the Buddha said life is suffering,
but suffering is a part of life. There is no life
without some suffering. It does not mean life
is inherently "painful"

Wait, you can be reborn as a deity in buddhism??? And they can go to hell???

Convince me.
All I see is reincarnation and this weird intention to obliderate the self.

Basically hindu deities are reinterpreted as beings too trapped in samsara, they just live a looong time.
You can be reborn as a deva, or even many categories of brahmas.
It's not a good plan to plan to be reborn as one because it's temporary anyway and after several millions of years they die horribly when confronted to the first thing frustating them in their long and blisfull life and are directly reborn as hell beings. (With too lifespans of several millions of years)
In buddhism, samsara really sucks not matter how much temporary pleasure you can find there.

wow I really fucked up this post.
I meant:
do men and women reincarnate into eachother?*
Or is it males reincarnate to males everytime?

tfw unironically vajrayanist

Convince me on atheism.

All I see is some nihilism and wanting to kill the good God.

Read the book of Ecclesiastes, it agrees with Buddhism but takes one step further saying that there is no escape.

Only non-dedicated cucks can't get into samadhi and only non-dedicated cucks aren't in samadhi all day everyday. Lrn 2 tantric methodology in Buddhism and Hinduism and use western/Christian devotionary practices.

what daemons do you summon

>This obviously varied from branch to branch but do men and reincarnate to the same gender each time or either?
no you can go from men to women and so on. also, only liberals use the word and care about gender

>devotionary practices
>calls others cucks

>Can't kill insects
>Therefore can't farm
>Mass suicide