Is negative hedonism the end-game of ethics?

what is dukkha in english

the 4 noble truths are literally a cure for suffering

Its uncontentment, more than direct suffering.

It's a cure for Dukkha, which shouldn't be directly translated as suffering.

im sure you know about the burning house parable from the lotus sutra. the enlightenment is not a goal. it is an upaya, skillfull means, to make ignorant people get out of their samsaric attachment precisely by using these attachments, because they are the only means possible for this, it is the only world they know, you cant talk them out of them.

I wouldnt say either that the goal is avoidance of suffering, but it certainly is not a positive goal to attain something. If anything, it is closer to avoidance of suffering, but I think there is more to it, because once they are out of samsara the whole picture changes and those old terms (goals, suffering etc) no longer fit the wider reality.

>How does Zen relate to other neighboring teachings. Can someone provide context for me?

I like to view Zen as the more pratical approach to Buddhism. This can be a good thing and a bad thing, depending on how attatched to the rigidness of it you get, which is actually an illustration of buddhism in itself

They're also a potential ill to fighting against faults within society, and just learning to accept them.

"Avoidance of suffering" is too broad of a term to encompass the subtleties of the buddhist practice, to be honest.

Maybe "avoidance of subjective suffering" would be a better way to put it.

Also, "attatchment to enlightenment" is a thing, and "good attatchments" are also a thing. In the end, however, they should all be dissolved.

Zen is the result when Buddhist Mahayana teachings from China reached Japan and developed into their own thing. They were already changed by the time they had reached China as they had gone through the Middle East to reach China and the farther it went from the source the more it changed like the game telephone that kids play and once it reached Japan it changed even further.

Zen mixed with the Japanese religion/tradition Shinto a little but mostly it was just about them finding ways to coexist and the core practices/beliefs of Buddhism were not much changed. Zen became different from other branches of Buddhism by developing a larger focus then other schools on direct-experience and on meditation and in particular seated meditation. In Theravada Buddhism there is still a big focus on meditation but its seen something that should be done in accordance with Buddhist precepts and as part of a larger Buddhist practice while in Zen meditation is seen more as something that should be practiced for its own sake.

The only other significant teachings/religions in the area besides Buddhism and Shinto were Confucianism and Daoism but it was my understanding that they didn't directly influence Zen much. They could have influenced Chinese Buddhism which was brought to Japan with those influences within it but as far as I'm aware there was not a significant Confucian/Daoist presence within Japan influencing it directly during the period when Zen developed.

I am not that informed about Zen Buddhism in particular but thats my TLDR understanding of it as someone who is relatively familiar with Theravada Buddhism and eastern religion/philosophy in general.

In Buddhist thought, those faults come from a lack of understanding of how things work however. So, by dealing with those misconceptions, they are actually not simply "accepting", but actively fighting against them

hinduism > buddhism

buddhism didnt come out of a vacuum. it is just an unorthodox hinduist way that, presenting itself as new, borrow and builds on all the hinduist concepts and general worldview. buddhism is therapy for hinduists. but only a temporal one, one sort of escapism that can only be ultimately solved by facing the hinduist contradictions, not by avoiding them. vedanta does this. but to get it you first have to be a hinduist, then try buddhism, or jainism, or carvaka, or ajivika (the 4 nastika or unorthodox views) live them, see that they dont solve it and then, by all you learned there, solve the initial problems.

a few talks by an ajhan I just discovered
Ajahn Dtun
wbd.org.au/audio/ajahn-dtun/
abhayagiri.org/audio

I think he describes his stream entry here
abhayagiri.org/audio/questions-and-answers-3-the-aha-moment

youtube.com/watch?v=D9rI9d178cI

youtube.com/watch?v=nQ4Yp3cjDZQ

also, bhante punnaji who uses western vocabulary.

youtube.com/user/bhantepunnajivideo/videos?sort=dd&shelf_id=0&view=0

It's the end game of utilitarianism because utilitarianism is retarded.

you understand that hinduism is inaccurate as soon as you hit stream entry

could you name a concrete example of this?

>hinduism

all isms are inaccurate by definition. but they are the way to accuracy by the solution of those original spontaneous inaccuracies.

isn't vedanta just buddhism that called the void god?

I really enjoy knowledgeable in depth buddha posting lads

keep it up

Its a word to describe the broad concept or concepts that the universe is inherently changing, and that as part of this all experiences and perceptions are just fleeting moments or illusionary and that there can be no eternal satisfaction or rest, and that even those who have great lives will eventually be unhappy or grow sick and experience the suffering involved in dying and rebirth.

Basically that as long as existence continues there is an unending cycle of unsatisfactory-ness and the always-present potential for immediate suffering as well the the guarantee of future suffering at some point in time, that aside from becoming enlightened and the ending of rebirth that there is no way to permanently achieve any sort of permanent happiness or satisfaction that won't melt away eventually, and that all of this applies to every living being in the universe and is just a fact of the universe like gravity or color. Its not some metaphysical law condemning living beings to eternal suffering but more a recognition that existence itself is inherently something that always changes, cannot satisfy and causes suffering.

Thats basically what the term dukkha means although its not a perfect explanation.

No, the noble truths have to do with the fact that dukkha exists and that there is a way to end the cycle of dukka which is Buddhism, see the above response. A 'cure for suffering' is not an accurate description at all, suffering is just a facet of dukkha.

I'm not that familiar with Mahayana texts and I haven't read the lotus sutra. I do agree though that the concept of 'goals' are not that useful to use in describing Buddhism and its aims.

>I don't know if there is a term that can accurately describe that in a few words. Maybe something involving the words 'transcendental', 'enlightenment', 'awakening' etc but for someone who isn't familiar with the subtleties of Buddhist ideas (most people on Veeky Forums tbhf) the term probably won't convey all that.

sotāpanna = lose your faith in hedonism, still an hedonist (of the body, of the will (=the forms (as in forms is emptiness) in the dhamma)), and of the conciseness)
Anāgāmi = still lose your faith in hedonism, no longer an hedonist of the body, still an hedonist of the consciousness
aharant = lose your faith in hedonism, no longer an hedonist

Do we have any serious meditators here?

Every once in a while I see some good posts about Jhana, but I'm wondering how many people actually practice on that level.

>will eventually be unhappy or grow sick and experience the suffering

so it is not that thre is not suffering but more that it is inveitable so we should accept it as part of life?

oh...well it is one of the most famous parables. it can be resumed by wittgenstein's description of his work: "i show the fly the way out of the fly bottle"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya#Parable_of_the_burning_house

Concrete as in a specific sutta? I've only read the majjhima nikaya, I won't be able to cite specific examples.

But to Buddha, a lot of the "wrongdoings" of society come, for example, from the attatchment to Ego. And since the ego is an illusion based on misconceptions, by clearing those misconceptions you wouldnt feel the need to practice bad actions.

Since Buddhism tries to teach you how to shed your ego away, it would be actively trying to dispell the faults of society.

Of course, there are more stuff that Buddha had to say about that, maybe the Buddha-Statue-Posting-Friend can develop this topic further.

Yeah, I've meditated enough to get in the first 4 Jhanas. Lately, however, I have relaxed my practice a bit and focused on other stuff.

The Jhanas really are a pitfall, you know.

Throw the raft out when you get to the other side.

I started with Buddhism, and now I'm getting into Hinduism because of my Yoga practices. Can you guys list me the basic texts of the Hinduist philosophy? I have the Upanishads and the Mahabharata waiting for me to open them.

>Can you guys list me the basic texts of the Hinduist philosophy?

All you really have to know is all men aren't created equal and the pathetic and weak and poor (who the people who own a lot of gold don't like [who aren't really defined as why they should be that rich at all]) shouldn't even look at them while toiling for their supreme order, lest be utterly destroyed with supreme prejudice. Anybody who questions this should also be destroyed with supreme prejudice.

If that's your thing, you do you, go be a sado-masochist.

>buddhism didnt come out of a vacuum. it is just an unorthodox hinduist way that, presenting itself as new, borrow and builds on all the hinduist concepts and general worldview.

Stop pretending that modern-Hinduism was the religion of India at the time and that Buddhism was just a part of that or a reaction to that.

Modern Hinduism is largely a modern invention that is the result of the British control of India, the unification of the country by the British, the attempts by the Brits to study and classify the religion in India as "Hinduism" and then Indian nationalists grabbing that label and running with it for their own purposes to invent the idea of a single religion being practiced all across India since ancient times.

At the time of Buddha the religious scene in India looked nothing like modern times with Hinduism. There were large amounts of different groups and religions including the Jainists and different Sramanic groups and untold other teachers whose teachings were lost to time. The only thing that can be described as 'Hinduism' at the time was the Brahmanic priests in the cities and in some religious centers but most of what they were doing was just studying Vedics texts and performing superstitious rituals. The other groups like the Sramanics had very little to do with the Brahmanic religion and they should not be perceived as being part of Hinduism because they weren't.

Buddhism was more closely linked to the various Sramanics and other ascetic movements/teachings then to the Brahamic Priests and their Vedic texts. Because the Vedic texts are huge and address a huge amount of subjects its natural that Buddha would have been asked about some of them so its no surprise that there is records of him somewhat agreeing with them on some points while disagreeing with them on others.

Labeling everything religious that was going on during that time in India as Hinduism is incredibly disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. The notion of reincarnation and rebirth is one of the most common beliefs among indigenous tribes worldwide and is by no means an invention of Hinduism and Hinduism was not the first to come up with it. The Brahamic religion was influenced by the Sramanics and started to prominently feature notions like reincarnation because of that Sramanic influence which continued into modern Hinduism, but the Sramanics were not Hindu.

An accurate description would be that at the time of the Buddha the only thing that can accurately be described as Hinduism was the Brahamic religion but that was not the only common religion/beliefs at the time and that as far as we can tell Buddhism was influenced very little or none at all by Hinduism and was more closely related to the other Sramanic and ascetic movements at the time which were not part of Hinduism.

Eh, all religions have stupid stuff in them. You would have to be quite ignorant to dismiss everything on the account that some people have used it as a caste-system apology. Corruption is unavoidable when your religion goes through millions of people for thousands of years, but if you distill it enough you can still drink the sweet sweet honey of wisdom.

Searching for different ways to look at the same issue can be very enlightening sometimes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajñana

/all spiritual ways and views

I don't know if true knowledge is attainable, tbqh. However, I think the usefulness of the "spiritual ways" stem from the practice of self-knowledge and self-improvement. So the "Ultimate Truth" or whatever isn't as important as the meaning we give to our lives through the spiritual views.

TO be an empiricist means that you do not cling to your speculations, no matter their degree of formalization, and you cling even less to your fantasy of reality and explaining reality and communicating your explanations. You do not even cling to your sensations, because those changes constantly against your will. sensations changes, just like your thoughts and tastes change. it is all rubbish.

what you call empiricism is empiricism done by rationalists, aka people who love to speculate, know more or less that their speculations are sterile, are always disappointing, more so once they compare them to their fantasy of the ''empirical world'' through their other fantasy of ''empirical proof'' and ''thought experiment'', but still choose to cling to their speculations in claiming that they are not able to stop speculating, therefore that ''not speculating is impossible, it is mandatory to speculate'' (plus we are paid for this now) so let's continue.
What they say is that their rationalism remains bounded by their hedonism, even though they love to claim otherwise, and yet always fail to justify that their speculation goes beyond hedonism...

I even get the feeling that Buddha was somewhat skeptical of his own views of the Truth. He was very careful with how he made his affirmations about the Middle Way (saying a lot that he only dealt on Dukkha and its cessation) and about why you should follow him (you should do your own research and only follow him if you feel good while doing it - Pascal's Argument but better).

So maybe he was aware even of those caveats, and how Belief and Faith are at the same time feeble and powerful things.

Apart from the fact that traditionally Jhanas are strongly advocated for by the Buddha, if you think they're 'pitfalls' I highly doubt you've achieved hard Jhanas.

You're probably misinterpreting your own practice and at best hitting Leigh Brasington tier meme Jhanas.

The correct name for that is Negative Utilitarianism.

>The other groups like the Sramanics had very little to do with the Brahmanic religion and they should not be perceived as being part of Hinduism because they weren't.

yeah of course the use of the term hinduism or buddhism is western nonsense, but i used them to give a quick picture of the thing. but when you say that the sramana groups were not part of the the brahamanic religion or hinduism or whatever you wanna call it that is not accurate. the term religion used in that phrase does not mean what we in the west mean by that. it was a whole way of life, and the sramana people came out of that whole way of life, were a product of it even if in disagreement or indifference to it. they sure started searching for something else and something different, but they did not do it out of nothing, as human beings they grew as part of a society and even if they thought they were rejecting it all their subsequent searching was made with those concepts, behaviors and general wolrdview that they previously learned to live with. they simply gave it an alternative shape.

it would be like saying that all the alternative people that today go live in ecovillages are not part of the western world or have a different culture. even if they go live under a tree they have all the views learned in western life, and it doesnt matter if they cloth it with chinese or indian facades.

anything truly unrelated or completely new would be, if not death itself, a feral child living in nature. once you have been socialized into a group you cannot ultimalety overcome it, you can only fool yourself into that thought by shaping it differently.

>traditionally Jhanas are strongly advocated for by the Buddha

Please tell me where he said that Jhanas were anything more than nice states of mind and ultimately empty.

If I'm not mistaken, he said that you should only really worry about getting to 1st Jhana (since controlling your focus is important), but he had disciples who allegedly attained Nibbana without even getting past access concentration.

I mean hell, he even got into the 3-day meditation binge after he realized the 9 Jhanas didn't do anything for him, so I highly doubt your claims.

>Leigh Brasington tier meme Jhanas.

And this is why I say they are a pitfall. My Jhanas are always better than yours, thus my practice is always better than yours, and I'm oh so much more enlightened.

Eh, I've been through that, and that's why I don't care much about the Jhanas anymore user. Maybe you are right, maybe my practice is shite, but it sure feels good to shed this "spiritual attatchment" and don't bother so much.

>important as the meaning we give to our lives through the spiritual views

ok, then the average citizen giving meaning to his life by eating burgers and pizza is fine if he believes in it and people meditating or being benevolent are no better.

Adi Shankara in his works refuted the Buddhist arguments against Ātman. He suggested that a self-evident conscious agent would avoid infinite regress, since there would be no necessity to posit another agent who would know this. He further argued that a cognizer beyond cognition could be easily demonstrated from the diversity in self existence of the witness and the notion.[103] Furthermore, Shankara thought that no doubts could be raised about the Self, for the act of doubting implies at the very least the existence of the doubter. Vidyaranya, another Advaita Vedantic philosopher, expresses this argument as:

No one can doubt the fact of his own existence. Were one to do so, who would the doubter be?[104]
Fooking Lel

I do meditate but I don't even bother with thinking about the Jhanas. Trying to meditate for the purposes of reaching or experiencing them goes against the whole point IMO. I have found that when I just try to clear my mind of all thoughts and impulses and am able to maintain that for long periods that its the best kind of meditation. There are occasionally moments where I experience bliss or euphoria but those are just a distraction from the meditation itself.

The S.N. Goenka Vipassana meditation retreats are 100% free and are really good. You don't have to buy 100% into what they say or what Goenka's videotapes say for it to be a good experience. Almost all of what he says is in accordance with Buddhism anyway but its stuff anyone who has studied Buddhism would already understand and the point of it for a lot of people is just putting yourself into a situation where you would end up meditating way way more for a week or 10 days then you would ever do on your own.

>so it is not that thre is not suffering but more that it is inveitable so we should accept it as part of life?

No, understanding dukkha is about understanding that existence itself is by nature something where there can be no permanent and lasting satisfaction and that there is always suffering that can occur and will occur eventually just because its an inherent part of conscious existence.

Its important to recognize the existence of dukkha but from the Buddhist perspective instead of resigning oneself to experience suffering one should instead become enlightened and no longer be experience suffering because while all living being can experience physical pain and other unpleasant physical stimuli the reaction to that stimuli with suffering is not mandatory and with Buddhist practices there can be a cessation of suffering and the opportunity to permanently end the potential for future suffering.

this guy has it right for the most part

I'm not aware of a specific text I can cite but a basic component of Buddha's teachings is that there is no such thing as genuine evil, all "evil" or unwholesome actions are rooted in confusion and ignorance of the true nature of things.

Buddha taught that violence and mistreating others was something that was unwholesome and wrong and that the people who did this did it because of poor self-control, giving into anger, lust, jealousy etc and that a truly non-ignorant person would understand what was wrong and would refrain from doing things that are wrong.

One of the basic aims of teaching Buddhism is to dispel ignorance and to improve understanding and the act spreading the teachings to people helps fight societies faults by allowing people to individually improve themselves and when masses of people do that then society improves and its faults are remedied as society is made up of the people and its quality and its faults reflects theirs.

If he is happy while doing that and doesn't seek anything more, why would it be?

No one studies buddhism or any other religion if they already feel content with themselves. There's even a term in Pali for that "uncontentment" with one's life that Buddha claimed was paramount for the beginning of the path.

Of course, it's not that simple, since the practice of Buddhism can be said to be the practice of self-consciousness, and I think a more conscious person would have more tools to achieve happiness and contentment than a burguer-and-pizza eating dude.

In Buddhism the existence of the mind and thoughts are acknowledged but they are not regarded to be the self. The mind in Buddhism is regarded to be the sense faculty of the brain like smell is the sense-faculty of the nose. Thoughts may be directed towards considering themselves but that should not be considered the self examining itself. As Walpola Rahula wrote "there is no thinker behind the thought".

>no longer be experience suffering
>all living being can experience physical pain and other unpleasant physical stimuli

well then what i said stands, because i did not say 'resigning' to accept it but acknowledging it as part of life, only not under a fatalist and blind acceptance but by an aware one. but ok i guess this discussion points our rightly the distinction between the fact of pain and the particular emotional reaction to it, which is what in the end breeds dukkha. i think then this last term could also be defined as wrong expectations.

...

Buddhabro, are you also kantbro?

I have the uncanniest feeling you are.

From a Buddhist perspective, isn't altruism equally based on illusion as egoism since it directs itself towards non-existent selves?

Nope, altruism is considered better because you are seeking to "increase the good in the All". It's what their karma is based on.

In a very oversimplified way, if everything is part of the same One Reality, everything you give onto that reality you would receive back, as a kind of action-reaction.

The reason why you are altruistic also matters a lot to buddhists. If you only are altruistic when the ramifications of the act will help you, you wouldn't be given as much karma as if you were doing it out of pure Love and Compassion.

Remember that a non-existent self doesn't imply that we as beings do not exist, nor that our suffering does not exist.

Craving or desiring. Even the bible mentions it: "thou shall not covet".

You are exactly wrong. It's the other way around. Zen Buddhism is just Japanese Chan Buddhism, which is a stripped down version of Buddhism, influenced by Daoist (and Confucian) concepts. (To the point that Gautama Buddha, Lao Tze and Confucius are often depicted together in Japanese art.) I say influenced, but really the original Buddha Dharma and Daoism really aren't that different and Chan Buddhism simply interchanged vocabulary to explain things more clearly.
"Stripped down", because there were some Buddhists in Eastern China who it dawned on that Buddhism had been quite infested with various theologies and concepts and said "Fuck all that".

Shinto the a theism that has nothing to do with Buddhism, apart from maybe aesthetics and a couple unimportant rituals.

Meditation is VERY important in Zen. (Zen literally means "meditation".) The high emphasis on meditation is because of said "Fuck all that". It is used as the simplest way to free oneself from delusions. Why make it more complicated than necessary? Sure, you could make some neat mandala. Or you could just sit the fuck down. Sure, you could dance around while drumming. Or you could just sit the fuck down. Sure you could study endlessly about previous Boddhisattva and how they are totally not based on previously existing gods. Or you could just sit the fuck down.

I like Zen.

And assuming all the other longer posts are also by you, I invite you to do some real research into it yourself, instead of just relying on my edgy explanation. Because reading the other stuff, it sounds an awful lot like you have sucked up a for of Buddhism which is more theology/esoteric than just Buddhism and that you kindasorta wished for less fancy stuff you'd have to ignore.

If you even knew the short version of the story of Siddharta Gautama, you'd know that it is quite divorced from the other Indian theologies. There is a reason Buddhists were hunted down as heretics and fled to Tibet.

That really isn't the same thing at all.

>mfw a life denier is near me

>since it directs itself towards non-existent selves?
Lolwut?
Altruism is simply viewed as a quality of humans. Meditation helps you be your natural you. That's all there really is to it.
>Karma
Fuck karma. This is one of the points where I take Gautama's advice and call him out on his BS.
He uses karma in a very odd way to explain something else poorly. I understand why, giving the context he was living in. But really what he did was spiritual "Don't think about a blue elephant!".

Neitzsche was shit, Stirner was shit, go to bed

Buddhism isn't life denying though. Nietzsche was pretty good, but couldnt understand the subtleties of a lot of things.

>couldnt understand the subtleties of a lot of things.

Examples, cunt.

There should be a word for making these huge, vague claims without proving them.

Oh yeah, shitposting.

Prove you're not.

Shut up jesus christ. You off topic aggressive lot are the worst.

>But really what he did was spiritual "Don't think about a blue elephant!".

what? I don't think you understand Karma. It's not the "score" that the Universe has against you, like many people with superficial understanding of the eastern religions think.

You are not getting less Karma when you "think about a blue elephant", for Karma literally means Action. And Karma isn't a new concept introduced by Buddha either, it comes from Hinduism if Im not mistaken.

It's more of an application of Newton's 3rd law to a metaphisical and ethical plane, in an already simplified metaphor.

I haven't read the book "Nietzsche on Asian Thought", so you will have to do the research for me, but this entry confirmed what I had felt when I read through Nietzsche's books.

I haven't read all of his works, but whenever he talks or references asian religions, he does sound like he simply didn't get a lot of its messages.

I agree somewhat with your point but I disagree with it in that specific context. They have been many situations where different religions arose in the same area but are still regarded to be different religions. Some scholars place the Sramanics and the other ascetics in the group of traditions and beliefs that had existed in India since before the Indo-Aryans came to India bringing their Vedic religion.

I think its entirely accurate to say the Sramanics were not part of Hinduism. Modern Hinduism is the result of the Brahmanist/Vedic religion at the time of Buddha being influenced by the Sramanics and also later developing a bigger focus on the deities among other things.

Many of the Sramanics rejected much or all of the stuff in the Brahmanic religion and the Vedic texts, that was Hinduism at the time and so its fair to say they were not Hindu. Just because Hinduism was influenced by them does not mean they should be retroactively classified as Hindu. Judaism was no different then any other bronze-age tribal cult until they came into contact with Zoroastrians and adopted beliefs that eventually led to them forming an early form of modern Judaism but its still inaccurate to call Judaism an unorthodox Zoroastrian sect.

Its important to know the context of the time-period and culture in which a religious movement develops but you are ascribing Hindu influence to them in a way that removes any autonomy from them and discounts the notion that they could simply disagree with the Brahmanic/Vedic religion and instead had other ideas. There were many other religious traditions before the Indo-Aryans came to India and there were others existing simultaneously alongside it and Sramanic is one of them. The preponderence of Hinduism doesn't justify classifying everything then in India as being Hindu.

If you mean the person posting pictures of Buddha-statues then no, I'm not Kantbro. Kant seems interesting but I haven't gotten into him yet.

Yes, in Buddhism suffering is a different concept then physical sensations. Buddha never claimed that the people who practiced his teachings or became enlightened would no longer experience pain, hunger, or uncomfortable temperatures etc. In Buddhist practice its instead about not reacting with emotions or cravings for a change in physical conditions. Obviously if you are in danger or risk being physically harmed then you should remove yourself from what is causing you but in terms of experiencing hunger or the cold/wetness of rain in Buddhist practice you should just be aware of the sensation but not be effected by it or dwell on it.

I haven't read much on Zen but I have not spent much time on the theological/esoteric facets of Buddhism either. I not sure why you got that impression but all the stuff I posted about has to do with basic concepts of Buddhism. Maybe in Zen where compared to Theravada there is a bigger focus on meditation then the ideas in Buddha's teachings but what I posted about and Buddha's teachings are not that complicated or esoteric if you put a little effort into understanding them.

Mandalas, dancing, drumming and stuff about Boddhisattvas has nothing or very little to do with Theravada Buddhist practice, the practice of the first groups of Buddhists or Buddha's recorded teachings. I enjoy meditation and it is something that I am experienced in and have gone deep into. If you are just focused on meditation while ignoring Buddha's teachings though you are not practicing Buddhism as Buddha taught it should be practiced and are just meditating.

And there is nothing wrong with that, Buddha himself became enlightened after a long meditation session and he said that it was possible to become enlightened without following his teachings and even leaving aside ideas like enlightenment mediation has been shown to be good for mental health and improving brain functioning but if you are going to try to practice Buddhism in the way that all the evidence indicates Buddha intended for it to be practiced then its better to not dismiss basic concepts of his teachings as being useless or distracting theological/esoteric ideas.

Understanding Buddhism as life-denying or nihilistic is a common misconception of it which was even more understandable in his time when there were none or very few quality translations and analyses of Buddhist texts published in European languages.

Life-denying is a label which doesn't really apply to Buddhism because Buddhism centers around introspection and attempting to best understand oneself and the human mind. There is nothing about Human life that it denies but instead contends that once you reach a certain deep and sublime understanding that you are freed from an illusionary mindset and that is blissful and liberating rather then anything suppressing or denying anything about Humans.

Even without enlightenment basic Buddhist practice is liberating and can lead to blissful sensations and states of mind almost immediately. The idea of Buddhism being life-denying is based on the false perception of Buddhism being about trying to deny or suppress something that is an inherent or essential part of Humans/Human life when that isn't true at all and Buddhism is more about mastering ones own mind and striving toward the full potential of what it is possible to reach in life.

If you don't get it and still believe Buddhism is life-denying then post a detailed example of how Buddhism in your view is life-denying and I guarantee you that its probably just because you have misconceptions of it.

Buddha-bro, what have you read of the Pali Canon? I've never read the Dammaphada, only the Majjhima Nikaya, do you think I should read it, even though the core precepts are repeated like 1000x in the Majjhima? What about the Visuddhimagga and the Vimuttimagga, are they worth the time to read?

Also, what are other good books on buddhism that are not Canon? I've read Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha, and it's pretty great if taken with a grain of salt.

Amor Fati is irreconciliable with the concept of the Übermensch. At least St. Max understood Ego was just a word and shouldn't be used as something to superimpose on other things.

I understand karma. But you don't seem to at all...

The Buddhist concept of karma is about how your actions affect how you cling to illusions, which keep you in samsara.
The point is to build "momentum" with "positive" karma while avoiding "negative" karma. (There are actually at least four different types, which regulate the system. Like surpressing other karma, neutral, ignoring other karma effects because it is OP karma and whatnot. But that shit is an essay and a half. Do your research.)
The simplified explanation of what "positive/negative" is, is based on the Three Poisons and their "positive" counterparts. Therefore cetana (intention) is a factor here. Which is why I made the "Don't think of a blue elephant!" comparison. Especially because Gautama also applied concepts of reincarnation, similar to the Brahmanism he already knew. (And yes, there is a whole thing about different types of karma and when they take effect ON YOU.) You literally have to forget ALL of this, so that your intentions are truely born from real love and compassion.
It isn't as much an intellectual problem (because oneness and dependant origination and whatnot), but it puts the practitioner in an unnecessarily difficult position. Meditation itself is difficult enough to do without goals in mind. Adding an entire system of "flavours" of kamma, is just unfair. Not to mention the "worlds", which are theological in nature in imho not in line with the rest of his thought and more culture than anything.

I am of the strong oppinion that these "side concepts", which clearly were carried over culturally, do harm. In particular I am of the oppinion that these concepts are the origins for the violence propagated BY Buddhists. You will notice that the vast majority of Buddhist violence is within Theravada Buddhism, where there is still an emphasis on these concepts.
In most Mahayana schools, the more "mystical" aspects are less big or gone. And the only real occurance of violence there, was in WW2 Japan, where the reasoning was also based on "long term karma" and the weighing of life.

The fancy version of karma does the exact opposite of what is intended. So I lean more towards good old Rinzai karma, which is all about shutting the fuck up and sitting down.

This seems to be extremely egoistic. Think of the children.

the history of the buddha is a hagiography. see right. i was indeed using the term hinduism in a quite vague and inaccurate sense imlpying the culture of india. i was just trying to give a wide picture in a few words for the passing litizen. but back to it, how can the sramanic movement be anterior to the development of the culture? that needs no empirical or historical verification because it would simply mean your random tribe in the middle of the amazon living in nature. the point of the definition is lost. if they had been completely unconnected then you wouldnt find references to the same or similar cultural ideas and would certainly find completely unrelated ones. which is not quite the case.

i mean yes, inside the indian world, all that came out of the sramanic tradition is different than the vedic tradition, but that doesnt mean it is not on the same cultural ground, or it would be accurate to say that buddhism is as unrelated to the brahmanic religion as taoism or pyrrhonism or any animistic cult from the pacific.

but ok, im reaching here my limit because i havent really gone deep into the historic part of it. because if you say that there are scholars placing it before the vedic development then i would say that the organization of these sramanic ways, even if at first unrelated to the inexistent or vedic religion, later came into concrete forms, namely the nastika, in reaction to the well established vedic movement. because if not, then you are putting at the same level buddhism or jainism and the way a random ascetic created for himself and never shared.

Third party here.

>In most Mahayana schools, the more "mystical" aspects are less big or gone.
What about Tibetan Buddhism? Or are you putting Vajrayana out of Mahayana?

Yeah I get where you are coming from, and I mostly agree. Karma and rebirth are to me the most convoluted part of the whole Dharma, and I also feel it might be a "leftover" from the preexisting hinduist belief.

I agree that putting too much emphasis on the theory of Kama can be harmful to the overall practice, but I think you are still wrong about the "blue elephant", mainly because of the cetana aspect you mentioned.

Doing things in order to get a better Karma would imply an egotistical mindset, and therefore it would be a "less good Karma". Thinking in these terms, it might make sense why the whole thing was taught by buddha. If you do a good deed, even though you are Ayn Randing it and doing it because of your ego, it will still be a good deed overall. It will still be good to everybody else, it's just not that good to your own development in the spiritual path, as opposed to doing it for altruistic reasons.

So I think the point of it is that by doing good you are still developing yourself, just not as much. A lot of the Buddha's theory of how the mind works is based on the concept that you will have an inclination towards what you think, right? And since body and mind are one, your good deeds on body will have an effect on your mind. And maybe by doing good deeds over and over you would still develop your mind and think better thoughts.

To me, there's a "fake it untill you make it" mentality to it that I actually think is quite beneficial, if you don't get lost in the details. But Buddha himself was very wary of the technicallities of his own practice, so I guess he might have thought this way as well.

P.S.: how can you say in Mahayana schools the "mystical" aspects are gone? To my admitedly small understanding of that school, it's the most mystical of all, with a huge emphasis on the Lotus Sutta and the whole cosmological aspect of buddhism...

Yeah, he might, since Vajrayana to me is the most representational of the Mahayana school. You could argue that Zen is also Mahayana, but to me it's a completely different beast altogether by now.

How to get into meditation? I mean in non-religious way

Buddhism is a pretty great way to get into it in a non-religious way, tbqh

I first got into it with "Mindfulness in Plain English" though.

Its basically Epicureanism

Obviously, but there is such a thing as a historical Siddharta Gautama. Obviously the taxonomies we apply are mostly based on the very early "research" put in by the British colonizers. Rupert Gethin has a very good book on this topic.
It's like calling the theory of relativity "Einsteinism".
Still, I'd argue that the development of Gautama Buddha at least illustrates how he divorced himself from many common concepts. Most of which born from a saparation from mind/soul and body, rather than those just being to perceptions of another thing entirely.
Yeah, Chan/Zen are probably too different. But for the sake of the argument I left them in Mahayana.
I view it as seperate. Mainly because of the heavy influence the local theologies had on it.
Still, one could argue that that form of "politicized Buddhism" is equally problematic.
(I am annoyed with all this overhyped Tibet-loving, tbqh. They have their issues and the Dalai Lama isn't exactly a saint.)
"Fake it untill you make it" is a very problematic method. Even within modern psychology/neurology.
It works for very simple things like "smiling to feel more happy". But only if your base condition is not too much off.
Probably the most harmful thing to come out of self-help/esoterics is "positive affirmation". That shit is deadly to anyone with real issues. It's just a lie. And that is imho what is problematic, I think. Engraining a behavior despite your true feelings will engrain exactly that pattern: Faking it.
And it isn't really in tune with the Buddistic idea of how your behavior should work.
Probably the best example is "Right Speech", of the eightfold path, which is essentially "If you have nothing nice or useful to say, don't say anything at all."
Abstaining from "negative" behavior is a better solution to a negatively set mind than "lying via behavior". All assuming, obviously, that you are continuing your practice.

@PS: Honestly, I think all that taxonomy is just BS and emphasises to us that we must be vigilant with the useless add-ons the various cultures had. It will be interesting to see how Buddha Dharma will develop in the Americas and Europe, since we already have established philosophies which similarly dismiss antiquated concepts, came up with similar ideas and have people who are generally more "practical" in their beliefs.
Prolly why Zen is taking off the way it is.

I have not read any complete sections from the Canon, I've only read certain passages and chunks from it although some of them were many pages, I don't remember the names of them though. Reading entire sections of the canon or reading it entirely is something that can be very rewarding and worthwhile but its something thats not necessary to sufficiently understand Buddhism especially if you read good books about it that use extensive references and selections from the PC.

Many books by westerners on Buddhism are not very good and I have heard that Ingram's books like the one you mentioned are not very good and misrepresent Buddhism. Of course not all books by westerners on it are bad though but the more pop-culture ones naturally are more popular in the west which is where the stereotype comes from. The book "What the Buddha Taught" (revised & expanded edition) by Walpola Rahula is very good and contains many passages from the PC and constantly cites it throughout the book when describing Buddha's teachings. Rahula was born in Sri Lanka and become a theravada monk there but learned english and became the first monk to teach at a western university so he has very good credentials. Another really good book I would recommend is "In the Buddha's Words" by Bhikku Bodhi (westerner), its very good and is around 500 pages almost entirely of selected passages from the Pali Canon that are selected and discussed in order to best present and help one understand Buddhism, the Dalai Lama wrote a foreward praising it.

Well, the "fake it" mentality should be done in harmony with the practice, so you should always be striving to Right Intention while doing the Right Action.

It's also easier to get "Right Action" down before "Right Intention", since the later implies a much better control of your mind. But the whole system was taught to be interconnected as a whole. By working on one of the "sides" of the wheel, you would be improving on all the other ones indirectly. So by forcing yourself to Right Action you would be, according to Buddha, getting nearer Right Intention as well.

I wouldn't say Rahula being a Sri Lankan Buddhist was a positive, like Thai Buddhism It was HEAVILY influenced by Christian rationalism and western modernism.

I've also read "What the Buddha Taught". It was my first contact with the practice, and I agree it's pretty good.

Never read anything original by Bhikku Bodhi, but my version of the Mhajjhima was translated by him and he does a great job at explaining Pali concepts in english language. Will try to get my hands on that book.

But it isn't "Right Action" without "Right Intention".
You are separating mind and body, m8.

I get it, but the same would be appliable to all wouldn't it? It's not Right anything without the other 7 Right Stuff. And although the best way is obviously to strive to reach all of them at the same time, in practice is pretty damn hard wouldn't you agree?

Maybe, in great Buddhist fashion, they are and aren't the same thing.

They're all the same. That's the point. And that is why we meditate.

And you can still have inclincations. It is easy for me to concentrate, but I tend to not shut up when I ought to, whenever I am nervous (or drunk). Both are better with practice. But they are both born from the same place.

>And that is why we meditate.
No, you meditate because you're under the false premise that It's principle to Buddhism.

No, I meditate because it's just the easiest way (to get started with).

"[...]just close your eyes nigga" - tyler the creator

Just google "mindfulness meditation" or "zazen".
This:
Is a good beginners book tho.

Just sit upright and breathe. Don't get hung up on whatever thoughts may pass by. Closing eyes is optional. Lotus is optional. Even walking meditation is an option but most people prefer to sit. Calmer that way.

bupm

I left open a long thread, thinking it to be discussions of meditation, the ego and its relations to ethics.

Now I read it and it's about Buddhism vs. Hinduism and who's misinterpreting what..

thats where you get the lit gems. i only browse waiting for these threads to show up.

What's the endgame study of ethics?

Ecology.

Why?