Meditation/buddhism

The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom is worst book i've ever read

How's "The taboo against knowing who you are" fare with "The Wisdom of Insecurity"? Is it a completely different book when it comes to contents?

Buddhism is pleb-tier superstitious reincarnation bullshit.

What you're looking for is good old Stoicism.

I like both at first glance, I read 'Enchiridion' and enjoyed it. Can you recommend me some essential on stoicism while you're at it?

Marcus Aurelius' Meditations
Epictetus' Discourses
Seneca's Letters from a Stoic

the triumvirate of /stoicore/

The first thing you ought to understand is that you won't understand buddhism, you won't "get it". Not because you are incapable of it, but because it is impossible. There is no end, there is no feeling of "I see now what it means".

You have an understanding of it now, and you recognize it as lacking so you'll read a book about it, and you'll learn about it considerably while reading it. This will make you think you understood something of it, then you'll read another or perhaps visit a temple(a sangha, buddhist group) and you'll confirm what you've read. By your third book or experience, you'll see that something you understood of it is said to be wrong by this someone else, while in other aspects, they agree. And you'll meditate one day and feel what you've read is kind of bullshit, or perhaps just side with one perspective of it. So you'll begin to set criterias for yourself, only reading mahayana buddhism, or just theravada, tibetan or keep yourself to zen, or even to say you like "a bit of everything", as if you were at a buffet of everything buddhist.

You are a foreigner, you are an alien. It's not the normal to you, you don't live among buddhists, nor eat like them or talk like them or do what they do. You'll always come from your own perspective. At the same time, it's not in one life that one can read all there is to it, or meditate in all ways, visit all temples, discuss minutiae or all of its history. Specially because it takes time, a lot of time, for each thing.

So start from wherever you like. Even if you start from the least likely book, you'll stray only insofar as you discover the limits of that point in you and you'll return with the necessary doubt for you to search for a new way. It's not in any point that it is certain, even if you feel it is certain, even if others assure you it is best. The state of mind that allows you to let a stray path die and resume searching. Not only that, but to also understand there is no object or central stem to this search. It is this state of mind itself that opposes sitting on top of your own opinion.

It will take a lot of time.

>PS is Alan Watts quality or a hack? and will reading "Siddhartha" by Hesse be worthwhile for me provided that I'm interested in the subject vaguely

Alan Watts is not a hack, he is quality. Some people disagree with him, but what of it, he would disagree with them. Check his series Eastern Wisdom and Modern Life on youtube. If you want a book, I rec Way of Zen for a start. Watts is a great way to break the ice between western and eastern thought.

I don't recommend Hesse's Siddhartha though. It's far too removed from buddhism, and it's dated even for western literature about buddhism, though I like Hesse himself.

For mediation the only book you need is "The Mind Illuminated" by John Yates aka Culadasa.

...

>Buddhism is pleb-tier superstitious reincarnation bullshit.

How can people post stuff this stupid?

how is it NOT superstitious bullshit?

>eh be a good person in this life so you don't come back as a snail

Because the teachings about rebirth and Nirvana are only a small component of the teachings and are not its main focus.

The whole point of Buddha's teachings (which can be practiced to varying degrees, it's not an all-or-nothing) was that they would allow people to develop their critical thinking and gain more control over their mind and emotions, and that this leads to blissfulness when one no longer experiences suffering. The idea that the point of it is to reach Nirvana or to avoid a bad rebirth is a complete misconception.

Buddha's teachings were taught and intended to be practiced for their own sake, because they bring immediate benefit and allow people to transcend suffering while still alive in this life. The concept of rebirth and Nirvana are basically only marginally relevant to the teachings and practice as a whole. Buddha would never encounter people and say "hey you gotta practice my shtick or you'll be reborn as a snail, watch out! " Instead he would say "you should practice this because it will greatly help out in this life and you will experience many benefits from it". Then as part of fully explaining his teachings he would mention how it ties into rebirth etc.

Nirvana is just viewed as the natural result when someone becomes enlightened but it is not a goal meant to be striven for towards. Practicing Buddha's teachings and becoming more/fully enlightened are considered beneficial things on their own sake and would still be just as relevant and good if there was no rebirth or nirvana.

Buddha's teachings are the least superstitious out of all the major religions. It lays out such a detailed theory-of-mind including many teachings on the mind's bias and faults that it has been called a form of psychology. Some of the most important teachings have to do with explaining the importance of critical thinking and coming to your own conclusions about things and about how to be aware of and avoid bias in thinking etc. Buddha's teachings were taught not as a doctrine to be followed mindlessly but as a path to be made available for others to follow if they analyzed it and concluded it was right.

What you said couldn't be more wrong.

he's somehow right.
Wisdom of Buddhas =/= buddhism.

>the idea that the point of it is to reach Nirvana or to avoid a bad rebirth is a complete misconception.
t: western new age revisionist

That isn't even revisionism, It's just flat out wrong.

I was just talking about Buddha's actual teachings. It's more intellectually honest to talk about those when discussing a religion rather than how people in another land may have interpreted it thousands of years later. Many Christians would object to someone criticizing Christianity by criticizing Mormons or some weird Christian cult because they would say those weren't an accurate representations of the teachings of Jesus and the early church. When you are talking about the truth/value of a religion it's best to just focus on the primary texts/teacher(s).

No what I said is true. That may have been a slight generalization but it's basically accurate (note that I'm talking about Buddha's teachings and not stuff that came way later). If you search through the Pali Canon and look at all the accounts of Buddha meeting people and dialogues he had he always teaches people that they should ponder and potentially follow his teachings because of how it will benefit them and not because they will reach Nirvana. He taught about Nirvana and it was obviously seen as a good thing but probably around 99% of his recorded speeches have to do with the benefits of practicing his teachings in this life while you are still alive.

You realize Buddha described the hell realms in exact detail right and literally said they're below our feet on this very planet, then to prove he had magical powers transformed into a fire truck and produced fire and water from his nostrils and finger tips.

Your claim of "least superstitious" is hilariously wrong.

You see, it's bullshit such as this that keeps me well away from buddhism and zen and all that nonsense. You sound insufferable.

>the importance of critical thinking and coming to your own conclusions about things
I've come to my own conclusion that buddhism is not worth the trouble. Bet your buddy Buddha would be proud.

>but it is not a goal meant to be striven for towards
You are only right in that to make it a goal means you won't attain it. It is however what they are trying to do.

>and would still be just as relevant and good if there was no rebirth or nirvana.
No they wouldn't. The whole reason why Buddhist have the idea of loving everything is because of their cosmology. Get rid of that and they lose the reason why you should love another. Buddhism isn't just therapeutic, it also tells us of how we should act. You cannot separate them. Someone who tortures people for fun but has great inner tranquility will not become a Buddha. If you take down the cycle of birth, death and rebirth and do away with Karma you dismantle the reasons for action, you are reducing it to being merely therapeutic.

>people in another land may have interpreted it thousands of years later
You mean like China: Korea, Japan, Thailand etc. They all took Buddhism and changed it to suit their needs. It's only when westerners do it that we cry foul. Buddhism is not Christianity. There is no true orthodoxy. The religion itself is a step ladder that is discarded when it is no longer useful. It is only natural that different people use and understand the tool differently.
Which one is better? Learning Buddhism directly from the Buddha himself, except because of the huge cultural gap makes it very difficult to follow his teachings, or learning something quote different from what he taught (but clearly part of the same family) that allows you to reach enlightenment? It's obviously the latter.

>I was just talking about Buddha's actual teachings.
Buddha never wrote anything down and we really only know of the very basics from him. 99% of all Buddhist ideas come after him. It's also weird ot even have this idea. Buddha is not the same as Jesus is to Christianity. All Buddhas are equal, there is no reason to favor The Buddha just because he created the religion. It would be like saying we all need to study Thales because he is possible the first western philosopher.

>I'm talking about Buddha's teachings
>If you search through the Pali Canon
Really? Fucking really?

>follow his teachings because of how it will benefit them and not because they will reach Nirvana
>have to do with the benefits of practicing his teachings in this life while you are still alive
There is nothing mutually exclusive about this. In fact it seems incredibly obvious that they compliment each other.
>Goal of Buddhism is enlightenment of self and others
>Do that by being a good person
>Do that by trying to be good right now in this life
Also there is no reason to believe that this isn't just the clergy trying to make it's teachings more attractive to lay people by emphasizing the change it can make to their lives now.

I'm pretty sure that isn't in the Pali Canon

Your loss

>No they wouldn't. The whole reason why Buddhist have the idea of loving everything is because of their cosmology

Wrong. Buddhism teaches about right vs. wrong and clearly teaches that it's wrong to cause harm to others because of the suffering it causes.

>If you take down the cycle of birth, death and rebirth and do away with Karma you dismantle the reasons for action, you are reducing it to being merely therapeutic.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. If the cycle of existence didn't exist Buddhism would still offer huge amounts of valuable lessons about self-control, avoiding suffering and achieving bliss. That's more than most religions would offer if you removed what they taught about death and the meaning of existence.

>Buddhism is not Christianity. There is no true orthodoxy.

LMAO. There is more agreement among various Buddhist sects than Christian ones. All of the major Buddhist sects agree on the veracity of the PC. Unlike Christian sects who claim they alone are genuine and others wrong most Buddhist sects agree on the major teachings but some also take additional beliefs.

>Which one is better? Learning Buddhism directly from the Buddha himself, except because of the huge cultural gap makes it very difficult to follow his teachings, or learning something quote different from what he taught

The conversation was not about the best way to learn Buddhism, it was about the value of Buddhist teachings themselves and when having that conversation it's intellectually dishonest to talk about things that weren't part of Buddha's original teachings and claim those things show Buddhism is flawed.

>Buddha never wrote anything down and we really only know of the very basics from him. 99% of all Buddhist ideas come after him.

The Pali Canon records his teachings and it was compiled relatively soon after his death. After he died his teachings were memorized and recited and transmitted from one generation of monks to another until they were written down around 300 years later. There is little reason to think the PC is not an accurate recording of his teachings. There were large groups of monks devoted to memorizing them and when tons of people memorize the same thing it greatly reduces the chances 1 person's mistake will change anything. Not to mention many monks meditated frequently and researchers have shown meditation enhances concentration and memory which would help that. Almost all scholars agree on this point and the mainstream scholarship is near unanimous in agreeing the PC is almost certainly a mostly-accurate recording of his teachings.

Within the PC is an entire philosophical and religious system that is complete on it's own. This is the essence of Buddhism and forms the basis of all sects and while some sects add to it others focus on adhering to it and add very little. What you said is completely wrong.

(1/2)

>Buddha is not the same as Jesus is to Christianity. All Buddhas are equal, there is no reason to favor The Buddha just because he created the religion.

It is true that all Buddhas are effectively the same but:

1) There have not been many people throughout history who have claimed to attained full buddhahood who were deemed credible by others at the time. There have been some people who were thought to be credible but none of them taught major new ideas that conflicted with Buddha's original teachings. Virtually all of the most important Buddhist sages/thinkers taught things that were expansions upon or commentaries on Buddha's teachings and when they conflicted it was very minor.

2) Buddha made clear before his death that he had taught everything necessary to understand his teachings and that there was not something important he left out. His teachings were complete on their own and not in need of anything else

3) In light of points 1 and 2 there is not much reason to abandon Buddha's teachings in favor of someone that came later because they are just commentary/expansions of his teachings which are complete and finished anyway, making any later additions unnecessary even if they are interesting.

>Really? Fucking really?

What are you trying to say here?

>There is nothing mutually exclusive about this. In fact it seems incredibly obvious that they compliment each other.

Yes, but the point I was making is that his teachings were meant to be followed for their own sake because of the immediate benefits they bring in addition to the goal of enlightenment. Buddha made clear that people could follow his teachings and still receive great benefits even without reaching enlightenment.

>Goal of Buddhism is enlightenment of self and others

The goal of Buddhism is not just enlightenment but also to reduce suffering

>Do that by being a good person
>Do that by trying to be good right now in this life

You don't "do that by being a good person" It is way more extensive than that and includes gaining control of your own mind and emotions, being mindful, understanding the nature of the mind and how it works, overcoming attraction/desire/fear/cravings and understanding how they cause problems, developing a mental equilibrium, meditating, introspection etc.

>Also there is no reason to believe that this isn't just the clergy trying to make it's teachings more attractive to lay people by emphasizing the change it can make to their lives now.

That shows you have no idea what you are talking about. There was no clergy trying to fool lay people, they had nothing at all to gain by doing so. Buddha and the monastic orders during his time and for centuries afterwards lived the lives of wandering monks without any possessions. The idea of them trying to control or manipulate people is absurd. They spread his teachings to help people.

(2/2)

>I'm pretty sure that isn't in the Pali Canon
Holy shit, this literally sums up Western Buddhism.

cite it than faggot

accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.130.than.html

"Then the hell-wardens torture [the evil-doer] with what's called a five-fold imprisonment. They drive a red-hot iron stake through one hand, they drive a red-hot iron stake through the other hand, they drive a red-hot iron stake through one foot, they drive a red-hot iron stake through the other foot, they drive a red-hot iron stake through the middle of his chest. There he feels painful, racking, piercing feelings, yet he does not die as long as his evil kamma is not exhausted."

palikanon.com/english/pali_names/y/yamaka_paatihaariya.htm

Also the passage about him going full DBZ and Instant Transmission to heaven and speaking with god about how he ain't immortal 'n shit is cool.

Thanks for backing up what you said and giving a source, I'm pretty sure those are parables intended to be used as a way to transmit his ideas and are not meant to be taken literally. I'm reading about that section right now, give me a few minutes to look into it before I reply instead of assuming that me not replying yet means anything.

Here's him refuting "muh parables"

accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.than.html

Keep your Batchelor masturbating to Reddit.

My impression is that the passage is probably a parable or used to transmit his teaching. Buddha used parables all the time in his teachings and I think this is just another case of that. The entire passage has to do with people ignoring the omens reminding them of death and how that leads them to not be prepared when death comes and what the consequences of that are in terms of continuing to suffer.

The passage starts off with Buddha using the metaphor of people passing through different doors to represent people passing through the stages of life. He words are translated as "it's as if" making it clear that it is a parable. The same narrative of the parable continues throughout the passage, never does Buddha pause and say "that was a parable but this next stuff is literally real".

If Buddha was teaching that there was an actual hell where people were really tortured you would think that he would do so unambiguously and not slide it in as part of a large parable about heeding warning signs of mortality. Buddha explicitly said that he knew things that he decided not to teach because they were a distraction or they were not relevant to becoming enlightened.

He already had taught a complete and thorough explanation of the nature of existence, suffering, rebirth and Nirvana and that explanation provided all the rational and justification needed to clearly show why Nirvana was a good thing. It makes no sense that he would be against unnecessary teachings and then say "btw if you don't do this you get tortured in hell". If he intended this to be taken literally it would major implications for his teachings and you would expect to see him discussing it elsewhere at length which he does't.

He ends the passage with a short speech summarizing the implications of the entire passage about how it is important to heed the signs of death and to be prepared, indicating that what he said previously was a metaphor demonstrating a principle of his teachings; instead of making it clear that hell is real and the reason why people should follow his teachings.

He is just talking about how rebirth and karma work in that passage, I don't see what you meant by posting it.

What should I read if I want to jump into a faithful, complete or near-complete translation of the full Pali Canon?

>I've figured out Buddhism where thousands of masters who dedicated their life to studying Dharma could not
Interesting

The PC is huge and takes a very long time to read. Pic related.

Here is a link to a complete English translation by several well-regarded experts. It is currently out of stock on Amazon but if you search around on the web for it you could probably find it.

amazon.com/Tripitaka-Complete-English-Translation-Volumes/dp/B005BRFM7I/

Don't pretend most experts believe that he meant that literally because that's not true at all.

Many Buddhist sects and masters don't believe that Buddha taught that hell and demons were physically real. Most Theravada groups don't hold that view and even many Mahayana figures have said that some of the stuff involving deities in Mahayana Buddhism is metaphorical or meant to illustrate principles. The beliefs about deities in later Buddhism don't even come from those passages in the PC but rather arose as Buddhism traveled from India and mixed with native religious beliefs.

The only time in the PC Buddha addressed the question of the existence of deities in a non-allegorical sense was when he explicitly denied the existence of an all-pervading entity like Brahman and also said that if other deities/demons existed they would still be subject to the same laws of karma and rebirth as everyone else. If he had meant in the passage you linked that demons literally existed physically he would have made that clear instead of just saying "well, if they existed hypothetically then ..."

Except he's correct. I just came back from living in a temple in China, being taught Buddhism by actual scholars and monastics, and one of the essential points of studying Cause and Effect, the fundamental basis for all Buddhist cosmology, is how reincarnation has been misconceived. In most traditions, reincarnation is treated as an entirely naturalistic and asentient process. It is not "you" being "reborn", but rather the effects of your existence still pervading after your death, continuing to effect the cosmic balance of cause and effect. "You" as a sentient and singularly-perceived entity have absolutely nothing to do with it, only the results of your actions while you were alive turning the wheel of samsara. It is only because the West mixed up the concept of Buddhist reincarnation and Hindu rebirth that there arose a concept of a literal karmic rebirth.

Go ahead, find me a sect that doesn't.

And no Sam Harris and Alan Watts aren't experts.

then what is "you" as a sentient and singularly-perceived entity

>Buddhist thread
>People denying the Siddhis
How quiet

these are alright. I also enjoyed "On Mysticism: Christian and Buddhist" by Daisetz T Suzuki

I found it very helpful, especially for including Christian contextual information (though written by a Buddhist) which made for an easier intro into Buddhism for me being a Westerner with less experience in Eastern contexts.

it also influenced a lot of my own ideas on faith
Hesse's Siddhartha reminds me a lot of Nietzsche's Zarathustra in his attitude.

I'm not really a huge fan of stoicism
its too much just "grin and bear with it" sort of stuff.

though meditation and Aurelius's ideas of finding solace within yourself anywhere you go is very compelling.

By extension you're calling all Catholic philosophy pleb tier as well, since most of it is rooted in sending people to eternal suffering if they act out against the rules of the lord and creator of the universe who apparently loves them.

Faith holds a large portion of the philosophical tradition in the world. Shrug off the surface level pleb mysticism and dig for deeper meaning in the texts, you're bound to find it.

>Siddhis
literally whos

>philosophies that rich hipsters do
Whoops! Looks like you forgot that USA isn't the only country on Earth!

>clearly teaches that it's wrong to cause harm to others because of the suffering it causes.
And that is good because of their cosmology. You need the doctrine or no-self and the never beginning, never ending infinite cycle of time to make sense of their ethics.

> If the cycle of existence didn't exist Buddhism would still offer huge amounts of valuable lessons about self-control, avoiding suffering and achieving bliss.
You have missed the whole point. As I said you are reducing it to being merely therapeutic. That is only a part of what a system of virtue ethics does though. You now have a much emptier, non-complete system of thought. In order for it to be complete you have to have the cosmology.

>There is more agreement among various Buddhist sects than Christian ones
There is a very limited range of beliefs one can hold and still be a Christian. Look at Buddhism, you get Bon Buddhism, which is the mixing of older pagan beliefs of Tibet with Buddhism, or of Buddhism in Japan where it becomes so integrated with Shinto (yes I know Shinto isn't a very useful term) that it's impossible to cleanly divide them. Buddhism is not a religion with an orthodoxy and it mixes with whatever regions it encounters. If you seriously believe that Christianity is less unified than I don't even know what to say to you.

>it's intellectually dishonest to talk about things that weren't part of Buddha's original teachings and claim those things show Buddhism is flawed.
Buddha =/= Buddhism. If you want to focus on early Buddhism to try to find out what he actually taught and you want to follow those doctrines, that is fine. It is wrong to say that the thousands of years of developments that move away or move from his teachings are not Buddhist.

What I was trying to say is that Buddhism has a goal it wants its adherents to achieve, but language itself is not enough. Inherently Buddha's teachings are not sufficient. It's an aid to, not a goal in itself. This is Buddhism split instantly after the Buddha's death. There were disagreements with how best to help people and themselves achieve enlightenment.

Cont.

>The Pali Canon records his teachings and it was compiled relatively soon after his death.
>were written down around 300 years later
The Koran was written down far sooner after the death of Muhammad and look at the amount of bullshit Hadiths there are and deep disagreements about the texts. I'm not saying you can't get a good idea about what very early Buddhism/Buddha's teachings were but to directly call everything in the Pali Canon, and fucking hell is their a shit ton of it, as the words of Buddha is a stretch that cannot be justified by academia.

In regards to your response about me calling all Buddhas equal. You didn't understand the point I am making. I never said to abandon Buddha's teachings. I meant that

>You don't "do that by being a good person" It is way more extensive than that and includes gaining control of your own mind and emotions, being mindful, understanding the nature of the mind and how it works, overcoming attraction/desire/fear/cravings and understanding how they cause problems, developing a mental equilibrium, meditating, introspection etc.
Again you completely misunderstand. I did mean everything you said in addition to the actions one takes towards the world. My example was that one can have achieved that mental state and still do harm to others. Such a person is not enlightened. You need both.

>there was no clergy trying to fool lay people
Asides from the fact that depending on where and when are talking about there definitely was a powerful clergy I would add that once again you misunderstand me.
Trying to help people live better lives by emphasising certain parts of the teachings is not the in any way the same thing as fooling people.