What is Veeky Forums's guide to buddhism?

In Brief: the Oxford Short Intros to Buddha and Buddhism are both worth a look for the executive summary.
If interested, follow them up with the following meatier and more academic tomes:
Rupert Gethin's Foundations of Buddhism
Peter Harvey's Introduction to Buddhism.

It's actually surprisingly good.
Not sure about that edition but it's a good read for a budding buddhist.

Buddhists don't believe in a soul. You are thinking of Hindus

Buddhism is almost entirely about the elimination of atman, it's like saying Christians don't believe in sin

and?

it's a huge issue in buddhism how the non-self accumulates karma, and transmigrates to the next life

but the buddha was very firm on the idea that this happened. he just justified with shitty asian autism explanations like "the buddha doesn't and does not not transmigrate", "the soul exist and does not exist, and does not not exist, and doesn't not exist".

Like shut the fuck up.

buddhism is an idiot religion for life denying fucking losers

the buddha was a moaning fucking faggot. LIFE SUXS WAA WAA

>needs buddhism

Bhikkhu Bodhi's translations of the Pali Canon are good primary source texts, too. "In the Buddha's Words" is good as an intro to the scriptures of Buddhism. After that, you can/should focus on the Nikayas (assuming the Pali Canon still interests you).

Are you okay?

Stoicism is Buddhism for strong and smart people

I don't know much about other branches of Buddhism, but Zen Buddhism is extremely open to a purely philosophical/secular view. It's literally eastern Heidegger.
Read "zen training" by sekida while practicing for some weeks (20-40 minutes is doable, especially when divided in two). Then "zen mind beginner mind" is a fantastic read, it needs to be read somewhat carefully though. If you are still interested then it's best to look for a teacher that will guide you, Buddhism is extremely subtle and complex, and it's useless as purely mental masturbation, you need to actually experience the concepts, and without a teacher that is almost impossible.

Stoicism is reddit: the "philosophy"

>
haha yeah. metta meditation for the angry user.

This is a very /tv/-level comment

start with the monks

>Buddhism is almost entirely about the elimination of atman,

Buddha explicitly denied the existence of atman, read up on the Buddhist doctrine of no-soul (anatta)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

What about Tibetan stuff?

You really shouldn't post about topics that you obviously know little about, it just makes you look foolish.

Buddhism offers many lessons and teachings that would still be incredibly useful even if rebirth was not real; for example it offers a plethora of strategies for understanding the nature of and controlling your own mind and emotions which is one of the most difficult and rewarding things man can accomplish.

>mfw a vitalist near me tries to pass as a badass when he can't even master """""life""""" and so has to waste his conscious time in misery because the "strong" should rule
Dance, monkey, dance.

The Tibetan Book of the Dead is what you're thinking of, and it is a meme.

Literally Shamanism with Buddhist words.

You're thinking of nihilism

this pasta is ok on Veeky Forums but could you keep my Veeky Forums clean ? thank you.

So why it matters if a I ate bacon, or harm "others"?

The revelations professed in Zen Buddhism are actually extremely vital to having a deep philosophical understanding about anything.

I recently read the Tao Te Ching. Pretty good, but it's weird how Lao Tzu seems convinced that a perfect Taoist society would have to be feudalist.

>but it's weird how Lao Tzu seems convinced that a perfect Taoist society would have to be feudalist.
No... no, it isn't.

Because it turns out that being a dick hinders your ability to awaken, while trying to be nice does the opposite.
The Noble Eightfold Path isn't a rule book. It's a set of suggestions.

there already is a chart

I mean this in the least facetious way possible but enlighten me. I realize China was a feudal system at the time but for a belief system that is supposed to be transcendent to have specific references on the divine right of kings on several occasions strikes me as odd.

awake to what?a

not-being

That's a shitty chart. Weird background, no organization.

But I am already a not-being isn't (I get the oxymoron but follow me)
I am talking about sunyata here, where the latin proverb say "homo homini lupus", for sunyata we can translated as "sunyata sunyata sunyata".
I know that translate sunyata as emptiness is not accurate, it should be more like vaccum/potential, but still the ethical teachings sound axiomatic in front of the lack of a primsry essence.

To what is.
The not-being refers to your "self". You obviously exist, dum-dum. But what you identify as "your-self" does not.
This also kindasorta involved realizing the interdependence of all, tho that one could just be a coincidence, looking at it neurologically.
This really isn't that novel a concept, dude. Quite a common notion in neuroscience. Read Thomas Metzinger.

just like buddhism

>ctrl+f
>alan watts
>0 of 0

fucking plebs, all of you

>ctrl+f
>Alan Watts
>1 of 1
whew only one pleb

So if there's no myself who or what attain the karma?

You guys do realize you need to be a renunciate if you want to be a true Buddhist, right? Unless you're a monk who's discarded society you'll never get anywhere with Buddhism.

Heck, kulapati(householder) was a degratory term used by Buddhist monks. I have no idea where dumb Westerners got the idea that Buddhism is just whatever they believe it is

Karma in Buddhism (unlike related schools of thought) isn't some kind of "metaphysical or moral currency".
It, in broad stroked, describes the quality and intensity of your agency as a sentient being in the world, as governed by the laws of cause and effect.
>Action driven by intent, which leads to causal consequences.
This is why it is related to dhukkha and your attachments.
This is highly related to the ontological concept of dependent arising.
(There are differing ideas on whether this relates to the mind alone or to the world as a whole or if that even matters. Tho most would agree that it at least related to human-kind or all beings capable of suffering, as dependent arising is basically the core principle of what Buddhists call "reincarnation", which is not the same here as "rebirth". Tho some weirder Buddhists traditions may disagree, the Tibetans specifically.)

Karma theory in Buddhism is complex af and I suggest you read up on it yourself. But a really shitty modern description would be along the lines of:
>As per learning theory: You are what you do (repeatedly).
and
>What goes around, comes around. As in: You have an effect on the world and karmic teachings explain that relation.

So the short answer to what about you """attains""" karma, it would be you. But the better way of putting it would be, that you do kamma.

Again, shitty and confused summary.
Tho it should probably be noted that different traditions will vary in both importance and specifics of the karmic teachings. Which usually boils down to what kind of former regional religion they are mixing it up with. I've tried to stay with the most original definition aka what you might find in Theravada or Chan/Zen. (Tho Zen usually doesn't make a huge deal out of karma, as it can lead to attachment over it.)

>You guys do realize you need to be a renunciate if you want to be a true Buddhist, right?
>confirmed for not having read the teachings of Buddha Gautama
The laymen approach to Buddhism was already discussed by Buddha Gautama himself and was deemed absolutely valid.
Just maybe not optimal.
>Heck, kulapati(householder) was a degratory term used by Buddhist monks.
Which kind of proves that the stereotype Westerners have of monks being inherently any different from ordinary people is wrong.

wise Veeky Forums buddhist masters, I have a question for you.

what would you say is the most ontologically minimalist, most metaphysically humble school of Buddhism? from a cursory look, it seems to be zen/chan, due to its strong connection with daoism, but I do not really understand the other schools enough to decide.

>ontologically minimalist
Yeah, Zen/Chan would be my first thought.
Second would be Theravada.

Tho I suppose you could argue that there is a new """Buddhism""" emerging from the neurological and psychological research of Buddhist practices.
"Secular Buddhism" is a term often used. But I wouldn't call that super meaningful. More often than not it's just diet-Zen.

ty

It's not, but i don't feel autistic enough right now to make you a long explanation - maybe some other user would... There are incorporated shamanic elements, but most of it is justified in the mahayana sutras and the rest in tantras - tibetan buddhism and mahayana was practiced mainly in northern india until muslims killed everyone... jabajabajaba - i'm not in the mood.

>Tibetans totally don't ritualize the previous deities and spirits of their culture
>Tibetans don't set up huge altars to various daities, don't attribute them as incarnations of different qualities and don't pray to them for favors
>Tibetans don't run out, looking for the next incarnation of the Dalai Lamas soul by testing him with toys he liked as a kid
>Tibetans don't live in a theocratic regime, with a social structure akin to the caste system, which they had before as well
k

Adding to what the other poster said Zen has the benefits of largely focusing on meditation and the practitioners inward experience which is arguably what the core of Buddhism is all about; but you also have to consider that it's influenced by Daoism and to a lesser extent Shinto.

I think Zen is best appreciated once you have a solid understanding of Theravada and have read and familiarized yourself with the more important discourses of Buddha found in the Pali Canon.

There is a mystic element to Zen not found in Buddha's discourses so make of that what you will.

>a solid understanding of Theravada
where in your opinion is best to start with Theravada?
>There is a mystic element to Zen
interesting. what do you mean by "mystic"? where would I read about that in particular or do you mean the entire school is infused with it?

Please read a mahayana sutra or two

sutrasmantras.info/sutra07.html

bdk.or.jp/document/dgtl-dl/dBET_T0262_LotusSutra_2007.pdf

buddhanet.net/pdf_file/prajparagen2.pdf

>and to a lesser extent Shinto.
Uh, no. Chan/Zen was influenced by Chinese Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism.
>a solid understanding of Theravada and have read and familiarized yourself with the more important discourses of Buddha found in the Pali Canon.
Theravada isn't just reducible to the Pali Canon, m8. And it goes without saying that you should be familiar with the Pali Canon when studying Zen Buddhism.
>There is a mystic element to Zen
Lolwut?
What might that be, specifically?

>the scripture written by pseudo-deity-worshippers totally aligns with their mystical views
Who woulda thunk?

There's a reason the Pali Canon exists, m8. And it has a lot to do with what religious mixers tried to project onto Buddhism.

Just reminding you that Zen is also based on the mahayana sutras.

So you follow the "theravada is the only true buddhism" meme?

>Zen is also based on the mahayana sutras.
Zen is mainly based on the platform (and perhaps heart) sutra. It's intellectually so far removed from any mahayana traditions, that the serious argument is being made again and again that it isn't technically part of it.
And that "mahayana" is more a historical or geographical term.

The whole point of Chan/Zen is that monks got fucking fed up with all the flowery BS and wanted to get back to the root of things.
>So you follow the "theravada is the only true buddhism" meme?
No, there is no "true Buddhism" apart from perhaps the literal dharma. Not even Theravada or Zen.
But some traditions have more bullshit attached to them than others. And it should become quite clear in the Buddha Gautama's teachings that they are "optional" to put it nicely.

Look, dude. If you like mandalas and dancing yourself into a trance and worshiping mythical totally-not-deities and it helps you in your practice, go for it. You do you.
But it's just intellectually dishonest to assert that Buddhism wasn't muddled with respective cultures and that all traditions are equally in accord with the original teachings that Buddha Gautama tried to get across.
That isn't to say that we should "purge the lands of heretical Buddhism" or anything like that. I'm sure there are a bunch of people to whom Theravada or Zen are just waaay to clinical and boring and it just doesn't resonate with them.
Fine. Whatever gets you to sit down.
Just don't romanticize or try to rationalize the very clear and obvious shamanistic traditions permeating Tibetan traditions.

Also it may help if you read up on the theocratic regime in Tibet and look at non-Western recordings of the Dalai Lama (who's a massive dick).

Even though the sources of mahayana and tantric buddhism is mystical, the information presented is true (at least in my opinion) - that is the point, the wisdom itself.

It's not feudalist, Laozi's ideal society is one where the sage mindfully guides the people, although the people will be unaware of it. The gist is that if everyone lives according to the Dao, they'll exist in an effortless way of life, so a structured society is unnecessary. However, the sayings acknowledge that feudal society exists, and proposes better ways to do things in order to move towards living according to the Dao. Chapter 17 sums it up, ideally you progress like this:

Hated rulers -> feared rulers-> loved rulers -> guided by sages

Although it's not really progress in the Daoist wordlview, it's a return to a perfect primordial way of life.

I didn't say some of the techniques didn't have sharmanic(bön) roots - i'm just saying that they where molded to have a buddhist objective "how do i get enlightened" instead of only "how do i make my crops grow" mainly by Padmasambhava. I'm just also saying that some of the tantric techniques also came from buddhist sources like kalachakra and mahamudra. It's kind of a mix - like Zen is a mix of taoism and buddhism - it doesn't harm it, quite opposite actually.

>Zen is mainly based on the platform (and perhaps heart) sutra. It's intellectually so far removed from any mahayana traditions

Just reminding you that these sutras are mahayana sutras, so this is just intellectually dishonest.

Tbh, ""secular buddhism"" is just code-word for 'I want the brand of buddhism but not actually practise it'

retards like this read the wikipedia summary on the buddha's life and somehow think they're some subversive thinker by strawmanning his positions.

Enjoy reincarnating as a cockroach my man

But by intellectually you properly refer to the point of the sutra and properly refer to stuff like the pureland sutras (maybe i make a strawman here)
But about the pureland i think the tibetans get it more right and use those teachings for preparation for death - as explained in the diamond sutra: all Buddha's teachings are for certain purposes, everyone has different karma and thus needs different remedies by the doctor.

The west has distorted the dharma, but it's disingenous to say that only monks can achieve englightenment.

Back in the days of subsistence farming, a layperson likely didn't have to time to meditate for hours on end but the modern world allows for the leisure and free time to pursue awakening as a non-monk.

An example is Daniel Ingram, an actual western arahant who has attained enlightenment. He's also a doctor, so enlightenment is 100% possible as a normie.

Many of the greatest Tibetan masters where laypeople.

Oh shit yeah, I forgot about the mahasiddhas. I stand corrected.

>all Buddha's teachings are for certain purposes, everyone has different karma and thus needs different remedies by the doctor.
Yeah, let's "disagree" on that endnote.

>Daniel Ingram
Literally who?

The guy who wrote 'mastering the core teachings of the buddha', a guide for progressing through the meditative stages to enlightement.

I prefer 'The Mind Illuminated' though, it's the best modern guide on meditation currently and the author is also a western buddhist master.

How do I meditate like a real buddhist? Do I need to make an account on liveleak?

I'll check him out, but
>arahat
>master
talk is making me suspicious af.

He doesn't actually call himself that, does he?

Nah, he's actually quite humble and posts semi-regularly on his forum dharmaoverground.org, a forum for people to discuss their progress on the path.

I can understand the apprehension though, there's a ton of fake 'masters' out there.

Find a buddhist master(Beware of bullshitters) who can give you live face-to-face advice tailored to you.

or, read and apply an in-depth guide, 'The Mind Illuminated' is the best one currently and can be a decent substitute for a master.

>I can understand the apprehension though, there's a ton of fake 'masters' out there.
Does he make in metaphysical/mystical claims?
Like "Quantumphysics says..."

Him being a Doctor sadly has no bearing as to his validity. (Looking at you Deepak...)

buddhism is the most faggot religion but I haven't given up on the possibility of their actually being something to it.

>buddhism is the most faggot religion
Oh buddy, you don't seem to know a bunch of religions.
If you think Buddhism is soft-core, check out Jainism.

not what I meant. what I meant was its completely saturated in bullshit and faggots, not that it is soft.

gooot eeeeeemm ayyyyy

Nagarjuna isn't even here...

>not what I meant. what I meant was its completely saturated in bullshit and faggots, not that it is soft.
I believe you are referring to the people who call themselves """Buddhist""", yet haven't actually read the Pali Canon or met an ordained teacher in their life.
You know. The people who called themselves "spiritual" in 2014.

I'd still wager Yoga has more "faggots" and bullshit tho. If half the people in the West knew the actual details of the Yogic tradition, they'd run screaming. Especially women.

yes. it takes effort to get around this bullshit, which is basically the barrier of entry to true buddhism. even most online buddhist discussion is garbage.

Stay a mile away from any forum.

The reason I focused on Zen is because there is minimal bullshit. And BECAUSE it is not flashy, pseuds tend to stay away.

I remember my first time at my Zendo, via a beginners-introduction, there were two yoga-teachers. They couldn't deal with how difficult zazen is. Fucking. Yoga. Teachers. With the pseud beads and loose linen clothing and everything.
They never came back.

kek

Wrong, Buddha explicitly refused to deny the existence of the soul, he however explicitly denies that a soul could be "permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself".

And then later on basically invents a new concept that is the equivalent of a Soul in all but name.

>Kasyapa said to the Buddha: “O World-Honoured One! Is there Self in the 25 existences or not?”The Buddha said: “O good man! “Self” means “Tathagatagarbha” [Buddha-Womb, Buddha-Embryo, Buddha-Nature]. Every being has Buddha-Nature. This is the Self. Such Self has, from the very beginning, been under cover of innumerable defilements. That is why man cannot see it.

>O good man! The Eternal of the Tathagata is the Self. The Dharmakaya “[Dharma-Body]” of the Tathagata is unboundedness, unobstructedness, birthlessness, undyingness, and the eight unmolestednesses. This is the Self.

That's a pretty shitty list desu. Just a random mish-mash of conflicting works and almost no context for the laymen.

Mahayana fanfiction

What The Buddha Taught is also just fucking bad and objectively wrong and spreads heresy, hence why the author got told to fuck off from his Sangha.

...

don't trust anyone who doesn't recommend that you read the dhammapada. it's probably my favorite religious text. it's brief, it's enlightening, it's plain, and it's full of advice that's useful for anyone regardless of metaphysical beliefs. in fact i'd say the practical, day-to-day parts of buddhism are by far the most useful parts. meditation can change your life in, like, half an hour.

>They couldn't deal with how difficult zazen is
haha what, it's literally designed to be the simplest thing.

The only real 'heresy' in 'what the buddha taught' is the whole
>lmao read the kalama sutta, buddha was just a mortal one and not literally above both humans and gods

but the rest seems decent.

Now we are talking!

>haha what, it's literally designed to be the simplest thing.
The difficult thing about Zazen is that you have noting but posture, breathing and thoughts.
When everything else is blended out, your mind will desperately try to grasp at anything. Often that leads to being hyper-aware of (bad) posture in the beginning. Half an hour of that can seem quite rough.
I still have moments where meditation is just impossible and just willing myself to stay seated is marked as a win.

My point is that these people were supposedly already acquainted with meditation and should have had a good posture. But it seems boredom (an often misunderstood thing btw) won out. Hard.

>it's a crybaby faggot religion for indian r9k losers

"l have overcome the bramble of opinions, I have gained mastery over myself, I have followed the path. I possess the knowledge and have no one else as my guide"—thus says the Awakened One of himself. The Awakened One is he who is detached from life and death and who knows the way up and the way down, he is "bold, not knowing hesitation, a sure leader, pure of passion, resplendent as the light of the sun, resplendent without arrogance, heroic"; he is the Knower "whom no mania dazzles, no trouble conquers, no victory tempts, no spot stains"; he is one "who asks no more, and who, as a man, has mastered the ascetic art"; he is the "great being, who lives strenuously, free from every bond, no longer slave to any servitude"; he is "the Valiant One, who watches over himself, constant in his step, ready to the call, who guards himself within and without, to nothing inclined, from nothing disinclined, the Sublime One whose spirit is powerful and impassible"; he is the "Awakened One whom no thirst burns, no smoke veils, no mist clouds; a spirit who honors sacrifice and who, like no other, towers in majesty." Unconquered, supreme, he has laid down his burden, he has no "home" and he has no desires. Passion, pride, and falsity have fallen from him like a mustard seed from the point of a needle. Beyond good, beyond evil, he is loosed from both these bonds and, detached from pain, detached from pleasure, he is purified. Since he knows, he no longer asks "how?" He has touched the depths of the element free from death. He has abandoned the human bond and has overcome the divine bond and he is freed from all bonds. The path of him, who can be conquered by none in the world and whose dominion is the infinite, is not known to the gods, nor to the angels, nor to men."

In these terms with timeless grandeur, the supreme ideal of the purest Aryan spirit is continually reaffirmed. The contacts are reestablished, there is indeed an awakening, a return to the primordial state whose echo we find in the cosmicity of the Vedic hymns and in the supernatural framing of the deeds of the first Indo-Aryan epics. Nibbāna is, in fact, announced as a state of which "nothing had been heard for a very long time." Beyond both the labyrinths of speculation and the poverty of all human sentiment, beyond the samsāric world that "burns," and beyond every phantasmagoria of demoniac, titanic, or celestial existences, there is affirmed the knowledge of a nature that, for its purity and power, could be called Olympian and regal, were it not that, at the same time, it indicates absolute transcendency, it is inherently ungraspable, not to be qualified by "this," nor by "here," nor by "there."

Such is the goal of the "noble path" or "path of the Ariya" (ariyamagga) that some have chosen to regard as "quietism" induced by an "enervating tropical climate" and leading, as though through an ultimate collapse of the vital force, toward "nothingness."