Buddhist anons: Does there exist in Buddhist cosmology other Human realms besides our one, other worlds in which Humans are born in besides our Earth, worlds which have had different histories than Earth's, and is there a chance Humans from our Earth would reincarnate into the other Human worlds.
I'm not a Buddhist, but I think it depends on the Buddhist Sect and teaching. Pure Land, at least, teaches the idea of a multiverse.
>>18670913Yes but there is no permanent self that reincarnates and I am not sure if being born on another planet or existing in some other realm could be called human.
>>18671168>Yes but there is no permanent self that reincarnatesSo why call it reincarnation?
>>18670913Yes, this is common thought across Buddhism.
>>18671180Because you can still have two subjectively experience as a human being despite not remember your past life.But the pain each human felt was still felt by you
>>18671307>Because you can still have two subjectively experience as a human being despite not remember your past life.A self is not dependent on memory. I could get complete amnesia tomorrow and I would still be myself.
>>18671370no, what is called self is composite of many aggregates, some more material some more subtle, the memories being one of them Without your current memories you would be a different, even if similar, person than you are now, in effect a different self
>>18671384Even if I lost all my memories I would still have the subjective experience of being me. I am forming and forgetting memories every day, yet I still feel that I am the same person day after day. If I lose all my memories and reincarnate into a different Human body, I would still consider that person me if my subjective experience carries on to the new body.
>>18671403Your memories are one of the elements that inform and shape the subjective experience of being you, without those you would have a different, even if similar, experience> I am forming and forgetting memories every day, yet I still feel that I am the same person day after dayyou feel that because those changes are gradual enough you don't notice, but you compare your present self with you from 5 or 10 year ago you would find a different person
>>18671414>compare your present self with you from 5 or 10 year ago you would find a different personNo, I would still be the same person. If I got complete amnesia tomorrow and lost all my memories, I would have lost the memories thst shape my subjective experience, but I would still be myself. I believe that Humans have souls, it becomes easier to talk about the self and reincarnation in terms of souls. If I reincarnate into another Human body, my soul and my subjective experience along with it will be transferred to that new body
The next level Buddhist move is to grant the existence of souls but say that you shouldn't identify with your soul, because you can't perceive your soul directly, only infer its existence from the reasonable assumption that solipsism is false. So if you tried to identify with your soul, what you would really be doing is identifying with the concept of your soul, and all concepts are non-self.
And if you can't really directly identify with something, how appropriate would it be to call it your self?
>>18671550no because under the most general buddhism philosophy what is called 'soul' is merely a construct of several subtle aggrgates, not a single thing much less a singular substance that's defines you
>>18671626The five aggregates are exactly the thing the Buddha says you really shouldn't think of as your self.
Filthy materialists are the ones who say a person is nothing more than a composite.
>>18671630I never said that you should identify with them, only that what is called 'soul' is understood in buddhism as a bundle of aggregates
>>18671638Beings are defined by their attachment to aggregates, but they're not defined as the agreggates themselves.
bump
You want conjecture? Based off all the sutras I have read, I can suggest that there might not be such a thing, even the first self conscious being mahabrahma(who is the equivalent to yahweh, other beings being summoned by his word, but actually not) is said to have been formed after the earth. You're talking about some parallel universes, multiple simulation theory which could be true but we have no way to confirm it, probably not even the Buddha knows
>>18671473>It becomes easierThe Buddhist concept of no-soul is a difficult one to explain, and even more difficult when attempting to do so with the concept of rebirth. It's not something that is amenable to 4chan's thread format, and requires both a degree of experience in meditation or contemplation and philosophical study. Just because it's easier to explain things in terms of a soul, and because you were able to argue against the other anon on a 4chan thread does not make it true; it is then merely a practical, conventional concept masking the underlying truth. I highly encourage more study of what no-soul means outside of this website, as it is not easy to explain or understand.>>18670913>Buddhist cosmology in other realmsYes, all schools of Buddhism believe that other realms have some knowledge of Buddhist cosmology, even if they my not have full access to the Buddhist path.>other Human realmsGenerally yes across all of Buddhism. It's not necessarily humans in the other Human worlds, the general requirements are that the beings are intelligent enough to grasp Buddhist teachings, and that there is a balance of happiness and suffering in the realm instead of an excess.>Humans reincarnate into other Human worldsIf other Human realms exist, rebirth into those worlds is definitely possible.
>>18670913There is disagreement but it seems there is an infinity of world systems in Buddhism. I hate infinity though Buddhists have a kino cosmology.
Dude, stop bumping your shitty thread. I already explained to you on /lit/ that you won't get isekai'd.
>>18675341>I already explained to you on /lit/ that you won't get isekai'd.Link?
>>18675447It wasn't much of an explanation, he just said I won't get isekai'd and didn't explain why not.
The insistence on the nonexistence of souls while still believing in karma and reincarnation are Buddhism's trinity and problem of evil. Just totally intractable logical failures that end up acting as nothing more than a shit test for adherents. It all hinges on the idea that impermanence = nonexistence, which makes no sense at all.
It's not non-existence or existenceBut it's also not neitherAnd not bothAny time you think something is absolutely true, and that everything it excludes is absolutely false, you're falling into the trap of wrong viewThe only right view is a view that transcends viewHaving view only leads to contention and suffering
Yes, in Buddhist cosmology, there are countless other human worlds and world systems across a vast multiverse, and beings from our Earth can indeed be reborn into them. Other Human Worlds and Continents. The Four Great Continents: Classical Buddhist texts describe a single "world system" centered on Mount Meru as containing four great inhabited continental regions surrounding a central ocean.Our Earth is identified as Jambudvīpa, the southern continent.The other three continents—Pubbavideha (East), Aparagodānīya (West), and Uttarakuru (North)—are also populated by human beings who possess different physical characteristics, lifespans, and social conditions. For example, humans in Uttarakuru experience a utopian, long-lived existence without severe scarcity.A Multiverse of World Systems: Beyond our immediate solar or regional system, Buddhist cosmology envisions a nearly infinite number of galaxies and world systems (lokadhātu). Each goes through cycles of expansion, destruction, and reformation over immense periods of time (aeons). Because "human" (manussa) defines a psychological and karmic state of moral agency and capacity for spiritual growth rather than a strict biological species (Homo sapiens), other planets and systems host equivalent intelligent beings with their own distinct histories and cultural or spiritual evolutions. Rebirth Across Different Worlds. Karmic Destination: Rebirth across the Thirty-one Planes of Existence is not restricted to our local Earth. It is driven entirely by an individual's accumulated karma (volitional actions) and mental state at the time of death.
>>18675659Moving Between Systems: Buddhist texts and commentaries (such as discussions on the dissolution and re-emergence of universes) explicitly note that when a world system undergoes destruction, beings whose karma dictates further conditioned existence within the sensual or form realms can transfer or take rebirth in remote, functioning world systems elsewhere in the cosmos. Thus, a stream of consciousness originating or active on Earth has the potential, conditioned by karma, to manifest in human or comparable realms in entirely different stellar or cosmic systems.
>>18675451Ok I'll explain. First off, the thing that gets reincarnated is the alayavijnana or "storehouse consciousness" that contains karmic seeds and basically nothing else. No memories, no personality, etc. These things are all in the brain. It's also anatta and empty, so it's not "you", it's just an alayavijnana made up of various karmic proclivities. Second, like the ai response above said, there are very many worlds in the buddhist cosmology, but the vast majority of them would be unrecognizable as worlds to us and most are either hellish or blissful states of pure consciousness. So no, there aren't other human worlds. Third, even if other human worlds existed (which I guess is hypothetically possible - although not explicitly espoused - under most interpretations of buddhist cosmology) there would be a vanishingly low chance that the alayavijnana pertaining to you would crop up again in one of them, as a huge majority of humans live sinful lives and have their storehouse consciousnesses reincarnate into hell. Now will you stop bumping your thread? You're not going to get isekai'd and relying on religious beliefs to justify your fantasies is very dangerous.
>>18676966>It's also anatta and empty, so it's not "you",So how can you call it a "storehouse consciousness"? If I were to wake up tomorrow and my "storehouse consciousness" was replaced by a completely different one, would I go about my day unaware of what happened? If yes, then how aren't you sure that isn't happening every day? >karmic proclivitiesFrom where did those proclivities come? You said that sinful lives lead to the "storehouse consciousness" reincarnating into hell, if I were to decide to commit sins, is it really me, the person that I am, committing the sin, or is it the "storehouse consciousness" that's inhabiting my body at that moment?
>>18677025The alaya vijnana changes every half a microsecond. Not every day, not by tomorrow, but by every half a microsecond.
>>18677025>if i were to wake up tomorrow and my "storehouse consciousness" was replaced by a completely different one, would I go about my day unaware of what happenedYes>how aren't you sure that isn't happening every dayIt literally is. If you had even the slightest familiarity with buddhist doctrine you would understand that in buddhism, things don't exist as themselves, just as their component parts and the interactions between said parts. the alayavijnana is constantly changing, dropping and adding new karmic proclivities from the actions of the lower seven consciousnesses>from where did those proclivities comefrom past karma (action) of the other consciousnesses>is it really me, the person that i amIn buddhism there is no "person that you are". Again, this is one of the fundamental teachings of the buddha.If you want more information about the eight consciousnesses, you ought to read the aryasandhinirmocana sutra, but you should read at least parts of the pali canon beforehand or else you won't understand what it's talking about
>>18677035So how can you say that the majority of Humans will be reincarnated in hell if most of those Humans each go through at least millions of "storehouse consciousness" throughout their lives?If I commit murder, will only the "storehouse consciousness" that was inhabiting my body at the microsecond that I committed the murder be reincarnated in hell?
>>18677039>from past karma (action) of the other consciousnessesSo the karmic actions of "storehouse consciousness" A determines the karmic proclivities of "storehouse consciousness" B, even though B didn't commit those karmic actions? If A commits a sin, it is B that will be punished for it? From where do the "storehouse consciousness" originate? Can the karmic actions committed by the "storehouse consciousness" of person C affect the karmic proclivities of the "storehouse comsciousness" of person D?
>>18677049While you were committing the act of murder, your mental state/perspective wasn't so that you realized that millions of storehouse consciousnesses depend on this moment, and you 'enjoyed' or 'let out' the anger in that moment of committing the murder, so, in the abstract karmaphala world several beings will pass out several legislations which are liek "This being did x thing, engulfed in Maya, he created Maya" and so when finally you get the fruits of karma which happens whether or not you engulf in the Maya, you having engulfed in the Maya will result in experience of hell seeming very real to you who aren't the storehouse consciousness
>>18677073>While you were committing the act of murder,What do you mean 'you', I thought you said there was no 'me'>"This being did x thing,"What do you mean by being? Me as person or the "storehouse consciousness" that was inhabiting my body at the time I committed the murder?>d Maya" and so when finally you get the fruits of karma Again, what do you mean by 'you'? You said the "storehouse consciousness" is made up of various karmic proclivities, and you also said that the "storehouse consciousness" inside me gets replaced all the time every microsecond, so who IS the 'me' that receives the "fruits of karma"?>experience of hell seeming very real to you who aren't the storehouse consciousnessBut after death you say I'll lose my personality, my memories, the millions of "storehouse consciousness" that temporarily inhabited my body, all that will be left is anatta, nons-self, emptiness, no different from the emptiness in any other being, so what is it that anchors my experience in the afterlife? How can one emptiness have any different of an experience than another emptiness? It seems like you're tiptoeing around the concept of a soul without directly mentioning the word.
>>18670913Buhddism is the only religion an alien might convert too
>>18677105No, Raelism is.
This sperg is going to bump this thread till it hits 300
>>18677613It only takes you two clicks to hide the thread
>>18677092 anatta and 'emptiness' are true even here on earth as of now, but you still don't realize it and continue to see a separate you It really doesn't matter if the highest truth is that there is no you and that all there is is emptiness if you can't get what it means in this life. And if you don't get what it means in this life you won't get it in the next. That's the point, for Maya to exist empirically there must be Vijnana or consciousness which is present in any universe. You have a problem with this because you see your currently existing self not as an infinitely samsaring application but as a "person". It simply isn't compatible with Buddhist ontolology, this is the fault with papanca or philosophizing, it's not by itself wrong but man being a faulty process he won't see that he clings to a convoluted idea. Even an animal doesn't have the conceptual ego that you do, so in that case it's less deluded than personalists
>>18677869>you see your currently existing selfSo you acknowledge that the anon has a self
>>18677901https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrineConventionally and empirically, people have selves. Ultimately, personal selves are sublatable/empty and unreal.
The true self is something unchanging and eternalThe self is the unbounded Buddha consciousnessThe self is the Buddha nature
Buddhists have a totally different metaphysical picture where there are essences or substances that ground reality. Aka there is no being but just the ignorant misperception of becoming.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E1_ZeKQ81c
>>18675511This. Though, as with Christianity and the trinity, there are Buddhisms that reject the absurd metaphysical "no soul" interpretation of anatta and emptiness. E.g., https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/NobleStrategy/Section0014.html
>>18678170More thorough article: https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/Not-self_Q%26A/Section0004.html
>>18677869>there must be Vijnana or consciousness which is present in any universeAnd that consciousness is tied to my experience, so it's my soul, it's the thing that will reincarnate into other bodies if I reincarnate. >>18677985>personal selves are sublatable/empty and unreal.Then how can they experience anything? What's the difference between an 'emptiness' in a heaven realm and an 'emptiness' in a hell realm? How can either of them experience anything if they are really empty, if they are really nothing?
>>18678909>how can they experience anythingthe ground of subjective experience or dharmakaya is sometimes conceded to possess inherent reality, but different Buddhist schools have different interpretations. This is a high-level doctrine in the yogacara school of mahayana buddhism and is often adopted by tibetan buddhists as well, but east asian and "orthodox" madhyamaka buddhism usually reject this doctrine and insist that consciousness arises dependently just like everything else. Of course the usual position they take is that consciousness is dependent on the brain, but that poses problems for the whole idea of reincarnation, so I tend to prefer the dharmakaya explanation>what's the difference between an emptiness in a heaven realm and an emptiness in a hell realmIts relation to its environment.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationalism>how can either of them experience anythingAccording to the dharmakaya theory the quality of pristine awareness is present in emptiness. In order to understand this you need to grasp the identity between the prameya (object cognized) and the pramiti (cognizement of the object), which is laid out in many Buddhist and Hindu introductory philosophical texts. Under this theory the question of "how is awareness present in x" is not useful because awareness is present in everything, it is the basis of the rest of reality. Basically idealism. According to the pure emptiness theorists, though, "it's complicated". I really think you should read the sutra i posted above if you're having trouble comprehending the difference between a soul and the buddhist eight consciousness model>and that consciousness is tied to my experience, so it's my soulan important caveat: it's basically heretical in buddhism to say that the dharmakaya or any kind of pristine awareness constitutes a "self" or a "soul", especially since there's only one dharmakaya that manifests disparately as the awarenesses that undergird conventional reality.
>>18679396The more I learn about Buddhism, the less I understand the appeal of it.
>>18679396The dharmakaya is not the metaphysical ground of subjectivity, buddhist practices instructions are not the same as their philosophy. This is true also of Far East Asian Buddhism which builds on Huayan philosophy. This is the whole reality is neither one nor many focus that is referenced. Below is an example.https://iai.tv/articles/chinese-philosophys-attack-on-realitys-foundations-auid-3173The relevant part starts at 40.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJhTWBwLHgE&t=2437sHere is a video that explains the concept of dharmakaya or dhammakaya in Theravada. It is just insight into a reality without kleshas and not even a thing.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5jayCoGN7s&list=PLKBfwfAaDeaWBcJseIgQB16pFK4_OMgAs&index=3Buddhist tenets aka philosophy and Buddhist practice lineages and the various Hindu theologies like Smartism, Vasinavite, Shaktist and their various philosophies of those traditions are very very different and technical terms are different. There is no such thing as Hindu introductory philosophical text because, by defintion if you don't have the right varna and background in Vedic ritual, you can't actually even read any philosophy texts. Introduction would be done directly and orally because the nature of Vedic ritual which is interperted in Hindu philosophy and theology. Yogacara is also not an ideealim and the conciousness arises dependenlty as well. The highest doctrine in yogacara is the perfected truth which is cessation of causation linkage between the manas and the storehouse. Link is an academic article explainig that.https://www.academia.edu/647512/What_Is_and_Isnt_Yogacara
>>18680199The dharmakaya isn't the metaphysical ground of subjectivity in theravada or huayan, true. The word has very different meanings in different schools. It absolutely is in Jonang and I would argue it is in Nyingma too from the time of the rimé movement onward. The texts and traditions of Hinduism and Buddhism are different but share much common ground, as with the pramiti/prameya non-distinction I alluded to. Despite different terminology you see a lot of the same figurative examples and the same methods of argumentation. And yes most Hindu sects require you to get initiated, but initiation doesn't change the meanings of, say, the Vedantasara. Traditional Shankarite Advaita is 100% possible to practice without a teacher (though initiates will look down on you), while Kashmir Shaivism/pretty much all shakta sects are more mystical and require initiation. Most Mahayana schools are also possible to practice the doctrines of without a teacher (although, again, initiates would look down on you), while Tibetan sects are largely initiatic.
>>18680283It is not in Jonang either at least not in the western metaphysical account of those terms or the Indian context either. It is not empty of its own intrinsic awakened qualities. This makes it like Shin Buddhism's account of the Dharmakaya as the enlightned compassion. Compassion is the absolute quality and a type of gnosis of reality in that view, it is something amounts to cessation, it is also not the object of knowledge either but the product of it. While in Jonang all enlightend perfections are type of knowledge. The Jonang tradition consequently describes buddha-nature as the foundation on which spiritual transformation occurs but it is not the ground. The idea is that the intrinsic qualities that exist are what the enlighttned state is. A type of gnosis. The Dharmakaya is not a creator, cosmic person, first cause, or substance that produces finite beings, some thing at all. This is sometimes why the technical academic term used is Buddha-matrix as in a matrice of qualities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yoa6K_BUqNIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcTpx1uyQFQ
>>18680283Sorta, some terms apppear but they mean something different. Rramiti/prameya are an example. However, because there are totally different pramana or epistemologies they get very different understandings of everything. If you are not initated you are not even supposed to be reading any Hindu sutras in Hinduism. You also can't even see a sutra depending on some castes and varnas and seeing it or hearing it quite literally may damn you. In Mahayana, and Theravada for that matter, not having a teacher and doing some practices is seen as none efficacious. In Hinduism the view of practice differes heavily by theology. For example many Vaishnavite traditions and Smartist traditions hold tht bhakti alone and ritual alone are acceptable unless one is a brahman and they are quite serious about that. They do hold that initation changes the meaning of sutras as well. This is actually a major feature of Smartism which if one becomes an acetic one is to understand prayers differently and understand Vedic rituals very very differently. Basically, certain types of practices require not just initation but a type of acetic study of Vedic grammar to understand and map to the various Vedantin sutras see the rituals as reflecting them. You are only supposed to do that at the end of your life and according to the ashrama cycle. You actually get negative karma doing it out of order in Hinduism. Buddhism has no similiar concept to that.
>>18680299You're right, I was mixing up my terminology. Jonang uses tathagatagarbha for the ground or basis of subjectivity. I'm aware it's not a being or first cause, though.
>>18680320That is not accurate either. Purified qualities are the product of the tagathagarbha. You can think of this explaining how any experience can produce wisdom as in the perfection of wisdom and enlightnement in their explanation. Consciousness is simply a conditioned arising and ultimately empty. There is nothing special about it just like other conditioned qualities. Upon gnosis, all that remains are the purified qualities in Jonag. These qualities themselves are the wisdom produced in that view.
>>18680341You may just know something I don't, but from my reading of Dolpopa's Mountain Dharma it certainly seems like he was talking about a ground of subjectivity.
>>18680357In that context what you are seeing is a subject side presentation meant to explain what puriifed qualiites look in terms of practice when you are doing them and the hermeneutic key to understand multiple practices. Mountain Dharma or “mountain teaching” is a genre for advanced meditators in retreat. It is not a sūtra, tantra, meditation manual, or straightforward commentar.It is meant to act as a hermeneutic key and way to approach for people meditating in said retreat and slot in a way to structure multiple practices. Practice texts describe things in terms of practice. It is not meant to be an object side presentation or some type of scholarly breakdown of reality fundamentally even if it can take polemical stances. Those stances reflect the needs of said audience though as part of a structure curricuulm though. Said curriculum woudl be something like the long lam rim-texts in which there is a scholastic q and a and exhaustive deductive argument for everything.
>>18679396>Its relation to its environment.I meant difference in subjective experience. The interstellar vacuum in the Milky Way galaxy is technically not the same as the intestellar vacuum in the Andromeda galaxy(for the sake of this analogy ignore the fine interstellar dust), but they're both essentially the same thing.>the quality of pristine awareness is present in emptinessHow can an emptiness be truly empty if there is awareness present there?>there's only one dharmakaya that manifests disparately as the awarenesses that undergird conventional reality.So how can an emptiness in a hell realm experience anything differently from the emptiness in a heaven realm?
The cure for dukkha is to drown out your feelings with convoluted metaphysics until you're no longer sure whether it's even possible for you to coherently express unhappiness.
>>18681415>So how can an emptiness in a hell realm experience anything differently from the emptiness in a heaven realm?Emptiness is a way of existing, not a thing. It means that something arises dependently. If something dependently arises, it is characterized by dukkha. Metaphysically speaking emptiness means that phenomena lack an intrinsic, independent essence (svabhāva) Awareness can therefore be empty while still occurring and necessarily is empty: it is empty because it depends upon causes and conditions, not because it is nonexistent and the causes that make it arise are the conditions that sustain samsara. Different beings experience heavenly and hellish realms differently because their distinct causal streams of mental events are conditioned by different actions, dispositions, and karmic histories and are caught in samsara.
Insight into emptiness contributes to the cessation of dukkha because suffering depends upon mistakenly treating impermanent and dependently arisen phenomena especially the psychophysical processes conventionally called the “self” such as the body and conciousness as independently existing, enduring or possesable. This is mistaken projection of intrinsic nature (svabhāva) produces appropriation: experiences are interpreted as “I,” “me,” and “mine,” which pop up in various actions and behaviors as sympotms of the generating of aversion, fear, and the actions that perpetuate karmic conditioning. Insight into emptiness does not eliminate conventional persons or experiences; instead, it reveals that they exist only through changing causal relations and possess no permanent essence. When this insight becomes experiential rather than merely intellectual, there is no independently existing self that must be protected, gratified, or preserved, so craving and aversion lose their foundation and this leads to the perfection fo wisdom.Because suffering arises dependently, it can also cease when ignorance and its resulting attachments cease. Emptiness is not itself an absolute substance or final object to which one should become attached; it functions therapeutically by correcting the reification that produces things. When perfected it is cessation of dukkha.
>>18670913It may depend of the school of thought but there is like an infinite of parallel (ie horizontal) worlds below the Brahma Gods. So you have celestial Devas, humans, Asuras, ghosts, yakkhas, nagas, in an infinite amount of parallel "universes" both two gendered, while the Brahmas are genderless though they look like men without genitals, then above them there are other Brahmas some are entirely unconscious, above there are Brahmas that are only mind and no body, each superior sphere is inhabited by beings with a longer life span and a more blissful existence. Only nibbana is deathless though being there may not be called existence. The further we go from our place the harder is it to understand how it is. Our world is just part of a small cluster in a bigger whole.
>>18683977And can Humans from our world reincwrnate into the other Human worlds?
>>18681929>Emptiness is a way of existing, not a thingAn existence cannot be empty, because existence necessitates being.>Awareness can therefore be empty while still occurring and necessarily is emptyThat's impossible, emptiness is nothing, an awareness is not nothing>Different beings experience heavenly and hellish realms differently because their distinct causal streams of mental events are conditioned by different actions, dispositions, and karmic histories and are caught in samsara.So those beings are not the same emptiness
>>18670913There are many denominations, varieties, and philosophical currents in Buddhism. The main thing that unites them is monasticism, basic stuff like Four Noble Truths, and some basic lore+suttas, but other than that...Some would say, nah. Others would say, an unfathomably infinite unfathomably infinite amount so that you couldn't count in an unfathomably infinite number of kalpas blabla like the Avatamsaka Sutra.
>>18675511Like every religion, it has a million stupid shit tests, yes. Some Buddhists don't believe even in 'transcendental' karma though
>>18685555Technically, they all share a few basic underlying principles. There is a World Buddhist Congress. The Four Seals/3 Seals of the dharma is generally held to be test to understand whether a belief is compatible with Buddhism.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Points_Unifying_Theravāda_and_Mahāyāna>>18684650Yes, that is indeed possible within Buddhist belief.
>>18685863From a Buddhist perspective tenet systems aka philosophy are less relevant than the practice lineage. Here not terms like Theravada or Mahayana but actual specific practices like Buddhānusmṛti or anapanasati and so on. A practice lineage is basically a curriculum and apporach to a group of practices and this can differ internally within a tradition as broadly construed as an institution.
