I prefer Advaita Vedanta and Sufism myself. Yogacara is cool tho

File: IMG_2129.jpg (254 KB, 1400x908)

254 KB JPG

Will it make me immune to pain?

Rebirth isn't real. If rebirth isn't real, you by default escape the suffering of life with death. An atheistic conception of death is essentially the final goal of Buddhism: parinirvana, full extinguishment with no return. If you automatically attain parinirvana when you die, you can achieve the highest goal of Buddhism by just killing yourself right now. Buddhism stripped of its pajeet superstitious metaphysics reduces to a suicide cult.

>>25626980
>An atheistic conception of death is essentially the final goal of Buddhism
Way to completely miss the point

File: 2327.mp4 (3.14 MB, 736x1280)

3.14 MB MP4

>>25626656
Quick, op, how many books are in it? How many words when translated?

I'm not reading millions of words that boil down to 'annihilate yourself', if I wanted that message I'd go watch jewish tv.

>>25626980
>Rebirth isn't real.
*Red buzzer sound* Try again!

I just want someone to show up after my death and then explain to me whatever needs to be explained about existence and then everything will make sense.

Taoism >>> Buddhatards

>>25626980
I’m an atheist and think we live forever.

>>25626656
Hey jackass - how about instead of just saying "read the pali canon bruv" you create a list of good translations which are promoted by your branch of Theravada (please disclose) which one should read through to get into the pali canon.

>>25626656
But what if I want to suffer and we deserve to suffer? What if I don’t want to obtain nirvana?

File: 1000007177.png (317 KB, 420x691)

317 KB PNG

>>25627216
red pill me on taoism. What to read to learn more?

>>25626980
>An atheistic conception of
There are atheists who believe in reincarnation or afterlives. Annihilation is not unique to atheism. The buddha dealt with annihilationists in his own time.

File: IMG_1993.png (185 KB, 1108x1009)

185 KB PNG

>>25626980
>Rebirth isn't real.
Got bad news m8

>>25627709
Most retarded infographic I've seen in quite a while.

>>25627451
>There are atheists who believe in reincarnation or afterlives.
lol no

>>25627746
Have you never heard of Buddhists?

>>25626980
Rebirth Is real, just because there's not a single metaphysical object that the complex of karmic compositions don't transmigrate, you can move a business from one country to another, or a machine from one building to another, and that karmic complex creates a particular form of suffering that also transmigrates and in turn this suffering creates ignorance so the karmic system holds in place it's new existence, para nibbana Is when ignorance can't no longer hold the karmic structure in place so transmigration isn't possible anymore and you become something different than a bunch of karmic aggregates, you're not an "original atman", since that creates a contradictión in substances were two different and opposite substances have to share a locus of experience and existence, but a new dialéctical configuratión of existence, beyond the duality of being and non-being,cause and necessity

>>25626656
So the Self doesn't reincarnate in Buddhism but the 5 aggregates do. So the next incarnation isn't really you? And what binds the 5 aggregates together? The Buddha says that Nirvana isn't annihilationism but is it meant to go beyond the Self No Self duality?

>>25626656
Buddhism transcends Taoism.

File: 184283.jpg (8 KB, 215x270)

8 KB JPG

>>25627216
All have the same esoterism after all. Why disrespect Buddhism then? You could prefer Taoism. That's okay. But how does hating the others help you reach the Dao?

File: file.png (52 KB, 276x400)

52 KB PNG

Retarded thread, go read real philosophy.

>>25628680
what's more confusing to me, he says with enough practice, you can remember your past lives. What do you mean "your" past lives? The past lives of whom exactly? What the fuck are you actually "remembering", if "you" ceases to exist and then *something* comes together again after death.

And then he speaks of your consciousness (to put it concisely) as "the builder of the house" who rebuilds the house after death, which is rebirth / samsara. So in a sense it is a soul (which he denies) or ghost, but the memories and character and shit get torn away, but not enough, because desire is still there, and so you rebirth. What the fuck?

>>25628680
You aré the aggregates,and upadana bind the aggregates,there's nos suele no-self duality because the no-self Is not a thing that it's opposing some other things, but the negation of a category itself,it's the negation that a self Is needed, it's not affirming the existence of something but establishing the contradictións un the idea of a self
>>25628865
Mental compositions are part of the aggregates,and there's no need for an External agente to rebuild anything, that's like saying who's making the evolutivon happens, it's a process, it's relational parts can do it by themselves , there's no need for something on a second order level to be part of the process of the aggregates, that's why aggregates aré aggregates, they're guided by karma and produce karma, in a Loop called samsara

>>25626980
You literally cannot prove rebirth isn't real

>>25627447
Tao Te Ching is all you need. It's not long

File: copied_file.jpg (44 KB, 720x1080)

44 KB JPG

>>25627277
>>25627114
Most of the Pali Canon is not actual teachings or Sutras and it repeats itself over and over.
This book and similar ones take all the meat, all the actual things Buddha taught and provides it in a version that you can read easily
Your welcome

>>25628865
In Buddhism your mind is a different thing than yourself. Meditation is often pitched as a way for yourself to observe your mind, for example. They would resist describing it as your mind observing your mind, as that exercise would not be considered especially helpful or productive.

There are a lot of different angles from different Buddhists, of course, and you can probably find one who is interested in the mind observing the mind. But that would be more of an exception to the tradition rather than an understanding of it.

>>25628680
There is no "self" that's one of the main tenets of Buddhism and until you realize that you'll always experience suffering, because you're clinging on to a self that doesn't exist

>>25626656
Buddhist bros, which school do you follow?
What attracted me to buddhism in the first place was that there was no silly idea of a man in the clouds who answers prayers and if you don't follow him you go of hell.
But then I learn more and discover Mahayana Buddhism is full of all that silly cosmic shit. And I don't know to feel about Pure Land Buddhism but Zen really appeals to me
Theravada made the most sense to me because of how simple it and how personal it is.
I don't know much about Tibetan Buddhism but I like the Tibetan Book of the Dead and the idea that you can become awakened in the transitional period before a new rebirth starts

>>25629447
if there is no self what is experiencing suffering?

Anyways the goal of the cessation of something seems way more inimical to totality than the achievement of something that overcomes your current state. I think you should try to embrace suffering as part of the larger whole rather than find a loophole to disassociate from it.

all illusions are not incorrect, just a part of something larger than its appearance.

>>25626656
Oh yeah India is drowning in solutions to everything look at this beautiful civilization

>>25626656
>solves everything

>why?

>just trust me bro its obvious, you just believe in an illusion

>Why does what I believe in an illusion but what you believe in not an illusion

>Just intuit it, im right, im not going to prove it

>SO just intuit what you feel, but don't intuit what I fell

>yes

>???

literally I depicted you as the wojak and me the chad: the religion.

>>25629571
>if there is no self what is experiencing suffering?
The mind
> I think you should try to embrace suffering
That's a contradictión in terms, in buddhism suffering Is the neurosis that prevents you from embracing the negative aspects of life
>all illusions are not incorrect, just a part of something larger than its appearance.
You're Confsing hinduism with buddhism, buddhism doesn't say that everything Is an illusion(maya) but that were trapped in a vicious circle of habits(samsara) the notion that the world Is a illusion Is not a core aspect of buddhist teachings

>>25629424
Russell's teapot

>>25629626
>the mind
then the self is the mind
>vicious circle of habits
Those habits are part of the everything and should be embraced as part of the larger whole of totality.
Not circumvented, but made part of a larger context.

>>25627447
Usually when exploring a new topic in philosophy I will read a few articles on SEP about it. As for actual texts, Tao Te Ching is obviously the natural starting place. Paul Fischer has a decent annotated version.

After that, I would read Zhuangzi. It is one of my favorite philosophical texts though it requires a little more knowledge of Taoism than the Tao Te Ching.

>>25629648
Only a fucking retard would take Russell's teapot seriously. That shit was clowned on even back in the day

>>25629661
The mind changes all the time, it's has muliplicity and it's becoming something else, so it can't be a self
>>25629661
>and should be embraced a
No need for that because habits already aré embraced, that's why you're addicted to them,and buddhism don't fight habits directly since that would be aversión one of the 3 poisons,buddhism create moment of awareness that let habits resolve themselves, they're never circumvented

>>25629648
the hecking flying spaghetti monster

Bash all daoists with magic wishing rods.

>>25626656
Because rebirth is just death with another name. Everything I am is within my experiences, my genetics, my behaviour. If all of that is wiped clean upon death, then I am dead regardless if some part of me rises again. Do you consider a transplanted organ to be evidence or rebirth? How about a thorough scan of my mind? Is that rebirth? If I am reborn, but the only part that comes back is my left testicle, is that rebirth? The whole concept is brutally stupid. It relies on a hand wavy quantity like a soul that can neither be inspected, defined or questioned. There are other religions that do more for me, so I'll read those instead.

>>25630634
>he thinks his memory of himself is himself thinking or that thinking is self.

Just fucking sit.

>>25630634
>Everything I am is within my experiences, my genetics, my behaviour
dear lord nigga. I can't imagine living like this it must be depressing

>>25626980
>Rebirth isn't real.
Neither is birth, there is no ontological 'self'. Everything that is dependently arisen is *unborn* for a reason. Awakening consists in the realisation that neither you nor anything else has any metaphysical essence whatsoever, and through this grasping may reach its cessation

>>25629661
>then the self is the mind
You can *conventionally* define the self as we already do in our language, the Buddha did this himself whenever he spoke of *his* past lives, *his* awakening, etc. The actual point is that there is no ultimate or *metaphysical* self that exists. Buddhism ‐- and especially Mādhyamika philosophy -- is deeply suspicious of metaphysics and aims to show that substantialistic metaphysical views are nonsensical and/or impossible. You may benefit from reading a scholarly commentary on Nāgārjuna's MMK.

There is a parallel with Wittgenstein and Carnap here; where for Carnap external ontological questions are nonsensical because they operate outside of our linguistic frameworks, and as such cannot mean anything, and where Wittgenstein shows that metaphysicians that attempt to analyse the "essence" of this or that phenomenon, property, relation, etc. divorce their object of analysis from the language-games we ordinarily find them in, and as such fall into the illusion that these words somehow have an inner 'meaning-body' that they carry wherever they are.

>>25629573
India literally abandoned Buddhism. Also, if we should learn anything from the Dharma, it is precisely that everything is dependently arisen and that no kind of prosperity or joy will last forever. We will all disappear, all of our nations will disappear, so will all of our people, and our species, our whole universe will cool. Even the gods, every single one of them, will experience death. Buddhism is very honest about the all-powerful fact of death.

This thread is really interesting but honestly what separates them, epistemically, from New Age spirituality for example?

I mean do these traditions have rigorous, argument-based philosophical systems (logic, epistemology, dialectic, debate...) that defend their doctrines, comparable to the way Abrahamic traditions developed natural theology and philosophy of religion?
If anyone have any reading recommendations.

File: noargument.jpg (39 KB, 552x437)

39 KB JPG

>>25630645
>>25630650
>no argument

>>25630884
The core books are the Abidharma for the theravada tradition, mulamadhyamakakarika for the Madhyamaka, and tons of books from vashubandu and asanga for the yogacharas
On a more general, doctrinal note for the mahayana you have the heart, Lotus,lankavatara and diamond sutras
Jan westerhoff and jay Garfield have good introductions for these books and this literature in general, or you can check out the stanford articles for a ton of buddhist concepts and philosophies

People will immediately disregard buddhism but then be like "God exists and he's also Jesus and he's also the holy ghost"
Lmao

File: b7294i1.png (274 KB, 761x776)

274 KB PNG

>>25629424
>>25627709
>>25630672

File: trinity.png (1.37 MB, 5172x7875)

1.37 MB PNG

>>25631000
Call me when buddhists write something like this.

>>25630868
>Buddhism is very honest about the all-powerful fact of death.
That's like your opinion dude. Dharma stuff for me is about the powerfull fact of the world having no depth, of reality being an etheric mental realm, and that the true underlying force of life is one's own vollition. This world IS my/your mind. Is understanding one's own personal unchanging essence that one can concieve of change of life. Leaving the dependency to conventions and exterminating materialism is great, but the real power is imagining the world anew according to one's own desires.

>>25630868
There is no death.

>>25631075
who cares about that stuff that only the nerdiest of nerds even knows or cares about?

>>25631110
>who cares if it’s provable, who cares if what I believe in stands on anything

>>25631125
99% of all religious people don't care about provability, it's simply team sports to them

>>25631138
And? At the end of the day, someone has to do the homework, and as you've seen, some people do. Anyway, you have zero arguments to back up your initial claim. I'm not even trying to disrespect Buddhism, my initial response simply matched your level, if you had genuinely tried to engage with the field, you wouldn't be nearly as conceited.

There's Taoism, and there's the infinitely transcendent way of the Buddha.

After reading the pali canon it's pretty clear by far and away the recommended methods the Buddha gives are
>Buddha recollection/mindfulness
And
>Using the brahamavihas as 'release objects'
This has led me to accepting the Mahayana as the true continuation of the buddhas teachings, which led me to Adviata and Sufism, which are just repackaged version of Mahayana but slightly more accustomed to the western mind.