/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 215
59 kB, 500 × 499
Does buddhism have a philosophy that is actually secular? After experiencing many sufferings© i noticed that the approach to try to understand suffering seems to be how buddhism was formed.

What i understood so far from reading into it, is that some dude named Siddhartha about 500 years b.c. experienced sufferings and decay, then thought about it and came to the conclusion that nothing has any real value in life as everything will be gone sooner or later. He then just wanted relief from suffering and some peace of mind and concluded that understanding the reason for suffering and avoiding them for the future is the key to achieve it. Maybe as an example of how i understood it, if someone insults me but i then understand that he only insulted me because he was scared about something, i would not get mad about it. Also i would get less upset myself if i think for a moment and try to understand why exactly i want to insult someone else and then don't bother to do it anymore. Kind of like performing psychotherapy on yourself.

So he put this ideas together, but not like a prophet, more like "these are some of my ideas feel free to improve them". Which makes me wonder how this evolved into a religion. Most supernatural ideas surrounding it (like being reborn) were ideas that already existed in the area before Siddhartha and were attached lateron so they blend better into their current culture.

Also if the core of buddhism is just a bunch of ideas on how to avoid some sufferings for your life, i wonder if it actually works or is more the kind of autosuggestion where you just tell yourself everything is fine.
>>
No. 216
>>215
As my philosophy teacher said, buddhism is not a religion unless it's the only philosophy which man follows.
>>
No. 217
>>215
>experienced sufferings and decay, then thought about it and came to the conclusion that nothing has any real value in life as everything will be gone sooner or later.
I guess 2018 made many imageboard users buddhists.
>>
No. 223
i think siddharta himself was a proper philosopher. his followers make his thoughts to a religion and him to the founder of a religion/cult.
>>
No. 224
It is a religion, it is also a mockery of a religion.
People are tribal, if you don't understand that then ppl are cultural, not as an actual culture they just cling to things which are popular and make them feel important like sudo-religions, once they spend money they feel they are now part of the tribe and can base/blame everything what ever happened on that ideology.
They join a tribe and their initiations and sacrifices so they feel as they belong, veganism, feminism, ect
Sound familiar.
Never seen a beggar dressed as a monk ask for money, only buddhist.
Weak persons seek familiarity in the herd.
This applies to all cults.
>>
No. 228
>>223
Jesus probably had the same problem. We'll never know.
>>
No. 235
> Also if the core of buddhism is just a bunch of ideas on how to avoid some sufferings for your life, i wonder if it actually works or is more the kind of autosuggestion where you just tell yourself everything is fine.

When I first started to study buddhism, it was more about meditating and trying to understand the phenomena going on in my head. I don't know, maybe it is just a bunch of ideas to avoid suffering. But when you start out there is so much ignorance and delusion. We become aware where we were not aware before. It's not just ideas, it's about experiencing phenomena and learning through experience. we experience suffering and we try to learn what we are experiencing. The point is to not take anyone's word and experience it yourself, in others words, be scientific about it.
>>
No. 309
>>216
>As my philosophy teacher said
Tell him that he didn't understand anything in religion.
>>223
>i think siddharta himself was a proper philosopher
He became a philosopher
>>
No. 323
>>216
>>309
that was pretty decently said and witty though
>>
No. 351
>>235
>it was more about meditating and trying to understand the phenomena going on in my head.
So, did it work in the end, did you understand and become more chill on your life?
>>
No. 358
>>351
chill? somewhat yes, but I still have a long way to go because it is mostly a conscious effort. For example this morning I was annoyed by loud people talking outside my window, I was getting angry but I tried to see it for what it truly was, and after a minute of so the people were still talking but I wasn't being affected by it and I could go back to sleep. Most people trick themselves into thinking they don't have a choice but to act on anger. Something similar happened to me a year ago, someone snoring woke me up and i got angrier and angrier i wanted to hit him to wake him up. you see, i was looking to the outside of myself and feeling like a victim to the problem. it was very hard to look within myself because men by nature think externally. Even though i knew the theory about anger from the books i still found myself getting angry. in this respect, i think it takes a lot of courage to face things like this, as well as curiosity.

I see myself as chill in other respects such as things don't matter as much anymore like small talk, because they lack authenticity and meaning. I care much more about what I think is important, being honest with yourself about things, for example.
>>
No. 396
buddhism is initially a philosophy invented by Siddharta, but only a few ppl actually understand his actual thought
then it gradually turned into a mere religion as time goes on
worshipping something is way easier than thinking for yourself
what buddhists today believe in are mere deformed regional religions named Buddhism
>>
No. 500
>>215
>nothing has any real value in life as everything will be gone sooner or later
It is badly said.
And TBH, this discussion is already pretty low IQ.
The fact that "everything will be gone sooner or later" is part of what makes it valuable.

Regards, pointer of points most poster wouldn't get.
>>
No. 504
>>500
>It is badly said.
Possible, but should be expected when i started by "What i understood so far from reading into it". This means, i literally just started reading into it.

>The fact that "everything will be gone sooner or later" is part of what makes it valuable.
There was no statement about valuability.
Also, please enlighten me about high IQ buddhism.
>>
No. 509
> wonder if it actually works or is more the kind of autosuggestion where you just tell yourself everything is fine.

I've spent a week in a meditation camp and it does work
>>
No. 521
>>224
>It is a religion, it is also a mockery of a religion.
Can you explain further what you mean by mockery?

>>358
>I was annoyed by loud people talking outside my window, I was getting angry but I tried to see it for what it truly was
What was it truly then? Also thanks for providing those daily life examples, that's what i was basically wondering about. This idea of exploring why you feel a certain way and by that removing the negative weight of it reminds me of psychoanalysis. Like buddhism being some ancient instructions for self-therapy (which somehow got turned into a religion).

>>396
>buddhism is initially a philosophy invented by Siddharta, but only a few ppl actually understand his actual thought
>then it gradually turned into a mere religion as time goes on
Makes me wonder if that actually turns against it's initial thought, as religions usually are perceived and approached as something dogmatic, what Siddharta basically rejected. Confucius lived in the same time a Siddharta but his teachings are still taken as philosophy, rarely as religion.

>>509
>I've spent a week in a meditation camp and it does work
Can you explain how it works? Looking at it from outside, i find it difficult to separate the practices of buddhism from other esoteric stuff that merely relies on placebo effect.
>>
No. 526
>>215
>nothing has any real value in life as everything will be gone sooner or later
>value
>>504
>There was no statement about valuability.
extrapolate your option.
>>
No. 528
>>526
I took your response
>is part of what makes it valuable.
as a judgmental statement: like "the case that nothing lasts doesn't mean it's something bad". When i said "nothing has any real value in life" i didn't mean it judgmental however. I was refering to the "three marks of existence" tilakkhaṇa/dukkha/anattā which i saw defined with quotes like:

>"nothing lasts, and everything decays"
>"a basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all existence, all forms of life, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance."
>"there is no unchanging, permanent Self or soul in living beings and no abiding essence in anything or phenomena."

Are you a buddhist? If so, why? And do you take it as a religion?
>>
No. 531
>>528
Things are pretty precise.

For instance that quote doesn't work perfectly well:
>>"a basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all existence, all forms of life, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance."

It's not for all forms of life.
It's for sentient beings (at the very least, the beings which could fell "unsatisfactoriness").
Source: Basic Logic

>Are you a buddhist? If so, why? And do you take it as a religion?
For all these questions, the best answer would be something like 'no, no-no, not both, not either', following that things have no essence in themselves.

As in:
  • >Are you a buddhist?
I'm not a Buddhist and not not-a-buddhist, not bot buddhist and not and not neither not Buddhist nor not-not-Buddhist.

In actual normal language, yes, I am for a couple of reasons, such as the formal refuge and the "actually trying" part, at least sometimes, as well as the study, practice and related reflection.

  • >why?

a) Anecdotal reason 1
The actual cause is basically coincidental, as far as measurement is concerns. I dreamt about buddhist monk clothes, felt I need to meditate in some place, and actually went to the nearest buddhist center, by coincidence mostly. It was in end 2012 IIRC, I was about 33/34yo.

b) Anecdotal reason 2
A psychedelic experience when I was about 17yo which made me see things differently.
Almost depressive for an years after that, I focussed much on STEM studies to double check if it was normal or weird that I was seeing things differently.
After studying pretty hard, it turned out that I was sensibly different from others, notably because of obviously better results in each field we were studying and being tested on.

c) Why would you do this/What is the point of Buddhism and such things?

Have you ever thought about how things really are?
What is the point of all this?
What should be done with the time of this human life?
Do you value concentration/attention?
Joy, memory, well being?

d) other answers to why

Other consequences of what can happen to you and others.
Such things.

  • >And do you take it as a religion?

It's very much a matter of words and how they are defined now.
Only if you're really interested in an answer can it make sense.
A classical mid level answer would be: Buddhism is a religion and a philosophy. A science and a therapy of the mind too.
I wrote a wiki article in French about that BTW. I'll post it after this post.

And the high level answer is (again) related to "a religion and not a religion, not both not a religion and a religion and not neighter a religion nor not a religion".
That form of logic is called the tetralemna, it is sometimes used to indicate meanings beyond words.
>>
No. 532
>>528
Hope you'll like this translated copypasta of mine about Buddhism and the words Dharma, Buddhadharma and Chö:

>
The Dharma (skt; tib. Chö) is the foundation of the Buddhist religion. It has the sense to master: to control oneself to protect himself and progress. To practice a religion like Buddhism is to progress in mastering one's mind [1] through self-knowledge and the laws of change. It is therefore a true philosophy, a love of wisdom. But it is also a religion in its own right, with its rituals, sacred texts and monasteries.

Dharma, or Buddhist dharma (skt: Buddhadharma), refers to the teachings of the Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, as an object of knowledge. By extension, it can refer to Buddhist teachings or the law itself that governs the process of changes in the Universe. Having observed this law, the Buddha understood it when he reached enlightenment. Being able to describe and explain it, he began to teach about the 4 Noble Truths: from the existence of the suffering caused by disturbing emotions, to the solution of following a liberating path, the Noble Eightfold Path [2].

It is also a spiritual path or a way of life. The Tibetan word for Dharma is Chö, which means "to adapt, to transform, to progress" [1]. We progress on this path by protecting ourselves from suffering by adapting our behavior. These two aspects go hand in hand and maintain each other. As the knowledge of the Dharma is refined, we are able to better progress through study, practice and reflection, which leads us to pay more attention to our behavior.

== Notes and References: ==

[1] Practicing a religion like Buddhism is cultivating one's mind. In the Tibetan language, "religion" is "chö", which means to adapt, to transform, to progress. Basically, it rests on the transformation of what is causing suffering to overcome our incorrect behavior. The Sanskrit term that corresponds to "religion" is "Dharma" which has the meaning of "to control": to protect oneself from an untimely suffering by creating antidotes against the causes of this suffering. Religion in this respect includes antidotes to negative emotions as well as the release of these destructive emotions and their effects. This is the foundation of the Buddhist religion. - Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, in "Path to Awakening".

[2] This first sermon given by the Buddha after attaining enlightenment is named "the first setting in motion of the wheel of the Dharma". It is preserved in the Dharma Wheel Putting Sutra (Skt Dharmacakra Pravartana Sutra).
>>
No. 534
>>532
> It is preserved in the Dharma Wheel Putting Sutra (Skt Dharmacakra Pravartana Sutra).
*Putting in Motion of the Wheel of Dharma Sutra (Skt Dharmacakra Pravartana Sutra).

A short version in English:

The Setting in Motion of the Wheel of the Dharma Sutra (Dhammacakkappavattana Sutra) [1/2]

Thus have I heard:

On one occasion the Blessed One was living in the Deer Park at Isipatana (the Resort of Seers) near Varanasi (Benares). Then he addressed the group of five monks (bhikkhus):


Monks, these two extremes ought not to be practiced by one who has gone forth from the household life. (What are the two?) There is addiction to indulgence of sense-pleasures, which is low, coarse, the way of ordinary people, unworthy, and unprofitable; and there is addiction to self-mortification, which is painful, unworthy, and unprofitable.

Avoiding both these extremes, the Tathagata (The Perfect One)[1] has realized the Middle Path; it gives vision, gives knowledge, and leads to calm, to insight, to enlightenment and to Nibbana. And what is that Middle Path realized by the Tathagata...? It is the Noble Eightfold path, and nothing else, namely: right understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration. This is the Middle Path realized by the Tathagata which gives vision, which gives knowledge, and leads to calm, to insight, to enlightenment, and to Nibbana.

The Noble Truth of Suffering (dukkha), monks, is this: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, association with the unpleasant is suffering, dissociation from the pleasant is suffering, not to receive what one desires is suffering — in brief the five aggregates subject to grasping are suffering.

The Noble Truth of the Origin (cause) of Suffering is this: It is this craving (thirst) which produces re-becoming (rebirth) accompanied by passionate greed, and finding fresh delight now here, and now there, namely craving for sense pleasure, craving for existence and craving for non-existence (self-annihilation).

The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering is this: It is the complete cessation of that very craving, giving it up, relinquishing it, liberating oneself from it, and detaching oneself from it.

The Noble Truth of the Path Leading to the Cessation of Suffering is this: It is the Noble Eightfold Path, and nothing else, namely: right understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration.[2]


Note 1: This is the beginning of the teaching of the Buddha after reaching enlightenment
Note 2: Tathagata, is a way to call the Buddha (there are a lot of ways to call him, like the Blessed One)
>>
No. 535
>>534
[Part 2/2]

The Setting in Motion of the Wheel of the Dharma Sutra (Dhammacakkappavattana Sutra) [2/2]

'This is the Noble Truth of Suffering': such was the vision, the knowledge, the wisdom, the science, the light that arose in me concerning things not heard before. 'This suffering, as a noble truth, should be fully realized': such was the vision, the knowledge, the wisdom, the science, the light that arose in me concerning things not heard before. 'This suffering, as a noble truth has been fully realized': such was the vision, the knowledge, the wisdom, the science, the light that arose in me concerning things not heard before.

'This is the Noble Truth of the Origin (cause) of Suffering': such was the vision, the knowledge, the wisdom, the science, the light that arose in me concerning things not heard before. 'This Origin of Suffering as a noble truth should be eradicated': such was the vision, the knowledge, the wisdom, the science, the light that arose in me concerning things not heard before. 'This Origin of suffering as a noble truth has been eradicated': such was the vision, the knowledge, the wisdom, the science, the light that arose in me concerning things not heard before.

'This is the Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering': such was the vision, the knowledge, the wisdom, the science, the light that arose in me concerning things not heard before. 'This Cessation of suffering, as a noble truth, should be realized': such was the vision, the knowledge, the wisdom, the science, the light that arose in me concerning things not heard before. 'This Cessation of suffering, as a noble truth has been realized': such was the vision, the knowledge, the wisdom, the science, the light that arose in me concerning things not heard before.

'This is the Noble Truth of the Path leading to the cessation of suffering': such was the vision, the knowledge, the wisdom, the science, the light that arose in me concerning things not heard before. 'This Path leading to the cessation of suffering, as a noble truth, should be developed': such was the vision, the knowledge, the wisdom, the science, the light that arose in me concerning things not heard before. 'This Path leading to the cessation of suffering, as a noble truth has been developed': such was the vision, the knowledge, the wisdom, the science, the light that arose in me concerning things not heard before.

As long as my knowledge of seeing things as they really are, was not quite clear in these three aspects, in these twelve ways, concerning the Four Noble Truths, I did not claim to have realized the matchless, supreme Enlightenment, in this world with its gods, with its Maras and Brahmas, in this generation with its recluses and brahmanas, with its Devas and humans. But when my knowledge of seeing things as they really are was quite clear in these three aspects, in these twelve ways, concerning the Four Noble Truths, then I claimed to have realized the matchless, supreme Enlightenment in this world with its gods, with its Maras and Brahmas, in this generation with its recluses and brahmanas, with its Devas and humans. And a vision of insight arose in me thus: 'Unshakable is the deliverance of my heart. This is the last birth. Now there is no more re-becoming (rebirth).'

This the Blessed One said. The group of five monks was glad, and they rejoiced at the words of the Blessed One.

When this discourse was thus expounded there arose in the Venerable Kondañña the passion-free, stainless vision of Truth (dhamma-cakkhu; in other words, he attained sotapatti, the first stage of sanctity, and realized: "Whatever has the nature of arising, has the nature of ceasing."

Now when the Blessed One set in motion the Wheel of Truth, the Bhummattha devas (the earth deities) proclaimed: "The Matchless Wheel of Truth that cannot be set in motion by recluse, brahmana, deva, Mara, Brahma, or any one in the world, is set in motion by the Blessed One in the Deer Park at Isipatana near Varanasi."

Hearing these words of the earth deities, all the Catummaharajika devas proclaimed: "The Matchless Wheel of Truth that cannot be set in motion by recluse, brahmana, deva, Mara, Brahma, or any one in the world, is set in motion by the Blessed One in the Deer Park at Isipatana near Varanasi." These words were heard in the upper deva realms, and from Catummaharajika it was proclaimed in Tavatimsa... Yama... Tusita... Nimmanarati... Paranimmita-vasavatti... and the Brahmas of Brahma Parisajja... Brahma Purohita... Maha Brahma... Parittabha... Appamanabha... Abhassara... Parittasubha... Appamana subha... Subhakinna... Vehapphala... Aviha... Atappa... Sudassa... Sudassi... and in Akanittha: "The Matchless Wheel of Truth that cannot be set in motion by recluse, brahmana, deva, Mara, Brahma, or any one in the world, is set in motion by the Blessed One in the Deer Park at Isipatana near Varanasi."

Thus at that very moment, at that instant, the cry (that the Wheel of Truth is set in motion) spread as far as Brahma realm, the system of ten thousand worlds trembled and quaked and shook. A boundless sublime radiance surpassing the effulgence (power) of devas appeared in the world.

Then the Blessed One uttered this paean of joy: "Verily Kondañña has realized; verily Kondañña has realized (the Four Noble Truths)." Thus it was that the Venerable Kondañña received the name, "Añña Knondañña", Kondañña who realizes.


Note 3: Additional notes on reading on this website:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.harv.html
>>
No. 555
>>531
>Things are pretty precise.
I'm not convienced about that yet, explanation follows :3

>For instance that quote doesn't work perfectly well:
>It's for sentient beings
It's still a popular quote though. If the reason the quote doesn't work so well is, because it doesn't distinguish between humans and plants (for example) when talking about all forms of life, then it seems more of a nit-pick to me. As the quotes also talked about "no abiding essence in anything or phenomena".

>tetralemna
I understand a tetralemma as a method to find a choice which fits yourself the most. The way you answered with it seems like you think listing all the tetralemma options is an actual answer. It's not, it's just the method to find the right answer. This means you listed me possible answers you could make but without actually giving the one which is right for you. Feel free to correct me if i understood you wrong here.

>Why would you do this/What is the point of Buddhism and such things?
I follow that the questions you listed are basically what makes people seek for answers in religions in general. I was more curious what was your reason to go for buddhism instead of any other religion (or philosophy). Your anecdotal response already works for that though, so it's fine.

>A classical mid level answer would be: Buddhism is a religion and a philosophy. A science and a therapy of the mind too.
I was more interested in reasons why it would be a religion, specifially. And yes, of course that depends on how religion is defined. I was aiming for the spiritual, supernatural, dogmatic and prophetic aspect that religions usually have.

Thanks for your wikitext, i'll read through it later (btw why not just post a link to it instead of all the text).
>>
No. 558
>>555
>Feel free to correct me if i understood you wrong here.
It's pretty much wrong.
It's another form of logic.
All its point, simultaneously are "tetralemna right".

> was aiming for the spiritual, supernatural, dogmatic and prophetic aspect that religions usually have.

In this one you could find it's not really supernatural, more like materialist.
Not dogmatic either.
Not really prophetic in the most common sense.
But again, you'd face issues with the definition of words regarding the supernatural and the material. Regards have fun.
>>
No. 564
>>521
>Can you explain how it works? Looking at it from outside, i find it difficult to separate the practices of buddhism from other esoteric stuff that merely relies on placebo effect.

Average 'meditation':
>relaxing music
>ímagine you're in a green field and you're meeting xy etc.
>30min

Normal meditation:
>sitting on your ass and observing your breath/body while not indulging in thoughts
>takes a lot of discipline because the average person is thinking about stuff all the time
>30min

Meditation camp:
>sitting on your ass and observing your breath/body while not indulging in thoughts
>4h
>eat while not communicating with anyone
>sitting on your ass and observing your breath/body while not indulging in thoughts
>4h
>eat while not communicating with anyone
>sitting on your ass and observing your breath/body while not indulging in thoughts
>4h
>sleep
>repeat for six more days
>>
No. 574
>>558
>It's pretty much wrong.
>It's another form of logic.
>All its point, simultaneously are "tetralemna right".
How can you say i'm wrong? I'm wrong. I'm right. Both wrong and right, and neither of them... :3
Do you see what i mean. You can't provide any answer like this here for our talk. Also i'm 100% not wrong, as tetralemma is a popular concept in coaching and medation, used for decision making. Example: https://books.google.de/books?id=OjglDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA25&lpg
If you want to refer to a specific mystic, spiritual indian logic that is far away from our logic, please remember we are having our discussion in the world of western logic, its rules apply. However please, i'd be happy if you have further explanations on the catuṣkoṭi concept if it is really actually providing an answer as you claim, and not only a thinking process.

>In this one you could find it's not really supernatural, more like materialist.
I think our conversation would be more insightful if you would add more reasoning instead of only saying "it's like this". After all, i'm here in this thread because i want to expand my knowledge on the topic.
>>
No. 696
3,6 MB, 1280 × 720, 0:14
>>532
>>531
>>534
>>535
Srsy I don't want read it all, can you jyst type easy way to start meditate.
>>
No. 697
7 kB, 175 × 276
>look for mysticism
>Obviously everything written here in our native culture is worthless for me, even though it fills libraries worth of connections, so I will travel across the floor be to find more ~interesting and unique~ concepts whose only source are three crude translations with no personal cultural connections whatsoever
>>
No. 757
>>696
No.
>>
No. 758
>>697
> fills libraries
>three crude translations
You should be surprised by which traditions have the highest amount of such related works in English.
Buddhist surely write more and preserve writings for longer.
>>
No. 766
>>564
>4h
Wow that sounds harsh. How did you feel during it?

>>696
You don't need buddhism to meditate.
Also that french dude here doesn't really seem to have much of a clue about it all himself, no point really asking him
>>
No. 775
>>766
>You don't need buddhism to meditate.
Good luck trying without, you're going to waste an years at least.
>>
No. 785
73 kB, 1920 × 1080
>>775
that you?
>>
No. 786
84 kB, 476 × 600, 0:00
>>775
As usual, you are wrong.
Meditation itself is not something invented or owned by buddhists. It existed already before and is practiced in all kinds of religions and teachings, even entirely unrelated in secular ones (for example PMR/Progressive muscle relaxation).
>>
No. 791
>>786
You're pretty young and inexperienced aren't you?
Feel free to find great meditators who are not Buddhist if you can.
Pro tip: the secular new age stuff is clearly not the same tier, you wouldn't do it one hour a day for muscle relaxation and such things
>>
No. 793 Kontra
>>791
Most high level Sufi mystics use various kinds of meditation. Some of it is ascetic but others pursue wisdom through the subdual of the self in sensory overload. Rumi's poetry even speaks of the goal of the Sufi being to achieve oblivion.

Christian monasticism has a lot of meditation also, even though it is not often called as such. It's kind of the purpose of chanting, and most hermitages are also in some way meditation-focused, reflecting on one's surroundings without the distractions of society in any form.

There is also a lot of ritual in many shamanistic traditions that can be considered a form of meditation.
>>
No. 794
54 kB, 357 × 268
You would think Buddhism makes everyone calm.
>>
No. 799
>>791
>You're pretty young and inexperienced aren't you?
I'm not a buddhist and don't intend to become one. I'm curious and exploring it's concepts, same as i did with other religions. So indeed, i am inexperienced in terms of "being a buddhist". That i am still so easily able to tell that you are talking bullshit most of the time here should make you think tbh.

>Feel free to find great meditators who are not Buddhist if you can.
There is no such thing as an objectively "great meditator". Also this >>793

>the secular new age stuff
"Secular stuff" isn't new age. Infact these two words are antithetic. This is like the third time you use words you have no idea what their meaning is.
>>
No. 801
51 kB, 578 × 445
>>791
lol it IS you!
>>
No. 802
>>793
Monks are pretty much by definition bound to a life of meditation. You should watch that one movie about the Carthusians, "Silence" or so.
>>
No. 811
>>799
>"Secular stuff" isn't new age. Infact these two words are antithetic.
Retardo, plz. In the case of Buddhism, it's pretty much synonymous. And in case you didn't know, secular means laical/non-religious.

>There is no such thing as an objectively "great meditator".
In particular to you who barely have first hand experience of what meditation can be.

>i am inexperienced in terms of "being a buddhist".
Meditation too, and a real lot of other things, clearly.
You should have answered about your age instead of trying to insult with your immature ways.
>>
No. 815
>>766
>>785
It seems that its other one and he try to waste our time
>>775
realy?
>>
No. 848
>>811
>Retardo
>instead of trying to insult with your immature ways.
Talking to yourself?

>In the case of Buddhism, it's pretty much synonymous.
The case here was PMR/Progressive muscle relaxation, not Buddhism. And no, it's not synonymous, not for anything. New age is one thing, secular another. And Buddhism (or any other old religion) itself is not new age, just because new age took some influence from it.

>barely have first hand experience of what meditation can be.
There is no need for me to experience it for the same reason a doctor doesn't need to get cancer to be able to study it. As you haven't experienced all other forms of meditation in other religions or secular practices, you barely have first hand experience too on what meditation can be btw.

>>815
>It seems that its other one and he try to waste our time
French dude ITT seems coherent to me in the inconclusive way he writes. For what exactly is he known for btw? >>801
>>
No. 851
>>848
>There is no need for me to experience it
You talking out of your ass AND pretending being right.
>>
No. 865
25 kB, 1278 × 433
>>851
I'm guessing pic related is you? let go of your attachments, even if it is to buddhism itself and 'being right'. I remember hearing stories about people who stayed at monasteries and went insane, perhaps this happened to you?
>>
No. 889
>>865
pretty sure you haven't practiced much either,
it would be dumb to take advice from you, innit?

About the risks of mental instability it's one more reason to take it seriously and do it well with nice master(s), it's a powerful mechanism.
I think the last related story you posted was about a guy who identified heavily his personality with that of a "serious buddhist meditator", such shits could happen, even in any kind of career, it could lead to mental breakdown, obviously, that's not the goal, that's more when it's badly done.
>>
No. 896
>>865
>went insane
At least that would explain his behavior. Sort of hilarious to see a person promoting buddhism but at the same time being an insulting rageposter unable to reason.
>>
No. 2467
france is still here?
>>
No. 2477
Confucianism is even less like a religion than Buddhism, but yeah, those far-eastern religions are closer to ancient greek philosophies than religions but then again some funny moustache man might argue that even Christianity is just neoplatonism for the masses.
>>
No. 2485
>>2477
Confucianism is a framework for whatever rituals you want basically, even though it heavily implies ancestor worship.
What they often leave out that Taoims and Confucianism is meant to be accompanied by rich folklore and folk religions from all over China.
>>
No. 2488
Buddism attempts to end the cyle of Death and Rebirth, and that qualifies as a religion. In-Life actions that affect the After-Life. The path to affecting the afterlife boils down to a certain way of acting, which further boils down to a certain way of thinking.
I like to compare the idea of 'Turn The Other Cheek' from the Christian and Buddist perspective.
Chistian:
>Be struck
>Be upset, believing that the stiker has done something wrong
>Forgive him and leave his correction to God
>Walk away
Buddist:
>Be struck
>Recognize that the only reason being struck upset you was because of a Desire not to be struck
>Work to extiguish that Desire
>Walk away
Both end the same, but Christianiy assumes God as a third party will be Concerned on Your Behalf. Buddism doesn't. I think that difference is one of the reasons Buddism can be thought of as a philosophy. Spirits exist but we shouldn't focus on them, only on our own behaviour.
That is just my IQ89 curiosity about Buddism and my IQ130 understanding of Christianity.
>>
No. 2494
>>2485
It's not really meant to have that but rather they believed there's no reason to weed out those old beliefs. It's traditionalist in that sense.
>>
No. 2504
>>2488
The Christian is supposed to hold the other cheek, not to walk away.
>>
No. 2511
>>2488
Buddhism could in a very vague sense be considered a type of Hindu reform school or reinterpretation of it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_in_Buddhism
There isn't the monotheistic concept we got pretty much exclusively from Semites (and even they ultimately came from polytheism) but there are various hells, ghosts, gods, and spirits in different strands of Buddhist thought.
>>
No. 2530
>>2511
I appreciate the link. The concept of Dependant Origination made me think of Lawrence Krauss and his Quantum Field Theory. Basically there is a river of potential stuff that gives rise to our universe of actualized stuff. It was how he eliminated the need for a Creator. Everything kind of leaning on everything else. I found it an interesting theory, but in presenting it i wish he was less of a jackass about it. He seemed to enjoy targeting Christians as the Opposition rather than sticking to the science.
I guess the difference is he was still thinking of some kind of causality being necessary, just pushing back far enough Newton wouldn't apply. Buddism is an entirley different way of thinking.
> the concept of causality in Buddhism is referring to conditions created by a plurality of causes that necessarily co-originate phenomena within and across lifetimes, such as karma in one life creating conditions that lead to rebirth in one of realms of existence for another lifetime.
A quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratītyasamutpāda
No Creator Need Apply

>even they ultimately came from polytheism
Agreed. How much of the Old Testament is spent arguing against other gods? Not one time does a prophet just say 'your god isn't real'. There is an acceptance that other gods do exist, but Jews just liked theirs better.
I think the world makes more sense imaging it as influenced by multiple gods in conflict, closer to the Eastern religions. Heck, even the old Greek and Norse mytholgies make more sense sometimes. The gods are doing stuff and we just happen to get caught under their feet.
>>
No. 2537
>>2504
>The Christian is supposed to hold the other cheek, not to walk away

I was using the 'walk away' as in not resist or escalate the conflict defending yourself. But you are correct. Technically you're supposed to turn the other cheek so they can hit that one too. That is a tough commandment to keep.
>>
No. 2541 Kontra
>>2511
Just a quick edit on
>>2530
I know The Jewish prophets referred to 'false gods' but I just wanted more. I imagine myself in their shoes screaming 'you morons stop giving food to rocks'
>>
No. 2751
6,1 MB, 640 × 360, 1:57
>>
No. 2786
>>2751

>"Whoever returns insult to one who is insulting, returns taunts to one who is taunting, returns a berating to one who is berating, is said to be eating together, sharing company, with that person. But I am neither eating together nor sharing your company, brahman. It's all yours. It's all yours."

Source:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn07/sn07.002.than.html

Its a great story. If someone wants to give you hate and you refuse to take it, they are left holding it all.
>>
No. 5067
bump
>>
No. 5070
43 kB, 500 × 500
One time an Indian Hindu friend of mine told me that Buddhism ripped off its entire shtick from Hinduism. How true is this? Is it basically on the mark or "we wuz kievan rus"-tier.

t. not knower
>>
No. 5071
>>5070
The original Buddha reformed the Hinduist doctrine, so yes, it's a ripoff in the sense that it's seed has grown from the soil of Hinduism.
They mix and match gods too. They have a common ground.
>>
No. 5080
>>5071
This. Buddhism is to Hinduism sorta as Christianity is to Judaism. Possibly less so, but similar thing. Buddhism was like Christianity sprouted from an older religion and sort of a reform movement of that religion. This is especially apparent with certain Mahayanna sects of Buddhism that still incorporate things like a realm of hungry ghosts and various godlings etc.
>>
No. 5083
Cause of reincarnation
/thread

I'm afraid, that's pretty much the only answer we can expect. But. >>223
>>
No. 5121
>>215
>Also if the core of buddhism is just a bunch of ideas on how to avoid some sufferings for your life, i wonder if it actually works or is more the kind of autosuggestion where you just tell yourself everything is fine.

Those ideas aren't meant to be accepted, they are meant to be found by each person themselves through meditation.
Of the two forms of meditation in core Buddhism it is the vipassana that is directed towards gaining these insights. And the vipassana meditation is pretty much orthogonal to autosuggestion, its purpose is quite simply to become aware of all the things that you tell yourself and contrast them with what truly is. That's not easy, of course, it's rather fucking hard and requires continuous effort over many, many years. So you can assume that it's different from "telling yourself something", which would require no effort at all.
>>
No. 5374
Could it also backfire?
>I live in shit but it's okay, I don't need to suffer because it doesn't matter
>>
No. 7263
699 kB, 47 pages
>>215

>conclusion that nothing has any real value in life as everything will be gone sooner or later

This is not what buddhism is about! Please read the attached pdf- an old buddhist layman said to me that it was the book that helped him out the most in life. Here is a quote from the book addressing the 'everything is suffering' viewpoint:

"The First Noble Truth [there is suffering] is not a dismal metaphysical statement saying that everything is suffering. Notice that there is a difference between a metaphysical doctrine in which you are making a statement about The Absolute and a Noble Truth which is a reflection [on suffering].

A Noble Truth is a truth to reflect upon; it is not an absolute; it is not The Absolute. This
is where Western people get very confused because they interpret this Noble Truth as a
kind of metaphysical truth of Buddhism – but it was never meant to be that.

You can see that the First Noble Truth is not an absolute statement because of the
Fourth Noble Truth, which is the way of non-suffering. You cannot have absolute
suffering and then have a way out of it, can you? That doesn’t make sense. Yet some
people will pick up on the First Noble Truth [there is suffering] and say that the Buddha taught that everything is suffering.

The Pàli word dukkha [suffering] means “incapable of satisfying” or “not able to bear or withstand anything”: always changing, incapable of truly fulfilling us or making us
happy. The sensual world is like that, a vibration in nature. It would, in fact, be terrible if we did find satisfaction in the sensory world because then we wouldn’t search beyond it; we’d just be bound to it. However, as we awaken to this dukkha [suffering], we begin to find the way out so that we are no longer constantly trapped in sensory consciousness."

Link to .mobi and .epub filetypes: https://www.amaravati.org/dhamma-books/the-four-noble-truths/
>>
No. 7360
289 kB, 1067 × 749
>>7263
>dukkha
>>
No. 7409
>>5374
I don't think monks 'live in shit', but as an idea, yes it would be unwise. Keeping the body clean, healthy and alive matters, becoming 'enlightened' matters.
>>
No. 8234
224 kB, 640 × 407
What is the least adulterated version of the New Testament (Bible) to read in English? I'm guessing not the King James Version. Which version do non-retarded Catholics and Orthodox read? If I were to study Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic, what would the most original version of the bible be called?
>>
No. 8238
>>7409
Buddhism has sort of a "clean your room" philosophy.

Karma is empty (causality doesn't exist), but it's no reason to not clean your room.

Although there's buddhist sects that live in filth surrounded by rats, they're of a more nihilistic attitude.
>>
No. 8258
>>8234
You mean the original texts? It'd be an assortment of various books, scrolls, and letters. The Torah is part of the Bible. The whole OT would pretty much just be in Hebrew. A huge amount of the New Testament is basically just letters Saul was writing to various churches. This was when early Christianity was becoming an organization, which also resulted in a whole ton of other texts being omitted or outright suppressed. Then you got Protestantism which ended up with even less of the original texts included, for instance the Gospel of Thomas and MaCabees for instance.

You will also notice for instance that this is suppressed in modern Protestant Christianity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Maccabees which is no wonder because that shit is basically just an instrument for justifying corrupt, amoral, greedy, expansionist tyrants these days. Anyone who's a Christian has already heard a pastor or someone yammering on about how "God installs all rulers". You will notice that these people are the types to deliberately suppress any hint of the rebellious early history of Christianity for example. This was back when things got increasingly perverted towards basically just being another paganized Roman personality/imperial cult.

If what you're looking for are the earliest texts I would suggest you try and familiarize yourself with the early contexts of Mosaic law, followed by all the numerous other laws including the 612 mitzvot, which leads up to Christ (really the whole thing was ultimately a dispute on religious law interpretation), and everything that was going on around the time of roughly 50 BC to 200 AD as well as any of the apocryphal or "lost" texts you can find.

Also anyone worth half their salt would tell you to study greek words and meanings as to how it means different things in the Bible, for example usage of the Greek word "agape" whereas typically English speakers only have one word for "love". Afaik you're required to do this in seminary, as it should be.
>>
No. 8277
>>215
Religions are not neccesarily about god and heaven. Read positivist description of religion.
>>
No. 8299
Why does somebody decide to become a buddhist?

I get it for most other religions - they have a theory about the world and offer explanations, mystic leaders and rules to follow. You join because you search for the truth and think you have found it.

Buddhism sounds more like some ancient, dusty ideas for self-improvement, something that modern psychology and psychotherapy is much better at.
>>
No. 8305
>>8299
Psychology has some stigma in a lot of countries, here for example lot of people think that if you go to a psychologist you are a loony and something must be wrong with your head, even though that's psychiatry, not psychology.
>>
No. 8345
>>8305
Prescribing drugs is not the only thing psychiatrists do you know
>>
No. 8358
>>8299
>>8305
These are not getting the point at all, which if anything is more speaking volumes about the decrepit secular materialist society in which we live. It's like asking "why does someone choose to become a X believer?" as if you go out and get a religion like clothes shopping. It isn't something you pick and choose. It's what resonates with you and most adequately seems to express and explain the world in which we live and the possibilities of the unknown. Considering the fact that Buddhism, generally speaking, tends to keep some elements of reincarnation from its Hindu roots, it is a well known mystical sort of belief system. It isn't "self help" or therapy. I mean really I'm at a loss for words here. If you cannot understand the basic drive to find meaning and transcendence and merely see it the same way as choosing what brand of shoes to buy and wear today there's no explaining it to you.

>offer explanations, mystic leaders and rules to follow.
Buddhism literally does all that. YMMV depending on which school or "sect".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path
It's like saying Christianity or Judaism or Islam is nothing but a self help group.
>>
No. 8365
>>8345
The average Joe still can't separate the two. I know fully well what a psychologist does. I've visited one myself.
Now I haven't had the chance to visit a psychiatrist, but I know that's different.
>>
No. 8390
>>8358
>secular materialist society
imho, there is nothing wrong with that.

>as if you go out and get a religion like clothes shopping. It isn't something you pick and choose. It's what resonates with you
But isn't that exactly what happens. If you are a buddhist, then you stumpled upon it somewhere sometime and thought, hey this sounds cool, i'll add it to my "shopping cart". When you hear a song that you like, you will also want to buy it because it "resonated with you". Same with political ideas. Unless you made it all up yourself, you are always picking and choosing the things in this world that you like. So back to my original question: what exactly resonated with you that made you start to explore buddhism?

>it is a well known mystical sort of belief system
Then tell me more about it. When i read about buddhism, it is mostly about suffering, karma, pathes, enlightment and so on. All things that happen in your inner world (where psychology also happens). Don't talk about sects please, just the fundament belief system, originating back to Siddharta. Why does the universe exist, who created it, and how? What is the purpose of a human life? What is good and bad? This are questions all other religions attempt to answer.

>If you cannot understand the basic drive to find meaning and transcendence and merely see it the same way as choosing what brand of shoes to buy and wear today there's no explaining it to you.
Maybe you misunderstand why i asked about it, i am not looking for meaning, transcendence or religion. I am just trying to understand buddhism better. Also just you to be clear, i'm not looking to argue or judge you, just being curious, so i really appreciate you take time to answer :3
>>
No. 8407
>>8390
I've explored any philosophical or religious system I found. Again, you are too warped by Western consumerist thinking to get it.
> picking and choosing the things in this world that you like.
What you think is true is not the same thing as "what you like". What a trivial garbage existence that is. Personally, I'd prefer an erasure from existence the way atheist materialists believe. I simply do not think that's what happens because I believe in Hell.

>. Why does the universe exist, who created it, and how?
It's basically the same type of thing as Hinduism. You know, you could just skim a wiki article if you truly cared. The short answer is, it is self-becoming/always was. Not entirely different than the idea of asking a Christian "well who created God?" It's sort of an always were sort of thing, except minus any intentionality on the part of the universe.
>What is the purpose of a human life?
Let me ask you another question. What is the purpose of human life according to a Christian? >What is good and bad?
The same as in other religions: being an ignorant, arrogant dickhead who causes suffering. The point is to not cause suffering to yourself and other beings. This is not a hard thing to grasp. This is also, I might add, a part of the major reason why eating fish even is prohibited among most types of Buddhist monks. The eating of the flesh of an animal is a "sin" also because of the reincarnation thing. This is actually one area where I like Buddhism more than Christianity in that the Christian belief has the idea of a "soul" as being particular and unique to human beings, the consequence of which is a moronic idea throughout Western society thanks to that Judaic influence of questioning whether other animals feel things. I suspect most people just don't get it, and that the true creative soul, that generating spark, is the thing we were made in the image of God with (I know some particularly stupid people think it's literal, in which case God would be a hermaphrodite that looks more like Baphomet were it literal). The problem is Abrahamic religions in general appear indifferent to non-human life. This is quite simply a falsehood. Moreover it is my estimation that the legal phrase "dominion" is misused by humans wishing to act as complete tyrants, like an idiot child being told he is king and thinking that translates into having the right to have the limbs torn off of peasants for his own personal amusement. When you understand the right of kings to rule is the same thing as the right of human dominion over animals, which is the same as dominion of God over man, you will understand it better from the Western Abrahamic perspective.

Also be it noted that the Left Hand Path is an Eastern, not a Western Satanic, concept. Most faggots in the West use it to refer to Satanism which irritates me to no fucking end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vamachara#Practices
That is what left hand path really means and ultimately equates to in all systems. Note--though it may be the other hand it is still part of the same body. Satanism and Satanic practices are not left handed, but are rather a complete rejection of the body as a whole. Left Hand Path and Right Hand Path are merely two pathways to the same end goal. Satanists do not have anything resembling Christian salvation in mind, nor particularly Satanists as opposed to Luciferians even have something like enlightenment or greater understanding in mind.

I note this dichotomy so you can see part of what defines certain practices of Buddhism as well as its Hindu antecedents, which is as necessary to understand as understanding Judaism to understand Christians.

In terms of asking me about a simplified Buddhism I'm sorry but you can't just expect such an answer since there are more disparate schools for Buddhism than there are in Western religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism
Your answer may vary wildly depending on which sect you ask. So this is but one example, as dietary restrictions and the abstaining from intoxicating substances are usually among the first demands of a religion. In fact Christianity is rather bizarre in that regard, because it just blithely ignores all former restrictions (or rather, most of its adherents do) which is even funnier that they still drink since intoxication is also a sin. You will find similar restrictions but also debates within Buddhism.

What a Tibetan, a Zen Buddhist, one adherent of Mahayanna or Therevada believes and practices can vary wildly. For instance some sects actually believe in such colorful things as various godlings and multiple other realms, including the 6 hells and heavens (more in others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Buddhism) ) for example these sorts of practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_money you also often get where they'll mix ancestor worship. It will also help you get the joke from VTMB about the Yama Kings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yama_(Buddhism)

This again is to give you an idea of how many variations there are by sect.
>>
No. 8445
>>8407
>Again, you are too warped by Western consumerist thinking to get it.
Please refrain from ad hominem, i could samely respond with "you are too warped by deluded esoteric bullshit to get it". This leads nowhere (and only adds bad karma :P

>What you think is true is not the same thing as "what you like".
Religious beliefs have no access to a factual truth. That's why it is so similar to "what you like": you think it's true only because you feel and like it on an emotional level ("resonated with you"). Not because you discovered undenieable evidence which proves that truth.
As you avoided the question, here it is again: What resonated with you that made you become a buddhist?

>It's basically the same type of thing as Hinduism.
Yes, there is a huge bond. Hinduism however is a huge clusterfuck of gods, endless stories and happenings. So regarding my questions (purpose of a human life/what did god do) or related to a "simplified Buddhism", i was specifically aiming for the teachings of Siddharta, the root of Buddhism.
I know lots of people added lots of stuff to Buddhism lateron, mixing multiple cultural traditions and rural beliefs and so on, but i was only interested in the root. Or does he not play a prominent role for a modern buddhist?

If i'd ask such a question to a christian, he would respond with quotes from the bible. What does a buddhist respond with? Did Siddharta ever made an attempt to give answers like other religions do? Here is a quote:
>The Buddha responds that the goal of his teaching is "not to explain the world to those who are thirsty for knowledge. Its goal is quite different; its goal is salvation from suffering. That is what Goatama teaches, nothing else"
This brings me back to my first post, where i said that buddhism seems to be all about the "inner world" and it's improvement - something that modern psychology is much better at.
>>
No. 8480
>>8445
>Religious beliefs have no access to a factual truth.
That's not necessarily true. One of the most oft cited examples is the Big Bang. Which is pretty approximate to what current science says happened, minus the "God did it" part of religion whereas science says "we dunno what caused it"

>That's why it is so similar to "what you like": you think it's true only because you feel and like it on an emotional level ("resonated with you").
Again this is a falsehood. You merely presume as such, as opposed to others wherein for much of history theology was a scholarly thing. The idea that religious or mystical beliefs and conclusions come solely from the fuzzy wuzzies probably says more about you than it does theology.

>Not because you discovered undenieable evidence which proves that truth.
I've had enough spooky experiences many of which are not even plausible given the known material reality for me to state otherwise. I simply have neither the tools nor the knowledge to conclusively verify it, let alone scientifically reproduce many of these instances.

>As you avoided the question, here it is again: What resonated with you that made you become a buddhist?
I answered your question. I am not a Buddhist. I studied it (albeit in a more cursory manner, officially I think I had two classes on Buddhism notwithstanding reading outside of it). You merely presumed that I was a Buddhist.

>Hinduism however is a huge clusterfuck of gods, endless stories and happenings.
Like I said, depending on which sect and interpretation you get the same thing with certain strands of Buddhism.

>So regarding my questions (purpose of a human life/what did god do) or related to a "simplified Buddhism", i was specifically aiming for the teachings of Siddharta, the root of Buddhism.
The eightfold path is a good start. Right mindedness, right living, right conduct etc. with the goal of being free of desirous attachment which in modern Western parlance would be termed addictions. Addiction to fast food, addiction to sex, addiction to gambling, addiction to drugs, things of that nature, and to escape the perpetual wheel of reincarnation and suffering, and to aid others in escaping suffering. That's the best tl;dr I can give you.

>but i was only interested in the root. Or does he not play a prominent role for a modern buddhist?
Most of the time the personhood of Buddha is irrelevant to you and your path. Buddha was basically just a wayshower. This is very distinct from Christianity for instance, because he was not some god or a prophet, merely just some guy who's said to have pondered and discovered great truths and wisdoms and helped show others the way. There's the saying "if you meet the Buddha, kill him".

>What does a buddhist respond with?
Actually the fact that most Christians--and by most Christians I really just mean retarded American Protestants--mindlessly parrot verses from the Bible irks me, particularly because very few of them seem to have any concern for the wisdom or underlying substance of that verse. Buddhism is less strict in a sense, in that you're not so bound up in reading from a script. Although, in terms of ethical guidelines and conduct, that exists plentifully.

I think that part of the problem is also Westerners got used to Papal Christianity, wherein basically God gets posited as some distant ruler, who sends his princeling emissary, Jesus, to man to issue orders and those orders are absolute and not necessarily open to interpretation. Then you get an added middleman, the Pope, who acts like some kind of feudal lord to the emperor. Much of this is derived from mortal politics and political apparatus bullshit. Then you have Saints in Catholicism, so it becomes less and less about the heavenly and divine and more about following some kind of hierarchy, and I think that that likewise paints the impressions and expectations of a lot of average Westerners who simply expect something to tell them what to do and boss them around. I have in fact encountered this mindset numerous times and it always confounds and startles me, although women seem more prone to it.

Such a thing as Zen Buddhism is specifically meant to snap your mind out of this. It is deliberately designed to break your compulsions and force you to actually reflect on who you are, where you're going, what you're doing, why you're doing what you're doing, and not just spoon feeding you an answer. I can't find a download atm but there's this book which is pretty decent https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/596076.Alone_with_Others
I think I recommended the Dhammapada? I can't remember. And in terms of understanding a lot about Buddhist thought I would highly recommend the Bhagavad Gita, which is essentially a foundational approach in the same sense I would tell a Christian to read and interpret the Torah to understand a basis for Christendom and Islam. I think that the Bhagavad Gita conveys the mindset really well in order to understand Buddhism later.

Here is an example of I think what you're asking and looking for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrinal_background_of_Zen#Sudden_and_gradual_enlightenment
The similarities between Christianity and Buddhism are there, however Christianity teaches you can only be saved from suffering by following this guy who's a god-form and literal avatar of the one God, as opposed to Buddhism which is more about finding your own salvation rather than having it given to you. The process has more similarities with Gnostic Christianity, and takes a similarly dim view of material reality as a realm of illusion, falsehood, and suffering. This is also closer to various mystical schools where in sense "enlightenment" means basically the same thing as attaining illumination.

These are not the same things as psychology, whatever the surface congruence, and in fact a great deal of modern psychology has been influenced by certain older philosophical systems like this. For example, the whole idea of "self actualization" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization which is in a real sense the non-mystical goal or objective of psychology is pretty much in line and clearly at times borrowed from Eastern philosophy.

Here are some other discussions on that matter
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/is-enlightenment-the-same-thing-as-self-actualization.12809/
https://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/showthread.php?3197-How-does-Maslow-s-Hierarchy-of-Needs-relate-to-Buddhism
>>
No. 8481 Kontra
>>8480
Also sorry I'll try harder not to sound insulting
>>
No. 8487
>>8480
nice read.
just one little thingy:
>Big Bang
just one theory fitting within the things we assume to "know" about reality; i prefer others.
(i know it was just an example. and i would assume it is a dominant/popular theory so close to the abrahamic one because people are still very much influenced by the thinking pattern provided by these cults.)
>>
No. 8523
>>8480
>Which is pretty approximate to what current science says happened, minus the "God did it" part of religion whereas science says "we dunno what caused it"
You are going quite astray... Current science is an explorative search for theories and their evidence. A theory lacking full evidence or having parts unknown has nothing to do with religion, it's just part of the process.

>The idea that religious or mystical beliefs and conclusions come solely from the fuzzy wuzzies probably says more about you than it does theology.
Religions are mostly dogmatic - statements and stories deliviered by prophets or spiritually "enlightened" individuals or groups. I'm surprised at your attempt here as most religious people don't question that there is no factual truth within religion as in evidence, proofs. I'm not saying this to insult religion. Theology is not trying to compete with natural science, as it is instead mostly studying the religion itself, in terms of history, archeology, sociology etc

So to get back to my original statement: You don't come across some factual evidence that proves that a religion is true, and therefore join the religion. That's why "resonating with" a religion is an emotional, personal, psychological process IMHO. I understand that comparing it with enjoying and buying a song or a political idea must be insulting to you, as your religious beliefs have a much more strong, life-changing meaning to yourself. But if you try to see it from an outsider perspective who has no emotional attachement, maybe you understand what i was trying to say.

>I've had enough spooky experiences many of which are not even plausible given the known material reality for me to state otherwise.
That works as a proof for yourself only and even then you should have reason to question if you can deduct an unambiguous, correct interpretation of what you "witnessed".

>I am not a Buddhist
Alright, my misunderstanding then. I didn't 100% assume it though, as you responded at one point: "It's what resonates with you and most adequately seems to express and explain the world", which i took was you talking about why you turned to Buddhism.
Now the whole discussion actually is rather pointless as my original question and curiosity was about "Why does somebody decide to become a buddhist?".

About my other statement of "buddhism being about the inner world, therefore potentially replaceable by psychology":
While your previously stated that "It's like saying Christianity or Judaism or Islam is nothing but a self help group" you now mention overlaps between buddhism and psychology yourself, and also everything else mentioned about buddhism by you was about the inner world again. Looking more into it i also found stuff like this:

>Buddhism and Western Psychology overlap in theory and in practice.
>if we look deeply into such ways of life as Buddhism, we do not find either philosophy or religion as these are understood in the West. We find something more nearly resembling psychotherapy
>Buddha was a unique psychotherapist.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705677

On my question if Buddhism does most of the things other religions do, you answered "Buddhism literally does all that", but you didn't go into my follow up questions of how or what Buddhism (Siddharta) explains about the "outer world" (like the bible does, for example).

My personal summary now is:
Siddharta was a philosopher and very early psychotherapist. Hinduists embraced his theories and created buddhist sects, adding their religious elements. The actual core of buddhism however shares more with psychology than religion. Therefore my (maybe bold) statement, that modern psychology is better at improving and understanding your "inner world" than buddhism (as it is further developed) is essentially true.