Buddhism is based

buddhism is based.

Attached: main-image.jpg (950x1200, 134.41K)

Other urls found in this thread:

sutrajournal.com/the-tantric-age-a-comparison-of-shaiva-and-buddhist-tantra-by-christopher-wallis
youtube.com/c/HillsideHermitage
library.dhammasukha.org/uploads/1/2/8/6/12865490/the_path_to_nibbana__d_johnson_f18.pdf
slo-theravada.org/samanadipa/254-intro.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

what is Buddhism in your own words ?

Buddhism is unironically right about women.

own nothing and be happy

>Ante
oh my god he is back

i agree

Attached: perfectbody.jpg (230x711, 40.72K)

A vector of sanatana dharma. 1 leaf from the forest

Kek.
You say that facetiously, but desire IS the cause of suffering.

Attached: 71D05DD4-785B-4D49-AD18-018FAF27D90E.jpg (1545x2108, 1.27M)

Which is better Buddhism or Hinduism? What does the Buddha say about the Bhagavad Gita?

Attached: F68A13F0-CAC5-4A07-AB33-AE2D818A573B.jpg (1125x619, 465.71K)

Prettymuch all the big religions are.
>Christianity: "Get in the kitchen"
>Buddhism: "You're too retarded to be helped"
>Islam: "Hippity-hoppity, women are property"

Not sure about hindus though.

Buddhism is just watered down Hinduism. They even copy Shaivite scriptures word for word sometimes, even including typographical errors

sutrajournal.com/the-tantric-age-a-comparison-of-shaiva-and-buddhist-tantra-by-christopher-wallis

>What does the Buddha say about the Bhagavad Gita?

Attachment to god is attachment, thus it produces suffering. Go beyond theism says Guruji Siddatha.

most religions are.

They're both good. I just don't like the intellectual dishonesty that Buddhists exhibit. They pretend that God and the soul don't exist but then their scriptures say stuff like this-

>Now, I, Vairocana Buddha am sitting atop a lotus pedestal; On a thousand flowers surrounding me are a thousand Sakyamuni Buddhas. Each flower supports a hundred million worlds; in each world a Sakyamuni Buddha appears. All are seated beneath a Bodhi-tree, all simultaneously attain Buddhahood. All these innumerable Buddhas have Vairocana as their original body."- Brahmajāla Sūtra

>"I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the cause of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am "the core" because I contain all phenomena. I am "the seed" because I give birth to everything. I am "the cause" because all comes from me. I am "the trunk" because the ramifications of every event sprout from me. I am "the foundation" because all abides in me. I am called "the root" because I am everything. I am the existential ground (gnas chen) of all Buddhas" and "... the root of all things is nothing else but one Self ... I am the place in which all existing things abide. Oh all you sentient beings of this threefold world [i.e. the entire universe, both visible and invisible]! Because I, the All-Creating Sovereign, have created you, you are My children and equal to Me. Because you are not second to Me, I am present in you ... Oh all you sentient beings of this threefold world, if I were not, you would be non-existent.Because all things do not exist outside of Me, I firmly declare that I am all, the All-Creating One."- Kulayarāja Tantra

Buddhists will read shit like this then ramble for days on how this isn't talking about God somehow

>Buddhism is just watered down Hinduism. They even copy Shaivite scriptures word for word sometimes, even including typographical errors

That's just Tibetan Buddhism which syncretized with HInduism.

Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism are their own beast, and the cosmology they hold to is probably much older than the Hindu cosmology (they recognize Brahma, Indra, Prithvi, Rahu, etc.; but don't recognize the mainstream Hindu gods that came later and subordinated these deities)

Buddhists are a lot more Platonic than that (coincidentally). They reject adding any category or description of the "Ultimate Reality", including whether it exists or doesn't exist - it's beyond existence and nonexistence altogether

It's sometimes personified as a Divine Buddha, but that's more understood as an anthropomorphization than a divine person

Mahayana and Theravada are just textbook examples of yoga that developed from the shramanic movement around 500 BC. The only difference between them and the Upanishads is semantic

Hindus teach atman. Buddhists teach "there is no atman but there is the dharmakaya that's your true being and the center of the universe lol". Exact same shit, just different words

I know the adibuddha is just an anthropomorphic symbol for the dharmakaya. The dharmakaya itself though is literally the exact same concept as brahman

Buddhism is about realizing the world is shit and you vill suffer.

If you really believe that. The great Serbian Bvddhist sage has recently moved back to Serbia. I doubt you're allowed to visit him since the reason he left Sri Lanka is because even on his lonely mountain it was getting to crowded, but you could possibly get in touch with him somehow. Perhaps in the future ordain.
>youtube.com/c/HillsideHermitage

Attached: nyanappp.jpg (762x1332, 86.52K)

>Caring what the vissudhi magah says
>Who is khema
Ngmi

thanks for this information.

>Hindus teach atman. Buddhists teach "there is no atman but there is the dharmakaya that's your true being and the center of the universe lol". Exact same shit, just different words

It's a lot more complicated than that.

If we are talking about Mahayna and Vajrayana along with the mainstream Vishnaivite non-dualistic schools, arguably sure.

But there's plenty of Hindu schools that are explicitly dualistic in their recognition of the Atman (holding to a more Abrahamic view of the cosmology where creator and creation are ontologically distinct), which Mahayana / Vajrayana Buddhism is not.

Also things get weird in Theravada because that non-dualism is not at all explicit in their sutras (it's still sort of there but very implicit), while several sutras have the Buddha explicitly repudiate there being a single ultimate God or a first cause of everything (codependent origination).

Granted, I personally think that the distinction between a God actively sustaining an ontologically distinct creation and your existence being an illusion because God "underlies your existence" are just formulae trying to say the same thing in different ways. But that's just me

library.dhammasukha.org/uploads/1/2/8/6/12865490/the_path_to_nibbana__d_johnson_f18.pdf

For whoever wants to actually walk the path and reach awakening.

>The great Serbian Bvddhist sage
He gets drunk and rape as a form of meditation?

It's the same

NO RELIGION IS EVER BASED YOU FUCKIN SCHIZO

I think in terms of formula and practice no - because Buddhism really stresses the undefineable and inexplicable nature of it, such that you can't even say it is or is not something. Whereas in Hinduism, Brahman is identified with a personal deity / God.

If you break it down philosophically and logically, yeah it is

Don't think he ordains though since he is more of a hermit but there is a Slovenian hermitage/monastery that usually accepts people(although apparently not any more this year).
>slo-theravada.org/samanadipa/254-intro.html
You could visit this place though.

Attached: DSC08949.jpg (1255x941, 358.15K)