Is buddhism worth getting into?
Is buddhism worth getting into?
Whoever made that doesn't understand Christianity or Buddhism
>buddhism
No
>Teachings of the Buddha
Yes
religions are a bunch of bullshit on principle, but if there was one that was the closest to real enlightenment it'd be Buddhism.
>Is ******* worth getting into?
No
Everything in this world is bullshit
that includes your post
Unironically yes.
No
Everything I make or do is good
the scriptures are only like 250 pages OP, just read it
here's a portuguese translation
store.pariyatti.org
Buddhism is for cowards.
that is not buddhist scripture, my mistake
fuck it here it is in english
store.pariyatti.org
I prefer Jainism. Buddhism is too light.
okay so that isnt english
you know what fuck buddhism
Just be a normal person who meditates and lives a relatively minimalistic life. Western millennials who go around calling themselves "Buddhists" are pretentious faggots.
>who meditates and lives a relatively minimalistic life
this is what you called pretentious faggots.
en.wikipedia.org
You know all the deep, philosophical shit people associate with buddhism? That's basically the work of western philosophers, who re-invented buddhism in the XIX. century. Real buddhism before was just like hunduism or jainism, a proper pagan mumbo-jumbo with a bunch of gods and spirits and magic n shiet.
you can just read their philosophy and learn from it, but not have to practice it.
It's pretty good as a philosophy, especially if you prefer to be non-religious.
based posters
Just read the suttras user, no one here knows what they are talking about.
lmao, religions are so 19th century
Ah yes, I'm sure Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy was nothing more than gods and magics n spirits n shiet. Literal brainlet.
You can try this book: Wisdom of Buddha edited by Max Muller
Get it for 20 bucks at a local book store
I like Zizek also
It is though. Most of them were probably influenced by the Greeks, the same way medieval Buddhism was influenced in turn by manicheanism and neo-platonsim from the late ancient era.
If you can't understand the progress philosophy made since the ancient times, you are the brainlet. No one with a higher education would today refer to Plato or Aristotle in philosophy, the same way Mathematics progressed beyond Euclid and Pythagoras.
Most actual Buddhist philosophies are very primitive and show the archaic signs of concerning themselves with the very basis of building up an epistemology and framework of basic elements of ideas.
by that same token nobody should learn to count because we have calculus now
do zizek really say something like this?
>westerners don't know that the buddha himself got his knowledge from hindu sages
kek, how culeless are you
Yiikes.
>It is though. Most of them were probably influenced by the Greeks
The Greeks had an impact on Buddhism in mainly Western India but Buddhism flourished in many other parts independently.
>If you can't understand the progress philosophy made since the ancient times, you are the brainlet. No one with a higher education would today refer to Plato or Aristotle in philosophy, the same way Mathematics progressed beyond Euclid and Pythagoras.
What a stupid post, people would definitely refer to Plato and Aristotle today for their work in building up philosophy in ancient times which supports and influenced philosophy even today.
>Most actual Buddhist philosophies are very primitive and show the archaic signs of concerning themselves with the very basis of building up an epistemology and framework of basic elements of ideas.
That's not true. I can recommend you more but 'The Buddha before Buddhism: Wisdom from the Early Teachings' by Gil Fronsdal and Dhammapada are good sources on disproving this.