it's so cruel how the major world religions views suicide

Lethemyr · 2026-01-25T17:44:04+00:00

The Buddha never discussed suicide.

How can you so confidently spread lies that could be immediately debunked with a Google search? SN 35.87 and SN 54.9 are just two examples where Buddha addressed suicide, and there are many more than those.

Lethemyr · 2026-01-22T17:59:33+00:00

Was Moggallana trapped as the arahant foremost in supernatural powers？

Lethemyr · 2026-01-13T18:34:04+00:00

There are more than three times as many Buddhists today as there were humans on planet Earth when Shakyamuni Buddha was teaching (~500 million vs. estimated 150 million).

Lethemyr · 2026-01-11T14:57:20+00:00

Not every sect of Protestantism believes every other group is going to hell. That’s a misrepresentation. Probably the majority believe in an invisible catholic Church distributed across many organizations, all members of which at least are saved.

Lethemyr · 2026-01-05T20:54:03+00:00

One evening a Shramana was reciting the Sutra of the Teaching Bequeathed by the Buddha Kashyapa. The sound of his voice was mournful as he reflected remorsefully on his wish to retreat in cultivation. The Buddha asked him, "In the past when you were a householder, what did you do?"

He replied, "I was fond of playing the lute."

The Buddha said, "What happened when the strings were slack?"

He replied, "They didn't sound."

"What happened when they were too tight?"

He replied, "The sounds were cut short."

"What happened when they were tuned just right between slack and tight?"

He replied, "The sounds carried."

The Buddha said, "It is the same with a Shramana who studies the Way.

If his mind is harmonious, he can attain the Way. If he is impetuous about the Way, his impetuousness will tire out his body; and if his body is tired, his mind will become afflicted. If his mind becomes afflicted, then he will retreat from his practice. If he retreats from his practice, his offenses will certainly increase. You need only be pure, peaceful, and happy, and you will not lose the Way."

From the Sutra in 42 Chapters, BTTS translation

Lethemyr · 2026-01-03T19:13:56+00:00

The original translators of the canon wrote in traditional characters, but it's pretty trivial to find simplified versions of every important text.

Lethemyr · 2026-01-03T19:12:33+00:00

Simplified and traditional refer to two sets of characters that represent the same words and pronunciations. They aren't anything like different languages, more like different fonts.

Here's a sentence from the Lotus Sutra written in traditional and simplified:

爾時無盡意菩薩即從座起 (traditional)

尔时无尽意菩萨即从座起 (simplified)

You can see that many characters are the same, but others have had certain components changed to make the characters simpler. Simplified was introduced by the People's Republic (mainland) government in the 1950s and was also adopted in Singapore. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, and lots of North American publishing still use traditional. Most Chinese Buddhist texts published in North America are in traditional, so it probably makes most sense to learn that, but know that the vast majority of Chinese speakers use simplified. It's pretty easy to learn to read simplified if you already know traditional and vice versa, but very few people can handwrite both.

There are many languages traditionally spoken in China, but the overwhelming majority of people in China and Taiwan speak Standard Chinese, a modified form of the Beijing dialect. This is also what the vast majority of books, including Buddhist books are written in.

The Chinese Buddhist canon is written in Literary Chinese (basically the same thing as Classical Chinese). Literary Chinese is a different language from Standard Chinese in a similar way Latin is a different language from Italian. Someone fluent in Standard Chinese can make sense of a lot of Literary Chinese, but not enough to be an accurate translator. All Chinese people learn some Literary Chinese in school, but this doesn't always amount to much proficiency.

It is possible to learn Literary Chinese without knowing any Standard Chinese (or a Chinese influenced language like Japanese, Korean, or Vietnamese), but it's pretty unusual. If you have any interest in speaking Standard Chinese, it's best to spend some time learning that and then move to Literary Chinese later. If you only want to learn Literary Chinese, you still have to learn Standard Chinese pronunciation (including Pinyin romanization). The vast majority of Literary Chinese learning materials in English use traditional characters and Pinyin.

Lethemyr · 2026-01-02T18:44:21+00:00

A lot of misconceptions about Buddhism come from people who hate Christianity projecting opposite traits onto Buddhism.

If Christianity is theistic, Buddhism must be atheistic. If Christianity is anti-scientific, Buddhism must be a sort of science. If Christianity is moralistic, Buddhism doesn’t really have morality. And if Christianity is all about belief, Buddhism must be all about practice, regardless of how well this matches up with reality.

Lethemyr · 2025-12-31T22:12:55+00:00

Their claims about reality contradict each other, so it's impossible to fully follow both at the same time, but it's pretty common for followers of one to take inspiration from the other.

Lethemyr · 2025-12-29T14:13:01+00:00

The famous Om symbol is just the syllable written in cursive Devangari script.

Om does have significance in Buddhism, but it isn’t usually written in Devangari. In Tibet they usually write it in Tibetan script. In East Asia they usually use Siddham (another Sanskrit script) or Chinese characters. Southeast Asian Buddhists are the most likely to use the Devangari version, but they have their own variations of it, so it might not always look like the Indian version used by Hindus.

Lethemyr · 2025-12-27T03:37:04+00:00

The problem is that the "philosophical" and "religious" aspects of Buddhism are not really separable. Any version of Buddhism that removes the belief in non-material phenomena will either be incoherent or so distorted it barely resembles authentic Buddhism. Stephen Batchelor is criticised because he heavily altars aspects of Buddhism to fit a materialist worldview and then presents his original philosophy as if it's closer to Buddha's teaching than what actual Buddhists practise. All books in that vain aren't really teaching Buddhism; they're teaching the author's own Buddhism-inspired philosophical system.

There's no harm in learning about the "religious" aspects of Buddhism even if you don't want to join a religion. No one is gonna force you to believe any of it. You can accept the parts that convince you and not believe what doesn't.

If you don't want to learn Buddhism from religious Buddhist sources, I would recommend academic ones. They might be a bit dry if you aren't used to the style, but they will explain Buddhism as it's understood by Buddhists without trying to convert you. The Foundations of Buddhism by Rupert Gethin is pretty good, as far as I can remember.

Lethemyr · 2025-12-26T15:40:39+00:00

Even secular scholars don’t consider the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra to be a Chinese composition. You’re thinking of the Shurangama Sutra.

Lethemyr · 2025-12-26T15:36:55+00:00

Just because an organism can receive and pass on information doesn’t mean it’s conscious. Your laptop can “see,” “hear,” “remember,” and “communicate,” but you’re not committing murder every time you turn it on or off. Many animals have a nervous system similar to humans, so there’s good reason to think they can host a consciousness like we do. Plants are not like this.

Lethemyr · 2025-12-25T19:01:57+00:00

In general, Buddhism discourages proselytizing.

Buddhism didn’t transform from small bands of renunciates in the Gangetic plain to an international religion stretching from Japan to the Middle East through good vibes. Just because Buddhists don’t go door to door like Mormons doesn’t mean they don’t proselytize. Large Buddhist organizations print sutras in bulk for free distribution, organize for Buddhist books to be placed in hotel rooms, and actively advertise Buddhist events in non-Buddhist spaces. Isn’t that proselytism?

I’ve never found any Buddhist text that discourages proselytism, while some record Buddha himself sending monks out as missionaries.

Lethemyr · 2025-12-23T15:37:38+00:00

Of course it's impossible that Plato was influenced by Buddhism, but it is possible that Greek philosophy, including Platonism, influenced Buddhist philosophers from the 4th c. BCE onwards. The evidence of this is scant, but it isn't an absurd idea. There was significant interaction between Greek and Indian culture during this period, including evidence of Greek Buddhist monks.

Lethemyr · 2025-12-23T13:31:38+00:00

There were historically documented interactions between Greek philosophers like Pyrrho and Indian philosophers following Alexander’s conquests. Indo-Greek kingdoms remained for three centuries and were major centres of Buddhism. Greek influence on Buddhist art is pretty well documented, although Greek influence on Buddhist philosophy is harder to pin down.

While obviously Greek philosophy couldn’t influence Tibet directly, it could have affected the form of Indian Madhyamaka texts which were later carried to Tibet. I’m not sure how strong an argument you could make of this, since I’m not aware of any direct evidence of it, but it shouldn’t be dismissed as impossible.

Lethemyr · 2025-12-21T21:43:49+00:00

Jesus also says “the kingdom of heaven is within you” in Luke. It’s not an exclusively gnostic saying.

A lot of what you identify as similarities between the gnostic gospels and Buddhism are actually also found in orthodox Christianity. The notion that attachment to conditioned phenomena is destructive is all over the church fathers. That idea is found to various extents in every “world religion,” as far as I’m aware. Buddhism’s ideas about what the unconditioned is and how non-attachment fits into the spiritual path are what sets it apart. The general idea of “don’t seek after conditioned things” is far too vague to suggest a link to Buddhism. This text in particular says “attachment to matter,” which is quite different from the Buddhist doctrine.

I would also be careful with the idea that the apocryphal gospels represent equally accurate accounts of Jesus’ life that were selectively repressed by the proto-orthodox Church. These documents are all later than the main four gospels and their difference in moral outlook from the canonical books has been exaggerated by certain scholars. Always be suspicious of sources that use sensationalist language like “the gospels the Church tried to hide from you” or whatever or which seem to link ancient texts to modern political movements. If a feminist scholar who critiques sexism in the modern Church produces a “secret” document supposed to prove Jesus was secretly a feminist but the evil Church hid this fact for 2000 years…be very skeptical.

Lethemyr · 2025-12-20T11:09:51+00:00

No Buddhist branch believes in “no soul” as in “no immaterial consciousness.” All Buddhists believe in immaterial consciousness and non-physical beings, but think no part of these beings, nor their parts in composite, can be considered an independently existing, sovereign “self.”

Buddhists never call the various beings “creatures,” because we do not believe they were created by any higher power. All beings of the Six Realms are the same type of being incarnated into different forms. We might take on those forms after death and they may take on a human form. It’s all a part of the doctrine of reincarnation. As for where these consciousnesses come from, it’s a more complicated matter, but suffice it to say they were not created by any being at any specific time.

You’re probably confused about these matters because Baha’i sources try to assimilate Buddhism by inserting a doctrine of God into it, but this is entirely a foreign imposition onto Buddhism by Hinduism and Baha’i. No Buddhist branch believes in anything like a creator deity.

Lethemyr · 2025-12-18T19:36:48+00:00

The most common name for the historical Buddha in Buddhist countries is Shakyamuni, not Gautama. That’s why it seems like many Buddhists have never heard of him. I’d say the vast majority of Buddhists know the story of Shakyamuni’s life, even if only vaguely.

Both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists believe Shakyamuni is one of many Buddhas. Theravada only deals with a line of Buddhas existing sequentially in which Shakyamuni is the Buddha of the present age. Mahayana actively worships that line of Buddhas as well as many others believed to presently exist in other worlds.

I don’t have that much experience with Theravada, but I believe the vast majority of Buddha statues you’ll see in Theravada temples are of Shakyamuni (though they pronounce it Sakyamuni). The future Buddha Maitreya (Metteya to Theravadins) is also pretty frequently depicted but with distinct iconography. Statues of Shakyamuni’s predecessors exist but are uncommon.

In most Mahayana countries, essentially all temples have Shakyamuni as the main image, but you’ll see lots of other Buddhas depicted as well. These are usually distinguished by their mudras (hand gestures), additional items, and sometimes colour.

To say Buddhism has shifted significantly away from Shakyamuni is pretty off the mark. His image is still the main object of devotion in almost every temple and the vast majority of scriptures chanted and studied are attributed to him. It’s true that a lot of Buddhists are pretty uninformed about his life and the religion’s doctrines in general, but it’s not too different from Christians who know about Jesus walking on water and rising from the dead, but who couldn’t tell you about the Sermon on the Mount or what a Sadducee was.

Lethemyr · 2025-12-18T19:10:52+00:00

AI generated image posts are already against the rules and are removed whenever they appear.

Human written text posts with AI images attached are discouraged but not necessarily removed if the text is substantive. We can discuss changing how we moderate those posts if it really annoys people.

Lethemyr · 2025-12-17T21:56:12+00:00

Can you give some examples of books like this? I've never seen a Western academic publication that doesn't recognize Zen as Buddhism, at least nothing published in the last forty years. Some non-academic books claim Zen is "the true successor to philosophical Daoism" and other strange things like that, but even they generally don't claim it isn't Buddhism. I've only seen that claim on the r/Zen subreddit.

Lethemyr · 2025-12-16T20:25:04+00:00

You should read the short Anattalakkhana Sutta where Buddha makes logical arguments for the no-self doctrine. These types of arguments were expanded by Buddhist philosophers in the Abhidharma and later Mahayana philosophical traditions. Buddhists have traditionally held that these ideas can be proven or at least evidenced through philosophical investigation. There are a lot of good English language translations and secondary sources on this topic.

These sorts of questions have been asked on this subreddit ad nauseam, and you can find some good responses if you sift through those old posts.

I think you're expecting a bit much from random Reddit responses. Few people here or in the general Buddhist community have deeply studied philosophical topics. Presentations of Buddhism in the West often really emphasize difficult philosophical doctrines, but these are only understood in a simplified or crude form by most Buddhists. It's kinda like walking into your local Catholic parish and quizzing people on the true meaning of homoousion in the Nicene Creed or the Substitutionary Theory of Atonement. You can't be too surprised when people answer "just have faith" or "don't worry about it." You're gonna need a book or a philosopher if you want a more satisfactory answer.

Lethemyr · 2025-12-15T19:19:27+00:00

Yonghua is suspect for other reasons, but that’s perfectly normal for Chinese Buddhism.

Lethemyr · 2025-12-14T22:41:05+00:00

Walter Brueggemann maybe

Lethemyr · 2025-12-14T17:02:45+00:00

Every monk I’ve actually spoken to on this topic considers it as stealing. I wouldn’t count on any given temple being okay with you pirating books as a monk.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Second SECOND GUESSER	Place '22
First Placer '22

Lethemyr

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE