Holla Forums, why haven't you taken the anti-humanist buddhist-marxist pill?

No, he should base his communism on his own indigenous Saami shamanism.

sarvanash.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-fake-maoism-third-worldism-of-jason.html

Buddhism isn't compatible with Materialism they're fundamentally opposed to each other. Only contemoporary modern Buddhist monks from Tibet and SE Asia advertise Buddhism as a secular, materialist endeavor. Its not, none of the Mahayana Sutras or the Nikayas supports materialism. You cannot be Buddhist without belief in the intangible, the ineffable and the trascendental. The idea that Buddhism leads to realization of emptiness is a false view of a shallow practitioner who has merely begun on the Path. You are a heathen, like all atheist political types you pervert and defile every spiritual tradition you touch. Be gone

Who cares about what it proclaims? All that is important is what it does.
The 'spirit of capitalism' was fueled by nothing but greed and envy and Christianity was the only thing to stand in its way at that time. I wonder what it would look like if it originated in a buddhist country.
So angry for an enlightened being. Oh wait, shouldn't reply to you at all, since you don't exist.

The Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism have different doctrines, dumbass.

Would you explain it then and how Zizek gets it wrong? The argument presented in the second link is terrible. He accuses Zizek of not understanding Buddhism but then himself completely misrepresents the psychoanalytic position.

found the idiot

by this metric, you're even worse, Christianity did much worse here, it's what even spread capitalism

It didn't develop in the buddhist world. in fact, weber argues that buddhism obstructed its development. and no, christianity didn't stop it in the west, not at all. Read history, there was no problem at all between protestantism and capitalism.

wew. how can you know Zizek is right when you're such a dumbass that you don't even know what he was criticizing, even on a basic level.

The buddhist traditions are all dead. there is no legitimate lineage anymore.To think that there is some "authentic" buddhist way or school is being deluded. This is just directed towards your point on the "tradition" being perverted. It already is perverted, through colonialism, it's been largely affected including the vedic influences.

Anyways, you should read the book. that guy knows more than you, if you can see, he even the pali canon in that shelf. Do not be deluded into thinking that today's buddhist institutions are some pure authority not existing or being affected by modern ideology or society

his criticism is of the western appropriation of buddhism

It's called stoicism in the western world. You don't need to use oriental terms

no, it isn't, though he does criticize that which im glad he does.

it's a mess all over the place, on very basic grounds. i can list a whole tonne of stuff

if you read the buddhist texts or works by monks, they mention people's shit all the time

the nirvana misunderstanding as some happy-bliss or place where you go is the most embarrassing part.

to summarize, i think zizek is correct about buddhists but definitely wrong about buddhism

i agree that the guy had a bad attitude and seemed to be ignorant about psychoanalysis and leftistm, but he explains it right there

To be fair (again), the Islamic World was proto-capitalist centuries before Christian Europe was. The Islamic Golden Age was a time of free markets and arguably birthed the Renaissance and European Enlightenment, AKA capitalism.

we're not talking about islam though. the christian talked about what a religion "does" that mattered and now he's talking about christianity standing in the way of capitalism.

I'm not for romanticizing the "east", but there's really no contest between abrahamic religions involvement with conquest and the dharmic religions'.

what da fuq is this bullshit? reads like pomo rambling with some religious bullshit thrown in.

No its not, they aren't even close to the same thing at all. There are no stages of dhyana in Stoicism, no Bodhisattvas, no Karma. Fuck off you swine

Could you give us a primer on Buddhist Theology then?

false, they have been preverted but the original teachings are available on the internet for any and all to read. The greatest gift the internet has to offer is recording the corpus of human gnosis.
No you are deluded revisionist
No i said every single school of spiritual thought that vulgar, heathens like yourself touch is turned into a disgusting, evil mockery of itself. Look no further than Chris Hedges impoverished Catholocism, Sam Harris' pseudo buddhism and the crypto-vedanta of the transhumanists and techno-socialists. Its disgusting to me. Disgraceful and disgusting.
Recent translations from the last 50 years have avoided Westernizing the source material. I have it on good authority that most post-WW2 translations of Buddhist texts are faithful to their original content. This from people who actually study Buddhism as a way of life, not faggot heathens like you who wear it as a justification for their evil political beliefs.
No he absolutely does not
Grotesque advertisement of one's literacy in sutras does not begin to touch the level of wisdom and spiritual power someone must possess to understand even the most basic of Buddhist teachings. There is a reason most humans are doomed to reincarnate a billion times before they even begin to walk the Path.
I despise all of the Sanghas and "Traditions" that are nothing more than Theocratic tools of autocrats. I have zero influence from or respect for the existing schools. My entire knowledge of the subject comes from books and practice. Vulgar appeals to the Pali Canon (an exoteric book only useful to beginners and those who have gone so far they can see the esoteric) are worthless. You deserve nothing but silence. Be gone

He doesn't explain, that's what I'm saying. How can you agree that he is ignorant of psychoanalysis but then say he provides an adequate rebuttal of psychoanalysis. It's a very superficial article, mostly just attacking Zizek's character with a few out-of-context quotes thrown in. He doesn't address Zizek's central argument at all.

Buddhism has no theology
its the transmission of Buddha Dharma. Buddha Mind. There is nothing to teach and nothing to attain. This person is a wicked devil, deluding you all. Advertising Buddhism as a heathen Christian would advertise their egregore vampire god is disgraceful and brings terrible karma to you.

Buddha is Mind, there is only this One Mind.

Here is what Zizek says about Nirvana in Less Than Nothing. He doesn't seem to be saying that at all.

He seems to be crying about Buddha's 4 Noble Truths and the Sunyatta doctrine. Typical Christ-fag inspired ego-centric Westerner.

So can you explain what's wrong with it or am I just wasting my time talking to you?

Here is an annotation Zizek gives to clarify this paragraph. Again, if your understanding of Buddhism differs from Zizek's, I would like you to explain what he gets wrong.

What a surprise, another zizek critic shows that they don't understand zizek

The lineages are, even the Theravadin are not legitimate, they've been disconnected and this isn't even controversial among buddhists. Through colonialism and the influence from Vedic schools the buddhist schools are already heavily westernized. In order for them to survive the cultural hegemony from the West, they had to defend their religion/philosophy using Western-style argumentation and influences.This is well known. Only the deluded dogmatiwt would think that there's some "pure" untouched Buddhist school that dates all the way back to the Buddha. It even makes little sense know that you look down upon the institutions.

I'm tired of explaining this: archive.is/ylJuC#selection-5721.0-5714.4

I'm not a fucking "heathen", that doesn't even make any sense. Harris isn't even a buddhist, I don't even know exactly why you're attacking me.

wtf… you're a stupid dogmatist.

I found this and the YouTube comments this video (I know, it's surprising) actually offer many good critiques:

quora.com/Is-there-any-substance-to-Žižeks-attack-on-Buddhism

medium.com/cracked-sidewalk-press/slavoj-zizek-is-right-about-buddhists-wrong-about-buddhism-7b4bfcf39b3d#.75kwl6tjm

youtube.com/watch?v=lAtUPfF1R_s

You keep using foreign terms to describe concepts and ideas western civilization developed and mastered thousand years ago. The only reason why you are a buddhist is because you fell a victim of a expansion driven religious organization, because it was easier for you to be passively served a neat, simplified philosophical happy meal of McBuddhism, than to read the greek and roman classics.

this, so much

You did not address anything in my post. I'm not going to go digging in youtube comments for an argument because you don't have one.

buddhism predates stoicism. You should thank buddhism for tremendously influencing the existentialists. Where do you think the concept of "nothingness" and anti-essentialism comes from,.

Mother of god…

accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca1/dukkha.html

Buddhism, doesn't believe that "people want to be happy". Masochism is already a part of dukkha. Zizek has a problem with that idea because he connects it to the liberal "enlightened hedonism" you see today. Dukkha doesn't mean "suffering".

Birth is dukkha, death is dukkha.

its easy to even notice that buddhism and psychoanalysis share a a lot of parallels.

are you dense?
talked about how the greeks "mastered" it a thousand years ago. He is the one that mentioned time in order to make it seem more grand.

also its fucking ironic but do you guys know where many stoic terms come from? like "ataraxia"?

they came from the east, from alexander's conquest lmao. If you even think about it for a moment, that aforementioned concept is very eastern.

even happiness and pleasure are dukkah.

the stoics are younger philosophical school than Buddhism which dates back to nearly 600 BCE. Chan or Chinese Mahayana Buddhism is about as old as Stoicism and Bodhidharma's pilgrimage to China took place around the same time as Stoicism's complete decline into obscurity. In fact there are extensive theories that Buddhist thought was brought westward by the Hellenic Eastern Empires that stretched into India and the Afghan mountains. You are ignorant of both history and the language of Eastern philosophy. Dhyana is meditation (not bullshit westernized nonsense meditation that's taught to yoga moms and softward nerds or Joe Rogan), Bodhisattvas are people who have almost reached Buddhahood but turn back from nibanna so that they can save all of the sentient beings in existence from reincarnation and suffering, Kamma is the process of attachmetn and obstruction that binds the mind to incarnation and the world and gives rise to every defilement and hell imaginable.

You know little to nothing about anything like most heathens

Buddhism is superior because it was practiced by beautiful Hellenic Greeks and not by disgusting ugly western nerds like Stoicism is. There's a good reason to keep your bullshit faux Atheist pessimism to yourself

Yes all faggot normie attachments are suffering. That doesn't mean you stop having sex, stop eating, stop sleeping or stop having friends. You've read literally none of the in depth discourses or technical texts. Why not read a book and stop making things up (a rather experienced Zen practitioner is the first person who taught me to stop making stupid shit up about Buddhism) or do you intend to advertise your ignorance to everyone here further than you already have? Start with the Nikayas, move on to the Diamon Sutra, the Mahanirvana Sutra, the Heart Sutra, then move on to MulaMadhyamakakarika, then Zen texts (you will not progress further than this for years), finally revisit Vajrayana when you've stripped yourself of your faggot nihilism and materialism. Stop being a vain moron

There was nothing ironic about the statement that followed. Kill yourself. You are the worst possible person to proselytize Buddhism.

This is only partially true. He does make the connection but he does not conflate the two. He himself says that enlightened hedonism is a misunderstanding of Buddhism. What you and many others are missing is that Zizek's criticism of western enlightened Buddhism and his criticism of Buddhist ontology are two different things. Part of this is Zizek's fault because it's not so clear in his rambling lectures but if you read his books, particularly Less Than Nothing, it is very clear.

Buddhism is the answer. Everything else is illusion and delusion.

No i practice Dhyana, I hate Buddhists. I spread the Buddha Dharma, Bodhidharma (understand?).
Stoicism isn't classical anything its for faggot atheists to feel better about their cucked faggot souls, which are blackened and defiled by materialism and nihilism. Its nothing to do with the spirituality of the Illiad or of the Orphic rites and Bacchic/Dionysian mysteries you lowly heathen. Why not read a book while you're pretending to be enlightened? Have you read the Odyssey, the Orphic and Dionysian mysteries? Do you understand the secrets of the Sex cults and virility cults of the Ancient World? If you did you would hardly be a leftist. Stoicism is to the Classics what Democritus is to Thales and Solon a cheap, weakling imitation of the real power of genius.

Yes, Zizek makes the exact same point, which is why he spends so much time on Buddhism. He wants to show where Buddhism and psychoanalysis differ.

This is you and most of leftypol

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icchantika

Nothing will save any of you

So, do I just shill again that comic book about the Mongol horde and he nazbol dictator and stuff?

Wew
Yeah you're really enlightened.

the buddha was an atheist, he might have not been a materialist but he literally said that it didn't matter if you believed in rebirth because the only thing that really matters is your virtue

This thread is why we need state atheism.

Thoroughly debunked nonsense. Read elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/#129875.html

...

Because after investigating primary sources I learned that taking the robe and being a mendicant is a lot more comfortable and desirable than doing backbreaking labor on the in the fields like the peasants.

Also Buddhism has just as corrupt a priesthood as Christianity. Relatively few monks meditate, many live opulent lifestyles as local or international celebrities like TV evangelicals, there are problems with pedophilia, hypocrisy, etc.

It's just not that different. If you have any beef with Catholicism, Buddhism has all the same shit going on.

youtu.be/BN7FpwAa-Ls

i don't get this part, can you explain.
also, remember that some medicant traditions are extreme, but of course it's preferable to "voluntarily" join some of these traditions than being a slave