Viability1936

Why do you say that - are you referencing something specific or just a point about his framing of existence? I just finished "a short history of decay"

He doesn't, really at all. Even in his labeled buddhist lectures. Its more a new age blend of advaita vedanta/hinduisim/zen (kind of), but really kind of just his own creation. I'm the least familiar with actual advaita, but I'd imagine he's doing the same thing there that he's doing with buddhism. I'm very grateful to Alan Watts, because he was sort of an entry point for me, but ultimately he was what he said he was - a spiritual entertainer. Imo it was basically the most interesting form of self help. Not necessarily bad, but certainly not accurate on any of the topics he claimed to be speaking about

I think there's a lot of comparison between existensialism and buddhism because a few of them seemed to respect the buddh, but also as far as philosophy goes, they were the closest to understanding the problem (similar to how the buddha did) - but the point im trying to make is that that is as far as any of them went.

That isn't to say it was intentional or to fault them for it, its only natural. What the buddha figured out goes in the opposite direction of how existence is structured. It's essentially impossible to stumble upon, and definitely impossible to figure out purely through thinking. If ones behavior doesn't change, it remains intellectual. In order to abandon craving, you have to not act on it. Otherwise there's no space between 'you' and 'it' so you could never see it for what it is.

That's moreso what i meant by "Camus couldn’t conceive of" - especially in this day and age, you can only get so far without someone else pointing it out. Who would possibly randomly think to just not act on any intention of body, speech, or mind that was rooted in craving? Its in our nature to not do that, so its normal that no one else has gotten there through philosophizing. Shoppenhaur had his whole denial of will thing but he just moved the goalposts and settled on more refined sensuality.

I would even be careful about settling that the buddhist outlook is about acceptance of the ground truth of suyata. Most of that idea comes from later traditions. It definitely is mentioned in the pali canon, but not as some universal ground truth - that often leads to a different dressing around the nihilism you mentioned. The buddha said all determined things are subject to change. All determined things are unsatisfactory. All phenomena are not-self. It's not like there is a nature of reality that is empty or something like that.

(replying to part of another comment you posted): its not about accepting ultimate reality or accepting anything really - quite the opposite. The buddha over and over again told people not to be content with 'progress' they had make. The goal is the inability to suffer amidst things that cause sufferring. Not to learn how to accept them, or quickly deal with them as they come up, as is commonly taught - its to make it so its impossible to suffer no matter what. That can only be done through seeing the structure of your existence. Then you can't take its determined nature for granted anymore (ie take it personally)

I mean no offense if this the practice you've settled on and it works for your goals in life, but that is absolutely not what the buddha taught. It took me a long time to learn that what burbea was teaching is not 'buddhist' in any sense of the word. 'Meditating' to have pleasant or mind blowing experiences has nothing to do with developing the inability to suffer. Clinging doesn't sneak in and take over the mental cycles, "you" (me and anyone) ARE craving/clinging. Being is fueled by craving. Without it, there is no 'you'. The buddha taught the practice to reliably abandon craving and devlop the right view of existence. It has nothing to do with living up to you potential or anything like that.

I've listened to all of burbea's talks and read most of the TSTF, so i know where you're coming from. If it works for what you want, that's great. I would just encourage you look deeper if you think its what the buddha taught. Or really even related to what the buddha taught. It's pretty much the opposite direction

Camus saw the problem (or got close to it) but kept it. He noticed the craving for meaning, noticed the world won't answer it, and then chose to hold on to the craving anyway and call that defiance freedom. That's just suffering with extra steps and rationalizing it.

The buddha didn't offer a "justification for existence." He pointed out that the demand for one is the problem (part of it anyway). You crave meaning, the craving hurts, so abandon the craving (not just for meaning and not by an act of will). Camus couldn't conceive of that, so he made a virtue out of carrying the boulder

Probably because it's quickly becoming the only reasonable option on mobile

What hardware did you go with? I was thinking of getting the second most recent glinet to run openwrt, but haven't convinced myself it's worth it since my current tplink is still pretty new and is just be getting it to tinker (I don't currently even run any vlans or anything fancy)

To be frank, they are entirely different religions. Vajrayana is essentially Tibetan bon mixed with Hinduism.

Some of the most obvious differences are the rules for the monks. In vajrayana once you reach a certain state of enlightenment or convince your followers, you've reached a certain state. You essentially can do whatever you want and claim it's for the benefit of the students. In the pali canon, an arahat would follow the same rules as a monk who had been ordained for one day. Which would be no inconvenience to them, because there would be no desire to break any of the rules. Which is a direct contradiction. In vajarayana, a monk could have sex with his student as a means of helping them. According to the historical Buddha, that person is immediately no longer a monk. They essentially dismiss the entire pali canon as a lower teaching.

They also think that personal enlightenment/arahatship is a bad thing and that you should keep being reborn to help others. There are entire books written about why that doesn't make sense, but it's against the entire purpose of what the Buddha taught.

There are also a lot of teachings about the self that are categorically listed as wrong view in the pali canon.

I don't want to come of like I'm hating on the school or anyone who practices in it, but it's far from 'Buddhism' in a historical context. There are still many wise and compassionate people who have dedicated their lives to it.

That might be true if there were millions of people practicing a school of Christianity based on only what Jesus taught. As far as I know, there isn't, and isn't even a school based on that. Aside from that, what's described in the article is purely a western phenomenon that has emerged mostly in the last 20 years. It's arrogant (op) to pretend that that is Buddhism. They were in simultaneously critiquing it and participating in it.

Edit: countries to people

It's very weird seeing people online have debates about Buddhism that actually have nothing to do with what the historical Buddha taught. Everything mentioned in the article and most comments here are akin to making arguments against Christianity based on why Joseph Smith was a fraud. To point out that vajrayana is mostly in direct contradiction to what is in the pali Canon and the Chinese agamas is a historical fact, not a no true Scotsman.

The op was hard to finish after the immediate misunderstanding of the sutta on metta and bandits cutting you limb from limb. If you're interested in these topics, there are people who practice and understand them. As a general rule, it's probably not a good idea to form your opinions on meditation practice from self help blogs.