/lit/ - Literature

>>23048653
It's Nihilism in that there is nothing to think about but the experience/state itself is beyond description.

>>23048669
Is everyone's experience supposed to be the same or different?

Compare these two statements:
>There is something to strive for beyond chasing worldly pleasures, and there is a system of training we can follow to attain it.
versus
>There is nothing besides satisfying desires and avoiding pain, we are just clumps of cells.
Which sounds more nihilistic to you?

>>23048653
Nihilism and eternalism are known as the "two extremes", which the Middle Way (Madhyamaka) philosophy of Emptiness (Shunyata) deals with.

This is all pre-Zen, because it comes from Nagarjuna. If you want to get into Zen, start with some koans or with shinkantaza. It's a gentle introduction

>>23048653
just sit and breath or join s monastery
>Duke Huan was reading a book at the top of the hall, wheelwright Bian was chipping a wheel at the bottom of the hall. He put aside his mallet and chisel and went up to ask Duke Huan:

>May I ask what words my lord is reading?

>The words of a sage.

>Is the sage alive?

>He’s dead.

>In that case what my lord is reading is the dregs of the men of old, isn’t it?

>What business is it of a wheelwright to criticize what I read? If you can explain yourself, well and good. If not, you die.

>Speaking for myself, I see it in terms of my own work. If I chip at a wheel too slowly, the chisel slides and does not grip; if too fast, it jams and catches in the wood. Not too slow, not too fast; I feel it in the hand and respond from the heart, the mouth cannot put it into words, there is a knack in it somewhere which I cannot convey to my son and which my son cannot learn from me. That is how through my seventy years I have grown old chipping at wheels. The men of old and their untransmittable message are dead. Then what my lord is reading is the dregs of the men of old, isn’t it?

>>23049287
Ultimately the same because it’s the nature of reality but it’ll be expressed differently due to everyone being unique on the worldly level.

we’re all just monkeys trying to satisfy ourselves in one way or another, even if it means pretending that we are more than just monkeys by renouncing certain desires, though of course no one actually does this as they continue to eat lol

>>23048653
You probably want to read Nagarjuna beforehand since he influenced the whole thing from the outset.

>Once the monks of the Western and Eastern Halls were arguing about a cat. Nansen, holding up the cat, said, “You monks! If you can say a word of Zen, I will spare the cat. Otherwise I will kill it.” No one could answer, so Nansen cut the cat in two. That evening, when Joshu returned, Nansen told him of the incident. Joshu thereupon took off his sandal, put it on his head, and walked off. Nansen said, “If you had been there, the cat would have been saved!”
Read this over and over until you are enlightened

>>23049314
^Case in point, this is nihilism and Buddhism isn't.

>>23050272
Buddhism:
>yes evolution is true, we are monkeys, but like, just ignore this haha

>>23049298
It's in the early sutras. This is the only sutra Nagarjuna quotes in the Mulamadhyamakakarika
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html

>>23050278
>

>>23050317
Is evolution true?
Do all of our desires exist because they evolved?
Is our desire to be enlightened also a byproduct of evolution?

>>23050278
you believe in creation ex nihilo, you are far more of a nihilist than any Buddhist

>>23048653
Charles Luk’s three series “Chan and Zen Teachings” is seminal, compiled and written by a Chan Buddhist himself (Chan is the Chinese antecedent of Japanese Zen), and containing important Mahayana sutras and Chan and Zen writings over centuries, with commentary on them. Hard to go wrong with it, and, if you’re worried about that, it’s in no way “Westernized” or “New Agey”, but a very traditional recounting.

>>23050346
>Is evolution true?
No, according to the Agganna Sutta we are descended from highly exalted deities called abhassara-brahmas.
>Do all of our desires exist because they evolved?
No, they have existed since beginningless time due to primordial ignorance, avijja.
>Is our desire to be enlightened also a byproduct of evolution?
No

>>23050395
So you deny science and are on par with deluded christcucks. Thanks for making everything clear.

>>23050398
Happy to oblige

>>23050250
the problem with zen is they don't differentiate between heureka moments and buddhahood. Even after many years when they attain satori according to the local dude in charge, they proceed to waste another multiple years while claiming, at least some of the do, that you can still have flaws of a human and cling to external illusions and in the same time be enlightened. This way the zen enlightment would be one of the dimmest enlightment of all philosophic systems not only buddhism if any at all.
In many koans is stated
>yadayada this
>then this here that
>at this moment he become enlightened
when they actually mean that the dude in question understood what the other was saying/doing

>>23050531
Cha'an schools tend to view satori as a process of Becoming with multiple kensho illuminating it. Sometimes as permanent removal of an obstacle (supported as theravadin stream enterers have a similar status), as viewing a reflection of the end state, or as a stage of something that is iterative and takes time to stabilize. It's not really a gotcha to say that. I'd also be wary of anything translated from Chinese because they talk in, not a philosophical language like tibetan or sanskrit, but this bastard mix of street slang and taoist poetry. Translations fail to render a lot of the major works in the style they were written.

>>23049287
in zen buddhism there is no experience nor self to experience it, so neither

>>23050531
>>23050549
>>23050563
This is why you start with the 'Jeets. Even the Chinks know it goes through the monk Bodhidharma. There's really no such thing as Zen. There is a mostly Chinese-mediated recension of waves of (often conflicting) Indian Buddhist literature which arrived scattershot in bits and pieces before export to Korea and Japan. This literature itself roughly speaking comes in three groupings, which for neutrality's sake are pre-Mahayana (or more pejoratively, Hinayana), Madhyamaka (Mahahana), and Yogacara/Vijñanavada (Mahayana). No-self isn't Zen. Enlightenment just being the eradication of ignorance of reality isn't Zen. The need to discipline minds clinging to external illusions isn't Zen. These ideas were all developed already in India, being debated back and forth, at different times, but to China it was all Buddhism. Mahayana has had an open canon, scriptures are allowed to be "revealed," complete opposite of Christianity in that regard, saints were allowed to reforge the religion in the absense of anyone to say otherwise. The only way to really appreciate the surgical brevity of Zen is to know this context; China (and Japan) were attempting to consolidate the collected works of "Buddha"

>>23048653
>Do you I need to know anything about Buddhism?
Not sure what you meant by this, but I'll have a guess:
>Do I need to know anything about Buddhism?
Not really. If you find its tenets appealing - which you very well might, given the amount of variants out there - you would yourself benefit from reading up on it. If you know nothing a good starting place is the diamond sutra. It's more favored in the mahayana tradition but you still get a feel for what it's about in all of the varieties.

>how is it not just nihilism?
Buddhism in its doctrinal core, and in general, has little to say on the meaning of life. It's a philosophical and therapeutic system purporting to free you from the bondage of mortal existence (which, if you take the Buddha's word, is suffering.) Reality or unreality of reincarnation notwithstanding. Since every Buddhist heuristic and activity is directed at achieving nirvana (iow. extinction) you could say the "meaning" of the Buddhist religion, insofar as it exists beyond the lay religions that tend more so to take on the form of spirit worship merging with local folk mythos (as with Shinto in Japan), it's not nihilist. Taking some creative liberties one could say that it assert that life is a dance around nothing but this I think would be an unfairly western reading of the phenomenon. You're still free to treat it that way, however. There is good reason to be had for thinking this way if you hold to a different idea of life.

Zen is a different matter since, as I mentioned, Buddhism has had the tendency to merge with belief systems around it. Zen is a Japanese outspring of Chan Buddhism which itself is loosely Mahayana and Taoism based. It features eclectic and esoteric doctrines unique to the island nation that thematically on many points would seem to run entirely diametrical to orthodox Mahayana Buddhism. A good starting point for Zen if you already have basic knowledge of Mahayana Buddhism is Dogen's papers. More western friendly is Alan Watts but I can't recommend him wholesale.

>>23050833
>you could say the "meaning" of the Buddhist religion
should be
>you could say that's the "meaning" (...), and insofar

I'm off my game

>>23048653
Outside all of the religious context, zen is basically living in the moment and to stop over thinking things so as to enter a sort of flow state, where you just do whatever you need to do.

Scientifically I have heard that there are two mental states that people switch between throughout their day.
One is a slow, energy intensive process, typically you use this when doing homework or trying to do a tough puzzle. This is a large waste of calories so the brain doesn't like staying in this mode for long.
The other mode is a lot faster, it does this by making a lot of shortcuts through assumptions. It's less energy intensive so the brain likes this mode more. (This is why people intrinsically like putting things into mental buckets for future quick assumptions.) but it is also tied to your reflex and autonomous actions like riding a bike or brushing your teeth.

I believe the real art of Zen is to optimizes this faster mode to the point of mastery. Think about it this way; How many times have you spent hours trying to make a decision, only to basically flip a coin the last minute?

The parts that are seen as nihilism, is mostly meant to be interpretation as an explanation of your existence of "you". You are part of something greater, a physical part of this grand universe made self aware; and at the same time a master of your own destiny by existing in the "now". The "Now" is where you have, and always will existing.

This is just my interpretation. And I believe that is a key part of it. You are not suppose to take anyone's teachings of Zen as dogma, but instead Interpretate it yourself.

I would recommend listening to Alan Watts. You can find hours of his old seminars on youtube add free.
Personally I have been listening to him lately when I have trouble sleeping do to a restless mind.

>zen
>know
he doesn't know

>>23051272
Tell me then?
>Inb4 it cannot be known or taught
Then how did other philosophers do it?

>>23052647
zen has no link to buddhism
and nibanna is not a samadhi state

>>23048653
1

>>23048653
2

>>23048653
3

>>23053014
>>23053019
>>23053027
Thanks, anon.

>>23053114
np!

>>23048653
>jhana (to burn [off/away]): Dgzogchen: Chan: Zen

It's apophatic theurgy, objective negation leads to subjective synthesis/[Self-]coherence with the Absolute. Gotama was wont to name his teaching, but on the few Pali Canon occasions he does, it's literally "Path/Way to Brahman".

George Grimm. Doctrine of the Buddha.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.70145

Post-schismatic Buddhism is a syncretic mixed bag wherever it goes. This will set you straight. Also check the /x/ Buddhism general pasta for the various denominations, which isn't terrible.

>is it nihilism

Theravada may as well be, and the name as such is punned as "annihilationists". Gained that not unwarranted reputation in early Western Orientalism because that's who they came across first.

>>23054192
I see you Wheeler

>>23050531
>>23050619
I wouldn’t say that Zen has “nothing to teach any better than any other schools of Buddhism have offered”, or, “There’s really no such thing as Zen” in the sense you guys seem to give to it. The focus on instantaneous enlightenment in Chan and Zen surely is a unique aspect of it and a worthy contribution to our direct knowledge or experience. In fact, if you know how much Chan and Zen are indebted to Mahayana Buddhism (and how they encapsulate and reiterate Mahayana in their often terse, telegrammatic, and sometimes obscure, bafflingly riddle-like ways), it wouldn’t sound too insane to say that Chan/Zen is simply the “instantaneous enlightenment”-version of the teachings of the Mahayana (although I have to admit that this poster >>23050619 sees that and essentially is making the same point I’m making in this respect — how much Chan/Zen is indebted to Mahayana and is a particular version of it).

It may sound like an elementary observation, but when you see, understand, know or learn something, you do it ALL AT ONCE. You don’t “sort of understand” how 2 and 2 makes 4, or the sky is blue. You either see it, or you don’t. Now, you may be on a preliminary stage to understanding it, like being an infant learning a human language, learning how to count, how to split things off from each other and give names or labels or definitions to them, and what certain sentences, concepts or teachings mean, but, even in that case — you still either SEE 2 and 2 makes 4, or you don’t. Being “halfway towards learning it” (as an infant or whoever else) doesn’t make a shit towards actually knowing and seeing 2 and 2 makes 4.

Chan/Zen (for simplicity’s sake now just to be called “Zen”) applies this to the Buddha’s teachings. You either see what the (immediately available) nature behind or truth of perception/cognition/volition/desire/your-own-“self” is (and, by extension, the nature/truth of the “world”, which is itself necessarily an extension or projection of such a pre-given perception/cognition/or as the Zen Buddhists would variously say, “self-nature”, “mind,” “one Buddha-mind”, “Buddha-nature”, “Dharmakaya”, “Tathagatagarbha”, or other such epithets, etc.), or you don’t.

In much simpler terms, there is no (so-called) “world” without a presupposed (so-called) “I” or “self”. So, if you truly see into and immediately understand in a glimpse the nature of this “I” or “self”, then you, by extension, also see right into the nature of this same “world” being projected by this same “self”. And this seeing is the heart of Zen.

>>23050531
>>23050619
>>23054695
So, in a way — and which the Zen Buddhists have frequently and constantly brought up themselves — Zen is more a cosmic and nonlocal tradition, a timeless and spaceless one, than it is one historically contingent and caught-up in such-and-such-a-way in Asian history and scholarship of Buddhism, merely a mainly Central and Eastern Asian/Oriental oddity bound in the words and sayings of dead men, often with yellow-peachish skin and squinty eyes.

So, in this sense, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Rajneesh, or Gurdjieff potentially has at least as much to teach you about “Zen” as Bodhidharma, Huang Po, Dōgen, D.T. Suzuki or Shunryu Suzuki does. It is a cosmic timeless tradition of seeing directly into the nature/truth of world/self, or as Bodhidharma might say, “Zen points directly to the human heart, see into your nature and become Buddha.”

>>23054695
>The focus on instantaneous enlightenment in Chan and Zen surely is a unique aspect of it and a worthy contribution to our direct knowledge or experience.
The entirety of the idiotic debate about sudden or gradual entanglement stems from the lack of understanding of how a conditioned path leads to the unconditioned, and zen has no good contribution to it, because it's plagued by this misunderstanding exactly like all indian and chinese mahayanas.

And it's possible to be partially englithened. It's not all or nothing. The whole struggle of the stream winners and once returners is that they know there's still conceit and there's still grasping at some aggregate, typically the consciousness one.

>>23054702
>Zen is more a cosmic and nonlocal tradition, a timeless and spaceless
It's buddhism which is timeless and space-less. All mahayana branches, zen included, are the opposite because the entirety of the Mahayana canon is a footnote to the Sarvastivada abhidharma.

>OP asks for books on zen
>>23053014
>>23053019
>>23053027
>>23053114
>>23053137

This is zen. The rest of this thread is not zen.

>>23055070
Thanks.

>>23054788
>the Sarvastivada abhidharma.
literally the only reason we know about Sarvastivadin abhidharma is because Tibetan monastic curriculum preserved it... as a footnote to Mahayana

I'm going to get roasted for this, but if you know nothing, try The Way of Zen by Alan Watts for a light, entertaining primer that highlights the humor in Zen. A more serious answer would be The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma translated by Red Pine- it's short and to the point.

>>23055070
Exclusivity is not Zen.

>>23056804
*Puhua kicks you in the face and laughs*

>>23055070
Is >>23050361 not also such a recommendation that’s authentically Zen? Or do you only count posts with pictures since they’re more alluring and pretty? Very well then, I’ll post a picture.

>>23048653
>>23048653
If Zen is nihilistic to you, then you are not a buddhist and/or you are attached to emptiness.
Find a Roshi, read some books, but first start sitting regularly. Also, I cannot help but poke at the silliness of your OP. Buddhism comes with an 8-step program. I highly recommend you start there.

>How do I master Zen
lol, lmao.

Who is doing the mastering? What is this Zen object you chase? Present me with the Self, and I will end your suffering. If I could, I would smack you 10,000 times. Let go, you colossal faggot.


Bodhidharma, Nagarjuna, Dogen, Suzuki

>>23057890
*urinates*

>now. Now is important because the moment that is right here, right now, is eternal, abiding forever.
>Sometimes people think that Zen practice is a bridge between suffering and happiness: we practice first and then we will be happy. But practice and happiness are not separate. Practice is not a bridge—practice itself is joy.
>Nirvana is not enlightenment; it is everyday life based on wisdom. Nirvana is the generous, magnanimous state of existence where all aspects of human experience come in and are digested, moment after moment, creating complete peace.
>Enlightenment is a state in which we are exactly one with the truth and see the ultimate nature of existence. When you really see time, you are present from moment to moment and a huge magnanimous world comes up. ... Then eternity is alive in everyday life. That is real enlightenment.
>there are two ways to take care of human life: according to the law of causation and according to freedom from causation. This is very important. If you try to take care of your life only according to causation, you are always restless. You cannot find peace.
>To find a peaceful life, first of all you have to settle yourself in the self
>Don’t attach to thoughts and emotions; just let them return to emptiness. Just be present
>The most important target you have to aim at is right now, right here.
>Life and death occur in a moment. In other words, life and death are nothing but moment.
>I think the purpose of spiritual life is just to go toward the future with great hope..., but I don’t attach to it. ....has unlimited hope about human life and the human world,..but we never attach to it. This is a key point.
>forget the self you believe you are.
>If you don’t understand, please keep your mouth shut
>If you practice and penetrate this very moment, you are absorbed into the flow of that undefiled, clear, and pure activity. Then when you do something, you feel something wonderful. You cannot explain it, but this is creativity in life. It’s beautiful! Everything is there, melted into your form and clear like a jewel.
>And then, beyond your expectation, your life will be changed. You can taste something wonderful. You feel relief. At that time a sense of gentleness, generosity, and majesty comes forth from every pore of your body
>Do this and then you are called a person who is master of yourself in whatever situation you may be.
>You can do this! Right now, right here is the best time and place for you to do it, and you are a person who can practice this spiritual way of life.


This was funny:
>I don’t understand why, when Americans go to Japan, they love Japan. Japan is very small. I love the United States; it’s huge!

>>23050619
Oh that might be one of the most helpful charts I've ever seen, I've tried getting into huayan buddhism but it was too complex after having just read the middle length discourses and the diamond sutra. This seems to provide an actual entrypoint.

>>23059853
The Cleary translation of the Avatamsaka sutra, which is from the 1980s and obscures some of the Buddhist technical vocabulary, should be replaced by Bhikshu Dharmamitra's. It is as long as any of the nikayas so not an easy starting point for Mahayana let alone Buddhism. I would pair the Heart Sutra with Vimalakirti as well (use BDK published translation, older English ones have similar issue with using quirky English renderings for vocabulary, like "gnosis" for who knows what). Basically you want as much unaltered vocabulary as possible, helps you do apples to apples as you read different stuff, and alao forces you to understand and notice when and how and why different texts use the same concepts differently

>>23054695
>The focus on instantaneous enlightenment in Chan and Zen surely is a unique aspect of it and a worthy contribution to our direct knowledge or experience.
Dzogchen does that better

>>23061220
>"gnosis" for who knows what
Gnosis is a cognate of Sanskrit jñana

>>23061249
But is that a good translation of jñana? Who uses gnosis to mean deep meditative states?

>>23061327
Jnana isnt just a meditative state, it's insight into the true nature of reality

>>23061379
So why are there four of them? Why do you progress from one to the other? Buddhist "gnosis" being a process introduces confusion where there shouldn't be. It's more contentious than merely dhyana/jñana, we have to agree what gnosis means and then agree it means what jñana means. What's next, calling dependent arising "transubstantiation"?

>>23061401
Pali jhana is Sanskrit dhyana, not jñana, they're different words. And jñana is a process in that you can be distracted from that knowledge. The jñana of a first stage bodhisattva and a fully enlightened buddha is the same, but a buddha is never distracted while bodhisattvas are, and they become less and less distracted as the progress on the bhumis.

>>23061442
kek if you are going to argue that jhana, dhyana, and jñana, are entirely separate ideas, there's no way you can support using gnosis as a translation. Leave them uncut

>>23048653
What does a 4chan logo next to your anon mean

Spirituality and nihilism are very similar to each other. In fact, nihilism may just be spirituality in the mirror: an inverted likeness. The only real point of divergence between spirituality and nihilism is the assertion that there is something worth it in the end, which is something nihilism rejects. Spirituality asserts that only that thing is worth anything: everything else is worthless, which is the great concordance of nihilism and spirituality.

>>23048653
Zen is about avoiding anxiety by trying to discipline your mind so that you are, as much as possible, aware of the fact that 99% of your thoughts are mindless bullshit that don't matter and all the really matters is immersing yourself in life, contributing to whatever is positive and responding appropriately to whatever is negative

>>23061502
Paid for a 4chan pass (gets to skip CAPTCHA, gets lower cooldowns between replies).

>>23048653
Zen mind, beginner's mind is a good start.
I read Hardcore Zen afterwards, which is an easy read and answers most questions one has about zen. If you're more serious about it you can start reading Shobogenzo. I also read Novice to Master by Soko Morinaga, which had some decent ideas in it.

>>23061504
It makes all the difference though, because paradoxically, under nihilism, everything trivial takes on an inordinate amount of meaning through lifes essential meaninglessness which makes us suffer and develop addictions and neuroses, whereas under spirituality, since life is a gift, everything trivial actually transmutes into something more genuinely meaningful.

>>23061511
>>23061522
>>23061533
Cool numbers
Master Seeker
Master Builder
Master Teacher

We're doing it boys we're really doing it. The masons are pissed

>>23061474
Obviously jhana and dhyana are connected because they're the same word. Where are you getting the idea that jhana and jñana are connected? Being able to enter into the jhanas doesn't necessarily equal achieving jñana. Jhanas are states of shamatha, jñana is vipashyana.

>>23061533
As the Sufis say, you have to die before you die. It is only after the world crushes you with no remainder that it reveals that it was a miracle all along.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e6a7SW8wZA

>>23049289
Doesn't Zen repudiate striving as a means of attaining enlightenment?

>>23049289
>There is something to strive for beyond chasing worldly pleasures, and there is a system of training we can follow to attain it.
Is that what Zen is? But everyone, even is this thread is saying otherwise. That it isn't concrete and is non-existent. What is that "something" that is beyond worldly pleasures? And what is the "system" and "training" to attain it?

>>23063455
A big thing in Buddhism in general is that it cannot be put in words, which is something Zen is really focused on. Dogen is said to have exclaimed "There is no mind and no body!" upon attaining enlightenment, so that gives you an idea. For the system of training, you probably want to get involved with an actual Zen center/monastery if you can find one near you. Also, remember that moral behavior (going out of your way to be of benefit to others) is a critical part of authentic spirituality.

>>23048669
Read Religion and Nothingness if you want to understand why it's not nihilism. This is a frequent claim made by Westerners with a superficial understanding of Buddhism.

>>23064090
>Morality is concerned only with actions. And I want to say to you, Zen has nothing to do with morality. It is pure religiousness, which is a much higher point of view. It does not decide what is right and wrong, it simply wants your consciousness to have the clarity to see in every situation. The question is never of deciding. Deciding means that doubt has already arisen. Deciding means you are wavering; deciding means half of you is on this side and half of you on that side, and you are troubled about where to go.

>A man of pure consciousness never decides, he simply acts spontaneously. There is nothing good for him and nothing bad for him.

>>23064096
I don't need to read to know why it isn't.

>>23064101
Am I the only one who thinks that's retarded?

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" -Aristotle?

Deciding doesn't mean doubt, and it doesn't even mean belief, as long as you aren't an uneducated retard.

Maybe I'm just a conspiracy theorist, but ideas like that indian dude spouts remind me of a shared feature in most religions that seem to want to mold people into passive automatons, to better suit the needs of the elite by allowing them to give the common people LESS, so they can have MORE.

I think that's the sad common theme among most religions. And it's why the Gospel of Thomas was taken out of the bible. The gospel of Thomas teaches you Gnosticism, and the powers that be can't have people checking out of society like that.

>>23064202
Osho is a fraudster idolized by western roasties, that's all you need to know

>>23064232
>>23064202
NTA and not even an Osho fan but you two are beyond filtered

>>23064246
Are we filtered? Don't you think you only need to take his advice because your life sucks and it's the only way you can get through the day between your morning SSRIs and your nightly GABA-inhibitors?

If you actually lived your life well you wouldn't need to CBT yourself into the gray 'never good/never bad', because your life would mostly be good and the bad wouldn't be a big deal.

Don't get me wrong, I love stoicism, Marcus Aurelius is the man and his insights bring me a lot of peace. Spiritually I understand the need for just being, and the beauty and immortality that exists in being neither good or bad, but just "okay".

But I'm not dead yet, when I'm dead, everything will be okay. Until then I rage against the dying of the light.

If you can't simultaneously accept that duality, that everything is going to be okay, while also fighting while you have fight left in you, you're just going to either be eaten by the metaphorical demiurge that is existence, and spit back out into another body (extrinsic desires), or eaten by yourself and left in a hell of your own creation.(intrinsic desires)

Live life; death will be there for you either way. There is no point in living like you're already dead.

That is the middle path, the path the Buddhas, Jesus, and Lao Tzu thought of when doing their great works.

>>23064503
No, Buddha most definitely did not think that, he literally said the goal is to die and never be born again. There are pretty life affirming strains of Buddhism though, it's just that Buddha was no teaching that. Check out this Buddha quote:

> It would be better, foolish man, for your penis to enter the mouth of a highly venomous snake than to enter a woman.

>>23064527
>Buddha most definitely did not think that

Which one?

There were more than one Buddha, maybe you picked out that one because you're focused more on demoralizing an otherwise growth oriented discussion, rather than growing.

Maybe that Buddha was wrong, how would we know he was right, after all, we aren't Buddhas are we?

>>23064527
I've been bitten by snakes, and I've had my penis in the mouth of a woman, and I can say without doubt or hesitation that the latter was better.

I can't believe the above even needs to be said. How foolish can you be to form a worldview solely from texts instead of combining what you read (which is simply a loose guide) with what you actually experience?

For all you know, that text has been mistranslated, or worse, outright changed by "the powers that be" to convince you not to pursue something good. Why would they do that? It's simple really... They want to be the ones with their dick in a woman's mouth, if they convince you not to do it, they get more for themselves. Apply this logic to the teachings of Peter in the bible, or any religion really. They're all manipulated texts designed by people in power to trick you.

This is hard to put into words because I don't mean to say there isn't wisdom in the texts, it's just that you have to combine it with real experience for any of it to be useful.

>>23064576
okay how do you know what you experienced is the ultimate one and how do you know that what you are doing which is contrary to the buddha is not what prevents you to reach the peak of the life experience?

>>23065119
>okay how do you know what you experienced is the ultimate one and how do you know that what you are doing which is contrary to the buddha is not what prevents you to reach the peak of the life experience?

I want to start by correcting you on one thing: "contrary to the buddha"
Contrary to ONE OF THE buddhas, there were more than one.

To answer your question in good faith: because I died in a dream, but instead of waking up I saw God. I then woke up smiling and haven't feared death ever since. It was the most peaceful I've ever felt and was filled with the overwhelming feeling of "everything is okay". It wasn't euphoric pleasure, it wasn't pain, it was just okay. And that was EVEN BETTER than pleasure.

But if you're open to a dialog I have some questions for you:
How do you know a Buddha experienced the peak of life experience? How do you know his techniques will work the same for you?

But most importantly, did it work for you personally? Are you experiencing the peak of life experience right now?

>>23065326
>I saw God
What did he look like?

>>23064527
>the goal is to die and never be born again.
That's an annihilationist view rejected by the Buddha
>Check out this Buddha quote:
That's directed towards monks who have taken a vow of celibacy, he's talking about the negative karma of breaking vows, not having sex

>>23065326
>Contrary to ONE OF THE buddhas
Shakyamuni is a Supreme Nirmanakaya, a direct emanation of the Dharmakaya Buddha. Even in Mahayana, he's more important than other Buddhas. All of the Dharma that exists in our world system which is available to us is the dispensation of Shakyamuni Buddha, without him we wouldn't have anything.

>>23065645
That is not annihilationism, Buddha said he would never be born again after his death. He was, of course, famously silent on the question on just what he would be after his death, since he rejected both eternalism and annihilationism.

>>23064534
It's Shakyamuni, I do take him as THE Buddha, though I guess Padmasambhava would have a very different take on all this.

>>23064202
>Deciding doesn't mean doubt
It does. A decision is made between at least two alternatives. To doubt, dubitare, to double, to think twice. In enlightenment/emptiness/nirvana there are no decisions, no doubts, no alternatives, no cost-benefit analysis, no measurements, no calculations.

>>23065968
>Padmasambhava would have a very different take on all this
He wouldn't, Shakyamuni is THE Buddha for all of us. In relation to Padmasambhava, Shakyamuni is actually one of the twelve Buddhas who taught Dzogchen, and he prophesied Garab Dorje.

>>23066143
Padmasambhava took consorts, that's wildly different from Shakyamuni

>>23065455
Like a undulating fractal sun with gem like facets that would morph into each other, like it was 4 dimensional

>>23066088
>In enlightenment/emptiness/nirvana there are no decisions, no doubts, no alternatives, no cost-benefit analysis, no measurements, no calculations.
AKA death

>>23066346
The fact that image is 333KB is pretty crazy. I didn't mean for that to happen, I just picked the first image I could find that kinda looked like what I saw from an AI generator

>The number 3 biblically represents divine wholeness, completeness and perfection.

>>23066314
Yeah, because Padmasambhava was a lay tantrika (although he was ordained for a time), he still was a follower of the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha. Shakyamuni is a Supreme Nirmanakaya, without him the Dharma wouldn't exist in our world.

>>23066314
Also, Shakyamuni taught the tantras. King Indrabhuti asked to be taught a path he could practice and remain a king with many consorts, so Shakyamuni gave him the Guhyasamaja empowerment.

>>23066462
Yeah, that's what the Tibetans would say, but come on, that's not a consensus and is not consistent with what's on the Pali canon.

Every tradition has this thing, where everyone is pretending to be so very traditional even as they step out of the tradition. Vajrayana does, Jesus did it, Muhammad did it. Buddha, however, gets a special recognition for doing this knowingly, not pretending that he was affirming the Vedas or some such. Though he did make the claim of not being the first Buddha, and that his doctrine was not novel, so he still was trying to cloak himself in tradition in a way.

>>23050395
Slit your throat, icchantika.

>>23066549
My point is just that, within Tibetan Buddhism, there is no contradiction between tantrika Padmasambhava and monastic Shakyamuni.

>>23066597
>referencing sutras makes you icchantika
Are mahayanists ok?

>>23066660
I can reference the Pali canon too in order to justify evolution.
Evolution is an undeniable fact, icchantika.
The most important thing is accepting the 4 Noble truths and three marks i
of existence and precepts. I don't need to take a literal reading on every aspect of the cosmology. Is the Earth flat too?

>>23066785
I think the most important thing is to actually experience things instead of reading about them or "Accepting" them

I "accept" gravity, but that doesn't mean I understand it well enough to calculate a flight path to land a rocket on the moon. (That's you folks talking about your book learning.)

LIVE, all of your religious leaders would tell you to LIVE.

>>23066785
Evolution is irrelevant to liberation

>>23066462
>>Also, Shakyamuni taught the tantras.
He did not. Brahmins did though.

>>23061246
>Dzogchen
Dzogchen is a temporary teaching.

>>23066785
>>23066847
You both have remarkably strong opinions on what you think the Buddha would say, yet I am considered icchantika for referring to what he DID say in a real sutta.

Why are we talking about evolution? Wtf.

>>23067037
Elaborate?

>>23064576
>I've been bitten by snakes, and I've had my penis in the mouth of a woman
I was at that party too. What a weekend it was.

>>23064576
Do you think Jesus meant for us to literally pluck our eyes out

>>23066346
>>23066359
>>>/x/catalog

>>23067782
He says this for effect, to rotate the beliefs of his peers a full 180 degrees from the social norms of his time and place. You have low IQ if you take the words of a man of such a caliber literally.

>>23066355
>death

>>23067424
I actually achieved oneness with everything, so yeah, I trust my own experience over some book that's probably been mistranslated or edited.

>yet I am considered icchantika for referring to what he DID say in a real sutta.

Yeah, you are. You're literally the Buddhist equivalent to those preachers who cite bible quotes and believe this brings them closer to God.

It should be pretty obvious that autistically memorizing scripture isn't actually helping you achieve enlightenment. Why would it? You're memorizing human words.

It's nutso that you guys will double down on such a ridiculous notion. Are you capable of unique thought at all? You are what the Gnostics call a hylic

>>23067037
Dzogchen is the essence of all Buddhadharma, all other teachings arise from Dzogchen and they all point back to it

>>23067976
Yeah that's a pathetic dogma.

>>23067967
>>I actually achieved oneness with everything, so yeah, I trust my own experience over some book that's probably been mistranslated or edited.
But do you have knowledge that's it's the ultimate experience? if not, what is missing to reach it?

>>23068065
It was the ultimate experience, it was being everything and nothing at the same time.

It's sort of like a drop of rain returning to the ocean. On one hand the drop (myself) was subsumed and disappears into the greater whole, on the other hand the drop itself becomes the entire ocean. It was like both being annihilated and becoming everything simultaneously, although I know that sounds like an oxymoron.

For some reason I was able to avoid the trap of clinging onto my ego and sense of self. My last words in the dream before I died were: "Take me back, universe", So my mind was in a place of submission and deference.

>>23068113
>>It was the ultimate experience, it was being everything and nothing at the same time.
okay but that doesn't mean it's the ultimate one

oneness may be just be that: some form of experience and you have yet to exhaust all the possible experiences.

So for instance, why do you think oneness is so special, in it's own right, not just because it's some experience which differ greatly from the daily life.

>>23068176
Because it was a hyper-dimensional experience that defies material reason.

When I say I was everything, I mean it literally, I was everyone, I was every time. Every moment existed at once.

When I say I was nothing, I mean it literally; I was at once one thing, one point. And in one there is nothing because it takes two to create the multitudes. (ugly creates beauty, big creates small, loud creates quiet)

It was the totality of all experience, so by definition it contains the ultimate experience.

>>23064103
>I don't read
ftfy

>>23068061
Everything in Buddhism is a dogma

>rebirth
dogma
>karma
dogma
>you can end rebirth
dogma
>hungry ghosts
dogma
>anicca
dogma
>temporary heaven and hells
more dogma
>buddha has superpowers
even more dogmas

>b-b-but it's not a dogma because if you become a Buddha too you can directly intuit those things
This is just a blind religious belief that one day in the future they can be verified (which nobody has ever done funny enough) but it's not an example of them not being dogmas

>>23068200
>impermanence is dogma
Anon, I...

>>23068347
NTA but obviously lol, there are so many counter arguments you could make against it, from a purely materialist stance alone there are particles that are immortal like photons or quasiparticles, there are isotopes that never decay, there are animals that are functionally immortal.
And this is all without even going into other religions or philosophies that argue for a permanent self or a soul or something else permanent.

>>23048653
>do you need to know anything about Buddhism
It is demonic, and it is a Satanic roast of its adherents--in the comic sense.

>>23068401
This thread's already been shitted up enough by the evolution talk, so I'll leave the talk about photons and isotopes aside. As far as Zen is concerned:
>And this is all without even going into other religions or philosophies that argue for a permanent self or a soul or something else permanent.
Such things can only be established by argumentation, but the universe is not an argument, it's the universe. It goes on its way regardless of how you manipulate this or that string of words. When you put down the verbal constructs and observe the world only as it is, that is when you find clear and unassailable truth. Illumination in silence, silence in illumination.

>>23068401
You know the entire universe is going to end right?

>>23068881
Nope, still a contested topic in astrophysics

>>23054702
It's very specifically a guru yoga of direct transmission, although not so strict as vajrayana tantra as far as the source of the transmission or the validity of it. Most of the Ch'an Records deal with the need for a revelation to be tested by a master in order to be validated. Otherwise it's just an UPG.

>>23054695
>2 and 2 makes 4
racist