zen

[Anonymous No.17519024]

What is zen?
I read this man's book and I understand what zen is even less than before.

[Anonymous No.17519042]

>>17519024
you see that smug smile that guy has? that's what zen is, when people ask you questions you just smile like that and shake your head and then tell an unrelated story about a bird and a raindrop or something

[Anonymous No.17519151]

bump

[Anonymous No.17519169]

>>17519024
Buddhism is when you choose to spend your life meditating and strengthening your mind in order to overcome the human condition and Zen Buddhism is when you actually put in the work to do that because practice is the only way to enlightenment.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17519183]

Eh, fine I guess if no one else will explain I’ll give my two cents, the question is what is attainment within Zen and how does it compare to moksha/liberation in other Asian systems.

Let me give you a breakdown and this is a gross over-simplification but it’ll help you contextualize

Imagine that you had a man with tangled hair, let us imagine these tangles are the desire aggregates. He who seeks to become an arahant would do well to remove all of his hair (because then being hairless, no more knots) he can then be free to be hairless and dwell in the bliss of lack of hair

However Mahayana would argue you cannot just simply remove your own hair clumps because it is conjoint to ever more hair clumps, more than you can possibly pull because they connect to others, which is to say, your individual identity and desires is connected to other humans through causality, so you cannot simply remove your own hair. You must remove all of the hair from everyone for your own clump to be removed.

You can however perform the dzogchen/zen method which is largely modification of the Taoist zuowang method, by this I mean, this same man with tangled hair may perhaps sit down, wash his head underneath the water and now, his hair is smooth and no longer obscuring his vision, so he still maintains his “hair” but they have through relaxation and letting them pass, have become neutralized.

Finally the proper tantrik methodology is accept the hair, but refine it, making the hair matted as if dreadlocks, and by this I mean to say, you purify the desire by realizing it is the Buddha nature and refine it, utilizing it towards enlightened and holy aims. Thus the desire becomes the very vehicle of realization of the tantrik whether Hindu or Buddhist.

In the next post I’ll elaborate further on the Zen methodology

[Anonymous No.17519225]

>>17519024
>What is zen
Nothing

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17519277]

>>17519183
Zen historically speaking seeks to condense the wisdom and practices of the various elaborations upon Buddhism and return to a much more simplistic model, due to the harsh Nondual movements that Buddhism went through and amplifications of apophatic/return to apophatic mysticism, they seek to reduce things back.

In Taoism (which heavily influenced Zen) there is a concept of. Ziren, self nature, that whenever something is done in accordance with a things interior nature and aspect, it naturally abides in itself, in its own way, which is flawless. In this way, the Ocean can be angry or calm, so also is it with Zen which argues when you realize Buddha mind (which is not something you cleave to or go away from, it simply is) this is your nature, and recommends various means to come of this realization, some require sitting and just sitting, forgetting all else and just allowing the mind not to cleave to anything, abiding in its original state, in this the mind and conscious due to not cleaving remains in potential to cleave, it remains in the abstract unity. Thus it supersedes the world of samsara/particular grasping, and the world of nirvana/grasping to nothing. As you do not even try not-to-grasp.

Another method that is used which is common with Koans is to strike at your reasoning, grasping and lack of grasping, intellectual power, conceptions of being and so forth with constant contemplative skepticism which results in a shatter of your perceptions, model and sense of self. This shattering of pre-conceived ways of thinking again, brings you back to a abstract-universal way of thought which cleaves to nothing in particular nor does it seek to not-cleave.

The ultimate state of Zen is realizing the mundane world and mind which goes through every day life is identical to this Buddha nature, this abstract-universal way of thought, this form of mind. But realizing this requires an experience of it, just grasping it intellectually is again, grasping it. You must neither grasp nor not grasp even at concepts such as liberation and not-liberation.

Esoteric forms of zen are so harmonized with Taoism and pure land Buddhism that they shall consecrate idols in the same way, meditate upon I Ching hexagrams, you get the idea.

The ultimate Goal of Zen is cultivation of awareness, reflection upon the self, wisdom ultimately concerning the nature of sunyata, emptiness but not literal void (except in some interpretations)

Of course there are many forms of zen and many practices, I recommend reading the record of Linji and grinding your head against a single Koan for a month, see what happens friend.

Fundamentally if you want to define the experience in a more western way, think of it as means to attain Being-Qua-Being and nothing else, Pure Being in its fullness as identical to the harmony which pervades Being.

[Anonymous No.17519287]

>>17519169
Meditation exists in every buddhist sect though not just zen (by the way zen also has prayers and other such things, it's not all meditation)

[Anonymous No.17519299]

>>17519287
I know, I am just giving a retard-tier summary of Zen. Zen is basically just Buddhism if it revolved solely around rigorous practice.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17519320]

>>17519287
Ye it’s heavily mixed with pure land. Though there’s been historical periods where the majority sects of Buddhism kinda put meditation aside/at the back seat but to say no meditation or that only zen does meditation is kinda silly. I mean I don’t believe something like vipassana ever stopped and jhanas were clearly attained by many. I think it’s important to note that as Buddhism developed many of the meditations DID become more wrathful/symbolic/imagery full resulting in the cluster of images common in tantric yidam meditations for example. And various rituals which seem far from normative meditation. Even so, stuff like Theravada has plenty of rituals and even exorcism stuff if we’re talking how it’s actually practiced in Asia.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17519327]

>>17519299
I mean, you say that but something like Rinzai is heavily focused on active contemplation through the koans which is comparable to the philosophical contemplations and riddles of other Buddhist exists and similar to contemplative methods in the west even.

[Anonymous No.17519328]

>>17519320
Do you use reddit?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17519348]

Oh and for a literal “what is zen” answer, Zen is a Japanese form of the Chinese word “ch’an” which is a Chinese form of the Sanskrit term dhyana.

https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhyāna_in_Buddhism

[Anonymous No.17519349]

>>17519183
Very good posts, thank you friend, I understand things better now.
I have a few questions:

>Mahayana would argue
Isn't zen a form of Mahayana? How is its method more similar to dzogchen which I understand to be tibetan esotericism?
>he still maintains his "hair"
Do zen buddhists not try to cultivate non-attachment to sensual desires and mental constructs as recommended by the Buddha in the nikayas? To what extent does zen adhere to the nikayas in the first place?
>return to a much more simplistic model
Does zen disregard Nagarjuna's contributions?
>sitting and just sitting
Is zazen similar to samatha or a completely different method? If the latter, how was it developed and legitimized since it presumably does not appear in the Buddha's teachings?
>Esoteric forms of zen are so harmonized with Taoism and pure land Buddhism
How can they harmonize with the latter since the goal (direct experience of Buddha mind versus entering the western pure land) is so different?
>a single Koan for a month
Would you say it's advisable to study koans without a teacher?

Hopefully I haven't asked too many questions, if you don't have the time to answer everything that's alright.

[Anonymous No.17519356]

>>17519328
why would you insult based frater like that

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17519367]

>>17519328
No, is my posting style really that bad? Deepest apologies if my writing comes off pretentious, I really do not mean to.

[Anonymous No.17519376]

>>17519327
>I mean, you say that but something like Rinzai is heavily focused on active contemplation through the koans which is comparable to the philosophical contemplations and riddles of other Buddhist exists and similar to contemplative methods in the west even.
The koans are just an instrument designed to produce a specific end. I consider them a part of practice, unlike something like Catholic positive theology for example. There are similarities between koan work and other Buddhist schools like Mahayana, but Zen is very minimalist by comparison since it has no theism, divine pantheon etc.

[Anonymous No.17519454]

>>17519320
>I don’t believe something like vipassana ever stopped
In a previous thread about buddhism, an anon said vipassana was never a genuine meditative practice separate from samatha, but rather a consequence of insight obtained through samatha (I'm grossly paraphrasing), what is your take on this?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17519461]

>>17519349
>Isn't zen a form of Mahayana? How is its method more similar to dzogchen which I understand to be tibetan esotericism?

Zen is a form of Buddhism but a pretty odd school which often did intersect/interact with Vajrayana and has its own unique methods which differentiate it from other parts of Mahayana, fundamentally it’s still a Mahayana school though. I’m speaking about how the school usually operates.

> Do zen buddhists not try to cultivate non-attachment to sensual desires and mental constructs as recommended by the Buddha in the nikayas? To what extent does zen adhere to the nikayas in the first place?

Dependent on the lineage and the like but they would argue they are adhering to the Buddha but working it in a more cultivated way.

They don’t think non-attachment is bad, it’s just they intensify the middle way rhetoric through their integration of Taoism, many mahayana and some Theravada Buddhists would even tell you the desire to end desire is also a poison. Zen just fixates upon it, another key feature of zen is realizing how much of conventional reality and the conceptual is a illusion and the limitations given by conceptual thought. For this reason a lot of Zen Buddhism can get very anti-scripture and anti-intellectual, but there’s also highly academic portions of Zen. Depends on a case by case basis.

> Does zen disregard Nagarjuna's contributions?

Depends on the form of Zen but in general the point is not to fixate much on conceptual models as these are forms of bondage which bind the mind, desire and so forth into particular forms and structures, so there’s stuff like tendai which would shill studying hardcore ontology and zen at once and zen practitioners who would see study of metaphysics and logic as a kind of ladder and again, you also have heavily anti-intellectual Buddhists. You can guess which strain is more popular in the west and which aesthetically is easier to integrate.

>is Zazen

The method of Zazen is simple so I shall summarize it. You sit with no intention and forget, do not try to do anything. Forget you are sitting, forget you are you, forget there is anything to do, just sit and forget. In this forgetting you mingle with Buddha-nature, gaining internal illumination/wisdom because you have let go of your own boundaries.

>how do they harmonize

First you need to remember the cultural level, it’s common for most zen practitioners to also pray and hope towards the Pure land, and esoteric interpretations (not even that esoteric ) of the pure land say that the true pure land is our purified conceptions. I shall quote from Linji concerning the three bodies.

Cont

[Anonymous No.17519505]

Buddhist Monk: Yes, that’s the statement. Everything in the empirical world is only a stream of passing Dharmas, which are mere processes - impersonal and evanescent processes. These Dharmas can be characterized as Anatta (Anatma - Bereft of Self), i.e., being without a persisting self, without independent existence. [The Dharma theory of Buddhism]

Acharya: Ok. I get your point of view about momentariness, impermanence and Anatta. May I ask you a very simple question? When you started the sentence “The Question is immaterial and irrelevant” – it was immaterial and irrelevant to whom? What or who is the Subject to whom those perceptions appeared?

Buddhist Monk: (Enraged) To no one in particular. There is nothing more to this alleged (sic) world’s existence than the co-ordinated flux of wide variety of elemental, co-dependent factors (Dharmas), which bring forth collective experience of world-consciousness in individual and universal aspects. So, the perception occurred to some non-existent entity.

Acharya: Ok! Hypothetically accepting your view, tell me Monk, who is the witness to these arising of dependent elements? Who/what is the witness to the flux? Against what the flux is not static? If you are moving in a train at the same speed with another train, you will see both trains as stationary. A perception of speed requires comparison with a stationary object. Likewise, perception of flux requires a changeless object for measure of standard. Who/What is that?

Buddhist Monk: I object! What is the necessity of a Witness? That too, eternal permanent witness?! No way such a thing exists. People die and their trace vanishes, things get broken, Worlds get destroyed – all without leaving trace. Where is permanence?

Acharya: Hold your breath, Holy Monk. A witness is necessary in order to have a cognition of any phenomenon – take the event of your momentariness or flux. A witness can only say something is transitory or momentary. If there is no Witness, who would perceive and who would make a statement?

Buddhist Monk: If you say there has to be a Witness, who will witness that witness? How would you establish that Witness exists? What you say is wrong because there will be infinite regress. You say a Witness is necessary to claim cognizance. Fine, then tell me, who will say that there is a Witness? Where will this infinite loop end? In your Theory, everything has to be present to make the Witness known. This is nothing but Dependent Origination.

Acharya: Dear Friend, there is no logical necessity (Akanksha) for something to grasp the grasper. The witness stands self-proved. (This is one of the greatest sources of Pramana – Arthapatti as used by the Acharya)

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17519509]

>>17519376
I’m thinking more how neo platonists like Plotinus used contemplation to rise through the spheres. And saying zen is minimalist in this regard, while sure that’s fine but that disregards how many patriarchs would bow to statues of Buddhas, practice pure land in private and how common it is for the average man to do both pure land and zen.

>>17519454
Both are just single pointed concentration and mastery over the mind directed towards cultivation, either of peace and the interior of peace, or of wisdom. You can interpret them as meditations on particular things or as results of different aspects/fixations in the course of Awareness/single pointed concentration feeding upon itself and going into itself.

>>17519461
Now to quote Linj.

“an instant, without regard for rank or age.
“If you want to be no different from the buddhas and patriarchs, just don t seek outside yourself. A moment of your mind’s
pure light is the Dharmakaya Buddha inside your own house. A moment of your mind’s light without discrimination is the Sambhogakaya Buddha inside your own house. A moment of your mind’s light with no distinctions is the Nirmanakaya Buddha within your own house. These three buddha-bodies are the person here before you now listening to the Dharma. They have their functional abilities just because they do not seek externally.”

In this same way, anon, the Pure land is simply this very world when you view it without attachment and without grasping, westerners over simplify this and say it’s about “being in the now” but this is what they’re really talking about. This world is the world of Pureness where innumerable wise ones meditate and cultivate.

> Would you say it's advisable to study koans without a teacher?

The Proper zen monk or lineage would say it’s really not the best, and you should get help/assistance right away. But personally, I do not believe there’s great harm in picking one of the beginner Koans(as there are skill classifications for them) and sticking with it for a month to see what happens. If you do this, remember that whatever answer you produce, it is not enough and you must hurl skepticism and daggers into any interpretation you produce. You can do this continuously and each answer you produce will demonstrate more wisdom the more you do this. The harder the questions, the greater skepticism, self doubt and mental disintegration they can induce.

[Anonymous No.17519539]

Buddhist Monk: Come on Acharya! You too teach the unreality as cause of suffering and grief and pain. The world is nothing but an idea – a dream-like construct where nothing is real (Idealism in Buddhism/Vijnanavada). And now why do you criticize our unreality while professing yours?

Acharya: No. You have not understood the true essence of Advaita then. The unreality of external world that I teach is not based on nothing (It is not Nihilist). My unreality does not base on absence of reality – but on flawed perception of reality. Unlike you, I don’t say there is NO reality at all! I say there is reality and only ONE reality, but the way we perceive or take cognizance is erroneous because of Avidya, Ajnaan and Maya. Once the perception of snake goes away from the rope on the floor, there remain to Snake, only a rope! And there was never a Snake at all, it was rope all throughout. So, the unreal (Snake) was real till the true real (Rope) was realized. After realization, there was never a snake. Likewise, after you realize Brahman, you will experience that there was never a World of otherness. There was always Brahman, here there, inside outside. You are Brahman. It is an absolute identity and this is ultimately proved simply by psychological experience. Shruti has maintained "Tat tvam asi" (That art Thou); "Brahmasmi" (I am Brahman). This is no ‘similarity’ as if we should say, "I am something like Brahman", but full and complete identity, “I am the Brahman” and “Brahman is Me”.

The Great Tathagata saw suffering, but never endevoured to go deep into its causes. He saw the unrealness of the work-a-day, realized it fully, but he did not realize the true cause (Avidya) and the entity beyond the cause (Brahman). He did not see that strand of argument.

Buddhist Monk: Nah! Sakyamuni did not believe in philosophization or polemics. In Shoola Malunkyovada Sutta, the Tathagata has clarified that he won’t venture into questions of philosophy of suffering, but only the method as to end suffering - "The important thing is to get rid of the poisoned arrow (Suffering) that has pierced your heart, not to inquire where it came from (Source of suffering)”.

Acharya: I know. But then, what did the ilks of Nagarjuna, Vasubabdhu, Asanga, Dharmakirti, Aswaghosa, etc. do? Then why all of them attempted complex philosophisation? No wonder that they failed to bring out a holistic Theory of Being due to inherent contradictions and flaws in the basic tenets. Were they not Vipra Bhikshus (Buddhist Bhikshus at exterior, Brahmin Vedists by intellectual disposition) rather than Buddhists? I also know the Great Buddha avoided philosophical and metaphysical questions. He did not look deep enough. He just sensed the symptoms of the ailment of suffering and not the true cause. Desire, bondage and attachment etc. are symptoms, not causes.

Buddhist Monk: Acharya!

[Anonymous No.17519577]

>>17519505
Please dont attach Bladee to your post again tyvm.

[Anonymous No.17519578]

>>17519461
>fundamentally it's still a Mahayana school
Was zen strongly influenced by huayen?
>they are adhering to the Buddha but working it in a more cultivated way.
So do they bother observing the eightfold path, sila and all or is that not really a concern for them? I get the impression that mahayana in general isn't as anal about the path and the precepts but maybe I'm wrong.
>You can guess which strain is more popular in the west
Do you think it's possible to find good zen masters in the west, specifically in europe?
>You sit with no intention and forget, do not try to do anything.
So just sit then. Literally "just sit". This is what Suzuki said in the book and I thought there was something more to it but apparently not.
>esoteric interpretations (not even that esoteric ) of the pure land say that the true pure land is our purified conceptions.
Is this the accepted "underlying truth" of pure land or just an intepretation among others? The sutras describe sukhavati as a real physical place with very little ambiguity.

[Anonymous No.17519604]

>>17519577
I be ducked off, I stay lowkey
I hate when they acting like they know me
Cut your lights off, pay the drain fee
I'm the landlord, I feel like I'm a OG
I've been so clean since like fourteen
Dripping like the blood that's dripping on me
You finessed me, now you owe me
Tell my baby I feel lonely when you hold me

[Anonymous No.17519612]

>>17519024
there's nothing to get really, just do your thing. carry water and chop wood or whatever it is you do. like terrence mckenna said "take it easy dude, but take it!"

[Anonymous No.17519652]

>>17519539

[Anonymous No.17519655]

>>17519652
Please don't start, anon. We could have a comfy thread for once.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17519656]

>>17519578
>Was zen strongly influenced by huayen

Remember Zen is Chan Buddhism, so yes incredibly high influence but also disagreements.

> So do they bother observing

The answer is Yes, kinda and no. They believe even the system and construction of Buddhism is a conceptual framework and a kind of skillful means which is useful in a relative truth sense, but is not necessary. So the more antinomian and the odder types will not consider such. But fundamentally they’re still Buddhists friend.

> Do you think it's possible to find good zen masters in the west, specifically in europe?

I mean, probably, depending on your specific area, locals and so forth. I’ve a friend who moved Deep South and still found a teacher he considered of worth.

> So just sit then. Literally "just sit". This is what Suzuki said in the book and I thought there was something more to it but apparently not.

This is true but also conceals much.

You are “just” sitting but that means you are truly doing nothing else, not clinging, not trying to think or not think, simply abiding in the nature of Sunyata, in the “Unborn” mind to use the language of Bankei. You’re not JUST sitting, you’re sitting and forgetting about all conceptual bondages, all will, all grasping, all desire. It’s a way of induction of Ataraxia and a deeper meditation, this is called a formless meditation since you are making your concentration dissolve and become formless. The consciousness becoming unbound by it not wrapping itself around any particular thought or activity.

> Is this the accepted "underlying truth" of pure land or just an intepretation among others? The sutras describe sukhavati as a real physical place with very little ambiguity.

That’s a very modern western comment, in traditional thought across the board, the literal and esoteric truth are thought to both be true. It’s one of the most common esoteric interpretations but it does not dissolve the literal pure land. Rather the literal pure land and the ultimate truth of this world being the pure land are Nondual to each other.

[Anonymous No.17519663]

>>17519578
Huayen->Chan->Zen

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17519684]

>>17519612
Note OP, stuff like this is trying to replicate the Zen stance of Apophaticism and minimalism, of just letting go and not binding your mind to conceptual boundaries and activities in order that your mind remain in it’s unborn state of universality. Again as you can see, it’s often integrated into a certain western aesthetic.

I would recommend OP though if you want the best, just hit the primary sources on Zen, practice, go and find some Buddhists to practice with and try to not overfixate on debate, theory, others or the like, focus on the task of induction of realization

If you really care anyways, friend.

[Anonymous No.17519690]

>>17519652

[Anonymous No.17519786]

>>17519684
carrying wood and chopping water is a suggestion of layman p'ang c 740-808

[Anonymous No.17519833]

>>17519367
You remind me of someone on there who writes about similar stuff and also has "Frater" in their name.

[Anonymous No.17519850]

>>17519656
>disagreements
Such as? If they're too long to explain could you recommend a book?
>a kind of skillful means
If the Buddha taught those means, shouldn't they be the best means? Why try to improve or modify them? Maybe I misunderstand. I sometimes have trouble reconciling theravadin concepts with how relative Mahayana makes things look.
>probably
Do you have recommendations on how to spot a good teacher?
>you’re sitting and forgetting about all conceptual bondages
But if you try to do that you won't succeed. Hence "just sitting" since you can't reach that state if you try to do anything else than sit. Am I wrong?
>That’s a very modern western comment,
You mean my assumption that the esoteric is the real truth and that the literal is just a metaphor?

>>17519684
I understand, thanks for your advice. It's difficult to separate westernized zen from purer zen though.

>>17519663
Why? And aren't Chan and zen the same anyway?

[Anonymous No.17519859]

>>17519663
>>17519850
Sorry I completely misread your comment, I thought you were ranking the schools

[Anonymous No.17519891]

>>17519850
>westernized zen from purer zen though
you dont think its gone through a few changes in asia too over the years?

[Anonymous No.17519895]

>>17519891
Yeah but I'd be more inclined to trust these changes rather than those that happened as zen was imported to (and often bastardized by) the west.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17519942]

>>17519786
Yes but fixation upon that is a very pop western thing to say, I mean “take it easy dude” you know precisely what aesthetic you’re projecting with that.

>>17519833
Frater’s a common name western occultists use to denote the brotherhood of all men. Know which frater they are?

>>17519850
>Such as? If they're too long to explain could you recommend a book?

Whats realization/awakening look like, inter-school polemics, teaching classifications. That sort of thing, this is because Zen is a form of Chan, Chan developed from/as part of of Huayen schools but again broke away, modern Chan schools largely got integrated into pure land which is why to this day Zen has such a relationship with pure land.

>Do you have recommendations on how to spot a good teacher?

There is no universal tool or test, use your right ingenuity and contemplation, know them by their fruits. Don’t just hop into a random group like some cult.

> But if you try to do that you won't succeed. Hence "just sitting" since you can't reach that state if you try to do anything else than sit. Am I wrong?

Correct which is why they use such simplistic language and metaphors like just chopping wood, just sitting, so forth.

>skillful means

The concept of skillful means is a hard one but basically, it means lying to normies in order to force them towards good/enlightened ends. So yes shill them because they’re good but many would believe cultivation of wisdom and compassion logically results in the fulfillment of the sum of Buddhist teachings.

> You mean my assumption that the esoteric is the real truth and that the literal is just a metaphor?

Yes. The esoteric and exoteric truths are often not divided so neatly.

[Anonymous No.17519971]

>>17519895
this isnt a modern concept, the author was from the 8th century in china

ONE DAY SHIH-T'OU said to the Layman: "Since seeing me, what have your daily activities
been?"
"When you ask me about my daily activities, I can't open my mouth," the Layman replied.
"Just because I know you are thus I now ask you," said Shih-t'ou.
Whereupon the Layman offered this verse:
My daily activities are not unusual,
I'm just naturally in harmony with them.
Grasping nothing, discarding nothing,
In every place there's no hindrance, no conflict.
Who assigns the ranks of vermilion and purple?—3
The hills' and mountains' last speck of dust
is extinguished.4
[My] supernatural power and marvelous activity—
Drawing water and carrying firewood.
Shih-t'ou gave his assent. Then he asked: "Will you put on black robes or will you continue wearing
white?"6
"I want to do what I like," replied the Layman. So he did not shave his head or dye his clothing

[Anonymous No.17519977]

>>17519942
>Whats realization/awakening look like
Hm, I thought enlightenment was a concept all Mahayana schools agreed upon and that it just meant buddhahood.
>lying to normies in order to force them towards good/enlightened ends
Is Mahayana's skillful means different because they're meant as "higher level"?

[Anonymous No.17519986]

this guy is so much cooler than all those pseud eastern intellectuals

[Anonymous No.17520014]

>>17519942
They go by "Frater Ahadun"

[Anonymous No.17520031]

>>17519505
>Buddhist Monk: (Enraged)
Every single time.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17520062]

>>17520014
Found him and just read some of his posts, I wouldn’t really agree with anything Hes said and would probably get into it with him on multiple topics. Oh well, I hope I didn’t leave an ugly impression.


Apologies for taking up space in the Buddhism thread with tripfag nonsense OP.(posts concerning the frater name)

[Anonymous No.17520068]

>>17520062
Don't worry you're the only good tripfag on this board

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17520104]

>>17519977
>Hm, I thought enlightenment was a concept all Mahayana schools agreed upon and that it just meant buddhahood.

The means, method, experience and so forth of realizing that and what that means afterwards are all hotly debated topics even within the same schools of thought.

> Is Mahayana's skillful means different because they're meant as "higher level"?

Kinda, some schools would say something before was just for a particular time, or for “inferior” men, or that newer harsher aspects are needed.

A lot of Zen is actually pretty harsh and for wrong answers and wrong thought, at least in Rinzai for example, you would be beaten incredibly, shouted at, called a “shit stick” to quote one passage and so forth.

Again I can’t shill the record of Linji and other Rinzai writers higher, but I’ve a bias because among Zen, I consider Rinzai the most highly.

[Anonymous No.17520130]

>>17520104
>hotly debated topics
Are there any books that get into this particular subject?
>just for a particular time
This one makes the most sense IMO.
>you would be beaten incredibly, shouted at, called a “shit stick”
Can't see that happening in the west
>I consider Rinzai the most highly.
Why not Soto?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17520185]

>>17520130
>any books

I’m sure there’s many but I’m drawing on a bunch of random readings of different schools and histories that relate to those books and not like, “the big book of inter-school Buddhist polemics and debates” example even in something like Vajrayana their conception of Sunyata is divided into Rangtong systems and Shentong systems, which is to say, systems which define the emptiness as literally empty void and others which say it is not literally empty/has a very different meaning, and this fundamentally will change what Buddhahood even means due to the difference in metaphysics. Look no further than the number of Buddhist commentaries on the same texts that exist, those all represent titanic differences in interpretation.

Tendai is a fascinating school to study since they wanted to systemize as many schools of Buddhism as they could get their hands on into one kind of collage system wherein you could go through different tiers and have different specializations.

The differences in interpretation are often chalked up to different Buddhists either using skillful means(lying) or some commentators simply having more awareness/wisdom thus giving a deeper level.

>Can't see that happening in the west

Well yeah, Western concepts of Zen have been tailored to give a certain impression for various reasons. Again, read some zen histories or Linji and you’ll see a storm of punches, hits, insults, shouting and so forth. That’s why koans about people ripping animals apart aren’t see as that shocking.

>why not Soto

I prefer the fixation on Koans and Soto is more relaxed/less martial when compared to Rinzai. I also just find the teachers to be (in my subjective opinion) the wisest of those which I’ve read.

[Anonymous No.17520268]

>>17520185
>this fundamentally will change what Buddhahood even means
Damn, so how do you come to a genuine understanding?
>Tendai
Sounds like something I've been looking for, thanks
>skillful means(lying)
kek
Sounds like a big scam just for the sake of getting you to enlightenment more efficiently.
>Western concepts of Zen have been tailored
Is there interaction between current western and eastern zen schools, or not much? Theravada has that kind of dialogue, is zen more closed off?
>I prefer the fixation on Koans
I see. I thought of Soto as the more experience-focused, less intellectual/philosophical one

[Anonymous No.17520401]

>>17519277
>>17519320
>>17519656
Isn't pure land kind of a larp if you're a westerner?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17520408]

>>17520268
>Damn, so how do you come to a genuine understanding

Practice, study, choosing which schools you agree with. But Practice is Key. Attaining Supra-rational wisdom through practice is a universal trait to Buddhism.

> Sounds like something I've been looking for, thanks

Good luck anon! They’re a fascinating group.

> Sounds like a big scam just for the sake of getting you to enlightenment more efficiently.

Pretty much, of course there’s debates about that also.

> Is there interaction between current western and eastern zen schools, or not much? Theravada has that kind of dialogue, is zen more closed off?

I honestly haven’t a clue, I don’t really study contemporary schools or history or books just in general even outside of Buddhism. Just not something that appeals to me.

>soto

Eh, kinda, I mean they’re historically more focused on Shikantaza (but even then not exclusively) and while I do have a bias for the intellectualism, you won’t hear western Buddhists talking about this for example https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirigami_(Soto_Zen)

To summarize, again, intellectual contemplation and focus on secret esoteric symbols and documents some of which are literally hexagrams and other such lifted from Taoism. It’s just that stuff isn’t really common to a more western pop approach ya know.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17520423]

>>17520401
I mean if you genuinely believe in the religion (which is often hard for the kind of westerner often attracted to Buddhism and zen especially) then no I don’t believe it would be a larp to believe in a Particular widely popular religion. Perhaps I’m bias though, I’ve spent a lot of time in China town and other heavily Asian population centers in New York, so seeing a Buddhist or a taoist temple or some monks in a urban western setting isn’t really shocking or odd to me.

[Anonymous No.17520435]

>>17520408
>I don’t really study contemporary schools or history or books
So what do you focus on?
>you won’t hear western Buddhists talking about this for example
Well, it wouldn't translate well in the west because it's a practice that is almost purely cultural and wouldn't make much sense outside of where it originated, I guess.

[Anonymous No.17520450]

>>17520423
>which is often hard for the kind of westerner often attracted to Buddhism and zen especially
Yeah that's my point, pure land is about faith above all while westerners usually get into buddhism because they're interested in direct experience and affirming their own ability to save themselves, instead of blind faith in a higher power. If you're ready to make such a leap of faith why would you bother getting into buddhism?
Do you think there's a legit possibility for a western practice of pure land that isn't grounded in naive orientalism?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17520475]

>>17520435
Eh, older religious histories, how schools develop, books centering on metaphysics, practice, and the like. Don’t really care for like, the cultural impact on the west or exchange or the like. Basically I only study and read about those things I feel help my own practice, theory, contemplation and so forth when it comes to religion and philosophy as a whole. I rather be ignorant about what amounts to the current political climate of these systems because what would knowing these things do for me? Which is perhaps an ugly view, but I rather know what the masters thought and how their schools developed in history than ya know, how Allan watts influenced western secular zen Buddhists interact and think, their interactions with the east and so forth.

And while it is cultural it is also esoteric, spiritual and thought to be a great tool as is the pure land stuff. But if you want a de-cultured and localized Buddhism, well you already know what that defanged stuff often looks like. Not to say of course all western Buddhism is like that but you know the types.

>>17520450
For the majority? Of course not. For specific individuals who have specific backgrounds growing up,certain youth and even certain adult religious experiences? Totally it’s possible. In the face of a religious experience you’d be shocked to see how much the average individual will re-adjust their entire personality and perspective. But this is again why practice is essential.

But do I believe there’s going to be some kind of massive western pure land literalist belief? Nah.

[Anonymous No.17520486]

>>17520475
>I only study and read about those things I feel help my own practice
You're able to form a practice without outside help? How do you avoid mistakes and misunderstandings if you have no guide or teacher?
>if you want a de-cultured and localized Buddhism,
That's not what I meant. I think Buddhism in the west should learn to accommodate the western aesthetic in order to become more genuine, though.

[Anonymous No.17520499]

>>17519042
fpbp

[Anonymous No.17520505]

>>17520475
>specific backgrounds growing up,certain youth and even certain adult religious experiences?
Are you referring to anything in particular or just saying it's basically up to personal sensibility?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17520539]

>>17520486
>You're able to form a practice without outside help? How do you avoid mistakes and misunderstandings if you have no guide or teacher?


Well, it’s because for one I DID have a teacher Guide, and I do not solely study/practice Buddhism. I do not say the following out of some pride just stating fact, I was initiated and gained empowerment in Vajrayana up until the Vajrakila practice, I’ve also initiated into a tantric lineage, I gained these contacts/initiations through my contact of another Christian/Rosicrucian focused occultist who was and I still consider my greatest teacher, through him I learned of Taoism, Tantra hindu and Buddhist, his ideas on thelema, Christianity, Kabbalah, Platonism, Pythagoreanism, Neoplatonism and so forth. I only went on my own after years of being under him and practicing and studying under his guidance. Then when he gave me the okay I studied and practiced in accordance with my right ingenuity and in accordance with my prayers and contemplations. A teacher is essential to lay the groundwork and point to you but this great work continues forever until the end of our lives and from then on it shall continue eternally in my personal belief.

As for accommodating to western aesthetic I mean I’ve talked to monks who tell me the atheism and new age aesthetic is the best skillful means for the west and that dudes like sam Harris ARE the adaption. I don’t agree with it but that seems to be what they do.

>>17520505
I’m referring to people being raised in a belief within their household, them having certain religious beliefs, them just being easy to Faith and a range of other factors that can influence that. Know what I mean.

[Anonymous No.17520550]

>>17519652
>>17519690

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17520594]

>>17520550
>>17519652
>>17519690

[Anonymous No.17520613]

>>17520594
Heres the full one
also this a know a esoteric/buddhist/vedic virgin-chad thread

[Anonymous No.17520615]

>>17520539
That's quite the background. I'm still in the "teacher seeking phase".
>from then on it shall continue eternally in my personal belief.
Then do you disagree with the traditional view of rebirth in Buddhism?
>the atheism and new age aesthetic is the best skillful means
Yeah I don't agree either. Personally I've just kind of adapted minor details to my idiosyncrasies but otherwise left things as-is, so I'm kind of concerned about falling into an inauthentic "orientalist" practice as was denounced earlier. Not sure how to prevent this and make my practice "true".

I'm gonna leave soon, in case I don't reply, thanks again for the advice.

[Anonymous No.17520623]

>>17520613
*now

[Anonymous No.17520638]

>>17520539
>them just being easy to Faith
Can you increase faith with practice?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17520650]

>>17520615
>Then do you disagree with the traditional view of rebirth in Buddhism?

Even that’s a hotly debated topic, but in general my view of the soul, self, phenomenology and so forth is too different/alien from any of the standard schools to really compare them. Apples to oranges ya know. Would take too long to get into it and I wouldn’t want to dissuade you from study. While this doesn’t say much, my view of death coincides with my interpretation of Christianity.

Good luck anon I’m glad I could help, the best thing I could recommend is just trying out a few local groups. (Well depending on where you are due to the virus but if you’re in a place where restrictions are mostly relaxed ) you can probably go, meditate and hear basically a lecture depending on the group you go to. Practice and community are the keys Anon. Again I wish you good luck and much gain in wisdom.

[Anonymous No.17520658]

I cant make threads so this seem a good place to ask. Do any anons have any good book recs dicussing the historical development of the syncretism between shinto and zen?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17520666]

>>17520638
Without a doubt, even just pretending to it and inflaming yourself in the actions and thoughts of faith can radically change your beliefs and cultivate Faith overtime. To quote Pliny(I believe), Perseverance is the stone of the wise.

[Anonymous No.17520681]

>>17520650
>Would take too long to get into it
I'm interested but it'd probably end up bringing doubt or confusion, you're right
>local groups
Yeah I have a few Vajrayana and Mahayana groups in my area, I'll get in touch.
Good luck to you as well.

[Anonymous No.17520989]

>>17519024
what is zen your wallet?

[Anonymous No.17521031]

>>17519024
you need to read more zen books, theres lots of zen books

[Anonymous No.17521064]

>>17520658

[Anonymous No.17521186]

no frog
no thread
one code, to a trip fag
one meme, to a sad frog

[Anonymous No.17522071]

>>17519024
if you have to spend this many words explaining it, you dont know

[Anonymous No.17522756]

>>17522071
This but also no

[Anonymous No.17522763]

>>17519042
based

[Anonymous No.17523076]

Bump

[Anonymous No.17523112]

>>17519042
This is the most accurate take on Zen.

[Anonymous No.17523122]

>>17519505
>Buddhist Monk: Yes, that’s the statement. Everything in the empirical world is only a stream of passing Dharmas, which are mere processes - impersonal and evanescent processes. These Dharmas can be characterized as Anatta (Anatma - Bereft of Self), i.e., being without a persisting self, without independent existence. [The Dharma theory of Buddhism]
>
>Acharya: Ok. I get your point of view about momentariness, impermanence and Anatta.
Momentariness is not part of buddhism. momentariness is only a commentary invention. Looks like you are a massive larp.

[Anonymous No.17523125]

Based Zuiken:
>At the present time in Japan, there is no Zen master nor Zen devotee who is fully enlightened like Buddha Sakyamuni or Bodhidharma. I should say that almost all Zen abbots have wives and children; therefore, they are not liberated from avarice, anger and ignorance (unrighteousness). I have studied Zen from my boyhood and have read many Zen books but have not become a bit wiser; I am a fool as before.

[Anonymous No.17523138]

All body, no mind. Get it? Yes? Wrong! *Slaps you over the back of your egg head* The temple gates yawn. It is already late. Where are the guests? Do you know? Do you not know? Do you neither know nor not know? *Slaps you again on the red, puffy spot of your eggshell* That is the worst of all! Thiking mind and dunce head mind and zen mind – are they different or are they the same? Are they different? Or are they the same? Don't answer!

[Anonymous No.17523140]

>>17523122
What's the difference between momentariness and anicca?

[Anonymous No.17523190]

>>17519042
updoot

[Anonymous No.17523210]

>the dalai lama claimed westerners should "stick to the religion they were raised in" rather than convert to buddhism
Thoughts? Why did he say this? What of those who don't have a tradition they were raised in?

[Anonymous No.17523216]

In case frater is still around, I'd like to ask what in your opiniom are the shortcomins of Buddhism, since while you take a lot of it into your personal practice you certainly wouldn't call yourself one.

[Anonymous No.17523269]

>>17523210
I'm convinced it was his way of shitting on buddhist modernism. From his perspective diluting the doctrine and that adulterated buddhism coming back to bite the traditional one in the ass in the future in the dame way Christianity has liberalized must be a worse threat than the Chinese.

[Anonymous No.17523276]

>>17523269
Understandable, but if he's really afraid about that he should instead aim to contribute to the establishment of a less diluted/altered modern buddhism. I find his words difficult to understand when you know he's personally contributed to spreading buddhism to europe and establishing lineages there.

[Anonymous No.17523287]

>>17523210
Many of us are no longer raised within traditions. If you are 2nd, 3rd, 4th, generation secular it is hard to find any particular resonance with Christianity simply on the basis of it being something some of your ancestors did for a while, besides that line of argumentation inevitably leads away from Christianity and toward cheesy reconstructions of long dead pagan faiths, as Westerners, assuming by this he means Europeans, were only Christianised relatively recently.

Now, I am not unsympathetic to when people bring up the shaping of western Civilization by Christianity, and how much of our modern worldview still retains certain Christian framing as vestigial elements. But as this will only continue to weaken, as secularization accelerates, and the same argument as the one above still applies with Christianity being a relative newcomer and European peoples having cultural and linguistic roots that predated, and ended up framing Christianity after its adoption by Europeans. And if you are, yet again, willing to follow that line of argumentation then Hinduism and Buddhism end up appearing far less inscrutable and exotic, what with sharing a similar ethnolinguistic root which makes the Abrahamic faiths look like superficial overlays of European culture in comparison if it weren't for their reliance on Greek rationalism thought to justify themselves systematically.

To summarize, there may be good reasons to convert, but in the face of multi-generational atomization, and a complete breakdown in education that enmeshes the learner in the historical matrix of culture the "Great-Great-Grandpa did it so so should you" argument is a ship rapidly receding over the horizon.

[Anonymous No.17523321]

>>17523276
A good portion, if not most of that evangelism is just maneuvering to try and gather international support for the Tibetan cause, and it has often backfired like it happened with the Shugden debacle and the NKT splitting apart. The mind and life institute (which is dishonest as hell imo), talking to hip activists like Greta Thunberg and similar stunts are meant to present Buddhism as the most open and rational religion, so much it refuses to openly proselytize and tells people to keep their faiths while taking what good things they find from it. I don't buy it, and vajrayana isn't a bare bones tradition like zen that leaves you much room to create your own interpretations in the first place. The main concern is and always has been a return to Lhasa, with whatever western converts to the real doctrine gained a secondary boon.

[Anonymous No.17523354]

>>17523287
Aren't you understating the influence of Christianity on western culture a bit? Secularization accelerates, but that influence itself does not diminish, since the very foundations of western civilization are not quite yet undermined. I don't think we'll reach a point where "secular" humanism is rejected anytime soon, for example. The Christian framework is still very much present.
On the other hand, while Hinduism and Buddhism might not be so exotic from an ethnic and linguistic standpoint, their philosophies are very much at odds with the very foundations of the western mindset. If they weren't, we wouldn't be seeing so many western converts bastardizing these religions and completely misunderstanding and twisting them to fit their own biases and narrative.

[Anonymous No.17523363]

>>17523321
I forgot to mention there isn't any guarantee westerners will convert to geluk buddhism, and if they end up in a sect that doesnt need a dalai lama they're useless for his purposes. And then there's the bigger threat, the NKT has absolutely exploded and you can find cells (cells, because it's a cult by any definition) everywhere. People will just see "tibetan buddhism" and hop in without realizing the difference.

[Anonymous No.17523365]

>>17523321
Then do you think the various tibetan lineages that popped up in europe are illegitimate, or at the very least just a pretext for furthering a political agenda?
Is the rest of mahayana implanted in the west in a similar situation?

[Anonymous No.17523368]

>>17523354
Real Buddhism is simply incompatible with secular humanism even if they sometimes overlap in their ethics.

[Anonymous No.17523374]

>>17523368
If anything that's all the more reason for Buddhism to be difficult to adopt for westerners, since secular humanism has been the "new religion" of the west since the enlightenment

[Anonymous No.17523382]

>>17523368
>incompatible with secular humanism
For what reason?

[Anonymous No.17523391]

>>17519024
It's my understanding that zen differs from other Buddhist schools, as zen holds that any attachments (including pious activities or the notion of enlightenment) and conceptual thoughts obstruct the Mind from revealing it's pristine nature.
Any Karma collected or good deeds done can tie the Mind to samsara.
Although these deeds can achieve partial enlightenment, the true way is to put a stop to the endless flow of thoughts.
That is to say: the Buddha is present in everyone and you cannot attain which is already there.

>Ok, I think I understand. But surely you will stay still and do nothing like a vegetable.
"To put out of mind even the principles from which action springs, is the true teaching of the Buddhas."

[Anonymous No.17523412]

>>17523365
They're legitimate in the sense they were set up by Dharamsala, sure, and they do try to further the dharma, but their purpose first and foremost is to act as a network of unofficial Tibetan embassies/missions. The one thing they seek above all is recognition. Look up how much the dalai lama had to beg and wait around and knock doors until he could meet with a US president back in the 60s or 70s and the promises of aid, material and political ended up in, well, emptiness. It was until the western converts started trickling in and then trickling back out that things started to look even slightly more hopeful.

Regarding the rest of Mahayana it's hard to say, since there is no real center and the traditions are growing and shrinking all the time. I'm fascinated by Thich Nhat Hanh, since he's an amazing transplant thhat's kept here by his sangha alone more than by a genuine wish to teach, he seems to just barely understand what's going on at the best of times while his faithful absolutely drool over him. It's kinda grotesque imo, perfectly exemplifies the fetishization of buddhism by white urbanities and suburbanities.

[Anonymous No.17523430]

>>17523382
The first noble truth and its implications. That life fundmentally cannot be made good, nor now nor ever, and that it is an eternal loop of misery until you check out, and the highest virtue is dhukkanirodha, which is to be found ONLY via the eigtfold path. This clashes with any ideal of individual freedom or pursuits as they're effectively worthless. Then there's rebirth as an absolutely necessary tenet too, since without it, the most ethical choice would be suicide, or murder if you're a bodhisattva assuming you accept the 4NTs as facts. Buddhist modernism wiggles around this logic in a million ways, and I'm not saying it's wrong to do so, but you end up with something that simply cannot be called Buddhism anymore.

[Anonymous No.17523446]

>>17523412
You think it's because mahayana is decentralized that you get this "fetishization"? I thought Plum village, being the largest monastic order in the west, would (like theravada) attract more serious and devoted practicioners rather than the live laugh love crowd.
Maybe a westerner with genuine interest is better off following a more solitary path rather than try to integrate into such a sangha.

[Anonymous No.17523468]

>>17523430
If you look at Buddhist monks regardless of the tradition, or if you look at practicing laity, most of them do not seem particularly somber despite the pessimistic outlook that the four noble truths suggest. Why is that?
In fact, I find that it's usually the western converts who, by taking these principles to heart and putting them at the center of their lives, end up spiritually burnt out and miserable.

[Anonymous No.17523472]

>>17520185
First post in this thread. But I'm interested how kicking the shit out of someone or insulting them or ripping animals apart can be seen as some kind of enlightening practice?

[Anonymous No.17523484]

>>17523446
Not just that. Mahayana's arrival in the west is almost accidental, since it's mostly been in the form of refugee monks that end up settling, they've never really been in a position to be authoritative about much during the most critical period of eatablishing themselves, so it was upaya or die for them, and afterward they cpuldn't just backtrack on their initial impression and go full grimness like Theravada sometimes does. And yeah, most of the serious western practicioners are theravadins, you even have people like Thanissaro who have climbed the ranks to become respected everywhere in the monastic world, even if they sometimes get a little too attached to their dogma.

[Anonymous No.17523491]

>>17519042
yes, that what zen looks like externalized. Internalized, zen is unknowable, unteachable. It can only be demonstrated by telling stories about rivers.

[Anonymous No.17523496]

>>17519328
the fuck? effort posting = reddit now?

[Anonymous No.17523507]

>>17523468
Most buddhist laity are buddhists in name only, except during holidays or funerals. It's just what they were raised in and they don't think much about it. If you interviewed them you'd find they believe a lot of things that ate most definitely not in the sutras or held by their tradition. Most of Myanmar is Buddhist and you can see the mess it is right now. It is a mistake to be exceptionalist about buddhism and expect non-monks to follow it to heart any more than expecting all people who consider themselves catholics ageee 100% with church dogma.

[Anonymous No.17523508]

>>17523484
Since you need a teacher to advance properly, but mahayana in the west might as well be something else entirely, the only option to a westerner indeed appears to be solitary practice.
Do you think this is dangerous or counterproductive? Of course I am only talking about mahayana, not vajrayana.

[Anonymous No.17523523]

>>17523508
I have to be honest and admit I am not a buddhist, so I'm not the best person to answer that. However, I'll give you my two cents anyway and say that I don't think spirituality needs a guru or that there is a single correct path, so unless you want to do weird tantric stuff that puts you or others in harm's way, I don't see how it could be dangerous to try anything on your own. If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.

[Anonymous No.17523529]

>>17523507
In my mind, it's the opposite of exceptionalism. While you can argue that most Catholics do not follow Church dogma, the truth appears to be that most of them are at least aware of it and believe in its most important tenets. If this is not even true of Buddhist laity, it would suggest that the laity in Buddhist countries is even more detached from its religious roots than the west's.
What of monks and religious leaders, anyway?
For a religion that has such a grim perspective on the nature of existence, monks like Ajahn Chah (and others) sure seem to take it in stride.

[Anonymous No.17523543]

>>17523523
I'm inclined to agree with you, though I think that the paths converge into a single one.

[Anonymous No.17523590]

>>17523529
Coming from a Catholic home myself I can tell you for most people the connection is minimal, and the general perspective is that while the church has the right message, it is a human institution and thus, fallible like any other. Even for hot topics like abortion or salvation, my family was always in disagreement with the official stance despite going to mass every Easter and Christmas. I realize this is not the same for everyone, but it's a good marker of how you can call yourself a member of a religion and in a way not follow it the way you're "supposed" to. It is much the same in Buddhist countries as far as I know, the best example is Japan, where most people have a butsudan altar and eventually get a Buddhist funeral but attend shinto shrines, get married at Christian churches, yet describe themselves as non religious and many don't even believe in an afterlife of any sort. And about the monks, it's easy to be happy among the suffering if you think you're above it, or on your way to it. If you simply dissociate from it, it is possible to not even see it as ultimately real. But that carries a lot of problems if you want to relate to laypeople in any real way. Notice how western monks always have a slightly contemptous look about them, like they're experiencing the biggest power trip imaginable. And in a way they are, they think they're inching toward absolute transcendence that makes everything else less than a dream.

[Anonymous No.17523620]

>>17523354
>their philosophies are very much at odds with the very foundations of the western mindset

I would strongly disagree with this. You find parallels within Greco-Roman exoteric thought, and within the mystery cults, and even poetry (both in sentiment and grammatical structure, the use of meter, etc). There was this big Indo-European milieu that was full of rich cultural exchange that predated Christianity, and continued openly until the first couple of centuries A.D in places like Alexandria, among others before it was forced to go underground and become "western esotericism".

I find this supposed Gulf of Being between East and West to be rooted primarily in ignorance. There is a very, very, old discourse about the nature of being and the various sides and positions to be taken within this discourse is not limited by Geography. To that end there is no "western mindset" or an "eastern mindset" but multiple mindsets to be found between and within this supposed division that posses shared ancestry and often map to one another.

[Anonymous No.17523663]

>>17523590
>attend shinto shrines
Isn't this because of the syncretism between Shinto and Buddhism in Japan? I also think Japan and China are special cases as far as the practice of Buddhism is concerned due to how widespread Pure Land beliefs are there, but this may not have too much of an influence, I don't know.
>it's easy to be happy among the suffering if you think you're above it
That's true. I do find some monks to be pretty grounded though, and they're usually the most interesting and insightful ones.
Though dissociating from existence and perceiving it as dreamlike and unreal I wouldn't say is exclusive to the monastic way of life; this smugness you describe is probably just a consequence of choosing the "only path that matters" (in their mind, at least).

[Anonymous No.17523691]

>>17523620
>You find parallels within Greco-Roman exoteric thought
The only ones I know of are Heraclitus and the pyrrhonists. Are there any others?
I'm not familiar with the mystery cults at all.
>become "western esotericism".
Isn't western esotericism essentially inspired from Neoplatonism, though?
When I referred to western/eastern mindsets, it was because of my impression that western philosophy had a general tendency to reaffirm platonist ideas, while eastern philosophy was (again, generally) more focused on the idea of inherent impermanence and transience.

[Anonymous No.17523720]

>>17523663
China is home to like 50% of self professed Buddhists, though. I'm not sure if everything else isn't what should qualify as special cases. As for Japan, shinto and buddhism have historically had a rocky relationship that isn't universal, some sects consider the good kami emanations of buddhas, others think they're just beings trapped in samsara and pray for their liberation. It's also worth mentioning there aren't that many buddhist monks as there are PRIESTS in Japan, and that position is often hereditary, so even the clerical structure is quite different and at odds with the classic vinaya unless you do extreme mental gymnastics.

[Anonymous No.17523740]

>>17523720
>there are PRIESTS in Japan, and that position is often hereditary
It's like brahmins all over again.

[Anonymous No.17523761]

>>17523740
Not really, anyone can become a priest, but temples are often family holdings, so one of the sons is expected to keep them running. Also, as far as I know, shinto priests are far more important for public life and rites.

[Anonymous No.17523764]

>>17523761
This all sounds pretty interesting, where did you learn about it?

[Anonymous No.17523799]

>>17523764
All over, but if you want a good introductory book to the different ways Buddhism is and has been lived, The Story of Buddhism by Donald Lopez is a great choice. If you want to learn about the realpolitik part of it, Prisoners of Shangri-La also by Lopez is a good impartial look into Tibet before the annexation, and Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist by Stephen Batchelor contains a first hand acunt of how tibetan buddhism came to the west and how it srarted fragmenting and evolving.

[Anonymous No.17523801]

>>17523799
Thank you.

[Anonymous No.17523820]

While it has beautiful metaphysics I can't get over how life denying buddhism is. Do you buddhists just roll with it?

[Anonymous No.17523843]

>>17523820
More like embracing the life denying part and rolling with the metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.17523844]

>>17523820
The metaphysics aren't inextricably tied to the seeking an aware vegetative state part of the religion and don't necessarily follow fromonly from it. Nagarjuna can be read as a secular philosopher and is no less brilliant for it, Whitehead and process philosophy came up with nearly identical stuff without retroactively deducing all life is suffering or that endless rebirth is needed for it to work coherently.

[Anonymous No.17523860]

>>17523844
>Nagarjuna can be read as a secular philosopher and is no less brilliant for it, Whitehead and process philosophy came up with nearly identical stuff without retroactively deducing all life is suffering or that endless rebirth is needed for it to work coherently.
Which just means none of the two is Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.17523890]

>>17523843
How do you embrace the life denying part? I don't even really disagree with the four noble truths, and the three marks of existence are obvious, but I can't embrace buddhist practice, it's too bleak
>>17523844
I particularly like the views of existence given in the diamond sutra, nagarjuna's writings and the huayan school, but where should I go from there if I don't agree with life denial?

[Anonymous No.17523892]

>>17523860
What exactly is Buddhism for you?

[Anonymous No.17523897]

>>17523892
The king james tripitaka, most likely.

[Anonymous No.17523961]

>>17523890
Why should you go anywhere? Huayan seems particularly beautiful to me too, but it's just metaphysics and one option among countless models to explain existence. All metaphysics are wrong, don't forget that. I don't think we can know what, if anything, happens after death and the entire Buddhist project falls apart if rebirth doesn't work exactly as the sutras say it does, or if the universe isn't cyclical, or even if it has an absolute beginning or end. Yes, there will always be the potential for suffering, but there are better ways to respond to that than committing to a kind of unlife and convincing others to do the same under the authority of 2500 year old dogma that says you can't enjoy anything that isn't eternal for its own sake. Just find a practical philosophy that you can make your own in your heart irrespective of how the world might or might not be.

[Anonymous No.17523989]

>>17523890
Read Chogyam Trungpa if you want an approach to Buddhism that can't be mistaken as life denying. Though thinking any religion is life denying is something of a misconception. Killing the ego and attaining equanimity doesn't mean renouncing life.

[Anonymous No.17524010]

>>17523989
>Chogyam Trungpa
Is the guy that practically drank himself to death really a good example of an enlightened teacher?

[Anonymous No.17524016]

>>17523890
>but I can't embrace buddhist practice, it's too bleak
You can always do this
“Mahānāma, that very quality [i.e., greed, aversion, or delusion] is what is unabandoned within you so that there are times when the quality of greed… the quality of aversion… the quality of delusion invades your mind and remains.2 For if that quality were abandoned in you, you would not live the household life and would not partake of sensuality. It’s because that quality is not abandoned in you that you live the household life and partake of sensuality.

“Even though a disciple of the noble ones has clearly seen as it has come to be with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, still—if he has not attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful qualities, or something more peaceful than that3—he can be tempted by sensuality. But when he has clearly seen as it has come to be with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, and he has attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful qualities, or something more peaceful than that, he cannot be tempted by sensuality.

“I myself, before my self-awakening, when I was still just an unawakened bodhisatta, saw as it had come to be with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, but as long as I had not attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful qualities, or something more peaceful than that, I did not claim that I could not be tempted by sensuality. But when I saw as it had come to be with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, and I had attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful qualities, or something more peaceful than that, that was when I claimed that I could not be tempted by sensuality.

“Now what, Mahānāma, is the allure of sensuality? These five strings of sensuality. Which five? Forms cognizable via the eye—agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, enticing, linked to sensual desire. Sounds cognizable via the ear… Aromas cognizable via the nose… Flavors cognizable via the tongue… Tactile sensations cognizable via the body—agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, enticing, linked to sensual desire. Now whatever pleasure or happiness arises in dependence on these five strands of sensuality, that is the allure of sensuality.

“And what is the drawback of sensuality? There is the case where, on account of the occupation by which a clansman makes a living—whether checking or accounting or calculating or plowing or trading or cattle-tending or archery or as a king’s man, or whatever the occupation may be—he faces cold, he faces heat, being harassed by mosquitoes & flies, wind & sun & creeping things, dying from hunger & thirst.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN14.html

[Anonymous No.17524023]

>>17523961
Well if I were to accept the teachings of buddhism I would logically go the way of the eightfold path, but since I don't agree with abandoning the world just because it is empty and temporary, I'm back where I started. Guess I can't have my cake and eat it too but I would much prefer to pursue spirituality in a way that doesn't completely abandon the world.
You're right that we can't verify the claims made by buddhism but should we just become skeptics then?
>>17523989
>Killing the ego and attaining equanimity doesn't mean renouncing life.
Why? If you kill the ego, you're not of this world anymore.

[Anonymous No.17524037]

>>17524016
You mean try to reach the jhanas? I don't think even that is enough since stream enterers don't have their sensual desires eliminated. And to reach the jhanas you have to seriously practice the path in the long term.

[Anonymous No.17524053]

>>17524023
Real skepticism, not the dishonest kind encouraged by religions that insist you "come and see for yourself" to then tell you what it was that you saw and what you thought about it, is always healthy, it is what prevents us from turning into fanatics. Real religion, whatever that might be, is always engaged with the world and the creatures in it, it cannot turn its back on it or simply expect them to follow their example of renunciation. I can't tell you what spiritual practice to follow, but think about this, if the world is really nothing but pain, there is no greater act of rebellion than trying to make it better.

[Anonymous No.17524067]

>One day, monk Chou asked his master Li Chou for enlightenment.
>The cow moos, the dog barks, a mountain is no tree, Li said.
>That's not enough, Chou protested.
>The master hit him with his dirty underpants.
>Chou was immediately enlightened.
what the fuck, I love Zen now?

[Anonymous No.17524106]

>>17524053
The appeal of "come and see for yourself", especially in buddhism, is that you experience something apparently transcendent instead of just talking about it. If I were to completely abandon all forms of spirituality, I would have a lingering doubt that I'm neglecting to prepare for whatever comes after this.
Religion has to act like a bridge and not a closed gate, you're right. But is it possible to live a spiritual and worldly life at the same time, without either becoming vacuous and insubstantial?
>there is no greater act of rebellion than trying to make it better.
Although that's true, is there inherent value in rebellion?

[Anonymous No.17524140]

>>17519024
Credo quia absurdum.

[Anonymous No.17524146]

>>17524140
Is it just me or has Eren become some kind of ubermensch symbol?

[Anonymous No.17524166]

>>17524106
Yes it is possible. Moreover, I'd argue it is the only way to see if it's all worth it. You get to see the results of your training in the world they're supposed to explain or expand. Otherwise, no matter how impressive the experiences might seem, you could never be sure it's not all just in your head.
>Is there inherent value in rebellion?
I believe there is, even if we fail. And you do too or you wouldn't be seeking spirituality even without any certainity.

[Anonymous No.17524217]

>>17524010
I can believe it. Drinking yourself to death is purely external behavior.

[Anonymous No.17524229]

>>17524023
Your body will keep acting in the world regardless of how your perspective has changed.

[Anonymous No.17524240]

>>17524166
>Yes it is possible
I'm getting a kind of paradox. If the goal of spirituality is to grasp the transcendent in such a way that your illusory conceptions are shattered, how can you balance a spiritual life and a worldly life?
>you do too
I suppose. I seek purpose and meaning above all else.

[Anonymous No.17524247]

>>17524229
You're making it sound like the body becomes an automata of sorts, and that the subject only interacts with the world mechanically, without involving themselves as anything else than a spectator.

[Anonymous No.17524255]

>>17524146
He better not have, because protecting your people is not making your own values

[Anonymous No.17524274]

>>17524217
What about sexual abuse or embezzling? Trungpa's alcoholism was the least of his problems as a person. And everything he touched is fucked, his university is involved in a ton of shady shit and even his son that's supposed to be a tulku on top of it all has credible allegations of sexual abuse over him.

[Anonymous No.17524313]

>>17521064
Thanks anon

[Anonymous No.17524320]

>>17524247
Something like that. More like you're not in control of the body, nor ever have been: God is. Consider Rumi:

> Take the famous utterance, ‘I am God.’ Some men reckon it as a great pretension; but ‘I am God’ is in fact a great humility. The man who says ‘I am the servant of God’ asserts that two exist, one himself and the other God. But he who says ‘I am God’ has naughted himself and cast himself to the winds. He says, ‘I am God’: that is, ‘I am not, He is all, nothing has existence but God, I am pure non-entity, I am nothing.’ In this the humility is greater.

[Anonymous No.17524348]

>>17523989>>17524010
>>17524274
I like how in mahayana and vajrayana, the monks who hit their slaves, I mean new monks and nuns, and diddle kids and women in the monasteries spin it as some form of steps in the path, whereas the christians just say they want sex from them.
The best part is that westerns are okay with the phony narrative but hate christians for being honest. Makes me think.

[Anonymous No.17524358]

>>17524320
>you're not in control
I am under the impression of being in control right now. At least, I can choose to interact with the world.
What kind of God are you referring to here?

[Anonymous No.17524360]

>>17524320
Based.

[Anonymous No.17524375]

>>17524274
To be honest, I have a hard time reconciling that with what he said in Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism. I would have to resort to something that could be called the Marmeladov (from C + P) option: free will is definitely an illusion, and that really does mean you can't judge the acts of bodies, including your own, since they're utterly causally predetermined. Even your aversion to Trungpa is so.

[Anonymous No.17524376]

So this the power of tibetan '''buddhism''


Update from FPMT and Rinpcohe's advice:

Dagri Rinpoche has for many years been one of the Tibetan teachers on FPMT’s Tibetan Teachers List.

The Indian police last week received a formal complaint from a woman who was on a commercial airline flight with Dagri Rinpoche in India, accusing Dagri Rinpoche of inappropriate behaviour during the flight. Furthermore, another woman recently made allegations about misconduct by Dagri Rinpoche 10 years ago, which she shared via a YouTube video.

FPMT International Office understands that best practice is to suspend a teacher from teaching while an investigation is ongoing, in order to protect students, and the teacher. The investigation into what happened on the flight is currently being conducted by the Indian police.

We have therefore temporarily suspended Dagri Rinpoche from the FPMT Tibetan Teachers List with immediate effect, pending the conclusion of the police investigation. This means that Dagri Rinpoche may not teach, or be invited to teach, in any FPMT center during this suspension. FPMT teacher suspension does not indicate an assumption of guilt.

Dagri Rinpoche sent International Office this personal statement regarding the allegations.

Regarding the allegations made on YouTube, we have reached out directly to the woman who posted the video. In 2011, His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s Private Office informed us that they had received an allegation by this woman against Dagri Rinpoche. The Private Office informed us that they had investigated the allegations, and that they had resolved the matter with the woman. They informed us that Dagri Rinpoche understood the seriousness of the allegations and committed to avoid situations which could give rise to similar allegations in the future.

Therefore, we maintained Dagri Rinpoche’s listing on the FPMT Tibetan Teachers List. However, we took our responsibility to students seriously, and alerted FPMT regional and national coordinators about the matter, asking them to inform any center which had invited or was planning to invite Dagri Rinpoche, so that they could consider their invitation in light of this information. We also took the opportunity to review FPMT policies and processes to see if any further amendments were needed to ensure the safety of students, teachers, and centers.

We sent a reminder about this to the coordinators last year, as we were told that talk was circulating about Dagri Rinpoche.

We have received no complaints about Dagri Rinpoche since 2011.

Our recent decision to suspend Dagri Rinpoche is consistent with the emphasis which the FPMT organization places on ethical behavior.

FPMT policies and guidelines are instituted to help individuals in positions of authority to uphold a safe, respectful environment in their local center, project, or service. These include:

[Anonymous No.17524379]

>>17524240
>If the goal of spirituality is to grasp the transcendent in such a way that your illusory conceptions are shattered
Look up the Zen oxherding pictures, the final step is to come back and live a better life informed by your insights, anything else is just escapism. I don't know if there is purpose to this life, but I wouldn't sweat it if there isn't and in a way it might be better that way. Think about it, if we had a single preordained purpose then we could do nothing but that, in fact we would all have done it long ago and there would be no need for existence. Incidentally, that is my issue with most traditions, they insist there is just one thing to do, one goal for the noble ones. Moksha, nirvana, theosis, you name it, it's all you're ideally supposed to seek, and the world is just too complex to be reduced to a single prescription like that imo.

[Anonymous No.17524383]

>>17524376

Abiding within the Law
FPMT Ethical Policy
Grievance procedure guideline
Teacher Policy and guidelines, which help ensure that Dharma teachings are provided only by those who are qualified to teach Dharma (FPMT registered teachers)


Lama Zopa Rinpoche has given this advice for Dagri Rinpoche’s students on how to relate to this situation from a Dharma perspective.

Lama Zopa Rinpoche's Advice to Students of Dagri Rinpoche

If you wish to read FPMT International Office’s update regarding Dagri Rinpoche it is available here.
The following is Lama Zopa Rinpoche’s advice for students of Dagri Rinpoche.

From my understanding, in my view and according to my mind, Dagri Rinpoche is a very positive, holy being—definitely not an ordinary person.

One night a very long time ago at Tushita in Dharamsala, Dagri Rinpoche told me that he had a dream that he visited the pure land of Lama Tsongkhapa (Yiga Chozin). He was saying how unbelievably, unbelievably wonderful it was, with all the beautiful enjoyments and view, wow, wow, wow!

Then in Sera Je Monastery, when I was having dinner at his house, he told me another story. After he recited Rinjung Gyatso mantras, he led the pujas of the Hayagriva group in Sera Je. During the puja he himself was a huge Hayagriva and all the monks were very little. When he was telling me this, his way of expressing it was bringing himself down, saying that maybe he was hallucinating. These are just a few stories that I have heard. But this is definitely not an ordinary being, someone scared of death and the lower realms. That is one hundred percent certain. This is according to my personal view, according to my mind.

Therefore, I want to tell the students who have received initiations and teachings from Dagri Rinpoche that you should definitely one hundred percent rejoice, no matter what the world says, no matter if some people criticize him. Even after Buddha became enlightened, he showed the aspect of having pain in his foot when a piece of wood went through it. Buddha said that the suffering was the result of sexual misconduct with a woman in one of his past lives, a long time ago. Of course, even arhats, who haven’t achieved the five Mahayana paths, the ten Bhumis or the tantric path, don’t have pain. They are free from samsara, since they are totally free from delusions and karma, the cause of samsara. How is it possible for someone to experience pain, rebirth, old age, and death if they have totally ceased the cause of suffering? It then becomes that Buddha is not true and Buddha’s teachings are not true. It becomes like that. Numberless beings have become enlightened: yogi-pandits such as Sahara, Tilopa and Naropa, and many beings from all four sects of Tibetan Buddhism, including Padmasambhava and other Nyingma lamas, Marpa and Milarepa, the five great highly attained Sakya Lamas, Lama Tsongkhapa himself, and many others in the Gelug tradition. With this reasoning everything becomes not true.

[Anonymous No.17524391]

>>17524383
Buddha showed the aspect of a piece of wood going into his foot and said that a long time ago, in one of his past lives, he committed sexual misconduct with a woman. He did this to show the karma to the disciples, to the sentient beings who are the objects to be subdued. So, Buddha himself showed suffering, even though he didn’t have suffering.

This also includes the present Dalai Lama. You can see that His Holiness the Dalai Lama is all that is explained by Buddha, the great yogi-pandits and Lama Tsongkhapa. You can see that his holy mind possesses all the qualities of the path. His holy mind has all the supreme qualities, all the inexpressible qualities beyond the path, that have been explained in the texts by Buddha and up to the present buddhas’, enlightened ones’, experiences, as well as being unbelievably practical and cherishing others like a mother cherishes her most beloved child. No matter whether someone is rich or poor, educated or uneducated, His Holiness sees everyone in the world as equal and gives the most practical advice. Now, even this would not be true. But here you can see this with your own eyes, so then how could you say that it’s not true. The incredible qualities of His Holiness’s gurus and so many other holy beings that you have seen would also not be true. You would then have to say that there are no holy beings. So, these mistakes would arise.

You can see for yourself that if you practice Buddhism—lamrim, for example—your mind has greater and greater peace and becomes more and more holy. How can you then say that even that doesn’t happen? It’s the same as saying that everything you did, everything you experienced, is a hallucination. Of course, this is not related to the view of true existence. The hallucination, in this case, is that nothing exists in mere name: suffering, the cause of suffering, cessation of suffering, the path. Nothing then exists: there’s no hell, no enlightenment, no karma, no samsara, no nirvana.

Then, in the sutra Meeting of the Father and Son, it says, “Buddha works for sentient beings by taking the costume of Indra, Brahmin, sometimes as mara, (but people in the world do not know this). He also shows the conduct, the costume, of a woman. Also, Buddha takes animal forms. There is no attachment but he shows attachment; there is no fear but he shows fear; there is no ignorance but he shows ignorance; there is no craziness but he shows craziness; there is no lameness but he shows being lame. In various aspects, Buddha works for sentient beings and subdues the minds of sentient beings.”

Please understand this. Even enlightened buddhas work for sentient beings like this. So we, including myself, need to see things as positive. From our minds, from our side, we have to try to see the positive side.

[Anonymous No.17524392]

>>17524375
By that logic enlightenment is impossible tho.

[Anonymous No.17524405]

>>17519042
Grounded.

[Anonymous No.17524414]

>>17524392
There is no enlightenment. There is no one to be enlightened.

[Anonymous No.17524419]

>>17524375
Determinism isn't a good defense here, that would be at odds with everything the Buddha taught and Trungpa supposedly believed in and embodied, since dependent origination and even no-self don't preclude agency.

[Anonymous No.17524421]

>>17524379
>to come back and live a better life informed by your insights
Is it an interpretation of the "you were enlightened all along" stance or is it unrelated?
>they insist there is just one thing to do, one goal for the noble ones
I mean, maybe there isn't, but doesn't that amount to accepting materialism? If there is no purpose, there's no need to anything after this life. There's just this universe, were born in it and then we die forever. You say the world is complex, but that worldview is simple.

[Anonymous No.17524456]

>>17524421
It's not really related, it's jist how zen is traditionally taught.
>I mean, maybe there isn't, but doesn't that amount to accepting materialism?
Not at all, it's basic humility. We don't know why we're here and we're likely never going to know. There is nothing simple about being even if the universe is purely material, I'd argue monism, dualism and the rest are unimportant and mere details. Just ask yourself, really, really ask yourself what is being? If there really was an ultimate reality, what does that solve?

[Anonymous No.17524485]

[Anonymous No.17524498]

>>17524414
Nice copout. Alterntively, consider that maybe you took shradda too far and teachers are fallible human beings.

[Anonymous No.17524514]

>>17524498
Cope. Keep chasing your carrot on a stick.

[Anonymous No.17524515]

>>17523820
Modern buddhism is a death cult. That's why I got out of it. Maybe it was different a long time ago.

[Anonymous No.17524520]

>>17524514
A cope to what exactly?

[Anonymous No.17524522]

>>17524515
Where are you now?

[Anonymous No.17524552]

>>17524515
>death cult.
Eh, only theravada
In mahayana you just take the bodhisattva vow and if you don't feel like renouncing too many things you can just postpone that to the next life

[Anonymous No.17524566]

>>17524552
>you take the vow
There is no one to take the vow.

[Anonymous No.17524570]

>>17524456
>we're likely never going to know.
That's the point of a lot of faiths really, to say that you'll get the answer after you die.
>what is being?
I don't know.
>If there really was an ultimate reality, what does that solve?
Nothing from our current point of view. But maybe we're just lacking perspective, much like how a fish in water doesn't know what air feels like, and only after being pulled out of the water can he understand what water even is.
Of course this is just another hypothesis, as you said I don't know and never will know.

[Anonymous No.17524572]

>>17524566
Yeah yeah I know but from the layman's perspective that changes nothing until he experiences it for himself, which most never do

[Anonymous No.17524580]

>>17524456
> really ask yourself what is being? If there really was an ultimate reality, what does that solve?

Not him, but for me, it's not that it solves anything necessarily, just that it's the truth, and for me, that alone makes it worth knowing or attaining. My brother once expressed a thought similar to yours: he used it to conclude he would take the blue pill if the choice between it and the red pill (finding out how deep the rabbit hole goes) was presented. There is something abhorrent about that.

Though blue pill red pill as presented in the Matrix are a poor fit here: you're definitely going to stay in the world of the senses we all know post-moksha/nirvana/henosis/etc.

[Anonymous No.17524584]

>>17524552
And Mahayana is not buddhism.

[Anonymous No.17524589]

>>17524584
Yes anon and don't forget to read the KJT

[Anonymous No.17524592]

>>17524580
>you're definitely going to stay in the world of the senses we all know post-moksha/nirvana/henosis/etc.
Well, until you die. Once you're dead, if you're enlightened you access a different kind of "afterlife" than the unenlightened masses, that's the point

[Anonymous No.17524595]

>>17524584
There is no Buddhist doctrine.

[Anonymous No.17524604]

>>17519042
Extremely based

[Anonymous No.17524614]

>>17520068
This. Also butter

[Anonymous No.17524622]

>>17519024
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

[Anonymous No.17524630]

>>17524572
>changes nothing until he experiences it for himself,
There is no one to experience it.

[Anonymous No.17524636]

>>17524570
My point is there are no easy answers to anything, not even to what being is, and spirituality shouldn't be seen as a straight path with a set goal to achieve because even that presuposes too many things about the world.
>>17524580
You misunderstand me, truth in itself is always worth pursuing and I'm not arguing against following it to the end, what I am saying is that we can't even be certain the truth of awakening doctrines is not partial and it might not account for itself, so it's pointless to be conceited about it and we should keep humble. Consider nonduality for example, why should nonduality be the ultimate real instead of something else?

[Anonymous No.17524643]

>>17524636
>why should nonduality be the ultimate real instead of something else?
Isn't that Nagarjuna's point? You can produce as many complex metaphysical hypotheses as you want, in the end they're all irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.17524644]

>>17524636
>You misunderstand me, truth in itself is always worth pursuing
Read Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.17524651]

>>17524644
What does he say about this

[Anonymous No.17524655]

>>17524630
Yeah

[Anonymous No.17524663]

>>17524651
Truth is a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, anthropomorphisms, in short a sum of human relations which have been subjected to poetic and rhetorical intensification, translation and decoration […]; truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions, metaphors which have become worn by frequent use and have lost all sensuous vigour […]. Yet we still do not know where the drive to truth comes from, for so far we have only heard about the obligation to be truthful which society imposes in order to exist.

[Anonymous No.17524679]

>>17524643
Yes, though there are other ways of reading him. Still, he relies on the crutch of enlightenment as an ultimate ineffable to make sense of it all.

[Anonymous No.17524680]

>>17524636
With all of that in mind, is it hypocritical to still follow a religion just because it feels good?

[Anonymous No.17524686]

>>17519320
Do you know ewk?

[Anonymous No.17524701]

>>17524679
Why do westerners become Buddhists at all? You can have the retarded Buddhist metaphysics without enlightenment, just read Cioran or something.

[Anonymous No.17524706]

>>17524680
As I see it, no. It's perfectly valid so long as you keep an open mind that doesn't let your belief ossify into dogma and admit you follow it because it makes sense to you personally. And of course as long as you don't harm others.

[Anonymous No.17524717]

>>17524706
>as you keep an open mind that doesn't let your belief ossify into dogma
Seems hardly compatible with true faith, no?

[Anonymous No.17524725]

>>17524701
Ask the converts. I'm not a buddhist, I just enjoy these threads. My guess is that in their eyes, its exotic beliefs and aesthetics give it an authority western religions generally can't mount anymore.

[Anonymous No.17524744]

>>17524701
Who do easterners become Christians at all? You can have the retarded Christian metaphysics without grace, just read Shinran or something.

[Anonymous No.17524785]

>>17524717
I don't think so. You can have faith in God for example, but acknowledge others faith in something else is equally valid.

[Anonymous No.17524806]

>>17524725
>My guess is that in their eyes, its exotic beliefs and aesthetics give it an authority western religions generally can't mount anymore.
I think the main issue is that they haven’t read Shankara yet, so they’re still in the darkness of crypto-materialism.

[Anonymous No.17524832]

>>17524806
Morning, guenonfag

[Anonymous No.17524836]

>>17524806
Yesterday night, you said that you only shitposted as a response to Buddhists denigrating Hinduism, but nobody has done that so far in this thread and yet you've been baiting for a couple hours already, with no provocation. Why?

[Anonymous No.17524854]

>>17524836
The other Shankara-poster in this thread is not me.

[Anonymous No.17524861]

>>17524854
Ah, my bad. Your filenames and posting styles are deceptively similar.

[Anonymous No.17524926]

>>17524580
>Not him, but for me, it's not that it solves anything necessarily, just that it's the truth, and for me, that alone makes it worth knowing or attaining. My brother once expressed a thought similar to yours: he used it to conclude he would take the blue pill if the choice between it and the red pill (finding out how deep the rabbit hole goes) was presented. There is something abhorrent about that.
That's because you have been raised by atheists and their infatuation with truth and seeking truth, and thus you have no goal in life. Once you have a goal, lots of things become irrelevant, ie anything not related to the goal. Buddhism has an explicit goal and if something doesn't participate in this achievement, then it's useless.

[Anonymous No.17524933]

>>17524926
How do you find a goal?
Also buddhism's goal isn't all that far from truth, since nirvana encompasses truth.

[Anonymous No.17524934]

>>17524679
Nirvana is not ineffable.

[Anonymous No.17524942]

>>17524636
> why should nonduality be the ultimate real instead of something else?

It's what's left after everything else is discarded, the bare fact that you are, the one thing that can't be argued away. Those who went deep into Being (mystics) all reported the same non-duality, from multiple different places across time and space. It would be nicer if this could be something scientifically verified. Well, it pretty much has, come to think of it, physicalism is a monism.

Regardless, this isn't a view to be forced on people, as religous and political projects have forced their views. It isn't even something I spend my time thinking on. Currently, I just try to maintain awareness of the feeling of being an I, which is the central exercise of one Sri Ramana Maharshi, whose views resonated with me. Ultimately, the view was not even forced on me, I sought out the other side after I stopped thinking science could provide a full account of reality.

[Anonymous No.17524945]

>>17524926
Well that's philosophical suicide at best and cope at worst, anon.

[Anonymous No.17524967]

>>17524942
>Currently, I just try to maintain awareness of the feeling of being an I, which is the central exercise of one Sri Ramana Maharshi, whose views resonated with me.
There is no I, nor is there something that perceives the I. All is flux and change.

[Anonymous No.17524970]

>>17524942
>It's what's left after everything else is discarded, the bare fact that you are, the one thing that can't be argued away
Not him, but his point seems to be there is no answer to the why of being regardless of how deep being goes.

[Anonymous No.17524977]

>>17524967
All awareness is reflexive, deal with it.

[Anonymous No.17524984]

>>17524926
I kind of agree. Ultimately, though I am posting here, I am not attempting to find truth through discursive reasoning in my day to day life, since that is not primary to my goal of annihilating the false self I currently identify with. At the same time, discursive reasoning is not an obstacle to this goal, just tangential.

[Anonymous No.17524989]

>>17524984
>my goal of annihilating the false self I currently identify with
What's your method?

[Anonymous No.17524992]

>>17524934
To Nagarjuna it is. It's the fifth case of the tetralemma of which nothing can be said other than it doesn't fit the other four.

[Anonymous No.17524998]

>>17524967
Yes, but there's a difference between understanding that intellectually, and really experiencing it. That exercise's goal is about doing away with false identification. Same as buddhist practices really, as nirvana is not about becoming non-sentient.

[Anonymous No.17525002]

>>17524977
NOOOO CONSCIOUSNESS IS AN AGGREGATE AND ULTIMATELY NOT REAL WRONG VIEW WRONG VIEW WRONG VIEW

[Anonymous No.17525022]

>>17524998
>but there's a difference between understanding that intellectually, and really experiencing it.
There is no one to experience it.

[Anonymous No.17525100]

>>17524992
Oh okay, fortunately the buddha say the opposite.

[Anonymous No.17525129]

>>17525100
>muh buddha
The Buddha didn’t exist.

[Anonymous No.17525219]

How important are the bodhisattva precepts in mahayana? Are they as important as the noble eightfold path? Are there any sects that don't utilize them?

[Anonymous No.17525309]

>>17525219
They are the maha in the mahayana. I am yet to read a single Mahayana text that does not emphasize bodhisattvas over the "lesser vehicles" of the sravakas and pratyekabuddhas.

[Anonymous No.17525315]

>>17525129
Neither do you buddy

[Anonymous No.17525321]

>>17525309
I get that but I'm wondering if the vows themselves are important in all sects
For example zen is about direct illumination of the mind so I don't see why they should care about vows. Huayan is about the "great vehicle" and realizing the interpenetration of all things, including teachings, so the vows should be seen as relative there as well. Jodo-shin is about pure faith so the vows shouldn't be as important. etc

[Anonymous No.17525344]

>>17525321
Scriptures also say it takes eons to reach the tenth bhumi and practice all the paramitas. It's a mission statement even if the particulars of a school vary in their philosophy or emphasis

[Anonymous No.17525363]

>>17525344
>mission statement
That makes it clearer, I thought it was a set of steps that the practitioner should work through during life
So what's the deal, do mahayanists just believe they're going to follow the bodhisattva path and just practice without paying mind to the bhumis?

[Anonymous No.17525545]

>>17525363
I'm not overly familiar with the practices beyond the textual sources but I wouldn't say the stages are just ignored. I would imagine there is a wide variety of views, that laypeople and monks probably do different things, etc.

[Anonymous No.17526091]

>>17524977
consciousnes is self-reflexive

[Anonymous No.17526118]

>>17525219
>How important are the bodhisattva precepts in mahayana?
>>17525321
Vows and rules are indeed worthless in mahayana, see how they made a joke of the vinaya and of monkshood.

[Anonymous No.17526134]

>>17526118
Dumb hyperprotestant poster

[Anonymous No.17526168]

>>17519042

[Anonymous No.17526363]

>>17524636
This seems like the endgame of all philosophy. How do you even adopt a personal philosophy or belief from there without it feeling like a complete cope? The truth is you have absolutely no way to know what the fuck is going on and no amount of reasoning will help you. Even direct experience won't help you.

[Anonymous No.17526375]

>>17526363
>The truth is you have absolutely no way to know what the fuck is going on and no amount of reasoning will help you.
This is supposed to get you to
>Even direct experience
To this

[Anonymous No.17526442]

>>17526375
>To this
Why? You have no way to determine if your experience is valuable or just an illusion. Not to mention the method you used to reach it could be the wrong one.

[Anonymous No.17526679]

>>17526442
Well?

[Anonymous No.17526687]

>>17519024
Zen is to not understand "what Zen means".

[Anonymous No.17526728]

>>17526687
The Wikipedia article on Zen is pretty clear

[Anonymous No.17526789]

>>17519024
Krishnamurti desu, this:
>>17519277
>The ultimate state of Zen is realizing the mundane world and mind which goes through every day life is identical to this Buddha nature, this abstract-universal way of thought, this form of mind. But realizing this requires an experience of it, just grasping it intellectually is again, grasping it. You must neither grasp nor not grasp even at concepts such as liberation and not-liberation.
>Esoteric forms of zen are so harmonized with Taoism and pure land Buddhism that they shall consecrate idols in the same way, meditate upon I Ching hexagrams, you get the idea.
Fren post your way to the way

[Anonymous No.17526796]

>>17523691
>The only ones I know of are Heraclitus and the pyrrhonists. Are there any others?
Pic related

[Anonymous No.17526808]

>>17519024
I bought Suzuki's book on Zen and Jap Culture only to be told in the introduction that Suzuki actually did a very shit job at it and basically highly distorted many aspects of japan to his own particular way of expressing Zen. I'm pissed.

[Anonymous No.17526830]

I've just finished reading a bunch of articles on East Asian Buddhism and I don't get Nichiren, it sounds like a literal cult. Can someone explain?
On the other hand I'm getting more and more interested in Pure Land, especially its Japanese sects. Does anyone know of good resources for this?

[Anonymous No.17526845]

>>17526796
t-thanks

[Anonymous No.17526908]

>>17526808
Really? I thought he was an authority on the subject
We're talking about Shunryu Suzuki right

[Anonymous No.17526941]

>>17526908
D. T. Suzuki

[Anonymous No.17526975]

>>17526941
The OP pic is Shunryu Suzuki, he wrote "Zen mind, beginner's mind"

[Anonymous No.17527049]

>>17526679
Nobody? This is an important question.

[Anonymous No.17527160]

>>17519277
This reminds me of when my dad taught me how to shoot a bow. He would say "you gotta focus on every single muscle in your body, the target, etc, but at the same time your mind must be completely empty, not focusing about your muscles or the target or anything. Draw back and release." I try to apply this mindset in a lot of things that I do, to learn skills as a cultivated instinct. I wonder how similar this really is to the zen tradition, I can't help be feel that it's not quite analogous, but I'm not sure.

[Anonymous No.17527210]

>>17526442
You know by doing I guess? I'm not that guy just trying to decipher his post. Experience is the best teacher, if you are concerned about "false experience" you just do it until you are sure it isn't false. Not sure if that's a satisfying answer but it's all I can think of at the moment.

[Anonymous No.17527411]

>>17527210
I guess. I just think there's always the possibility that all of your experiences are still "in the illusion" and that you're not actually grasping the true nature of reality.

[Anonymous No.17527429]

>>17526830
>it sounds like a literal cult.
More on this?

[Anonymous No.17527707]

>>17527049
It is impossible to get an universal truth wherw you know for certain there is nothing further and i'm convinced even enlightened teachers have only half convinced themselves they made it and can teach. The only way is to search for your personal truth and gather it from more than one place. Then keep humble about it and reexamine it if it doesn't hold in the face of new evidence or information. The Jains hsve this thing where they say there IS an universal truth but it has many sides and everyone can only grasp one facet of it.

[Anonymous No.17528515]

>>17527707
>even enlightened teachers have only half convinced themselves they made it
I mean maybe an enlightened perso just broke their brain. Or maybe they only attained a low level form of realization and mistook it for the real thing. There's no way to be sure.

[Anonymous No.17528792]

>>17528515
That's true. Enlightenment doesn't even have the same definition across Buddhist traditions. What some have attained might not count as the real thing by other groups' canon.

[Anonymous No.17528826]

>>17528792
It's all so tiresome
I just wanna wake up