Is Buddhism one of the most based and practical systems for overall well-being there is ?
A quick read of it makes me think it looks similar to Epicureanism.
But usually, Buddhists are goddamn hippies who don't really think about how to control their desires.
>>1331276
the more I think about nibanna, the more I see it has dump a poo.
at first, you do not know that you have poo in you
then you notice it
you understand that you just need to let it go
then you clearly feel it ready to leave
once it left, you know that it left and you feel light and serene.
>>1331283
In the west mayb
Taoism
>>1331276
>usually, Buddhists are goddamn hippies who don't really think about how to control their desires.
What's it like never leaving your house and constructing your worldview from 4chan postings?
>>1331283
Maybe posers, but in the East Buddhists are probably among the most abstinent when it comes to worldly pleasures.
>>1331301
The fuck
>>1331276
NO! Using reason and logic is.
>>1331471
this.
western buddhism is all pretty much watered down. real buddhism cannot be integrated with western living. there are actual delusional people in the west that think meditating 15 minutes a day and reading zen koans makes them enlightened then they start saying motivational stuff and continue to pursue their desires, its just watered down newage stuff compared to real buddhism.
>>1331489
Why did you post this? Are you so ignorant of Buddhism you think it spurns rationality?
>>1331508
Any step in the right direction is a step in the right direction.
>>1331607
But real Buddhism is genuinely full of demons and divinities, some of them rather silly
>>1331617
It's also pretty polytheistic
>>1331622
>Bodhisattvas.
>Gods.
The closest equivalent would be Catholic Saints.
Hell, the closes equivalent would be Ancient Greek Hero Worship
>>1331301
What in the...
>>1331625
All authentic Buddhists believe there are multiple gods. Please don't give me this trash about Buddhism being atheistic or potentially atheistic, it's not.
>>1331848
>Buddhism is theistic/polytheistic
lol
It's another episode of "autists can't into symbolism" everyone
>>1331848
>muh no true Scotsman
>>1331848
which gods?
>>1331848
Wrong.
First of all, Buddhists may accept the fact that there are devas in the Heaven-realms, and that they have some measure of power over the human world. However, these 'deities' themselves are unenlightened and trapped in samsara: as such, they are not worthy of respect or worship, and they cannot deliver an individual from his karma or from the cycle of rebirth. They are not all-powerful or omniscient. They are not creator deities. They simply accumulated good karma in past lives and were reborn in the realms of bliss, and after their lifetimes end and their good karma has expired, will be reborn either in the human world or in the Naraka.
Even these 'gods' needed to be taught by the Sakyamuni, and found their power to be vastly inferior to his.
So no, your entire post is just wrong.
>>1331848
It isn't that anon.
You can have a "buddhist" monk say to you there is an absence of divine intervention in life coming off as atheistic. You can have another monk mention countless divinities.
Both become generizations, whether or not they are polytheistic or atheist.
>>1331857
The divinities can be symbols and the divinities can be sentient beings.
MAHAYANA BUDDHISM IS A CREATION OF MARA
AKA MARAYANA ALL THERAVADA MONKS KNOW THIS THIS IS A MAINSTREAM VIEW IN THERAVADA STAY AWAY FROM MARAYANA!!!!!!!
https://youtu.be/wj8ROh7dyHE
What are the main differences between Buddhisms like Marayana, Theravada, Zen, etc.
>>1331878
They are still gods desu
>>1331878
>>1331889
As a scholar of Buddhist sutras the idea of non duality is present in Hinduism and much as Buddhism. We can all this non duality "True Self" or "No self/Void" but we are talking about the same state. So I do feel like Buddhist are talking about the same thing as eastern theists.
There are many cultural reason for not calling that state God because Buddhism was a cultural backlash to Bramins. This topic is to broad for a 4chan post but I hope you guy get the idea.
>>1333266
this
>>1333266
can you show a few suttras mentioning this non-duality, especially in SN and AN.
>>1331471
I think you're mistaking Buddhists monks for average Buddhists in the East, which is like using Orthodox monastics to represent average Orthodox Christians.
>>1333645
t. Reza Azlan
>>1333266
what is tha pali word for non-duality
>>1331471
Buddhists are people and indulge just like we do.
monks argue with each other, play tricks on lay-people and go up to the mountains to ignore questions.
I think you have a misconception of what a Buddhist is.
Any opinions on Evola's book on buddhism (Doctrine of Awakening)?
>>1335640
Most patrician book on Buddhism there is to be honest blood relation
>>1334412
>>1335589
Sorry just got home.
"anatman" meaning no atamn or no self.
The problem the Hindus and Buddhist are trying to solve is the fact that we have a ego separating us from the Totality. The Hindus call the Totality the The True self, Brama,Krishna, Shiva, Vishnu etc and that everything is the True self and God. The Atman is your individual soul or your Ego. So when Hindus Say The Atman is Braman. They mean that your real soul is the Totality and that you and everyone is God.
Now on to Buddhism they say that there is no Atman or Ego (Anatman) and that it is just an illusion. So if you see the Ego as a flame on a candle, when you blow out that flame you Nibbana it. Nabbana means to extinguish or to blow out. Now that there is no ego there is just the Totality and Wholeness of the Universe and deep peace.
So this state of Self realization or to know that your are one with God and the State of having no Ego and then becoming one with the Totality
are the same thing. It is called non duality because there is no more You or me, Heaven or Hell, Nirvana or Samsara etc there us Wholeness.
Buddhism starts with the Ego and works its way to the Totality and Hinduism Starts of with what being one with the totality is like and you work your way there. No again this is a lot the explain in a 4chan post and of course I generalized in a lot of areas.
>>1336538
This anon is right.
With both Buddhism and Hinduism, we are dealing with a rejection of what is, in the ultimate sense, illusory and proceeding to the ineffable nature of what "you" ACTUALLY are behind the illusion. What that is is just called different names in different cultures and systems
It's not like Buddhism is saying nothing exists and were just hallucinating ourselves or whatever other, bizarre shallow understanding of no-self plebs will peddle
>>1335640
Absolute bullshit. He covers the basics pretty well but veers too far into his own philosophy which is incompatible with buddhist doctrine. His theory of "aryan Buddhism" is largely baseless as those types of racial or status-dependent characteristics are expected to be abandoned by the serious practitioner. The Buddha explains over and over again that one should not seek support in the skhandas or claim ownership of particular physical qualities. The Soma sutra explains in clear terms that anyone who delights in defining him or herself in any way at all is under the grip of illusory thoughts.
>>1336575
Ariya as a noble spiritual constitution, unless you're telling me some gangbanger is as likely to embark on the path of askesis as someone whose got their shit together, which is absurd
>>1331508
>real buddhism cannot be integrated with western living
This is awfully presumptious. There are many ways to go about it and people who might not meet your high standards of spiritual practice may very well be bodhisattvas working in their own way, or at any rate have their own karma to deal with. Since emptiness is the final truth, there is no ultimate right or wrong in samsara. There is consequently no sphere of human activity which is incompatible with Buddhism. Your responsibility is with your own practice, not to judge others.
>>1336538 Continued
Now in my opinion Stoicism is getting to the same thing as Hinduism and Buddhism.
The idea is that we have reason just like God has, so that makes us God like or like the Totality, True self etc. So if we use reason we can bring ourselves closer to the totality. Good in Stoicism is proper judgement and evil is error is judgement. Using reason properly is called virtue. Virtue brings us closer to living in harmony with nature and this is call tranquility. The stoics even talk about how wanting causes us to be unhappy etc.
The reason I bring this up is because eastern society is built around Buddhist/ Hindu/Taoist customs and practices. Stoicism is a ancient western way of achieving the same aims with out having to live in a monastery or homeless.
Finding a bikku or a saddhu in the west is a pretty hard thing and the training is pretty hard, so I feel like stoicism is easier in a sense and works better in the west.
>>1336589
The problem is that Evola does not keep to this definition of a "spiritual constitution" but obsesses with it as an actual caste based on historical depictions of the Shakya clan. No such emphasis or demand is placed in the Pali canon. If anything, the Buddha renounced his Shakya heritage when he went forth. The Dhammapada explains the criteria for a Brahmin or holy man in clear terms, that it's not dependent on lineage, clothing, etc.
>>1331301
My sides
>Buddhism threads on 4chan
Absolutely cringe worthy m8's. At least read the Wikipedia entry about Buddhism before you let loose your rampant shitposting.
>>1336614
Good posts anon.
>>1336693
Ty :)
>>1336614
>another anon who understands all religions and (most) philosophies are just slightly different ways of tackling the eternal human problem of reconciling the particular with the universal
We are a dying breed anon
>>1333266
>>1335589
I'll rebut this.
Nondual tradition of Hindu arose after Buddhists did. Buddhist nondual didn't point to God because it wasn't talking about God. Hindu nondual talks about God because it was based off of Buddhist nondual and implanted on to a Hindu theism.
So the reason why it feels the same is because one is directly taken from another.
There are many invalid reasons for not calling the state God in Buddhism. A valid reason is because when nondualism was being created and used by Buddhists, hindus didn't have an equivalent. This was a later adaptation by hindu.
continuing from >>1338253
>>1336538
I'll disagree with your assessment once more. anatman doesn't mean no self. It means "not self."
Buddhists aren't trying to separate their ego from "Totality." They posit what people consider to be their ego is based on false premise and the reality is merely the impermanance and the emptiness (buddhist variant not annihilistic or nihilistic variant) of self.
Both hindu and buddhist say ego is an illusion, although it was the buddhist that said it first. In anycase, the meaning behind the word "illusion" is completely different. Hindus adapted this to mean the ego is merely part of the greater god. They view re-joining with god as total peace. Whence the buddhist version posits an totally impermanant variant that's simply limited to the current situation, not part of something greater god.
>>1336614
Stoicism is "same" as Hindu/Buddhism because Stoicism is a product of Greek-Indo meeting. Specifically from the Greek incursion into India by the Alexander. This great contact lead to people like Pyrrho and others to get more intimate with generic Sramanic(jain/buddhism) thought of the time. Those greeks that went to India and learned those later influenced Epicureanism/Stoics/Skeptics/etc. Read the Shape of Ancient Thoughts for more.
>>1331929
Don't yell at me Brian.
>>1338310
>>Stoicism is "same" as Hindu/Buddhism because Stoicism is a product of Greek-Indo meeting.
stoicism has no meditation, which is the key tool to get awaken. meditation is what westerners miss, instead they spend their time dwelling in their intellect...
How do I into buddhism?
I know about Siddharta Gautama, I know about a few schools, but which sutras do I start to read?
I heard the Pali Canon is Theravada, Mahayana also has it's own "book".
How do I even choose a school to follow?
Also, is the believe of a creator against the buddhist theory? I heard it is, and frankly I do believe the world was created and not coincidental
That, however, doesn't mean I believe in a poweful God that dictates us and smites us if we sin
Hey does anyone have that post saved where they talk about the judeo-christian tradition as developing mantra meditation. I thought it was a fascinating idea and wanted to fact check it.
>>1338455
Don't worry so much about a particular school to follow, focus on practicing meditation first and later on try to reflect on various texts and see which ones resonate the most. It's important that you get good face-to-face instruction on buddhist meditation so try to find a local center.
Notable theravada sutras:
Dhammapada
Anapanasati
Snake Simile
Rhinoceros
Mahayana:
Diamond
Heart
Lotus
Lankavatara
Surangama
Zen:
Platform
Bloodstream sermon
Denkoroku
Shobogenzo
Faith in Mind inscription
Mirror-jewel Samadhi
Transcription on harmony and differences
In theravada, metaphysical beliefs are advised against, but they are not incompatible with Mahayana practice. I know a lot of christians who also practice Zen buddhism for instance.
>>1338678
I'm going on thursday to the only meditation "temple" in my city. It's a zen practice apparently.
In the meantime you reckon I should give the ones you mentioned a read and not go for the whole pali canon and the chinese mahayana book? (Forgot the name for the mahayana text)
>>1338820
read this for anapanassati
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/S8147309#p8147868
and read this to understand the dhamma in one post :
hedonism is the opposite of the dhamma
>Is hedonism a "valid" philosophy as long as the person practicing it has enough foresight?
the dhamma is about the failure of hedonism. what is hedonism ?
-to have pleasures
-to have pains
-to fancy pleasures
-to hate pains
- fancy pleasures and hate pains to the point of taking them seriously, in saying that they matter.
because you take seriously what you feel, your deliriums form your mind and your consciousness. you choose to care about all this, about what you think and feel, to the point that you choose to identify with all this.
once you understand that, in order to be happy, there is no point in clinging to your desires which are always fading, and uncontrollable, once you understand that no matter your behavior, there will never ever be a fix to your discomfort nor to your boredom, you dive deeper and deeper into a state of of stillness which installs equanimity+compassion (these words are the usual words describing the states).
for people saying that hedonism is relevant,
>life=what you feel+what you think+what you expect from your desires from what you feel and think
therefore,
>grade your desires
and
>non acting on your favorite desires = non life = death
hedonism is not an effective doctrine to be happy. Hedonists believe that you literally die if you ''do not think nor do feel''. They have faith that 'no moving' is death.
of course, doing the opposite brings you a better life:
>perpetual evanescence and lack of control of what you think and feel, therefore cannot be taken seriously (to be happy) => stay still towards what you think and feel.
Once you try to reach stillness, you are more equanimous and benevolent.
>>1338820
Zen centers are great. Shikantaza, which is the essential form of zazen meditation, can be very demanding, but it they can get you started on breath counting you'd be off to a good start.
The Pali canon is very extensive and repeats itself through various similes, but there's a lot of great stuff in there beyond the small slice I recommended. The Dhammapada is a compendium of key Buddhist doctrine and can be a companion throughout your whole buddhist "career". The Anapanasati sutta is the Buddha's original guide to breath-centered meditation that later lead to branches like Zen meditation. The Rhinoceros sutta is the oldest sutra that we know of and describes, quite beautifully, life for the wandering monk. The snake simile sutta has a few good sayings. But yeah, there's LOTS more in the Pali canon that are some of the most important buddhist teachings ever committed to text, wouldn't be able to cover all of it.
Lots of Mahayana sutras are long-winded sci-fi stories that can be difficult to appreciate for the beginner just looking for clear advice. The Diamond and Heart sutras are the most important exceptions. I wouldn't know which chinese book you speak of as there are several that were brought into China at the same time and created Ch'an and Zen. The Lankavatara may be the most notable one. The chinese Platform sutra is one of the most important actual chinese texts.
Zen sutras often veer off into being Zen books or poems rather than traditional sutras, but tend to be concise and beautiful. They can be difficult to appreciate if you don't practice a lot of meditation, but for that reason I think they serve as excellent guides to gauge the quality of your practice.
>>1338841
Thank you so much.
I started with the Diamond sutra which is somewhat long and story-like. But I like it so far.
I guess I'll continue with the Mahayana texts you've recommended and then move on to others.
Google has brought me "all the buddhist sutras from a to z" without mentioning which school they belong to or any details
>>1331276
practical for what?
>>1331617
not Theravada
>>1331276
yes
>>1339299
Your white buddhism is showing there anon.
>>1331301
poo in loo
>>1331301
Beautifully said anon.
>>1331677
Because ancient Whites invented Buddhism. Certain spiritual and metaphysical themes are common everywhere in the White diaspora.
>>1336538
>>"anatman" meaning no atamn or no self.
how do you go from no-self to non-dualiy?
>>1341354
It's the same thing eventually
You're thinking of Christianity m8
>>1343321
>Christianity
>more practical than Buddhism
wew
>>1341354
Not the other guy but, anatta(non self) is tied to sunyata (emptiness). Since duality is more a category, you can go either monist (hindu all is one) or empty (all are empty) route.
>>1343333
not going to hell is pretty practical
>>1343357
You'll still land in hell, just not the Christian hell. Muslim hell is there for you. So is the Buddhist hell, the hindu hell, the atheist hell as well.
>>1343333
The goal of Buddhism is to become a rock, dead and pointless.
To carry the burden of the cross is to live.
>>1343374
this; emotions matter to hedonist who think hedonism is a good life style.
But of course, most people love hedonism far too much to stop being scared of leaving hedonism. Most people are not meant to be something else than hedonist. In fact, the whole humanity is here because people love to cling to what they feel and think and refuse to do something else with their life.
for people saying that hedonism is relevant,
>life=what you feel+what you think+what you expect from your desires from what you feel and think
therefore,
>grade your desires
and
>non acting on your favorite desires = non life = death
hedonism is not an effective doctrine to be happy. Hedonists believe that you literally die if you ''do not think nor do feel''. They have faith that 'no moving' is death.
of course, doing the opposite brings you a better life:
>perpetual evanescence and lack of control of what you think and feel, therefore cannot be taken seriously (to be happy) => stay still towards what you think and feel.
Once you try to reach stillness, you are more equanimous and benevolent.
>>1343375
Which ties nicely into the idea of the ultimate nature of reality as a living void, void because it is empty of any qualities and distinctions, living because it is the source of being itself
In death, one finds the life that conquers death
butthurt normie
Quit implying eastern buddhists are so special. Many take bribes (pmuch indulgences ala old catholic), shitpost (normal style) on cell phones and live modern lives. Rich superstitious in china and india / wherever else fucking force money into the hands of """"""high ranking"""""" guys upon sight for them magical tithe:reward gainz
>>1343374
That's about as incorrect as you can get and is motivated by your idea that only a rock can be free of suffering/stress. No such statement can be found in buddhist doctrine.
>>1344269
This isn't about personal lives of buddhist but rather the Buddhist ideal itself.
>>1331301
enlightened as fuck
>>1331301
i believe this is a direct excerpt from the buddha's teachings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxloUBCYuFM
what is the buddha nature, i hear you ask?
>>1343375
I'm just afraid that all it'll lead to at the end of the day is a lonely and self absorbed existence.
>>1345137
then do samatha mediation beforehand, it makes you happy with no exterior means
Reminder that Zen people are such plebs that they allow nuns and monks to get married.
I do like it, all mysticism aside. I'm having a nice discussion in a /pol/ thread right now based on master Hsuan Hua's warning of avoiding homosexually.
>>1331283
Western infidels
>>1331283
Buddhism is all about controlling desires tho
I think you're confusing Buddhism with Taoism
>>1331283
Only how hipsters and "cultural buddhists" practice it.
Genuinely devoted Buddhists are pretty interesting.
>>1346157
>what with the world being shit and trying to find a way out of it.
its the opposite of trying to find a way out
>>1346157
Tantric Buddhism is probably the most similar to Gnosticism since it along with other forms of occultism involves rituals and a permeant concept of dualism such as that of void and non voidness and other yinyang like philosophies.
The mainline Buddhist practices are more compatible with biblical precepts though not necessarily those emphasized by the churches or by Judaism.
>>1331276
Cuck religion
Daily reminder to not fall for the dry-insight meme and go do Jhana.
>>1347225
Loving yourself is being a cuck?
>>1347516
but the dry insight seems well documented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassanā-ñāṇa
>>1347225
well I can tell you they won't get minged by muslims at least
>>1350212
these people are not good buddhists
>>1331276
No, but Alan watts and most interpretations of Buddhism would have you believe something along those lines
>>1331929
And who the hell is this guy? is he a professor of theology? is he ordained?
Not that I dont take him at his word about theravada monks Buddhists can be pretty political.
>>1331276
Buddha tl;dr: Your mind keeps you in sleep and darkness, only the immutable truth can wake you up, but the truth does not sit in the concreteness of forms but in the abstract of though.
Basically a huge blue pill - just ignore the apparently meaningless life, and find meaning in the abstract realm of mind - where anything can be possible. There you will find joy until you die and that's about it.
>>1350499
found the 20 yo white stoner
>>1338820
I've heard the book "What the Buddha Taught" is a great entry point to those wishing to gain a grasp of the fundamentals, so maybe look into that
>>1346069
Link?
>>1350589
I am white and 20 but not a stoner.
I've done drugs before - but never overdone them or everyday like you would imply - also been pretty much 6 months since my last joint.
>>1336610
>There is consequently no sphere of human activity which is incompatible with Buddhism. Your responsibility is with your own practice, not to judge others.
Buddhism is full of restrictions, 227 for the men and 311 for the women , this is not just about standing still in lotus position but about living the Right way of life to attain nirvana.
>>1331677
What about devas, which means literally gods? (easier to see if you speak a romance language)
And don't start with "but they're not omnipotent!" because not all gods are, even greek or nordic gods were subjected to fate like humans.
>>1352551
Buddhists don't worship them, they're still a part of conditioned existence and so not a state one should necessarily aspire to
>>1352555
Pretty sure they do, at least some. Although is not really important if they do or don't since that doesn't stop them being gods or existing, and they're still part of buddhist cosmovision.
An atheist says "I don't believe in god/s" not "I don't whorship god/s". The of course causes the second, but they're not the same. If there's buddhists who refuse to whorship gods, they do it for completely different reasons.
>>1352569
I meant the first of course causes the second, sorry.
>>1352569
No they don't worship the Devas in the scriptures.
Talking about Devas and their grade of existence is just another way of saying "even if your life is fucking awesome nothing lasts forever", end of story. They don't dwell on the Devas. Even the dalai lama admits in the English introduction to the Tibetan book of the dead, one of the "wackiest" forms of Buddhism, the peaceful and wrathful deities are just externalisations of different fundamental aspects of the mind
Buddhism has probably the most exhaustive and thorough understanding of human phenomology of any system in the world. all geared towards the living of a healthy, balanced life, but autists like you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater because of a little colorful language le epin science man wouldn't approve of.
Fucking autist
>>1352592
I can name several sects that do, I can even quote you Buddhist prayers.
To esoteric Buddhist mind is the only reality, so something can be real and false at the same time.
Buddhism certainly does include a very interesting study of the human condition, but even theravada Buddhism contains rituals such as circa-ambulation and relic veneration/worship
>>1352631
>mind is the only reality
>but gods like still exist lmao so it's wrong
You don't get it.
I find Nietzsche's philosophy to be the most "true"/wise/deep and for that reason the most practical, if by practical you mean useful for orientating your life or thoughts.
I'm not sure buddhism could even begin to be on the same level, it assumes one didn't start with the Greeks. Considering our globalist era, I doubt you can even have an orthodox buddhist worldview/perspective, simply because the western rationalist-empiricist scepticism that started with the Greeks has spread everywhere and seems on the way to making [what it regards as] sheeple-"mysticism" extinct.
Want to think like the proud professions, scientists and doctors? What kind of doctor would consider "life is suffering" (if this is a misrepresentation, then it is taking centuries to be remedied) to be a statement a healthy person would make? What kind of scientist would consider the statement to have sound derivations?
>>1352642
>it's another fedora who thinks life is suffering means existence is unending torment and not just a recognition of the inherently unsatisfactory nature of life episode
Shoo shoo autismo
>>1352664
>strawman
Thanks for playing.
What kind of doctor would consider "life is inherently unsatisfactory" (if this is a misrepresentation, then it is taking centuries to be remedied) to be a statement a healthy person would make? What kind of scientist would consider the statement to have sound derivations?
>>1352592
>spouts an angry, mostly meaningless rant that doesn't even proof his point
>I'm the autist
>>1352639
I get it better than you, with your duelist thinking.
>>1352672
Hahaha oh my god, how fucking devoid of life experience you have to be to think the hedonic treadmill, old age, sickness, death isn't a thing?
>>1352694
Nah, you don't.
If you really, intuitively understood all is mind, you wouldn't be harping on about how certain sects choose to to express and promote certain aspects of that mind
>>1352716
I am unenlighened after all, in fact I do not consider myself a buddhist.
but to the work a day Buddhist in these sects the gods are worshiped That in the higher exercises a deity can be real and unreal at the same time does not imply that the gods are not viewed as powerful manifestations which can help a practitioner in various ways. Indeed monks of these sects were routinely recruited by rulers to intact rituals and cast spells, and claimed that their rituals effected the outcome of events
>>1352696
What kind of doctor would consider the belief "life is inherently unsatisfactory" (if this is a misrepresentation, then it is taking centuries to be remedied) to be a result of healthy life experiences? What kind of scientist would consider the belief to have sound derivations?
We could do this all day. Does philosophy101 not teach kids that value judgements are relative to (or a projection from) the person who judges? I thought relativity was supposed to be the most famous (and hated) doctrine of contemporary philosophy?
If you think life is inherently unsatisfactory, that only reveals that your philosophizing is inherently unsatisfactory.
>>1352753
This is why the Buddha discouraged philosophizing: when you need a formal proof for why life is inherently unsatisfactory for grasping beings
You're autistic and engaging with Buddhism as some philosophical system to be accepted or discarded. this isn't a lecture hall. When you're ready to talk about real life, out there, come talk to me.
I mean Jesus fucking Christ even the most fedora anti-intellectual will agree that we are conditioned beings that depend on circumstances outside of our control to feel complete, emotionally, and to keep our fucking hearts beating, biologically. Jesus christ
>>1352788
Not him, but Daoists actually have a similar criticism of Buddhism
>>1352753
The buddhist statements regarding the noble truth of dukkha do not explicitly state that life is suffering/stressful/unsatisfactory, but that "there is dukkha", that such things as stress and suffering are inherent and inescapable components to living. It is not based on a philosophical line of theoretical inquiry but a keen subjective observation, is and something most reasonable people would agree with. Dukkha has multiple meanings, which at the most apparent level relate to the stress of loss, and at the most subtle levels relates to the movement of life, the momentum of desire, the ebb and flow of change. The only sense in which life is said to essentially BE dukkha is within this particular angle of fundamentally lacking stability. The reason dukkha is emphasized throughout all of Buddhism is twofold: due to the inherent danger within that instability to one's measure of happiness, and because a solution is discerned: the stability and freedom of nirvana. Buddhist doctrine does not endlessly theorize on the metaphysical nature of life but approaches, in a scientifical way, a singular problem and proscribes a singular solution. Once the solution has been applied, one is not expected to engage the initial statement anymore. The actual analogy used in sutras is that one does not carry a raft around after it has taken one to shore. Furthermore, the nature of dukkha and how it relates to one's own life should be investigated both rationally and in meditation, and one is not expected to fully understand it without considerable practice in meditation, precisely because we ordinarily miss the recurrent pattern of movement and instability in every situation. When we are more self-aware, that tends to change and dukkha as a fundamental component, even in pleasant moments, tends to become more obvious.
>>1352639
You're missing out if you think this is a contradiction.
All you have to do is follow the logical onset of the "mind is the only reality". This means gods, chocolate candies, humans, suffering, living, dying, etc all become part of the "fake" reality.
This is the mind-only buddhists tradition. Aka a buddhist version solipsism
But ofcourse, this is not the only buddhist tradition. There's also the "emptiness" tradition, as well as a hybrid of the two, and others.
These are however simply deeper level buddhist cores.
>>1352753
You're argument is perfectly coherent. We'll just have to find some person whose live is constantly at a happy state. Or rather the overall majority.
I can tell you now, the answer is very obvious. Even the very richest do not have constant happiness. They still worry about money, their health, their time, their children, their future, etc.
And the poor? They have tons more issue regarding life. Just because you forget those doesn't mean those didn't happen.
>>1353116
Pro post.
boi
>>1331301
At this point I am now enlightened
>>1350211
Dry insight is commenterial memery.
I could literally drop a dozen suttas from the Tipitaka outlining the importance of Jhana.
>>1352788
>>1353149
Your plebeianism is inherently unsatisfactory.
>Everything [life] is untrue [unsatisfactory]
The question refers to itself indirectly [it's within everything] and is contradictory. No wonder such logicians can only see the unsatisfactory.
>>1353116
Much better. However, you still assume that phenomenology is deep, and that suffering is a problem which requires a [final?] "solution".
I think you went deeper than they did in saying not only is life suffering but specifically it is suffering because "becoming" is [one of?] its essential characteristic. And I resort back to the opinion of the doctor or scientist. Slandering the characteristic of becoming/change is both unhealthy and unsound.
>>1350212
>dry insight
The christians do the same in Centre Africa and South Soudan, but their religion is still cucked and so is buddhist.
>>1348328
>Ignore the second part about licking the feet of the entire universe because "muh love"
>>1356355
It is pretty safe to say that the Dharma is only of interest to those who seek a solution to dukkha/suffering/stress.
I still don't understand what kind of doctor or scientist you're echoing here, it's too vague when you refuse to specify further and simply appeal to some authority strawman. think it's important to recognize what we mean by "suffering" here, and whether that entails slandering life's innate change. I don't think it does, rather that it's an effort to recognize it for what it is, and the dangers inherent to that instability. I don't know what kind of respectable people you had in mind, but philosophers, scientists and doctors alike echo the same basic statement of the fickle nature of life. It's not a nihilistic or negative view but a practical one. This is what people who do not identify with the essential assumption of life as problematic (or whatever you want to call it)miss, purely because they are in agreeable conditions. In the Buddha's words, they are like kings holed up in their kingdoms, unaware of being beset by armies in all directions. I would prefer to say that people who ignore these aspects of life that threaten us are more or less willingly, and perhaps a little desperately, trying to shut out uncomfortable truths. It's not a bold way to live. In a way, it is much more life-affirming to acknowledge and deal with these realities in an appropriate manner. For buddhists, that means some variant of the eightfold path.
>>1331929
Shit, i think he's trying to speak to us
>>1357060
I'm little confused, how is loving others being a cuck?
Its not as if "love" is limited in quantity.
>>1352536
Those restrictions are for monastics though, not laypeople. Western Buddhist monks also follow them. Plenty of monks in Japan don't.
Being a monastic is not and never was the only way to genuinely practice Buddhism.
>>1336610
>>1331508
It's true that certain parts of "(modern) western living" are downright opposed to the Buddha's teaching, but that was the case in every society Buddhism encountered through the ages, it was even the case in India during the Buddha's time. Buddhism will adapt, like it always did, but also those who are serious about Buddhism will change themselves as well, again like they always did. A lot of truly stupid things circulate about Buddhism in the West, but there are great things that circulate as well.
>>1331656
Yes and no. Most deities are just another class of beings who might or might not wield some power over daily life, but ultimately they're not really important and their worship is a matter of personal choice that has nothing to do with actual Buddhist practice. Bodhisattvas and certain other deities are all indeed "entifications" of metaphysical principles, the meanings of their names prove this instantly.
>>1331940
>Marayana
ayy
At first (as in at the time where differences had become sharp enough to categorize, classify and analyze) there were 2 big branches: Hinayana and Mahayana. Hinayana schools went on to become extinct for various reasons, part of their teachings were preserved in the Mahayana canons. The only extant school that is not really Mahayana and is quite close to one Hinayana school, yet is not Hinayana is the Theravada. To simplify a bit, only the Pali Canon is considered as Buddha's own teachings, and emphasis is placed on individual effort and the Arahant ideal (the state of one who has attained liberation through the teachings) is supreme.
Mahayana went on to divide itself into many schools that could show big or small differences. The Pali Canon's equivalent, the Agamas, as well as the numerous later Mahayana sutras are considered to be Buddha's own teachings (however what Mahayana sutras exactly might vary from school to school), the emphasis is still placed on individual effort but it can or should be augmented via ritual and/or reliance on Bodhisattvas or Buddhas (especially in the case of Pure Land schools), and the Bodhisattva ideal (the state of one practicing the perfections to eventually become a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha in some future) is supreme.
Zen is a Mahayana school. In modern times there have been people who wanted to present it as something either wholly detached from Buddhism, or as something sort of tied to the Buddha's teachings but not really; however it actually is Buddhism if you consider the entire history of Zen. Zen's emphasis is on meditation and letting go of mental grasping and conceptualizing as much as possible (very probably as a reaction to what was going on at the time when it emerged), but historically for the most part this did not mean to actually consider reading sutras as a waste of time.
Many other Mahayana schools exist.
>>1360198
Also in Mahayana the understanding of Emptiness (Sunyata) is extremely important on the path of reaching Tathagatahood.
>>1331301
what the fuck am I reading
>>1360198
Hinayana is not a real buddhist sect, it's a Mahayana meme meant to disparage the Theravada. It means "little vehicle" as opposed to Mahayana's "great vehicle".
>>1360229
I had to give this some thought, I looked it up and stand corrected. The primary theme for the branches termed as Hinayana were sravaka and pratyekabuddha paths, which emphasized the arhat goal of private practice and enlightenment, and disregarded the bodhisattva goal. All of those were Theravada derivatives but not necessarily part of the Pali canon. They are described in great detail in sutras like the Lankavatara, I simply always thought they referred to Theravada traditions.
>>1360229
Actually they are not Theravada derivatives, Theravada is a derivative of an older Hinayana sect, and has certain elements of Mahayana in it (notably the fact that the Bodhisattva path is recognized, but open only to one who would have made an aspiration for enlightenment after meeting with the current era's Buddha and not something that would be open to everyone). It also has lots of differences in practice and attitude from the descriptions of Hinayanist ones we get from the Mahayana sutras. Which is why it's neither Hinayana nor completely Mahayana.
Also yes, even today some Mahayanists use the term to disparage Theravadins, without being aware of the fact that the Hinayana depicted in sutras doesn't correspond with the actual Theravada (the meetings between Theravadins and Mahayanists today is generally very fruitful and surprising for both parties because of this). With the ease of communication we have today that's something that needs to be addressed in the future. The caricature Hinayanist depicted in Mahayana sutras wasn't a pure fabrication, Mahayana's development was probably spurred from the fact that a lot of people were actually behaving like those people depicted. But over time that caricature was taken to be something completely real and always valid, and the twofold division of Mahayana/Hinayana came to be accepted as the only possible framework and no school could exist in some other place.
>>1359268
Because "others" include pedos, murderers, rapists, junkies, people who hate you,
Unconditional love is cucked, because some people don't deserve your love, and some people deserve to be more loved than others.
>>1360292
>Theravada is a derivative of an older Hinayana sect
Wrong. Hinayana is a sect that no longer exists and it is a subsect of Mahayana.
>>1360643
>Hinayana is a sect that no longer exists
As I said in my first post.
>and it is a subsect of Mahayana.
No, it most probably predated Mahayana. Even a 2 minute reading of the wikipedia page for Hinayana will tell you as much, to say nothing of the commentaries and passages in later Mahayana works that talk about how the emergence of Mahayana texts are an innovation and better than the explanations Hinayanists use.
>>1360615
>putting an artificial divide on people in your mind
At the end of the day, people are people. They all want to love, be loved, have good sides, have bad sides, etc.
Disdain of others is simply a disdain in your mind. When you think of these artificial distinction, you create your own discomfort/anger/hate. Your rational for hating them is because they're hateful/ugly/evil, but if this is the case, then this should exclude everyone with those qualities. Including yourself. In this scenario, the world is filled with hate, anger, stupidity, and irrationalty.
>>1360615
The Dharma does not encourage unconditional love for all beings regardless of wrong-doings. What it calls for is an attitude of metta and compassion. Metta is normally translated as loving-kindness but that's a bad translation as it implies the necessity of interaction. One should not engage a snake or murderer with an attitude of blind kindness. Metta is better translated as goodwill, which recognizes the dangers of evil beings and allows one to steer clear of them, but still wish for their well-being, for instance, that they will come around to their moral senses. Compassion is not directed to particular circumstances, or some type of pity or naive friendliness, or directed to one type of people above others, nor does it necessitate a particular course of action. Simply put, it is a universal recognition that all beings are bound by the three poisons: greed, anger and delusion. Hence, one is advised not to allow anger to grow in the face of evil, because "it is in the nature of fire to burn". It is in the nature of foolish beings to act foolish. Other than that, one should not be compelled to behave a certain way against one's better judgement, since that would surely be a product of desires, even if the intention is good.
>>1361730
>>1360615
Indeed, as the Metta Sutta goes, the main idea is "In gladness and in safety, May all beings be at ease."
However I think that loving-kindness isn't that bad of a translation. Because in the end, when thinking about what you can consider evil beings, you still interact with them- mentally (it would be action and not interaction if it was one sided, but generally thinking about murderers and the like and their acts provokes an action of the mind on that object meaning the different ways it can consider it, but also an action of the object on the mind, meaning the moods that it creates). So one then cultivates what is called "loving kindness" towards those beings, which of course includes goodwill.
Also it supposes that while metta and compassion do not necessarily entail being careless around danger (this is a personal choice. And also one can debate what the opposite of carelessness is in this case), it does entail not grasping at that perception of danger and evil and seeing it as a permanent condition. One only needs to remember Angulimala for an illustration of this.
Also, the "others" you >>1360615 mention indeed don't deserve love in a universe where beings connect only once and live only once. But in the Buddhist view beings connect multiple times and live multiple times, so a person you hate now that falls into one of those categories might have been a close friend, a parent, a loving partner etc. (or, with astronomically small odds, even yourself- if it's a historical figure) in a previous life. And these relations might have been actualized not just once, but even billions of times. Therefore one strives to abandon that hate, as well as that selfish love that classically prioritizes "me, my friends and my family", for it is all just bound to conditions that will disappear before long.
I think that Pure Land fanatics have interpreted what Shakyamuni said about Amitabha wrong.
How can Amitabha transfer his Karma onto us, with one condition: faith and absolutely no personal merits required.
It sounds to me like a doctrine more than anything. I'm not even attached to the idea of personal merit too much, but what if we ARE living in Amitabha's Pure Land? I don't recall anything that was said by Shakyamuni that goes against that
>>1362162
This might be a controversial topic in this environment. In my experience, every serious practitioner sooner or later confronts the reality that what enables us to finally subdue the poisons is ultimately great faith. Whether that faith is in self-power (traditional branches, one's own capacity to transform karma) or other-power (Amitabha branches, the capacity of another) is not really important. Karma provides its own means for transformation through this process.
The Pure Land is nirvana and nirvana is always present, it is only obscured by delusion. When that fundamental principle is grasped, there is no Amitabha and no one who depends on him. There is no karma to transform. But here we are and there are plenty of ways to go about it. I see no problem with chanting the Nembutsu to get there, nor an exceptional difference to sitting all serious and focused in jhana.
>>1362162
Pure Land is a little problematic because historically the Buddha didn't say anything whatsoever about Amitabha. That doesn't mean that the Pure Land conception is necessarily false however, it's a complicated issue.
I think most clear minded people today would agree that Amidism (Pure Land fanaticism) that prety much goes "dude you can't get gud nowadays, just do the minimum ethical training possible and recite the name with a lot of faith in rebirth, you'll become a buddha in no time" is bs though (since this kind of laziness and helplessness has never been taught by the Buddha, and attaining Enlightenment without the development of perfections and wisdom has never been taught by the Buddha either). There have been much more complex elaborations of the Pure Land path, as well as integration with other Mahayana branches and even Theravadin perspectives.
I like the way >>1362583 put it.
stop being so autistic and learn to actually meditate autists. for fucks sake
The Sikh religion is based on the idea that most people shouldn't be Sikh, just like Confucianism. This means that they will never engage in violence based on spreading their religion, because spreading the religion is not a goal. Even Jews think that most people should live according to jewish principles, Sikhs do not.
>>1364485
>just like Confucianism
Confucius never said that as few people as possible should follow the principles he talked about.
My 'critique' of Buddhism would be that what has been practised throughout the centuries hasn't actually been 'Buddhism'; as in the historic teachings of Gotama the jungle jhana nigger.
I've been reading works by academics (Bronkhorst et al.) about pre-secratarian Buddhism and there's some big doctrinal contradictions with Buddhism as it has been practised throughout history, and early Buddhism.
If we take what we know of early Buddhist teachings to be the axiom by which we judge the religion, it makes Mahayana look like fanfiction, and even with orthodox Theravada traditions there are a lot of contradictions.
It seems that Buddhism started out as primarily a Dhanya-school which is funny considering that has been the most neglected aspect of practice throughout the ages.
Funny how that works.
>>1366324
>it makes Mahayana look like fanfiction, and even with orthodox Theravada traditions
What does this mean? That Theravada is orthodox, or that there are multiple "Theravada traditions" some of which are orthodox and some of which aren't?
Whatever the case, both assumptions are completely false. It's too early for you to delve to this subject, t b h.
As for the rest, not only was Buddhism not a "dhyana school" (its "innovation" was using dhyana and insight together), dhyana was also not the most neglected aspect of practice either.
Read more. And don't believe every half assed assumption by Western scholars to be absolute truth.
>>1366324
I'm not sure you should take what we know of the historical Buddha as axiom, at least when it comes to Buddhism
>>1331301
"Brother, you have been enlightened"
>>1366395
>Whatever the case, both assumptions are completely false
Except they're not. Mahayana being a made up meme fest is not even scholarly disputed and there are blatant contradictions to be found within the Tipitaka itself.
>its "innovation" was using dhyana and insight together
Except for the fact that dhyana is largely considered a Buddhist innovation, plainly different from contemporary practices found in for example Jainism.
We can also infer from plenty of suttas that insight is an emergent quality that arises when one practices Jhana, but this is more arguable.
>And don't believe every half assed assumption by Western scholars to be absolute truth.
I'd rather take the word of people that have been studying this shit for 40 years than some random memer on a Croation Genocide Forum.
Don't try to school people with your Wikipedia tier knowledge.
>>1366324
The important thing to understand about early buddhism is that the Buddha didn't bring the 8 jhanas to the table. They were already being practiced by other sects at the time, he found them unsatisfactory and eventually discovered something beyond them. If you understand the fundamental implications of that discovery (emptiness), the subsequent Mahayana developments make a lot more sense. With that said, jhana practice isn't exactly neglected across the board as even today it's the primary object of schools like Zen.
>>1331656
Reminder that mongolian Buddhists literally thought that Baron Ungern was the reincarnation of Ghengis Khan as a wargod that climbed out of the underworld and was destined to free mongolia in the 1920s.
>>1366585
>Except they're not. Mahayana being a made up meme fest
That's not the point. The point is about this retarded notion of orthodoxy which doesn't apply to Buddhism in any shape or form.
>Except for the fact that dhyana is largely considered a Buddhist innovation,
By whom? Bronkhorst? Don't make me laugh. And whatever the case, as in whether it's actually a Buddhist innovation or not, the Buddha clearly states a billion times that the Jhanas are not the end of road. An essential part of the practice, sure, but not the primary focus. Whatever the hell that's supposed to be. Insight is tied with the jhanas in Buddhist meditative practice, and they're not supposed to be 2 completely different types of meditation, at least once you've gone past the stage of beginner.
>I'd rather take the word of people that have been studying this shit for 40 years than some random memer on a Croation Genocide Forum.
Maybe you should also take the words of people who've been studying this shit for 40 years, but who are not "Western scholars" exclusively. Besides if you actually knew anything about scholarship you'd know that everything concerning history that is based on assumptions and inferences is to be taken with a grain of salt. Especially so in the case of religious practice.
>Don't try to school people with your Wikipedia tier knowledge.
Says the guy who opened up wikipedia and stuck to the "Dhyana may have been the core practice of pre-sectarian Buddhism, but became appended with other forms of meditation throughout its development." passage.
>>1368542
>made up meme fest
>That's not the point. The point is about this retarded notion of orthodoxy which doesn't
>doesn't apply to buddhism
Retarded westerner who believe buddhist is atheistic and monks are peaceful hippies spotted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy#Other_religions
>>1369167
Oh boy. Another wikipedia professor. And one that doesn't even actually read.
Where do I even start?
First of all, Tibetan Buddhism nor Tibetan history nor Tibetan society nor the Tibetan experience of Buddhism is equivalent or representative in any shape or form of the totality of the thing we call "Buddhism". Tons of completely different cultures adopted Buddhism and had different experiences with it.
Second; the article doesn't even actually point out where in "Padmasambhava literature" the "wrathful conquest of Buddhist heretics" is mentioned. One should also ask what exactly qualifies as a "Buddhist heretic" when Tibet itself was home to many different schools (which actually competed violently at times, but not much effort was made to obliterate other schools and their adherents). Unfortunately this is not mentioned in this enlightening article either. You'd have more luck with Kalachakra literature, except the meaning of the whole war stuff contained in it isn't as obvious as it first appears. The Berzin archives among others has studies about it. None of the Buddha's own teachings contain any invitation to violence whatsoever, and very few Mahayana sutras (Mahaparinirvana comes to mind as the chief offender) do. Even in the case of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra it occupies like 0.5% of the entire text and contradicts itself.
Third; Buddhism is atheistic insofar that it does not recognize an omnipotent, independent, eternal creator being. No school of Buddhism does or did. It has however always recognized the existence of "gods" -as just another class of beings like humans, animals or Hell dwellers.
>>1369167
>>1369167
>
>>1331301
>>1369167
>>1369226
Fourth; through history there have been all sorts of monks, and even in the Buddha's time misbehaving ones existed. Monks taking up arms and killing people existed (see Shaolin monks, Japan's warrior monks), monks that endorsed and justified violence also existed (see Sri Lankan religio-regal literature). Monks who lived completely in accordance to the training existed as well. Only an idiot would equate monasticism with holiness, and even the most devotional of Tibetan Buddhist literature where the master-disciple relationship is so important that the master has to be considered as a Buddha doesn't pretend that the masters are necessarily in harmony with the teachings.
The article also mentions the existence of "Buddhist theocracy", which then links to a page about the Five Precepts. Which is hilarious in itself, but I guess the point is to draw the attention to the fact that the Sangha exists. The Sangha that is simply the community of monastics and has nothing whatsoever to do with something like Christian theocracy (not to say that locally it never approached it, again see Tibetan history). The implication of this in the article is not clear however.
>>1369228
>>1369238
Now we're entering total comedy territory as the poster gets away from the question of whether orthodoxy as understood in "Theravada orthodoxy" or "Theravada is orthodox, Mahayana is fanfiction" and moves the goalposts to "does heresy exist in buddhism?". Which in this case is basically asking, "can Buddhism accommodate any random belief or 'interpretation' that comes from feelings and opinions?". The answer is of course "no", as any person with half a brain could guess.
Now the question of what heresy in Buddhism entailed is another matter. It entailed neither excommunication (the only way to get something similar to it is to be a monk and break monastic codes that are punished by disrobing), nor condemnation to punishment in the afterlife, nor violent attack by armed mobs.
>>1369271
>as any person with half a brain could guess.
Your argumentum ad hominem don't matter, the facts are you're still the only one who deny the existence of buddhist heresies, scholars and buddhists themselves acknowledge their existence.
> as the poster gets away from the question of whether orthodoxy...and moves the goalposts to "does heresy exist in buddhism?".
If you fail to see the relation between orthodoxy and heresy i can do nothing for you.
>>1369350
> you're still the only one who deny the existence of buddhist heresies
>"does heresy exist in buddhism?". Which in this case is basically asking, "can Buddhism accommodate any random belief or 'interpretation' that comes from feelings and opinions?". The answer is of course "no"
Learn to read please. The answer of "no" is not given to the former question but to the latter.
The mention of people with half a brains was also not an ad hominem, it was an illustration to insist that this (the existence of orthodoxy in Buddhism) is something that would be fucking obvious to anyone who bothered to do some minimal reading and doesn't even require proof.
>If you fail to see the relation between orthodoxy and heresy i can do nothing for you.
Orthodoxy exists in Buddhism, as I also said and repeated just above. Now explain to me how and why Theravada is orthodox.
The question was NEVER about whether orthodoxy in itself existed in Buddhism (it does, but I'll repeat that it does with completely different mechanics than in Abrahamic religions). I admit that I should have been clearer in my post >>1368542 (I did write "this notion of orthodoxy" and not "the notion of orthodoxy", however), but generally people who stumble around uttering the words "Theravada" and "orthodoxy" in the same breath aren't talking about orthodoxy in itself, but Theravadan orthodoxy as opposed to Mahayana fiction or even heresy.
>>1356206
what people call vipassana samadhi is just Sampajañña https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampajañña
vipassana jhanas are memes indeed
>>1369487
Vipassana meditation was developed in the 20th century outside traditional buddhist branches. In traditional buddhism it is never mentioned as a meditation technique, but is a form of insight that arises in conjunction with jhana meditation. I would take these sorts of schools and techniques with a grain of salt, as they haven't been practiced, refined and taught over thousands of years. The Buddha never told students to do Vipassana or samatha/whatever meditation, he said "Go do jhana".
>>1369905
>>1369487
For a more informed discussion and research on this topic, refer to Bhikkhu Sujato's book "A History of Mindfulness". And to this page with the comments as well
http://www.theravadin.org/2009/02/26/from-vipassana-hater-to-vipassana-lover/
For a big tl;dr, "dry insight" type of vipassana meditation is a recent meme and vipassana was never divorced from jhana. "vipassana meditation" and "samatha meditation" are basically preparatory exercises, they are to be combined later. "Vipassana meditation" that can be used to this end as well if you make some adjustments and don't limit yourself to the artificial frame of "dryness".
I'm a newfag to buddhism
I read some stuff, done some zazen at my local center and a bit at home.
I don't understand all those schools. Pure Land is out of the question for me.
Theravada sounds somewhat ok but a tiny bit too strict.
I don't get the purpose of Zazen, I wish someone would not give a vague explanation.
Tibetan is kinda weird and extremely culture-oriented imo. A western fuck like me wouldn't fit well with it
So far Theravada and Zen seem the best for me to follow, although I can't understand either of them too well.
I'm more inclined to Zen as I have a place to go to in my town, but I can't fucking understand the purpose of bowing to a pillow and sitting in straining positions for more than half an hour trying to think about nothing.
Somebody help
>>1371120
Don't concern yourself too much about schools. There is no one right school or anything like that (even if the disparity is sometimes troubling!). Familiarize yourself with the "common core" of Buddhism which is the Pali Canon and/or the Agamas, that will be the best thing to help you navigate the ocean that is Buddhism.
>I don't get the purpose of Zazen
It's just meditation although the Zen tradition likes to mystify it and some teachers try to present it as "something else". It's a bit complicated for me to explain because I'm no meditation master, but I'd explain Buddhist meditation in general as a twofold method of strengthening concentration to access tranquil and clear mind states, which are then used to analyze reality in the light of the teachings so that the conclusions can be "learned" at a level beyond mere intellectualism. Different methods of meditation approach this differently but they all do the same thing. Zazen makes the person simply observe the way things are without distortion by thought founded on false assumptions, and the person can thus see and "learn" the teachings at the subtle level. Done right this gets them closer to enlightenment little by little.
>Tibetan is kinda weird and extremely culture-oriented imo. A western fuck like me wouldn't fit well with it
You can fit in, but Tibetan forms are really devotional and with lots of mysticism in them, so it depends on your temperament.
>bowing to a pillow
Just a mini preparation ritual, you can imagine bowing to the Buddha on the pillow if it makes more sense for you.
>sitting in straining positions for more than half an hour trying to think about nothing.
Every beginner to meditation feels that way, in time that perception also changes.
>>1371120
>>1371232
If you really are a grade-A newfag, I recommend reading some good introductory level books. I firmly believe that having a solid foundation will help you immensely regardless of what school you end up following, and what kind of research you do. My 2 recommendations are "The Foundations of Buddhism" (available online if you google it) and "In the Buddha's Words" (might also be able to find this one).
Hope this helps.
Also since you mentioned Zen, I'll add a note saying that satori, while frequently translated as enlightenment or awakening, is actually not it. It's an enlightenment/awakening experience, a taste of it.
>>1371120
>I'm more inclined to Zen as I have a place to go to in my town, but I can't fucking understand the purpose of bowing to a pillow and sitting in straining positions for more than half an hour trying to think about nothing.
Actual zen masters weren't really happy about practices like this either.
I'd advise you to read some of the original chinese zen classics, most of them discouraged all kinds of practice (including meditation).
Zazen is also not part of the original zen teachings, it was created later on when zen came to japan.
I'll just list names of zen masters which will be interesting to read:
>bodhidharma (brought lankavatara buddhism to china, 1st patriarch of zen)
>Hui Neng (last of the 6 patriarchs)
>Mazu (after Hui Neng came Hui Rang, after him Mazu)
>Pai Chang (student of mazu, not nearly as important though)
>Huang Po (student of Pai Chang, one of the most interesting reads imo, even better than Mazu)
>Lin Chi (student of Huang Po, also a good read)
You can pretty much disregard everything after Lin Chi.
There are some interesting guys after him of course, but none of them describe zen as clearly as Huang Po and Lin Chi did.
The texts of bodhidharma and Hui Neng are much more "buddhist" in nature, with Mazu started the development of Zen own unique non-buddhist style.
Although some text of the other Patriarchs (Sengcan, Farong, etc.) seem also more closely related to Mazu than to Bodhidharma in their teachings.
Lin Chi is the founder of one of the schools that survived until today, known as Rinzai Zen. (Rinzai is the japanese version of Lin Chi's name)
>>1371120
I have practiced Soto Zen buddhism for about 7 years and zazen is very close to my heart. I wish I could give a simple explanation but I'm not eloquent. Zazen is very difficult and takes considerable time to understand and practice. This is not because it's complex or fancy, but because it's an objectless form of meditation, where we do not strive to cultivate a certain state of mind. It is very difficult for the mind to settle into that practice. We want goals and methods. But whenever we strive through methods to some concentration or ideal of enlightenment or whatever, that's something man-made, only what our mind imagines to be special and fancy. It's something artificial and not part of the ordinary function of the mind, and it's not healthy to strive after such things. In Zen, we believe that the natural functioning state of the mind is Buddha, and doesn't need to be polished once we are free of both fancy ideas of holiness and grasping after material desires. It is difficult to uncover that natural function because we chase after things all the time. I don't know what your teacher recommended, but normally we are taught to let whatever feelings, thoughts and states arise without pushing them away, and pass away without holding onto them. I know how paradoxic it sounds when you describe it like this, but when you do this "non-cultivation", the mind and body finds ease and eventually true peace. Without holding onto ideas about who we are supposed to be, without the slightest thought of enlightenment, we find ourselves utterly free and uncover the deepest point of buddhist doctrine: nirvana is your everyday life. It's not about cutting off thought, it's about being free of artificial effort. We sit to practice this so that the mind can be at the same ease in every situation. Zazen isn't just done on the cushion, it's done in traffic, at work, doing the dishes, eating, shitting etc. But we have to use the cushion as a center to let this process grow.
>>1371120
Bowing is done to show respect to the above principles and not let our shallow ideas or understanding dictate what's important in our lives. You shouldn't feel obligated to practice Zen meditation but it's very rewarding if you give it proper time. If the guys at the center haven't gotten you started with breath counting yet, you can try that. Count your outbreaths 1-5. Remember to breathe with your belly. Long or short breaths don't matter.
>>1371286
I might also add that Zen is often seen as a meditation sect, which might seem correct if you look at the currently available zen sects rinzai and soto
But if you look into Zen original teachings, you'll find that the old masters discouraged meditation as a means to enlightenment.
First there is the story of a poetry contest bewteen Hui Neng and Shen Xiu.
Hui Nengs predecessor Hongren started the contest to look for a worthy guy to become the next patriarch. Shen Xiu submitted a poem claiming the we need some kind of practice while Hui Neng won with a poem claiming no practice is necessary.
(Comparing the poems is more interesting, but I don't want to make this too long)
Then there is Mazu's enlightenment story: He was sitting there meditating, when his master Huirang came to him and asked him what he was doing. Mazu answered that he is meditating to become enlightened. Then Huirang started polishing a stone. When Mazu asked him what he was doing there, Huirang answered that he is polishing a stone to make it into a mirror. (implying that makes a much sense as meditating to become enlightened)
Then there are the countless passages of Huang Po and Lin Chi discrediting all kinds of practice and attainment.
Also questioning all kinds of spiritual authority, with Lin Chi's famous saying:
> Whatever you encounter, either within or without, slay it at once. On meeting a buddha slay the buddha, on meeting a patriarch slay the patriarch, on meeting an arhat slay the arhat, on meeting your parents slay your parents, on meeting your kinsman slay your kinsman, and you attain emancipation. By not cleaving to things, you freely pass through.
>>1371286
Shikantaza which is the essence of zazen as it's practiced today was developed very early in the development of Ch'an and is not a japanese invention. Hongzhi described it in great detail, but Hui neng also delineated meditation in ways that corroborate to shikantaza. The roots go all the way back to Anapanasati.
>>1371340
The point of all these is something that Zen emphasizes all the time -not getting attached and not considering things as "things". You can of course believe that polishing a stone is as useful as meditation, but might as well add that the Buddha and everyone who followed and follow him are retards while you're at it. What Lin Chi means is that, from the perspective of ultimate truth, you can't "become" enlightened. It's not something to gain after doing something. And meditation is not a separate thing that acts on the world or the person. The Buddha or anyone else, nor the dharma itself, are to be clung to; yet "kill the Buddha" does not mean consider the Buddha as something as low as dirt. It's not a questioning of spiritual authority, it's a questioning of attachment to authority.
The point is not "dude just chop wood carry water lmao" like so many Western Zen students like to say. No Zen master of old worth his salt, whether they were Indian, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese or Japanese, ever implied this in any way or form (though some "masters" did). Zen is not Taoism. Only when you truly grasp what chopping wood and carrying water mean and entail can you actually do it. And to do that training is necessary. Just don't get attached to perceptions, views, attainments, practices, persons, traditions.
>>1371340
To say that students of those days didn't practice meditation is utterly false and you've misinterpreted both of those cases. They aren't disparaging practice itself but the way practice is done by most students. Hui neng and Mazu alike recognized that it's not a matter of polishing or cultivating. It's important to add that the way Hui-nengs koan case is studied today, both poems are held in equal regard and his response is not considered more advanced. They are two sides to the same practice and both sides interplay continually, otherwise it stagnates.
>>1331276
>abolition of the self
>Hegelian dialectic is the model of reality
no.
I guess you could be a Buddhist.
>>1371340
>that poetry contest
Something similar went by in Tibet when the Tibetans were choosing between the Chinese buddhism and the Indian buddhism by the Tibetan empire.
The winner of that contest was the Indian. Instead of the "no practice necessary", the "practice is necessary" won out.
Strange how two sides of the buddhism had different "winners" and "losers".
>>1371364
>developed very early in the development of Ch'an and is not a japanese invention. Hongzhi described it in great detail
Hongzhi is not really early development as he was after chan's golden era in a phase where many detrimental developments of chan started
detrimental developments include epecially the creation of the koan system and possibly also zazen.
The authenticity of the platform sutra of hui neng is questionable, and his stance on meditation is probably more close to his master's stance which Hui Neng described liked this:
>He had no particular methods, but only stressed the necessity of seeing one's self-nature. He did not even speak of deliverance through dhyana.
>>1371404
what students did is of no relevance, what masters said is obviously more important
Why imitate a student if you can listen to a master?
We have records of those guys, and they do discourage meditation as means to enlightenment
It is said that Shen Xiu was inferior because he believed "As you practice so shall you recieve"
>>1371393
>You can of course believe that polishing a stone is as useful as meditation, but might as well add that the Buddha and everyone who followed and follow him are retards while you're at it.
No I'll add what Huang Po himself said: The purpose of dhyana teachings is to attract the dull of wit.
There is the direct teaching, the zen core that Huang Po taught, and the slow path which is buddhism.
But the slow path methods are inherently useless and that realization is the first step towards liberation.
Buddha himself knew better, but if people want meditation techniques and see them as necessary he gives them meditation techniques.
>open thread
>ctrl F Stoicism
Glad to see a couple of anons already said the correct answer.
>>1371479
I used the term students as in all Zen buddhists being students of Zen, there's no need to make artificial distinctions between master or pupil and most teachers didn't. You're basing your arguments on a very shallow understanding of practices that have been intertwined with Zen buddhism since it's inception and motivate them with hand-picked quotes without knowing the context in which they are made. When men such as lin-chi told his monks to stop trying to attain something, he was speaking to a group of people at the height of rigorous meditation practice and wanted to coerce a final breakthrough into the essential principle. This has always been the purpose of the Zen master. Even Bodhidharma was said to spend 9 years wall-gazing.
The direct teaching of men such as Huang Po was about bypassing surface efforts of meditation, which was meant by "dhyana practices". Zazen doesn't involve itself with dhyana stages of old - the Lankavatara sutra explains why in detail. The Lankavatara sutra also exhorts the practitioner to "avoid social intercourse and sleep and cultivate the discipline of mindfulness during the three periods of the night".
>>1371479
The direct path is a meme fabricated by Zen to paint their own method as different, and superior. It's no different than Kukai grading the different teachings and putting Shingon at the top. These were things done with specific aims in mind, it doesn't mean that those methods are truly the best or the most direct.
Again what Huang Po means isn't as superficial as what the words mean. Only if dhyana is taken as a method of doing this to gain that can it actually be something to attract the dull of wit. But of course, dhyana is not something as superficial as that. The people chasing behind it might be, and they can learn to see their own shallowness.
The Buddha knew better? It's too bad that he didn't ever imply the sort of stuff people like you claim then.
Isn't it ironic that the same person who brought up the questioning of spiritual authority is appealing to spiritual authority? Not only that, but there's also the rejection of meditation while clinging to some "original" "direct teaching". A direct teaching which is no different from polishing a stone like >>1371404 stated, the same as "meditating to become enlightened".
An all too common error made by students of Ch'an (might as well not use the term "Zen" if only the Chinese have the authentic stuff, right?) who think they're too good to read anything other than Ch'an material, and that clinging to superficial meanings is enough. Instead of reaching out to the simplicity and directness that is the heart of Ch'an and putting on shoes, they go round and round by trying to cover the entire world with leather.
>>1371544
>hand-picked quotes
except that literally every 2nd sentence of Huang Po's records supports my thesis
and there is approximately no support at all for the opposition
Huang Po didn't speak to buddhists only, some of his audience were taoists or scholars, not only buddhist or zen monks.
And to those audiences he says the same stuff, so this is not only for people who he could be sure to have a rigorous meditation practice.
Same goes for Lin Chi.
It is said that bodhidharma sat in front of a wall for 9 years, to not lead people into opinions.
It is not said that this was a demonstration of meditation practice.
The "not leading people into opinions" part is the point of the story, not meditation.
>>1371558
>Only if dhyana is taken as a method of doing this to gain that can it actually be something to attract the dull of wit.
Since chan is about seeing the self nature and all methods are discouraged by Huang Po,
If we don't see dhyana as a method, why do it in the first place? you either do it because you think it will lead to enlightenment or you just do it for it's own sake, but then it's still unrelated to seeing the self nature and in consequence unrelated to chan
Saying meditation is related to chan makes as much sense as saying gardening is related to chan.
Some chan students practiced both, but neither is directly related to chan. Just something chan students also happen to do.
>Isn't it ironic that the same person who brought up the questioning of spiritual authority is appealing to spiritual authority?
I'm appealing to chan masters as authorities to answer questions that concern the teachings of chan. I don't appeal to them as spiritual authorities.
Just like I would appeal to the pope as authority on the catholic faith, but not appeal to him as spiritual authority.
See the difference?
>Not only that, but there's also the rejection of meditation while clinging to some "original" "direct teaching".
Did you see me expound any doctrine I cling to?
Only thing I do is show evidence that original chan did not endorse meditation practice
If would actually read the original chan literature, you'd see the overwhelming evidence for my case.
The reason I speak of "original teaching" is that later on, this changed. But for the first few hundred years, my point stands.
The reason I speak of "direct teaching" is that it is the teaching without methods or doctrine, in contrast to other teachings with tons of methods and doctrine.
The direct teaching is the teaching that offers nothing to cling to. No practice, no nirvana or liberation, no nothing.
All of these things are like stories told to children to stop them from crying, as Huang Po put it.
>>1371650
>I'm appealing to chan masters as authorities to answer questions that concern the teachings of chan
ie. as spiritual authorities
Or are you pretending that Ch'an falls outside of spirituality? Or do you have some strange notion of spiritual authority, like the position God occupies in Abrahamic religions?
You also arbitrarily distinguish between Ch'an/Zen/Son masters to fit your own fantasy definition of Ch'an, on your supreme authority many people who most consider and have considered as true masters have become nothing more than garbage to be haughtily looked at.
>Did you see me expound any doctrine I cling to?
No, because you have no doctrine. But the reason for this is not because you have attained the teaching without doctrine and gone beyond things to cling, it is simply because you are ignorant and delusional. You clearly cling to your conception of special snowflake Ch'an, which is a cute imitation of Taoism at best, but is completely meaningless outside of intellectual masturbation.
>The reason I speak of "original teaching" is that later on, this changed.
The reason you speak of original teaching is because you're attached to a meaningless and incomprehensible suggestion of a teaching independent from everything, which actually goes against established tradition -going all the way back to Bodhidharma. Otherwise you would know that the teaching itself did not degenerate and the changes it underwent are similar to the changes "Buddhism" underwent and that enabled Zen to exist the first place.
>The reason I speak of "direct teaching" is that it is the teaching without methods or doctrine, in contrast to other teachings with tons of methods and doctrine.
The reason you speak of such a direct teaching is because you fell for a meme that you have blindly submitted to, charmed by empty mysticism and beautiful words.
This is the kind of person that makes people see Zen as "not Buddhism", but not in the positive way they imagine, rather as a huge joke.
>>1364485
We don't believe that most people shouldn't be Sikh, we believe that people don't need to be Sikh or a member of a religion to become enlightened.
My current experience
Chuck Kasmire
April 15, 2015
This represents my first effort to describe this experience. I'll update it as I find better ways to put it or
if things change – as they tend to do from time to time...
The most obvious aspect of this experience is I think the immediacy and ever present sense of now. I
cannot create a sense of me in the future - as I could in the past while daydreaming or planning.
Planning is something I find almost painful and so I just tend to deal with what is going on right now -
everything seems to work out and if it doesn’t then it’s over and gone anyway. Time is just right now -
where as I used to experience the present as sort of a thin slice sandwiched between a long past and
infinite future - now it is just the present - future and past have disappeared. This aspect along with
others actually has a huge impact on the ability to hold a normal job – which I don't. Another aspect of
this is that wherever I am and whatever I am doing – I am totally absorbed in that and forget about
everything else I was doing before. That is, I can be making dinner, go outside to pick some lettuce,
walk by the pruning shears, and start pruning the lemon tree. Once I am no longer involved with
something or someone it is just gone from my awareness.
>>1373065
Another obvious one is that phenomena take on a surreal beauty - it is like I see into another dimension
of them that has amazing depth - almost a consciousness like energy that permeates and saturates
everything – there is a sense of simply melting or suffusing into this totality. This is all the time and
requires no effort though the experience is most profound when I am in a natural setting - and less
when in man-made structures – where this quality is attenuated.
I tend to be reclusive and am most happy when off in the woods by myself. I feel no need to socialize
or seek out company. I experience no loneliness. I live quite simply and left to my own would simplify
much more. I find no fascination with stuff or gadgets. I was not this way before.
I experience no depression, hatred, or jealousy – more generally speaking I no longer experience
emotions in the sense that people think of them. Left to myself my day to day experience is something
like delight/ease//contentment/happiness/spaciousness yet none of those words really describe this. I
experience something like irritation or annoyance when having to deal with the world - what I mean by
the world is the world of expectations, judgments, and such that impinge on me as I interact with
people in some situations.
>>1373067
To expand on the above a bit: I think people will want to ask something like “So you don’t have any
angry thoughts at all?". Thoughts in and of themselves are not emotions - to become an emotion they
must be fed and nurtured – you have to believe in them. When the mind no longer picks them up and
believes in them then they are just what they are. I will say more about this later.
I am like this sky like awareness that is informed by thoughts and senses which give me some kind of
point of interaction with phenomena. Memories, habits, personality all continue as before yet now they
simply give some sort of structure to my experience rather then a bases for judgment, manipulation,
success, pride, or what have you that characterized the first 40 years of my life.
I have nice dreams. For the first few years it was mostly comedies. Past couple of years dreams have
pretty much faded away - I just experience more a flow of odd thoughts - the makings of dreams I
guess but they don’t really materialize into dreams anymore. Awareness is continuous night and day -
though more subtle at night. I rest at night and seem to others asleep - yet awareness remains
uninterrupted. In the morning there is no sense of waking-up or being startled - I just get up and
continue on.
>>1373070
I see and experience what others do and yet I don’t. It is as if an entire layer of what most people think
reality is has simply fallen away and disappeared from my experience. And when this is gone,
everything changes. I call this no-thingness because it is as if phenomena can no longer be mentally
grasped or held as in the past. This is also the experience of the senses such as sights and sounds – the
mind cannot fix on them – it is like trying to grasp water.
When there is no thingness - experience of the world changes tremendously. It is thingness that is the
power behind our emotions. Thingness is a projection of our own mind onto phenomena. We paint
phenomena with our perceptions and feelings - giving them a sense of reality. Sometimes angry
thoughts for example come up - but they don’t go anywhere at all - they just pass through and
disappear. I don’t experience emotions in the conventional sense. Emotions arise as a reaction to our
perceptions of the world - the qualities we project onto phenomena. When this process of projection
stops so do emotions as we normally think of them.
This experience is also one of being very exposed. Thingness separates us yet it also protects us
(though actually imprisons us) - as the experience of self is a thingness so is the experience of other. I
can be immersed in great peace or delight when alone - or, when with people that want me to engage
with them in a way I don’t want - when I feel sort of hemmed-in - there is irritation/annoyance. On the
other hand, when that situation comes to an end then the irritation is gone instantly with no lingering
residue at all. This is something like holding a microphone too close to a speaker and you get feed-back
and when you move it away the feed back ceases. I can’t really call it anger as it has no residual nor is
it directed at anyone - just in response to a situation.
>>1373071
Body sensations, sickness, and pain:
When I went through that door and the world disappeared - so did the sense of a solid body. Since that
time, it is just a cloud of energy with that becoming more subtle over the years. Because of this, my
relation with pain has changed in that generally, I don’t experience pain as a kind of solid pain as
before but now as vibrating energy - this kind of energy is not necessarily painful or if it is - it is much
attenuated but this may also be just because awareness doesn’t grab onto it as before. The one
exception to this seems back pain - it is pretty much the same as before – or maybe as I get older it just
gets worse. This issue of pain creates kind of a funny situation: Over the last few years I have had
occasion to visit doctors and of course they want to ask about symptoms such as pain - and I find
myself having to first think “OK, if I was normal and had not gone through this experience would what
I now feel be thought of as pain and if so how painful?". Sickness - a couple of very odd experiences
regarding this: twice I have gone through an entire flu experience during a single night. As I mentioned
above, there is a constant awareness even while sleeping (not sure if still qualifies as sleeping but
people think I am asleep) so I can watch this stuff happen. It was like fast motion such that I went
through all the sensations of getting the flu and going through the aches and pains and recovery - all in
a very subtle awareness state during the night and then in the morning I am fine. The sensations are so
real that both times I thought ‘I am going to be really sick in the morning’ yet when I got up there was no sign of it at all.
>>1373078
I have also gotten regular everyday colds - the difference now is that in spite of coughing and hacking I find myself whistling or humming to myself - which gets to the sense of how mind or awareness has kind of peeled away from phenomena including the body and its sensations -remaining at ease.
>>1371629
>thesis
We don't really deal with theses in Zen, we dive into practice without preconceptions. To pretend to possess understanding without practice is faulty thinking at best. Zazen is not meditation practice for some goal, but is itself an expression of buddha-nature. It is true that at heart, it is nothing special and everything else is an expression of buddha-nature as well, but one who does not rely on zazen practice only grasps this intellectually at best. If you understand this "nothing special", you have no reason to disparage zazen practice other than to justify your own empty theories and preconcieved notions.
>>1373065
All of this self-aggrandizing and romanticizing particular experiences is a typical pitfall on the road and has nothing to do with true insight. One is bound to encounter all sorts of states and experiences during practice but nothing should be held onto, as they are all empty and impermanent. Getting stuck in emptiness is a great sickness that usually happens when one practices on their own without guidance. People who attain these states eventually find out that they pass and risk falling into depression or unhealthy forms of practice, if they don't abandon it altogether. Even insight has to let go of if one is to leave the self behind and live naturally. Enlightenment does not interfere with your ability to hold a job - psychosis does. It is said that even the business of a city becomes like mountain forests when we reach true understanding. Most importantly, there's no need to endlessly intellectualize and boast about it.
>>1371629
>Huang Po didn't speak to buddhists only, some of his audience were taoists or scholars, not only buddhist or zen monks.
The Buddha himself didn't speak only to people who were already following the dharma or ready to do so. And both to those with and without meditation practice he still extolled the importance of it, never derided it. One of the Buddha's memorable exhortations is something like "meditate now monk, do not regret later".
>It is said that bodhidharma sat in front of a wall for 9 years, to not lead people into opinions.
>The "not leading people into opinions" part is the point of the story, not meditation.
And not being led to opinions is also an essential part of Buddhism since its very beginning. The Buddha's plainest comment on opinions is something along the lines of "people with opinions just go around bothering each other". This still has nothing to do with doing away with meditation.
Now I might be exaggerating, but I daresay that the Vimalakirti Sutra has been immensely influential for the entire Zen tradition. For those that have never heard of it, it's a sutra where various famous arahants, masses of bodhisattvas including Maitreya Bodhisattva are asked by the Buddha to go and see the layman Vimalakirti, who has fallen ill. But they all refuse this task, because they've all been schooled by him before, so to speak. If they were doing meditation, Vimalakirti took away all the assertions that can be made about meditation and told them to meditate in such a way. If they were destined to be reborn, Vimalakirti took away all the assertions that can be made about birth and asked them how they could be born. In the end Manjusri volunteers to go, and the conclusion is that giving answers already makes one fall into dualism.
The point is the exact same as Zen: peeling away everything. But it is not adopting a nihilist attitude and pretending that this can be done like a band-aid: right off!
>>1373507
Good post, the Vimalakirti sutra is a beast.
so what differ between theravada and zen, besides the zen buddhists saying that ''posture matters lol''
>>1373872
Essentially? Approach.
Superficially? Tradition, history, monastic clothing, discipline, aspiration for Bodhisattva-hood instead of Arahantship etc.
But at the end of the day, Buddhist practice done right in accordance to what the Buddha actually taught is the same.
>>1373971
>>Essentially? Approach.
can you expand on this?
>>1373872
Zen is a Mahayana branch and involves sutras and texts across the board, from the Pali canon to Mahayana sutras to Zen texts like the Platform sutra and Dogen's Shobogenzo. The theravada pretty much stick to the Pali canon.
There's a strong emphasis on the lineage of teachers in Zen, going back to early times, but should be taken with a grain of salt.
Theravada monks follow extensive Vinaya rules regarding celibacy and conduct (though plenty of monks today do all sorts of things like drink and carry money). Zen monks have a relatively liberal existence by comparison, with teachers and monks alike being allowed to marry and engage society. Lay practice (outside of monasteries) plays a bigger part in Zen, as it's believed that following the Dharma doesn't require "leaving home".
Meditation in Theravada revolves around progression through Jhana stages, and enlightenment is believed to require many lifetimes of practice. Zen meditation (Zazen or Shikantaza) is objectless and doesn't involve stages. Rebirth is acknowledged but enlightenment is believed to be possible in a single lifetime. Zen students are expected to "go beyond" both Samsara and Nirvana, and not be bound by ideas of spiritual progression or holiness, nor obstructed by material realities or desires. A lot of paradoxes occur, with certain key figures being jester-like drunks yet regarded as great embodiments of Zen principles.
Zen monastic practice is very demanding still, with a gigantic emphasis on sitting meditation based on Anapanasati from the Pali canon. The Rinzai school uses koans to enable breakthrough insight. Lots of work is done by monks as well.
The bodhisattva ideal of Mahayana entails that Zen monks are expected to)liberate themselves then carry their understanding into daily life and vow to "save all beings" from suffering. Theravada practicioners consider the individual monk's liberation as the main goal.
>>1373872
An old Zen master called Keizan explained the difference this way:
"For Buddhists, there are basically two forms of departure, which are physical and mental. Leaving home physically means that they cast away love and affection, leave their homes and birthplaces, shave their heads, don monks' robes, do not have male or female servants, become monks or nuns, and make an effort in the Way throughout the twenty-four hours of each day. Whatever the time, they do not pass it in vain. They desire nothing else. They neither delight in life nor fear death. Their minds are as pure as the autumn moon; their eyes are as clear as a bright mirror. They do not seek Mind nor do they hanker [to see] their [original] natures. They do not cultivate the holy truth, much less worldly attachments. In this way, they do not abide in the stage of ordinary folk or cherish the rank of the wise and holy, but more and more become mindless seekers of the way. These are people who leave home physically.
Those who leave home in spirit do not shave their heads or wear monks' clothing. Even though they live at home and remain among worldly cares, they are like lotuses, which are not soiled by the mud [in which they grow], or jewels, which are immune to dust. Even though there are karmic conditions so that they have wives and children, they are not attached. They do not entertain love for even a moment or covet anything. Like the moon suspended in the sky, like a ball rolling around on a tray, they live in the noisy city and see one who is tranquil (alternate translation: they see the One who is free). In the midst of the three realms, they clarify the fact that they dwell beyond time. They realize that exterminating the passions is a sickness, and that aiming for ultimate reality is wrong. They realize that both nirvana and samsara are illusions, and they are not attached to either enlightenment or the passions. These are people who leave home in spirit."
>>1371748
>Or are you pretending that Ch'an falls outside of spirituality?
Zen is the teachings zen masters. Zen masters know best what zen masters teach, so using them as authority for that is not only acceptable but required.
Appealing to them as spiritual authorities is a whole different story, because that would mean to assume that the teaching of zen masters is always correct.
>the changes it underwent are similar to the changes "Buddhism" underwent and that enabled Zen to exist the first place.
The changes are creation of structure and doctrine where no structure or doctrine should be acceptable
Rest of your post is mere ad hominem, so it's useless to reply to that.
>>1373423
We do deal with thesis in discussions though, in which we are currently participating.
>Zazen is not meditation practice for some goal, but is itself an expression of buddha-nature.
So is gardening. You need to practice to express buddha nature.
>but one who does not rely on zazen practice only grasps this intellectually at best.
This is bullshit, since zazen is not part of the original zen teachings, understanding must be possible without it.
If you disagree you'll have to find textual support for your own thesis (that zazen is necessary for understanding), which you won't find.
>If you understand this "nothing special", you have no reason to disparage zazen practice other than to justify your own empty theories and preconcieved notions.
I'm arguing for the point that the original zen masers did not encourage meditation. My reason to do that is, that there is the common misconception that the opposite is true.
>>1373507
>The Buddha himself
Many parts of Huang Po's records are him explaining how the Buddha's teaching are to be understood.
Huang Po says that teachings regarding dhyana are to attract the dull of wit, this includes the buddha's teachings.
He also says that teachings about nirvana, liberation, etc. are like stories told to children to stop them from crying. This also includes the buddhas teachings.
So the fact that Buddha taught meditation changes nothing about the fact that Huang Po taught that these teachings were wrong and only taught to attract dull witted people.
>This still has nothing to do with doing away with meditation.
It doesn't, but it's the point of the wall gazing story. You said the point was that meditation is great, which is wrong, since it's point is that bodhidharma prefers sitting in front of a wall to leading people into opinions. It's not at all a praise of bodhidharma meditating for 9 years.
>overall well-being
Life is good. Sex, food, starting and running a business, laughing and drinking are all things which are very good which I doubt many serious Buddhists engage in.
>>1374131
>enlightenment is believed to require many lifetimes of practice.
This is true but the implication is misunderstood. This very life in which practice starts is obviously not the 0 moment which must be followed by other lifetimes until enlightenment. If that was the case there would have been no other arahants than the Buddha.
>Zen monks have a relatively liberal existence by comparison, with teachers and monks alike being allowed to marry and engage society
Only in Japan for monks, because Japanese monasticism has become a joke thanks to the Imperial government's efforts to fuck Buddhism over.
>based on Anapanasati from the Pali canon
Funnily enough this is an explanation that is filtered through the lens of the modern "dry insight" movement. Anapanasati is not what people think it is, those interested in understanding what the hell exactly is going on should brace themselves and read A History of Mindfulness.
>The bodhisattva ideal of Mahayana entails that Zen monks are expected to)liberate themselves then carry their understanding into daily life and vow to "save all beings" from suffering. Theravada practicioners consider the individual monk's liberation as the main goal.
Taken at face value the Bodhisattva ideal entails that Zen monks will become Tathagatas in some distant time and place, and save innumerable beings from suffering in that way. In reality it's more about not getting stuck in "static enlightenment" that Hinayanists (Theravadins are not Hinayanists) apparently posited back in the day. Enlightenment isn't closing off contact and compassion and living an isolated life, it is being like the Buddha himself and the Arahants of his time.
>>1374249
The way you interpret Keizan's explanation is completely wrong. The only thing he does here is to reiterate leaving home physically but not mentally vs. leaving home mentally but not physically situations that the Buddha himself explained. It's not about Theravada and Zen.
>>1374317
I think at this point we all have a very clear image of what kind of Zen practitioner you are, so you don't need to drag yourself into the mud further. Just address my points (and the points of many others who have contradicted you) with actual arguments instead of Abrahamic fundie tier "this spiritual authority says that it was so, therefore it is so" kind of pointless barking. Otherwise keep the noble silence.
Also
>You said the point was that meditation is great,
Saying that the story's point isn't to show that meditation is useless and for inferior people does not equal reifying meditation as something to do to get something. That's the whole issue. That's what Zen is all about. It's about not reifying anything.
>>1374300
>Zen is the teachings zen masters. Zen masters know best what zen masters teach, so using them as authority for that is not only acceptable but required.
Don't make me list the multitudes of phony Zen masters of old and new.
>assume that the teaching of zen masters is always correct.
Which is different from what you're doing in what way?
>muh ad hominem
Challenging the lack of knowledge of someone is ad hominem now.
Good show though, this way you can avoid replying to the charge of "meaningless and incomprehensible suggestion of a teaching independent from everything, which actually goes against established tradition" and your failure in knowing that "the teaching itself did not degenerate and the changes it underwent are similar to the changes "Buddhism" underwent and that enabled Zen to exist the first place."
>>1338370
Stoicism does have meditation, though. It's just not the "empty your mind" sort and more the "be silently reflective and introspective" type.
>>1374300
>So is gardening. You need to practice to express buddha nature.
Then with enough practice cutting people down can also an expression of Buddha nature, can't it? The expression of Buddha nature can be made via any activity, provided you have enough practice.
(spoiler: answering "yes" will make you get crushed by the mountain of criticism and scholarship known as Critical Zen, as well as make you guilty of thinking that Buddha nature is not empty)
>This is bullshit, since zazen is not part of the original zen teachings, understanding must be possible without it.
And this is bullshit because if we take your word it the "original zen teachings" are literally, LITERALLY about nothing. They're not even teachings. Of course they don't talk about zazen, they don't talk about anything at all. And they have nothing to do with the actual teachings of Zen outside of your head.
>I'm arguing for the point that the original zen masers did not encourage meditation
No, your point is that they did so because meditation is useless.
Let's suppose for a moment that this is true. Then please explain why someone like Bodhidharma made such point of studying sutras (namely the Lankavatara Sutra, a text that -can you believe it!- contains sections on meditation). If meditation is useless, is Zen just textual study in the end? Was this what Bodhidharma was aiming at?
How to explain the fact that Daoxin, the 4th patriarch, gave an exposition of meditation in his works, and in fact that he composed the very first manual of Zen meditation? Was Zen already degenerate at that point (in which case even Huineng is a phony to say nothing of the likes of Huang Po)?
Why is Zen literally named after dhyana?
I can go on and on, but any perplexed person reading these admirable exchanges should see a pattern here and I trust they can use their judgement and googling to find out whether Zen is Buddhism or whether it is nihilism. The wood choppers and water carriers can continue their labor.
>>1374439
>"meditation is what westerners miss, instead they spend their time dwelling in their intellect..."
>It's just not the "empty your mind" sort and more the "be silently reflective and introspective" type.
Didn't you just confirm what he said?
Meditation is a bad translation for what is meant by Buddhist Meditation. Stoicism has meditation, so does Christianity, but they have nothing to do with the thing that Buddhism has.
>>1331929
now this i am quoting straight from buddha ; once a dicipel asked him how to identify diff seeds ; he answered by observing the trees and fruit they produce ; now there are countires who practice Hinyana-ound in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and parts of southern Vietnam and rest other japs china and all practice mahayana
Epicureanism is best
>>1374381
>Saying that the story's point isn't to show that meditation is useless
I didn't say that this story says that. The story is just unrelated to meditation.
The uselessness of meditation comes primarily from Mazu, Huang Po and Lin Chi, not Bodhidharma.
>Abrahamic fundie tier "this spiritual authority says that it was so, therefore it is so" kind of pointless barking.
The whole point we are discussion is, that zen masters didn't teach meditation. Who else should we look for answers to, if not the zen masters themselves?
It would be completely retarded and besides the point NOT to look at their texts for this.
If the question is "Did zen masters teach this?" The obvious reaction should be "let's read their books and see"
Instead you request I should make up my own fictional believe about what they teach? That's retarded.
>>1374506
>Then with enough practice cutting people down can also an expression of Buddha nature, can't it?
If you can find textual evidence that zen masters taught this, then we can accept that this is part of the zen teaching.
Just the same as with zazen. If you can find any zen master mentioning zazen as a valid method, it's part of zen.
Neither zazen nor cutting people down is a valid zen method, obviously.
You brought the buddha nature in here, I think it was Pai Chang (may have been Lin Chi though) who said that a true master would spend the next 3 days washing his mouth after using that dirty word.
>And this is bullshit because if we take your word it the "original zen teachings" are literally, LITERALLY about nothing.
Well, read the texts to see if this is true. I'm not the one who defines what the teachings are, the zen masters did, so it's best to look at what they say instead of me.
I would not say that zen is about nothing, but any method like meditation is not it.
And that has been made plenty clear by the ancestors.
If you had read the books you wouldn't even try to argue the opposite.
But instead, you try to argue a point you know nothing about.
>Then please explain why someone like Bodhidharma made such point of studying sutras (namely the Lankavatara Sutra, a text that -can you believe it!- contains sections on meditation).
>How to explain the fact that Daoxin, the 4th patriarch, gave an exposition of meditation in his works, and in fact that he composed the very first manual of Zen meditation?
Teachings like stories to stop children from crying. And to attract the dull witted buddhists.
Like we see in this thread, children start crying when you question their meditation practice.
>If meditation is useless, is Zen just textual study in the end?
Lin Chi said the same about studying sutras and meditation. He doesn't teach that.
Neither text study nor meditation is the method of zen.
>>1374422
>Don't make me list the multitudes of phony Zen masters of old and new.
It even doesn't matter if they are phony. If we want to know their teachings, we should look into their texts.
And I agree, with you, there were many phony zen masters.
>Which is different from what you're doing in what way?
The question we discuss is "Did zen masters teach meditation"
So I take zen masters as authority on that. Because if they teach it, we can find it in their texts.
It just so happens we find the opposite: discouragement of all methods, including meditation.
Would the question be "whats the best spiritual path for you and does it contain meditation",
then taking zen masters as authority would be a mistaken appeal to authority.
>>1374422
>Challenging the lack of knowledge of someone is ad hominem now.
You were just telling me I had fallen for a meme, called me ignorant and delusional, attached and so an.
That's ad hominem and you didn't provide any actual agruments along with that, so no need to address anything more than I did.
>this way you can avoid replying to the charge of "meaningless and incomprehensible suggestion of a teaching independent from everything, which actually goes against established tradition"
Is established tradition buddhism in this case? yes I agree, zen disagrees with buddhism in many points.
>"the teaching itself did not degenerate and the changes it underwent are similar to the changes "Buddhism" underwent and that enabled Zen to exist the first place."
I answered that one.
The reason I mention "original zen" is that zen was not constant. In the beginning it was certainly anti-methods, while later in dogens zen it started to focus on zazen.
So there is a clear difference between original zen (anti-methods, anti-attainments, etc.)
and later zen (zazen, koans).
When the original teaching taught "no methods" changing into a new teachings using the koan system and zazen, that's a degenerative change.
>>1369380
>Orthodoxy exists in Buddhism, as I also said and repeated just above. Now explain to me how and why Theravada is orthodox.
Prety simple, Theravada is the oldest still existing branch of Buddhism and his canon is also used by the other branches like the mahayana, although these other branches add invented sutras to their canon.
>The question was NEVER about whether orthodoxy in itself existed in Buddhism (it does, but I'll repeat that it does with completely different mechanics than in Abrahamic religions). I admit that I should have been clearer in my post >>1368542 (I did write "this notion of orthodoxy" and not "the notion of orthodoxy", however), but generally people who stumble around uttering the words "Theravada" and "orthodoxy" in the same breath aren't talking about orthodoxy in itself, but Theravadan orthodoxy as opposed to Mahayana fiction or even heresy.
Same goes for other religions, as an example, when christians speak about orthodoxy they oppose it to unorthodox christian beliefs, they don't oppose it to other religions.
A History of Mindfulness 02. The GIST 1 Three Strata of Early Texts Table 02.1 The Nikayas and the Agamas
>>1377286
A History of Mindfulness 15.1 The Satipatthana Material
>>1377296
A History of Mindfulness 14.2 Sarvastivada Smrtyupasthana Sutra
>>1374831
>I didn't say that this story says that.
You said that the story shows that not leading people into opinions is more important than meditating.
>zen masters didn't teach meditation.
Why did I ever think for a second that you would actually consider the evidence.
>If you can find textual evidence that zen masters taught this, then we can accept that this is part of the zen teaching.
The entirety of Medieval Japanese Zen masters writing for samurai. The entirety of Zen masters' teaching during WW2.
>You brought the buddha nature in here,
The other person did. And you "replied" to him.
Nice dodging the question though. I love when people reply along the lines of "it might be, or might not be, but it probably isn't, but that other thing also isn't".
>Well, read the texts to see if this is true.
It isn't. This is why I'm spending time here correcting your bullshit so that other people who are already liable to misunderstand Zen don't fall for the same memes.
>I would not say that zen is about nothing, but any method like meditation is not it.
Nobody said Zen = meditation (aside from the name).
>Teachings like stories to stop children from crying. And to attract the dull witted buddhists.
>Lin Chi said the same about studying sutras and meditation. He doesn't teach that.
lel
>>1374924
>That's ad hominem and you didn't provide any actual agruments along with that,
You disregard every single of my arguments by a circular logic that goes along the lines of "the old zen masters actually taught X (proceeds to not define X in any way), anything that even the zen masters themselves wrote or said that doesn't accord with X is not true, and I can assert this because I'm an authority on X, because I read the old zen masters who actually taught X, anything that even the zen masters themselves wrote or said that doesn't accord with X is not true, and..."
>Is established tradition buddhism in this case?
No, by the Zen tradition. But then again you apparently consider only a handpicked group of Zen masters as real Zen.
>zen disagrees with buddhism in many points.
Only the mockery of Zen you defend does. There is little conflict for those who actually know what the hell the Buddha talked about in the first place.
>So there is a clear difference between original zen (anti-methods, anti-attainments, etc.)
There isn't because the earliest patriarchs literally wrote about meditation at length, but of course that was just a ruse, therefore later, degenerate zen is false.
With this, I'll refrain from wasting any more breath on a brick wall. Wood choppers and water carriers can continue to do so.
>>1375584
>his canon is also used by the other branches like the mahayana,
No. You don't even have proper knowledge of the evolution of Buddhist traditions, nor have any idea about the use of terminology. Also, the Theravada did not merely appear 100 years after the 2nd council, but it appeared after the 3rd, after these events:
>According to Damien Keown, there is no historical evidence that the Theravāda school arose until around two centuries after the Great Schism which occurred at the Third Council.[3] Theravadin accounts of its own origins mention that it received the teachings that were agreed upon during the putative Third Buddhist council under the patronage of the Indian Emperor Ashoka around 250 BCE
>383 B.C.E. The Second Council convenes in Vesali to discuss controversial points of Vinaya. The first schism of the Sangha occurs, in which the Mahasanghika school parts ways with the traditionalist Sthaviravadins. At issue is the Mahasanghika's reluctance to accept the Suttas and the Vinaya as the final authority on the Buddha's teachings. This schism marks the first beginnings of what would later evolve into Mahayana Buddhism.
>250 B.C.E. Third Council is convened by King Asoka at Pataliputra (India). Disputes on points of doctrine lead to further schisms, spawning the Sarvastivadin and Vibhajjavadin sects. The Abhidhamma Pitaka is recited at the Council, along with additional sections of the Khuddaka Nikaya. • The modern Pali Tipitaka is now essentially completed.
>240 B.C.E. Ven. Mahinda establishes the Mahavihara (Great Monastery) of Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka. The Vibhajjavadin community living there becomes known as the Theravadins.
>although these other branches add invented sutras to their canon
And the Theravada added invented non-sutras to their canon (Tripitaka). See Abhidhamma, Milinda Panha etc. We also know that they changed parts of the Sutta Pitaka, ie. made inventions.
>>1375584
>>1377913
> they oppose it to unorthodox christian beliefs, they don't oppose it to other religions
What does this mean? That Mahayana is another religion (top lel)? How does that, regardless of the answer, address the fact that Western Theraboos do contrast the socalled Theravadan orthodoxy with so-called Mahayana unorthodoxy? How does this address my assertion that orthodoxy in Buddhism has always been (outside a few politically motivated situations) about the kind of orthodoxy that the Buddha himself laid down?
Even today this relationship is very complex. There are many Theravada followers who consider Mahayana followers as legitimate, others are confused, a small minority rejects them outright. There is no monolithic Theravada consensus that declares/declared Mahayana as unorthodox.
Also we need the same post length limit that /lit/ has. It's really annoying to split posts up like this all the time.
No, it's vastly inferior to Taoism.
>>1377913
>And the Theravada added invented non-sutras to their canon (Tripitaka). See Abhidhamma, Milinda Panha etc. We also know that they changed parts of the Sutta Pitaka, ie. made inventions.
Abhidhamma is more like a summa of Buddhism than invented sutras, and Milinda Panha don't contain sayings of the buddha but a discourse between the king Melander and a monk. Also (pic related) there is a huge difference between adding a few commentaries and "changing parts of the Sutta Pitaka".
>What does this mean? That Mahayana is another religion (top lel)?
On the contrary i said Orthodoxy only matter in the same religion and not outside of it.
>How does this address my assertion that orthodoxy in Buddhism has always been (outside a few politically motivated situations) about the kind of orthodoxy that the Buddha himself laid down?
You're being hypocrital your clearly said :
>That's not the point. The point is about this retarded notion of orthodoxy which doesn't apply to buddhism
>>1377967
>You're being hypocrital your clearly said :
You're being hypocritical, you clearly said*
It is a gnostic religion, so it shares done common ground with the best face of Christianity.
>>1377967
>a summa of Buddhism than invented sutras
Nope it isn't. It can in no way whatsoever be defined in that way. It is indeed not sutras however.
>Milinda Panha don't contain sayings of the buddha but a discourse between the king Melander and a monk.
It's still part of the Pali Canon. I never said it contains Buddha's words.
>there is a huge difference between adding a few commentaries and "changing parts of the Sutta Pitaka".
Parts of the Sutta Pitaka have been LITERALLY changed, go read History of Mindfulness or like any of the trillion studies done about it. We know this thanks to the existence of the Agamas and the fragments that predate the Pali Canon.
>You're being hypocrital your clearly said :
As I pointed out before, when I said "this", I was referring to WE WUZ ORTHODOX MAHAYANA IS HERESY kind of Theraboo orthodoxy. I didn't write "the notion", I wrote "this notion".
The whole point is that Theravada is not orthodox as opposed to unorthodox Mahayana. That's it.
