/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19041354]

Which school of Buddhism should I study?

[Anonymous No.19041369]

finish high school first

[Anonymous No.19041387]

>>19041369
I’m in my second year of university

[Anonymous No.19042511]

>>19041354
Zen is anti-intellectual, but has the highest rate of enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.19042519]

pudgalavada

[Anonymous No.19042522]

>>19041354
Theravada

[Anonymous No.19042536]

>>19042511
Which school of Zen? Chan, Seon, Rinzai, Soto, or Thien?

[Anonymous No.19042611]

What is your interest in Buddhism? Do you want to eliminate suffering from your life, or are you interested in galaxy brain philosophy? Or do you just like cool statues and mandalas?

[Anonymous No.19042626]

>>19042611
I'm primarily interested in eliminating suffering from my life, but I like all of the above

[Anonymous No.19042694]

not OP but I have an other question, which part of buddhism is superstition or faith, and what part is rationalist? thanks

[Anonymous No.19042706]

>>19042511
How do you study zen?

[Anonymous No.19042721]

I have studied Buddhism intensively in the theravada school for about a decade now, and lived at a monastery for half that.

In my opinion you should just listen to this monk. I do believe he's got the best grasp on the true Dhamma of anyone alive today.

https://youtu.be/s2xvqFiWTRs

If you don't want to listen, there's nothing else i can do for you.

[Anonymous No.19042727]

>>19042721
Very comfy manga

[Anonymous No.19042734]

>>19042694
Which part of a shit sandwich is shit and which part is sandwich. I wish to only Eat the sandwich.

[Anonymous No.19042739]

>>19042721
>If you don't want to listen, there's nothing else i can do for you.
Cheap joke about abolishing desire. Nice 1 punchy.

[バイポラーたん !Gh99z/1SzU No.19042749]

Mahayana Zen
> "just meditate bro"
Yeah pretty much

[Anonymous No.19042996]

Chinese Pure Land also has a high amount of rebirth accounts.

[Anonymous No.19043020]

I can see nobody here has been through Koan fixated Cha'an / Zen.

Imagine an ambush orient first post best post bantsmaster, where the cost of not immediately penetrating dank memes is weeks spent with the mind unraveling itself (possibly while meditating, but menial chores and labour are also popular).

It isn't popular because it is labour intensive, and in history was reduced to a set of "cheat sheet" calls and responses so that aristocratic children could bludge their way through zen school.

[Anonymous No.19043141]

>>19042626
I would recommend Theravada then. The other schools are fine, but they added a bunch of distracting stuff that just wastes time. The whole project of Zen is basically just an attempt to trim all the excess that built up over centuries.
>>19042694
It's only faith if you don't investigate it yourself. The Buddha taught that if you practice meditation, you can remember your past lives, or talk to angels and demons. People in Thailand do this all the time. It might just be a self-delusion, but who knows?

[Anonymous No.19043286]

>>19043141
>People in Thailand do this all the time.
Thanks for the health and safety warning.

[Anonymous No.19043474]

>>19042694
You have Reddit soul Anon no amount of philosophy will help you until you cure that first.

[Anonymous No.19044347]

>>19042706
bro you just like dont and then all of a sudden ur chillin on the vibe aha

[Anonymous No.19044360]

>>19041354
Mahayana is Theravada with more philosophy and interesting things to study. The latter is fossilized and less capable of change or innovation.

[Anonymous No.19044405]

>>19044360
>change
>innovation
>necessary

You have the fully translated teachings of a fully self - awakened buddha, available at your fingertips, and you want some "change and innovations" from lesser beings?

Mahayanists literally are not gonna make it

[Anonymous No.19044450]

Start with the Jeets

[Anonymous No.19044470]

>>19044405
>an enlightened being: gives different sermons to different audiences
>(You) a shitposter: just read the buddhist bible... uh I mean the Pali Canon everything else is stinky catholic add-ons
I think you're the one who's ngmi. Keep your hyperprotestantism where it belongs in your stinky televangelist country.

[Anonymous No.19044798]

>>19042536
rinzai and soto I think

[Anonymous No.19044829]

Bro, Buddhism ain't real, people just pretending

[Anonymous No.19044860]

>>19042706
Zen Classics: Formative Texts in the History of Zen Buddhism by Steven Heine, Dale S. Wright

Zen Buddhism: A History, India & China by
Heinrich Dumoulin

Shunryu Suzuki - Zen mind beginners mind.
D.T. Suzuki - Manual of Zen Buddhism.
Katsuki Sekida - Zen Training.

[Anonymous No.19045230]

>>19044829
What did he mean by this

[Anonymous No.19045281]

>>19041354
start with the 'jeets

[Anonymous No.19045587]

I've always found Buddhism alienating due to its extreme foreignness.

[Anonymous No.19045782]

>>19042511
That would be Vajrayana

[Anonymous No.19045803]

>>19043141
>It's only faith if you don't investigate it yourself
Christians make the exact same claim. "If you pray [meditate] enough, you'll realize it's true". Anyone can eventually delude themselves into believing anything if they practice regularly.

[Anonymous No.19045815]

>>19045803
You can't delude yourself into believing in something which doesn't exist, because that which is not cannot even be thought of. God is fundamentally real, nothing which cannot be thought of can be believed in.

[Anonymous No.19045832]

>>19045815
>i can think of god so he is real
Do christlarpers really? This was only (self-)convincing in a monastery lol

[Anonymous No.19045837]

>>19045832
You cannot refute it. You cannot even think of "nothing" without imagining something. God is the essence of that something, although he is not that "something."

[Anonymous No.19045847]

>>19045815
I'm not talking about some abstract crypto-neoplatonistic idea of God here, don't be disingenuous. I guess you don't have an argument.

[Anonymous No.19045855]

>>19045837
Why is the opposite of god "nothing"? You're the one running from a nihilism nibbling at God's toes, not me. I have my world I inhabit, it functions without god, it is not at all "nothing."

[Anonymous No.19045857]

>>19045847
There is only one idea of God, and it is entirely real and non-abstract, don't be disingenuous. I guess you don't have an argument.

[Anonymous No.19045866]

>>19045857
>There is only one idea of God
Huh. Well that's weird I thought there were thousands of Gods people have believed in. I guess since you say so it must be true.

[Anonymous No.19045885]

>>19045857
You're a mouthbreathing faggot who doesn't know how to present a coherent argument.
First off, the fact that you cannot think of "nothing" does not mean you cannot harbor beliefs that are untrue. Belief in falsehood is different from belief in literal nothingness, you fucking retard.
Second, my original post was about Christians and Buddhists alike being able to delude themselves via meditative states that their personal takes on religion were the absolute truth. The point was that Christians will tell you "just pray and you'll realize the Bible is true", not "just pray and you'll realize some nondescript abstraction I choose to call God exists" but since you're an absolute knuckledragging troglodyte, you equate the two statements and assume that means your particular brand of dogmatism is true.
Go back to /his/, you'll find it more suited to your double-digit IQ.

[Anonymous No.19045893]

>>19045855
>Why is the opposite of god "nothing"?
God is Being. If we want to be strict here, however, God is not actually the opposite of nothing, because it's impossible for anything to be opposed to something which doesn't exist, or more specifically, the "essence" of non-existence, which is actually, and almost paradoxically, God himself. Non-Being has existence only insofar as there is Being. The essence of non-Being is God. Ex deo nihil, Ex nihil deus.
> it functions without god,
Nothing functions without Being.

[Anonymous No.19045907]

>>19045893
What an ontologically trite take. Your bug brain is incapable of imagining Being itself as the yoke, and the ontological categories of being and non-being as being transcended by the goal of salvation. Even though I don't agree with their religion either, that's at least one thing the Buddhists got right.

[Anonymous No.19045918]

>>19045885
>First off, the fact that you cannot think of "nothing" does not mean you cannot harbor beliefs that are untrue.
Yes, it does, in the absolute sense. If you qualify truth as agreement with sense objects, this is the only case in which one can have untrue thoughts and beliefs, because sense objects are a mixture of Being and non-Being (becoming).
>Belief in falsehood is different from belief in literal nothingness,
Please show me how then, without begging the question of what falsehood actually is (please, no empirical definitions, hopefully we are beyond this childish conception of truth). Besides, all empirical definitions of truth can be simply reduced down to the same dichotomy of what is and what is not. The only difference is these "beings" are constrained to points in time and spatial coordinates. This, again, is the empirical constraint which is a mixture of Being and non-Being, making truth essentially impossible.
>Second, my original post was about Christians and Buddhists alike being able to delude themselves via meditative states that their personal takes on religion were the absolute truth
All of them are true insofar they are of something which exists. The claim to absolute knowledge is the only aspect that could possibly be erroneous, because their knowledge clearly does not encapsulate infinite totality, as it is still limited by personalistic and limited divisions (which imply a negation of totality).
>you equate the two statements and assume that means your particular brand of dogmatism is true.
Seems as though you haven't quite understood any of my posts.
>Go back to /his/, you'll find it more suited to your double-digit IQ.
Please spare me the impotent rage.

[Anonymous No.19045922]

>>19045907
Try giving an argument next time instead of sperging out with boring insults. Or at least try to make the insults creative I suppose.

[Anonymous No.19045925]

>>19045893
No you said yourself originally god can't be refuted because then the would-be refuter would be arguing for "nothing," which doesn't exist without something, and that something is God. I am not arguing for "nothing." It's an opponent you made up and implied is the opposite or negation of God.

[Anonymous No.19045926]

>>19045918
What the fuck are you even arguing for, what's your position? Fuck off with the word salad, why did you respond to >>19045803 if you don't even disagree with what I said? Stop wasting my time you fucking autist

[Anonymous No.19045938]

>>19045926
He thinks scholasticism is clever. It's tiresome, and his version of it probably isn't even an accurate reproduction since there's no citations of any kind. Not that these would make scholasticism more convincing; it has never convinced a non-believer. It's for people holed up in monasteries. This sort of thing happens in Buddhism too; it's incredibly dry and you'd have to already believe to bother following along.

[Anonymous No.19045958]

Pepeism

[Anonymous No.19045979]

>>19045926
I'm not arguing for a position, I am putting forth what is true, that's all. My original statement >>19045815 is still valid. It was your decision to respond to my correction with hostility which led to this chain of replies.
>>19045938
If you can't make any coherent arguments, it's not worth it for you to continue posting.

[Anonymous No.19045997]

>>19045979
I don't give a fuck about your opinion though. It's not a "correction" it's just you being an obnoxious autist

[Anonymous No.19046006]

>>19045979
>he thinks he's coherent
God existing because he like, just has to okay, is not coherent. It was coherent in a monastery where you needed to say that for the free room and board and then rehash it better than your peers to form a pecking order. There are several threads about christian theology already so you ought to buzz off to one of those shitpiles instead

[Anonymous No.19046012]

>>19042721
why would a monk even be online let alone here?

[Anonymous No.19047342]

>>19045815
>that which is not cannot even be thought of
What a hilarious statement. So I can’t think of a unicorn? Sure I can, I’m doing it right now. Does that mean unicorns exist?
This is such a flawed proof of God it hurts. You’re missing a ton of steps if you want it somewhat logical.