/lit/ - Literature

>>19530400
2/2
Sarvastivada, a dead school of Buddhism, was also similar to Zoroastrianism. They argued "everything empirical to be impermanent, [but] they maintain that the dharma factors are eternally existing realities." This would mean the dharma factors of good and evil are eternally existing realities even within the phenomenal flux of reality. We can likewise extrapolated how certain artwork or literature could be more aligned with good or evil.
Dualism is superior to nondualism because it doesn't foster antinomian or nihilistic tendencies. It also doesn't deny the qualitative reality that some dreams are more benign than others.

>>19530412
Dualistic Buddhism was too based to stay alive

>If Zoroastrianism had beaten the evil Abrahamic religions
>Sarvastivada, a dead school of Buddhism
Why do you like religions that were for the losers? Is it because you are a loser yourself? lmao

>>19530455
Most of mankind is a loser now. Just look at the globalist plans of Vanguard and Black Rock, or look at the massive biodiversity die out from numerous environmental factors. None of this will turn out for the best.
Losing doesn't have any bearing on whether or not what you have to say is true fyi.

>>19530468
>b-but everyone is a loser!!!
Cope.

>>19530400
Zoroastrian NatSoc world when?

>>19530478
Kys, narcissistic faggot.

>>19530482
Go LARP with your dead religions, loser.

>>19530400
>Dualism is superior to nondualism
you seem to be on the false path. this statement converts dualism into yet another rival version of monism. true dualism is Difference; there is no rivalry between different, as no ground for such rivalry. to revive difference one needs to possess enough mana to be centered, to disregard gravity of otherness.
>The strangers with whom I mixed, me they know not;
>they tasted my sweetness, they desired to keep me with them.
>I was life to them, but they were death to me ; I bore up beneath them,
>they wore me as a garment upon them.

>>19530507
Only Sarvastivada is dead, but it is a school of Buddhism. Buddhism still thrives. Following a dead school of Buddhism is not equivalent to following a dead religion. School =/= religion.
Zoroastrianism has around 20k followers in Iran in Yazd. They are in genealogical continuity to Sassanian era. The same applies to Parsi minority of India. They are not a dead religion.

>>19530507
>LARP
L - love (unconditional)
A - all.
R - Respect
P - people.

>>19530523
>Sarvastivada
Your LARP sect is dead. Doesn't make any difference.
>Zoroastrianism
They don't accept converts. Therefore you're a LARPer.

>>19530539
The Truth dies out throughout the ages because mankind as a whole is retarded.
Dualism is the Truth.
Nondualism is bullshit.

>>19530554
>I-I'm not the loser!!! mankind is!!!
Cope.

>>19530561
Here's something from a Soto Zen text fyi:

"Winning is illusion.
Losing is Satori.
Not coveting a single thing is the greatest gift you can give to the Universe."
-- Kodo Sawaki

Zen is all about being a loser, dumb cunt, and it still survived. Also, with your mentality, you're going to lose when you die, and you'll especially lose in hell.

Now stfu, you pseud.

I'd btfo you all over again but this thread's getting pruned for sure once you devolve into murder fantasies

>>19530554
>you need other people to believe in a life philosophy before you do
>nooo you have to worship the Jew god whose adherents wiped out every other conception of deity

>>19530574
What do you think is his problem? Autism? Spiritual disease?

>>19530574
>that image
SMT IV and V both sucked. I did not play Apocalypse. Get better taste.

>>19530581
It only confirms the Abrahamic God is the true one, since He fulfilled His promises to His followers and had them win against their enemies. But do go ahead and LARP with your dead religions, I'm sure it will end well for you.

>>19530601
Abrahamism is just a corruption of Zoroastrianism. Anders Hultgard shows Judaism is pretty much a bastardization of Zoroastrianism.

>>19530613
You will never be a Zoroastrian.

>>19530630
And you will never be a woman.

>>19530645
I do not want to be a woman. You desperately wish you were a Zoroastrian, but you will never be one.

>>19530653
I just want a dualistic tradition, really. They all died out or closed themselves off. I could just create my own.

>>19530665
There is a reason they all died out or ran away in obscurity.

>>19530669
Abrahamism is still a corruption and rip-off of Zoroastrianism regardless of whether or not I become one.

>>19530678
Abrahamism is the truth. Go find another dead religion to add to your collection larper.

>>19530684
>Abrahamism is the truth.
I would sooner become an Advaitan Hindu or Mahayana Buddhist than an Abrahamist pos. I've already ready a good deal of Mahayana scriptures and Advaitan stuff. I spent some time being a Soto Buddhist.
Your religion is false. It doesn't matter how many Muslims, Christians, or Jews exist. Your tradition is complete trash with no merit except for the elements you stole from Zoroastrianism. I would never tell this to Buddhists or Hindus who I respect unlike you.

>>19530693
Okay larper.

>>19530699
I'm not LARPing, you dumb cunt. I don't even give a shit if my ancestors were Zoroastrian or not.
I moved from Mahayana to Sarvastida/Zoroastrianism because I had some issues with nondualism due to potentially unitended antinomian implications.
I am thinking philosophically and not like a retarded identity politics obsessed faggot like you.

>>19530712
Okay larper.

>>19530715
And fyi, potentially unintended antinomian implications bother me less than Abrahamic buffoonery.
Bodhidharma said killing icchantikas is fine fyi. You should be happy I am looking into more dualistic schools because I would probably considering killing and disposing your corpse if I were still a Soto Zen Buddhist. Shikantaza did not help quell my inner demons but Zoroastrian mysticism did fyi.

>>19530715
>>19530720
From Bodhidharma's Bloodstream Sermons:
>The sutras say, “Since icchantikas are incapable of belief, killing them would be blameless, whereas people who believe reach the state of Buddhahood.”
If I were still a Zen Buddhist, I would consider you an icchantika. I would feign friendliness, then stab you in the back, and dispose of your body in the lake. There is nothing in the nondualism of Mahayana to discourage such actions, especially if I can maintain nonjudgmental awareness and mindfulness during the process of sending you into endless kalpas of misery and suffering. It does not necessarily involve accruing negative karma.
However, as someone more interested in Zoroastrianism and dualistic metaphysics, I would be reluctant to do such a thing since it involves actions aligned with Angra Mainyu.
I don't know where this idea that Mahayana is all lovey two-shoes came from.

>>19530720
>because I would probably considering killing and disposing your corpse if I were still a Soto Zen Buddhist
You will never have the courage to do any such thing, because you are nothing more than a larper.

>>19530807
Well, I wouldn't do such a thing because I am no longer a Mahayana Buddhist.
Also, I would most likely not do it as a Mahayana Buddhist either because it takes significant planning and meticulousness, so it's not worth doing and risk jail. However, if I could do it without being caught, which is unlikely, I would as a Mahayana Buddhist.
You do realize, I am implicitly making a philosophical claim and not talking like a dumb idiot like you?

>>19530586
Not sure but based on the last conversation seems to want Abrahamism without Abrahamists.
>>19530598
Is that where this is from? I have it filed as a pepe reaction.

>>19530699
>>19530715
>>19530807
doing good work there anon

>>19530831
Secularizing any tradition is retarded. I don't think Bodhidharma was speaking metaphorically here:
From Bodhidharma's Bloodstream Sermons:
>The sutras say, “Since icchantikas are incapable of belief, killing them would be blameless, whereas people who believe reach the state of Buddhahood.”

>>19530845
>I don't think Bodhidharma was speaking metaphorically
I don't think he was speaking personally either. He is almost certainly explicating the depth of the bodhisattva vows to liberate all sentient beings, which is the usual instance for this sort of rhetoric to come up elsewhere in Mahayana literature. Since you are not a bodhisattva that instance of overturning conventional morality in order to teach the dharma does not apply to you, or really to any living person outside of mythology. Or you could simply reject the text, Buddhists reject each others texts all the time. One of the foundational beliefs in Chan/Zen is to discard such encumberances. There is no Bible in Buddhism.

>>19530919
Platform Sutra is pretty much the foundational text of all Ch'an/Zen. It's before the whole debacle of the 7th patriarch started.
The point is, transgressive behavior does not corrupt the immaculate Buddha nature, which is a feature in most of Mahayana. There's no argument to stop a practitioner from choking an icchantika or whatever based on Mahayana nondualism.
Killing or saving, aiding or poisoning, etc., none of these have true distinction in light of Tathāgatagarbha.

>>19530950
Yes it's a very radical non-dualism as a metaphysical principle and not particularly a code of ethics for a layperson, or even a monk to be following. You should not be actively seeking to harm people to prove a point. The point that is being illustrated is that in ultimate reality none of these nominal things are more than appearance. You're conditioned so you have to deal with life.

>>19530981
This kind of ideology inspired Thomas Ligotti. It has a very implicit kind of nihilism.
>You should not be actively seeking to harm people to prove a point.
My point is that your ideology doesn't discourage people from doing that. It's more like a kind of "so what?" Both good and evil are projections of the mind, transitory like dewdrops, and have no deeper ontological significance in a world without a bottom turtle.
It's still better than Abrahamists at least.
>The point that is being illustrated is that in ultimate reality none of these nominal things are more than appearance.
Then good or evil don't matter either. Why promote a good over an evil path? What is it about Brahmavihara that makes it more conducive to awakening than its antithesis? How can you describe a supposedly determinate line dividing them while simultaneously denying their inherent existences. If the line that divides them is indeterminate, then why not say "everything goes?" or some nihilistic nonsense like that.

>>19530919>>19530845

>There is no Bible in Buddhism.
The sutras in pali are so, since even the idiots in Mahayana base their whole narrative on them, but only to reject them.
Mahayana is just a bunch of heterogeneous retarded gurus, each one saying he is more enlightened than the previous one. There is zero buddhism in this.

>>19530400
>>19530412
>He says as his people slash themselves for a dead arab every year

>>19531359
Zoroastrians "slash themselves" for a "dead arab"? Now who would that "dead arab" be?

Too based for this board.

Thanks for putting my misgivings about non-dualism into words. "Antinomianism" - you can see it in the coincidence of Zen thought and Japanese militarism. More on that later. :^)

>>19531359
>>19531388
Yeah that's what I thought. Don't reply, dumbass. Don't ever make fun of my dualist bros on /lit/ ever again.

>>19531388
>>19531586
Why are you being obtuse? Iranians slash themselves over Husayn every year. I didn't think I had to be more specific

>>19531880
Do you really think this anon is Iranian? Of course he's not; if he's a Zoroastrian to any extent he is not an Iranian. Shia Islam is not Zoroastrianism. Iranian Shias are not his cultural kin, they're not "his people", especially since he's some random Zoroastrian revivalist (probably) in the West. Most Zoroastrians actually living today are in India.

>>19531359
OP here, there's nothing I can do about it. I am an individual. I agree trends exist among various races, but I do not agree with racial determinism. Just because my parents were both from Tehran doesn't mean much to my overall spiritual or personal identity. I do not really like modern Iranian culture; however, Iran does have a lot of good art-house film directors like Abbas Kiarostami, so there's that at least.
Anyways, I want this thread to die. I need some time away from social media to deal with my spiritual crisis.

>>19532053
>Do you really think this anon is Iranian
He's probable Iranian diaspora. So yes I will mock him about the fact that the rest of his people worship an arab and his family

>>19532076
I am an individual. When it comes to the deeper question of life, I really don't care about national or political concerns. I care about my own personal salvation, enlightenment, or whatever.

>>19530950
>>19530919
The Madhyamaka response to
>can an enlightened being jerk off
is that in a technical sense they can, which leads to Bodhisattvas deep-dicking demonesses and then teaching them the Dharma (in some instances they seduce them and then don't fuck them, but teach the Dharma instead) and monks arguing that you can totally get absolutely fucking hammered in the high-mountains of Tibet because it's part of the astral ritual to engage your celestial mahamahasrisrimahamumbojumboayyaamfkamafkfkaakfjchajcaka chakra so that the star child can open your 69th eye and ascend through your drungpka into the pure realm of the Bodhisattva-Mu stream.

But, you aren't an enlightened being, you can't jerk off without furthering dukkha, so don't jerk off. So yes, in an Ultimate Reality sense, you can say that you can jerk off, but in a Conventional Reality sense, no, you can't, because there's a load of bullshit and we could spend all day discussing it but it won't be useful so don't jerk off.

I don't really see how you can argue against this without violating Sunyata. Even the Theravada hold to this, they just don't make it a big deal up front (how up front you are about this thus depends on how easily you think you can extricate yourself from the big web of bullshit; the wordier Theravadans obviously don't think you can, but the anti-linguistic Zen obviously think differently). If that's your goal, hey, sure, whatever, but at that point you're not really doing Buddhism anymore.

>>19532203
You should only jerk off if you have coompassion for literally every last mote of sentience in all the cosmos.