/lit/ - Literature

>>21865171
I think he was more frustrated with the limitations of language to convey the feeling and true understanding of enlightenment than he was mad at any individual. Imagine you finally come to this incredible feeling of the true nature of life and the infinite, only for some tard to show up and completely misunderstand because of the constraints of language.

He didn't like having his teaching misinterpreted, because then people would hear that fake teaching and then write off Buddhism as nonsense, but if they heard the real teaching they might be able to attain nirvana.
The Buddha mostly did this to his own followers, not non-Buddhists. His followers had heard what he taught hundreds of times, so if they misrepresented the teaching, it was probably out of malice, not ignorance. The monk Sati, for example, was spreading the idea that there was a permanent consciousness that reincarnates over every lifetime, so the Buddha called him "worthless man". But he also says that that act of misrepresentation is bad primarily because it makes bad karma for Sati himself. Sati had heard the Buddha's teaching many times, but couldn't accept it, so the Buddha tried to teach him by shaming him in front of all the other monks.

>>21865171
>so out of character for some stoic zen preacher
Not at all, people need to be verbally assaulted more often for their stupidity and not less.

>>21865171
>its so out of character for some stoic zen preacher.
that's because he was not this,

buddhist compassion does not mean this mere sentimentality that you see around in the world

are you offended by the Awakened One? great

look at the behaviour of some japanese roshis at WW2;
thats your 'zen'

Evola talked about this 'effemination' of buddhism propagated in the west

All existence is suffering (fools gladly)