/lit/ - Literature

>>22137129
>be me, the Buddha
>see people chattering away about liberation without doing the work
>"I should make my own tradition where people just do the work instead of speculating"
>centuries pass
>Buddhists no speculate instead of doing the work
>certain monks decide to split off and create their own tradition where they just do the work instead of speculating
>that tradition is called Chan/Zen
>fast forward to the 21st century
>anon posts on a Tibetan basket weaving forum (prudently avoiding /x/)
>"hey guys I am interested in the speculative side of Chan Buddhism and how it relates to anime idealism, can someone help?"
>tfw

>>22137718
I'm not trying to be Buddhist Immanuel Kant, anon, I'm asking does Zen break the precept of anatta and are the communities distanced because of that
I can't find out that by going some five years to Kyoto or some bs, it doesn't work like that. If you think it's irrelevant that's your opinion but what I'm asking is does this make for a problem?

>>22138124
Anon your post doesn't even make sense because the Buddha specifically says "don't argue about what nirvana is, just go and attain it". Say saying stuff like "do these Buddhists think Nirvana is super-essence or nihility" doesn't make any sense because the Buddhist doctrinal position on this is to suspend judgement. To be fully honest with you, it is not even clear what exactly you are trying to ask. The main difference with Zen is that Zen claims you are already enlightened and just need to realise it in a single decisive moment - satori. If you still wish to press down the path of asking this question, I will note that at least as far as I am concerned, you would have to be retarded in order to assume that any Buddhist tradition aims at "nihility". But - according to the Buddha - what is even more retarded than that is arguing about whether the aim is nihility or not. As I said, this is not something that is openly, theologically discussed.

>>22137129
No you can't make statements about ontology that are firm. Please refer to my previous statement as you critique my previous statement.

>>22137129
buddha nature is not buddhism, so you dont even have to ask what's it about in buddhism.

Mahayana and Vajrayana are Holywood fanfiction of buddhism, made by normies for normies. That's all there is to their religions. And since it's tailored for turbo normies, it is way more popular than buddhism.
And like all normies, they seethe when they are told their religion is pure garbage and is not buddhism lol.

>>22137129
Nishida Kitaro
Nishitani Keiji

>>22137129
Don't bother looking for enlightenment. I grew up on vague buddhist ideas fostered to me by my parents and all my childhood my only dream was to attain buddhahood. I ended up with zero friends and no concept of partying or general enjoyment, and am a kissless virgin to boot

>>22138284
>>22137718
blessed posts that deserved to be repeated over and over again as Lord Buddha used to do, until it's easily internalized by young minds

>>22138714
Same, except christian. By the way, why is buddha skinnyfat and feminine looking?

>>22138796
Most ancient rafigurations have him jacked tall and manly doe

>>22138796
i'm pretty sure that the greeks were the only ancient civilization to have a proper appreciation of the male physique. the buddha is sometimes depicted as slender but his face is always relaxed and never stern. anyway physical body maintenance was not exactly advocated in monasteries till martial arts were developed in 100 AD or so

>>22138809
ahh i fucked up the date, the first shaolin temple began in 400 AD

>>22138284
based nihility refuter