/lit/ - Literature

Ataraxia.

Though I doubt its a original greek idea. It more than likely is influenced from Indians. If you read the Epicureans/Pyrrhonians/Stoics works, you can see a very familiar Indian thought in these. All three of have been seen as Indian influenced by some historians.

>>3619146
>liberating one from suffrage?

MRA or /pol/.

>>3619159

?

>>3619174
>suffrage

>>3619174
suffrage vs suffering

>>3619159

nah, anarcho-capitalism to liberate everyone

well, 99%

“In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then believe them to be true.”

>>3619177
>>3619179
>>3619182

D'oh.

Suffering. How do I liberate myself from suffering. :)

>>3619197

suicide

>>3619197
Read Siddhartha.

Maybe follow the eightfold path to enlightenment. Cut yourself off from desire, sounds crazy and I don't know if it works but the idea makes sense. Desire leads to suffering, if you have no desire then you have no suffering.

>>3619204

this, one of my favorite books of all time. def my favorite book i read in high school

captcha: for readditG

so yeah OP, read it G

I too want to learn how to liberate myself from suffering.

I am not into religion and shit, so Abrahamic religions are out of the question.

>>3619210
Yeah I just read it a couple of months ago and it blew my mind. It hit me somewhere, too bad it hasn't really stuck with me how I would have wanted it to. Definitely worth the read and a good introduction into western thought.

Stoicism. Marcus Aurelius' Meditations is like secular Buddhism.

mescalin.

Hesychasm, the Eastern Orthodox practice of inducing a psycho-spiritual state of utter stillness (hesychia) as a prelude to "perfection that is endless."

Sufism, the Islamic religious science concerned with the pursuit of the extinction (fanaa') of the self followed by subsistence (baqaa') in the Universal.

>>3619218
>I am not into religion and shit, so Abrahamic religions are out of the question.

You might start by "liberating" yourself from your incorrect understanding of the nature and function of religion.

>>3619258
>You might start by "liberating" yourself from your incorrect understanding of the nature and function of religion.

Teach me.

>>3619258

What are the nature and function of religion?

>>3619276
There are no such functions and no such nature.

>>3619288
>You might start by "liberating" yourself from your incorrect understanding of the nature and function of religion.

Christianity

>>3619299
And you dont seem to understand.

>>3619324
Shame that you seemed like an honest man.

>>3619146

1. Destroy your ID which is required to vote in public elections.
2. ...
3. Profit!

>>3619197
Realize that there are consenquences to your actions ,subtle or gross.

Realize the importance of now, being the only time and mind state where you can make moves or is making movies, unwillingly or not.

Realize that its not only you, but its all about you. The interconnectedness of your being can humble a man; the interconnectedness of all can reveal to you that there are reasons for your existence.

Meditation is a good way to see your actions and their effects. It is a good away to have a safety net, that is harmless, accessible, and satisfying once fully tapped. Many eastern religions have plenty of ways to hone concentration: personally I find following the breathe.

Stoicism. Epictetus, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius. All day erry day.
Then read some American Trancendentalists.

>>3619340
imo breathe level is pretty lowlevel. Higher up you go, thats where the real "activity" begins.

>>3619344
That is how the buddha started his path, from Vipissana. Merely following it and enjoying the rapture that it brings is not even a full Dhyāna.

>>3619276

>>3619262

The world's major spiritual traditions are fundamentally based on the same metaphysics: there is an absolute and universal principle which is real, a physical existence which ultimately is not, and individual 'souls' which are not separate from the absolute/universal. Religions differ in terms of their individual modes of expression, symbols, rites (which are also symbols), etc., all of which are adapted to the general cultural and psycho-spiritual inclinations of whatever segment of humanity they intend to address. Contradictions between religions in the domain of the exoteric result from the degradation that accompanies this adaptation of universal metaphysical truths. When you move to the domain of the esoteric and the foundations of each religion are laid bare, they can be reconciled with each other. This includes even schools of Buddhism like Zen which admittedly present greater difficulties as a result of their intentional obscurity and extreme apophaticism. In an Abrahamic context, theological dogmas, religious law, and mandatory practices like prayer and fasting are understood in a new light and become part of the means of a person's self-realization. Some traditions such as Hinduism have less of an esoteric/exoteric divide than Abrahamic faiths, and in others such as that of the Chinese the divide is such that the exoteric (basically Confucianism) and the esoteric (Taoism) can almost be said to constitute separate traditions.

Sentimentalist dogmatism and fideism are purely exoteric and not full expressions of traditional Abrahamic faiths.

>>3619367
>The world's major spiritual traditions are fundamentally based on the same metaphysics: there is an absolute and universal principle which is real, a physical existence which ultimately is not, and individual 'souls' which are not separate from the absolute/universal
You're espousing some shitty perennial philosophy beliefs. Buddhism has never said there was any universal principle nor any universal souls. The Hindus said there was a universal brahman. Buddhism was completely against the idea. This is just one example, but I don't doubt there are countless other things wrong with your beliefs.

>>3619377
>Buddhism has never said there was any universal principle nor any universal souls. The Hindus said there was a universal brahman. Buddhism was completely against the idea.

Buddhist conceptions of the absolute differ between schools of thought and in how they're expressed. Read up on the Dharmakāya and see Marco Pallis' essay on "Grace" in Buddhism.

The Perennialists occasionally base arguments for their "unity" idea on misunderstandings of doctrine or history, but generally speaking they're correct and their works are some of the best available in English on comparative esoterism, traditional studies, and the concept of religion. I don't accept all of their basic contentions myself, but I'm familiar enough with their work and have received enough education in religious studies to know that they're far from "shitty."

>but I don't doubt there are countless other things wrong with your beliefs.

So point them out. I'm busy but I'm sure I can try to address them.

>>3619146
See Cynicism/Stoicism/Scepticism/Epicureanism etc. Get some of that autarkeia/apatheia/ataraxia.

Also Schopenhauer.

>>3619344

what are some "higher" levels to attain concentration?

every buddhist text I've read names breath control as the most efficient one, but I've only read entry level stuff so I would be interested in learning more, you can point me to something if you don't feel like explaining

i wish you guys had the capacity to figure this stuff out on your own

as other people have said, pretty much all of hellenistic philosophy

you could read Nussbaum's 'The Therapy of Desire' for details

>>3619159
you are fucking retarded

>>3620008
------>le joke----->

{0_o} your head

>>3619146

This is totally off the cuff and not the result of contemplation or anything, but it seems to me that the main reason why Buddhism doesn't have a more pronounced presence in the West, and why there really aren't any equivalents to Buddhist philosophy is because of a distinct desire to not be held accountable for your own actions (thus the presence of Christianity and the concept of someone else (in the figure of the God-Man) taking the responsibility for your actions and other such similar strains of though) and the love of oneself. If you love your self, then you're distinctly unable and unwilling to destroy your self and if you are not willing to destroy your self, then you will never even begin on the path to Beginners Mind.

>>3619204

You cannot cut yourself off from desire any more than you can cut yourself off from life itself, except in suicide. You have to make peace with your desire and know the path of it and the path away from it to begin to understand your karma.

Of much more importance is mindfulness than anything else. Understanding your karma is the only way that you can begin to be okay with your desire and then the ability to control it.

OP, if you want to start to understand Buddhism better than you currently do (not trying to be insulting, just an observation that your understanding isn't totally where it needs to be), I really recommend either Sit Down and Shut Up or Hardcore Zen.

Brad Warner explains very complex, difficult to understand and simply 'out there' concepts that are integral to Zen in specific and Buddhism in general in a very easy to understand way.

I read Sit Down and Shut Up first (because I couldn't understand the relation that punk rock and Zen Buddhism share, which was one of the main concepts in the book), but I think you should read Hardcore Zen, since it's a 'beginners guide to Buddhism.' It even has a great dissection of the Song to Zazen.

>>3620125
>buddhist teacher
>derives income from edgy softporn sites

Top lel.

>>3620090
I'm not very well educated on Buddhism at all. I just know what I've read on Wikipedia, Siddhartha, and different web pages dedicated to Mahayana Buddhism. You can see how I would misunderstand certain concepts of the lifestyle, would you mind giving me some suggested reading material to learn more about Buddhism? If not that's fine, you just seem to be more educated about it than most people I come in contact with and because you are on 4chan's /lit/ I somehow trust you more.

I don't know if I believe in karma that directly affects me but I have been trying to be a kinder person. Not so I can be seen that way but because I understand the importance of love and positivity and I truly wish to share it with my people.

>>3620144

Not just a teacher. He's a priest.

>>3620142

See >>3620125

The key is to understand not just the causal relationship that you and every single action that you have ever committed and will ever commit have on the world, but to know it deep down inside of yourself. To really grasp the absolute way in which every creature on Earth is connected to every other creature.

You can study this shit for the rest of your life, and you may never fully understand it. But you have to begin. And keep in mind that with beginner's mind, all things are possible.

And if you're still interested in Zen and Buddhism after you check out Brad Warner, then the next book to read that basically everyone recommends is Zen Mind Beginner's Mind. Or, you could dive straight into the deep end and read Dogen's Shobogenzo.

>>3620183
Warner is a childish, sensationalist hypocritical hack.

I'd rather have people go straight to Shunryu Suzuki. Truly a great man.

>>3620183
Thank you, I have a copy of Zen Mind Beginners Mind on my tablet so I can read it. I will definitely check out >>3620125 after I'm done with The Master and Margarita, The Picture of Dorian Gray, and some Kafka stuff.

>>3620197

You're not going to get a great, nuanced view of Zen from Warner, but you're going to start down the path in a way that feels comfortable and isn't threatening. That's what people need when it comes to Zen, which is a very scary philosophy/religion/whateverthefuck

>>3620215
I'd rather go Watts than Warner for that approach.

>>3619922
I read up the Theravada. Theravada accepts it as a figurative term and not a literal term.

The Mahayana ones have roots in Yogacara and while it has roots in Yogacara, it's not completely accurate to say Dharmakaya is a complete picture of the Mahayana(those that believe in dharmakaya) belief. Writing suggests first Dharmakaya mentioned was around 1st century BCE. That was around the time when the Mahayana ideas were being created. The Yogacara school systematized the doctrine around 300 CE or so. About 100 years before, Nagarjuana systematized the heart of all current Mahayana tradition's basis. It was debunking of many early idealistic/realistic interpretation of Buddhism. It is known throughout the Buddhist historians that Nagarjuana's followers and Yogacara had disagreements. Yogacara beliefs were idealistic and Madhyamaka was a debunking technique/system. The debates were noted throughout history since the inception of Yogacara and the meeting with Madhyamaka students. Those in Mahayana who accept dharmakaya idea today draws beliefs from unification. If you look at Theravada, you can see a stark difference. Theravada only sees it as figurative while those in mahayana take it as literal. While all Tibetans have strong Madhyamaka influence, Gelugs are the "most" Madhyamaka of them all I believe. They consider Dharmakaya to be a lower realization and not accurate. In all, Dharmakaya is accepted mostly as conciliation within many Mahayana tradition. From my reads.

>>3619146
Death.

>>3620715
Also, on to grace.

Grace is meh. Buddha rejected the idea of worshiping a god for help. They are powerless in freeing you from your suffering as they themselves are stuck in the wheel of suffering/samsara. Ofcourse that doesn't say you can't pray for them to help you in other areas. Buddhism doesn't concern itself with anything else not related to suffering. If you read up on many other early Buddhist works, you'd see a very hardline atheistic tone.

pretty much every religion has some esoteric branch which in ~100% of cases talks about the stuff. read the kabbalah or the nag hammadi for example.

>>3619965
Have you mastered breath meditation? Meaning you can penetrate the first few Janas upon 'falling' back?

Just remind yourself that the Buddha got where he is from the breath.

>>3619146
Christianity sans Saint Paul

think about it

>>3619199
Yeah, this. If you want to have fun you're gonna have to pay for it with a little suffering. The trick is to stop whining about it. Maybe get on anti-depressants.
Honestly I feel the only people really into buddhism are the bored and old. Just have a good time. You'll get your peace when you die.

If at the end of our journey
There is no final
Resting place,
Then we need not fear
Losing our Way.

The vagaries of life,
Though painful
Teach us
Not to cling
To this floating world.

>>3620903
pls dont call him a saint

christianity

>>3619965
"Every" buddhist is made for the mass. Those only scratch the surface of meditation because higher level requires meditation practice to understand. Reading up on jnana can help ease the transitions. Breathing is barely the tip of the ice berg, all Buddhist traditions start with breathing or something easy. Then they move up.

>ctrl+f "stoic"
>4 results

itisofnoconsequence.jpg

Hesse is a decent European riff on Buddhism (there's really no close "equivalent"). Not all his concerns are easy to care about if you aren't a mid-century modernist German: confusion and isolation in the modern world, sure; the tautological impracticality of formal systems not so much. This is a man who thinks he's all spiritual and transcendental in a book that rages at jazz for not being as "pure" as Mozart.

If you're after someone more relevant to our world, you can do worse than Thomas Ligotti's "The Conspiracy against the Human Race": short, readable, very Buddhist, and lots of fun. Hard to find in bookstores, you'll probably need to Amazon that shit.

Scientology

google "Hymn of Asia"

Mettayah

I'll just say Schopenhauer again.