[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 63 KB, 350x269, zen_circle_350x269.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5772573 No.5772573 [Reply] [Original]

What does /lit/ think of Zen Buddhism?

>> No.5772594

>>5772573
What do you think of Zen Buddhism?

>> No.5772601

>>5772573
will you trust the opinion of people that never reached nirvana?

>> No.5772643

>>5772601
Anyone has the potential to reach nirvana. How do I know they haven't reached it already? How do I know they wouldn't try to trick me, so that I can figure it out on my own?

>> No.5772648

>>5772643
>How do I know they haven't reached it already?

because we are in 4chan.

>> No.5772657

>>5772573

>mahayana
>buddhism

pick 1.

>> No.5772755

Zen is something like a marriage between the Buddhist ideas from central Asia--mainly India and China--and traditions and concepts within Taoism. I would recommend reading Alan Watt's book on Zen. Alan was instrumental in helping to explain the nuances within Eastern religions and beliefs to a Western audience.

>> No.5773494

>>5772573
Eastern philosophy is stupid

>> No.5773513

There was some saying that I came across somewhere about the Buddha that was really interesting. It was something about meeting a Buddha on the road and how it's impossible to see one because the vision would be projected from your desires and wants or something.

Ugh this is killing me that I can't remember it.

>tfw making schizophrenic connections between half remembered anecdotes across huge spans of time

>> No.5773522

Zen is something you practice and live, not talk about. It dosent matter what the uninitiated "think" about it, they don't even understand it.

>> No.5773534

Knowing about Zen has "improved" my life, even if I haven't achieved perfect enlightenment.

Taking psychedelics helps, no lie.

>>5772755
>read Alan Watts
seconded

>> No.5773546

>>5773513
if u meet the buddha on the road, kill him
>tips straw hat

>> No.5773560

So uh, if there is no spirit or even self to be reincarnated, then what is being reincarnated?

>> No.5773593

>>5773560
pieces of ur karmic self breh
when you attain nonattainment then you free yourself from the workings of karma

>> No.5774826
File: 67 KB, 960x540, 1405706784720.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5774826

It very much helped me achieve mental peace (along with Stoicism and Pyrrhonism).

But know that the Zen idea of "being" and Nirvana, in that you are aware and very much alive, but don't identify with your thoughts, are free from desire, and mental delusion (because you can't be deluded when you don't think... that is how Zen suggests you achieve freedom from delusion lol) is faulty. We now know that consciousness and random thoughts arise from the same biological framework. Zen is correct in that "you" don't really exist anywhere, but we know that your consciousness or "being" is a product of your brain. There is no real difference between your thoughts and your perception.

that is all

>> No.5776041

Fairly poor as far as Buddhist schools go especially in regards to organization and the ordainment of teachers.

>> No.5776047

Self-indulgent bullshit that tried to escape rational criticism by portraying itself as "too deep to verbalize", like this fuckhead here was insinuating, >>5773522

>> No.5776049
File: 1.57 MB, 350x209, 1398801912260.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5776049

>>5772657

>> No.5776063

>>5774826
>because you can't be deluded when you don't think... that is how Zen suggests you achieve freedom from delusion lol


You misunderstand. This is not Zen.

Zen is to be spontaneous without trying to be spontaneous. It is a meditation of action or dance in a way. You are still and not taking action while also in motion.

>> No.5776070
File: 12 KB, 225x225, 1415652994546.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5776070

>what u think of Zen Buddhism?

those bald cowards don't even smoke crack.

>> No.5776095

And how do I know I haven't reached it already?

>> No.5777118
File: 52 KB, 320x240, peterfalk.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5777118

Aww yiss Zen thread.

I'm gonna post some koans, because they're great little parables and offer such strong insight.

>Mokugen was never known to smile until his last day on earth.
>When his time came to pass away he said to his faithful ones: "You have studied under me for more than ten years. Show me your real interpretation of Zen.
>Whoever expresses this most clearly shall be my successor and receive my robe and bowl."

>Everyone watched Mokugen's severe face, but no one answered.

>Encho, a disciple who had been with his teacher for a long time, moved near the bedside.
>He pushed forward the medicine cup a few inches.
>That was his answer to the command.

>The teacher's face became even more severe.
>"Is that all you understand?"

>Encho reached out and moved the cup back again.

>A beautiful smile broke over the features of Mokugen.
>"You rascal," he told Encho. "You worked with me ten years and have not yet seen my whole body.
>Take the robe and bowl. They belong to you."

>> No.5777151

>>5777118
2deep4me

>> No.5777186

>>5777151
Moving the medicine cup towards Mokugen is because Encho wants him to live. Putting it back or leaving it in place is to accept his fate and not do anything to change it.

>> No.5777188

>>5777118

I don't get it, he accomplished nothing. How is this indicative of Zen?

>> No.5777189

>>5777186
What a fucking dick. Good thing he didn't become a doctor.

>> No.5777201

>>5777186
And how is that an interpretation of his Zen? Why is it Encho wasn't just reacting like he thought his master would want, when he moved it back?

>inb4 it's not literal anon

>> No.5777209

>>5776047
You will quickly run into a paradox trying to explain some concepts like Zen and Wu-Wei. How the hell do you elaborate on a concept against elaboration, how do you explain the state of mind of not having a state of mind? If you do elaborate you will not understand, you will have elaborated on something that is imprecise from what it really is. And those that do practice what it really is will not elaborate, or even they can't elaborate but only give approximations. It is not some super secret donut steel theory of life, it is not an argument or debate, it's a state of mind. You are in the state of mind or you are not, it's as simple as that.

You have to be one blockheaded brute if you think the entirety of human thought and perspective can be easily summarized and explained in English, let alone any other language. Even if it was perfectly explained to you still you would have no idea what it really was because you have not taken any steps to experience it.

I don't go around calling soldiers stupid and call their descriptions of being in a war "inadequate at explaining the concept" to me neither do I say that to zen teachers or practicers. It's pure arrogance to do something so stupid.

>> No.5777218
File: 119 KB, 400x1053, 1395531855413.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5777218

>>5777201

But it's not, anon.

First, even if you're right how do you know that "what the master wanted" wasn't the response he wanted, enlightenment?

Second, even if you lend no credence to symbolism, why do you assume the worst of people?

>> No.5777223

Unscientific drivel.

>> No.5777229

>>5777223

>Discussion about how a life ought to be lived is a scientific question

Come on, anon.

>> No.5777236

>>5777229
>Discussion about how a life ought to be lived is a scientific question
Yes, yes it is.

>> No.5777244

>>5777218
You misunderstand me completely. What is it about that answer (assuming it's canonical, or widely accepted, rather than an open question) that makes it "his real interpretation of Zen"? You only described a way it can be interpreted, but what does that have to do with Zen or its practise?

>his face became more severe, so Encho moved the cup back
This implies to me Encho realized what he was doing wasn't what the master hoped for. I don't want to say it's this way or another way, I know (as I thought I implied) that these are explorations of thoughts and feelings which can't easily be put into words, so the metaphors serve as a way of taking the mind toward a state of contemplative being that opens questions more than closes with answers.

I'm annoyed that the master only smiled when this student did as expected, first in caring enough to wish him to live (which the master didn't like), and by withdrawing the action of caring when the master wished it. I see it as a withdrawing of individuality, I guess, which I have problems with that have nothing all to do with this. I'm probably bringing a lot of my own bias in here.

I'm going to ignore your second point, because it's not relevant to what I said at all, and I don't like turning tables.

>> No.5777246

>>5777236
Does science have an answer that satisfies the entirety of the human condition? You're essentially asserting it's dribble because a possible "end" of philosophy exists despite the fact you haven't provided anything superior. Raging against the machine.

>> No.5777256

>>5777246
Science does not need an answer in order for it to be a scientific question, dummy.

>> No.5777261

>>5777246
>Does science have an answer that satisfies the entirety of the human condition?
People can't be satisfied. Science answers the answerable, everything else is up to the individual to form their own dogma on, be it religion or other such nonsense.

>> No.5777283

>>5777256
>>5777261
"Science" does no adequately explain the human dilemma of consciousness.

And again, please provide a superior answer. You don't assert something without providing evidence to support it.

>> No.5777296

>>5777283
Why do you insist on a mutually exclusive dichotomy?

A scientific question is one that can be shown, tested, and eventually proved. Why do you think consciousness necessarily escapes that?

But most of all, why do you think that, if science can't provide you (you!) with that answer, than whatever answer you hold, must be true?

>> No.5777308

>>5777296
I haven't asserted a single thing about whether something is true in this thread.

Now I'll ask you to provide an adequate answer instead of making baseless assertions with absolutely nothing to back anything up. Instead of repeatedly spouting science as if you are saying anything of value.

>> No.5777309

>>5777296
To clarify, by "whatever answer you hold" I mean the idea that science (as a rigorous claim-testing mechanism) cannot explain it.

>> No.5777320

>>5777308
You're right, you've only been talking to me for about two posts.

The reason why I don't make assertions like that is that I don't know. I make no claim, because I have no claim to make.

You, however, are dodging around, implying that if I can't explain to you the nature of consciousness (I guess that's what you're looking for, I don't even know that much) then it cannot be explained. I don't understand what makes you think that.

Why do you think an assertion needs to be made, in order for us to consider how a question can be asked or answered?

>> No.5777325

>>5777320
Ignore the first part, I misread something because I don't sleep.

>> No.5777335

>>5777320
I never said the nature of consciousness couldn't be explained, I said the dilemma of it. Science can provide an answer for how we got here but it can not (Or currently has not and most likely will not within anyone in this threads lifetime) provide any answer as to what we deal with the elephant of the room that we are aware of what's going on and that for a time we have to live through it, with emotions and experience along the way.

An assertion needs to be made because writing off one attempt at finding peace with the established facts as "unscientific dribble" solves absolutely nothing. Especially on a topic with no current established scientific answer.

>> No.5777401

>>5777335
Yeah, the guy who called it drivel wasn't helping. That wasn't me. Also, it seems I was misunderstanding what you were asking, thank you for clarifying, it would have haunted me otherwise. I did not understand what you meant by dilemma of consciousness. Maybe it would have been simpler to just ask "why"?

Because there I can assert. I think it does not matter. We are here, now, and feel, now, and experience what it means to be conscious, of a sort. I think that we are a fundamental function of the universe to conceive of itself, much like consciousness is our way of conceiving of ourself. I think we are somehow necessary to the universe; like a song needs ears. Here too, you are absolutely correct that science cannot help us, because we are dealing with concepts and our relation to them. There is no question here, in the sense science understands questions.

I feel like I've been making a fool of myself now for arguing against what you weren't saying. Though I think in all fairness you weren't exactly clear either. Obviously, you have a way of dealing with the existential problem of consciousness, but it doesn't seem you've shared it, while demanding an alternative.

>> No.5777412

>>5777320
I suggest you take a logic course.

>> No.5777426

>>5777283
It could, with advances in neuroscience.

>> No.5777454

>>5777412
Logic can show an assertion to be valid within the system it is conceived in. Logic isn't a magical language underlying the workings of the universe, but a system derived of it; a model. Anyway, it's not the point.

>> No.5777478

I like how this thread turned to shit thanks to athiest science nerds.

>> No.5777486
File: 9 KB, 250x195, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5777486

>>5772755
>Alan Watts
Are you shitting me? Even D.T. Suzuki thought he was a fucking idiot.

>> No.5777487

>>5777478
I like how you think you contributed.

>> No.5777513

>>5777487
I explained what I thought the koan meant.

>> No.5777521
File: 59 KB, 606x278, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5777521

>>5777513
If the meaning of something is open to interpretation it is poorly defined.

>> No.5777528

>>5777513
Wait, were you >>5777218 ? I was hoping to continue that conversation, because despite being an atheist science nerd, metaphors are powerful tools for coming to understand oneself.

>>5777521
The entirety of language and communication hinges on interpretation. Has no one ever misunderstood you despite your explaining yourself clearly?

>> No.5777532

>>5777486
You either haven't read him or heard the old KPFA shows, or you're too dumb to fathom what he said.

People forget that he was an Anglican priest.

I don't know what Suzuki thought of him, but Watts was clearly brilliant.

>> No.5777557

>>5777528
No, that wasn't me. Just that initial explanation post.

>> No.5777563

>>5777521
And does the fact that it's poorly defined mean it's at fault for that? Perhaps that was it's intention? Surely such a thing can exist. What's the point of art then?

>> No.5777590

>>5777528
>The entirety of language and communication hinges on definition
ftfy
>Has no one ever misunderstood you despite your explaining yourself clearly?
I was able to correct them. They clearly had a poor grasp of the English language.

>>5777563
>What's the point of art then?
Entertainment.

>> No.5777597

>>5777590
>Entertainment
No, that's what it's morphed into unfortunately.

>> No.5777606

>>5774826
>We now know that consciousness and random thoughts arise from the same biological framework.

I don't think we know this, and I'm totally a scientist guys.

>> No.5777754

>>5777597
Then what is it for?

>> No.5777946

>>5773522
>muh sekrit club of widums

>> No.5777955

>>5777590
>Entertainment.

lmfao

>> No.5777960

>>5777955
Then what is it for?

>> No.5777964

>>5777960
all sorts of things. i'm certainly not entertained by the mona lisa

>> No.5777970

>>5777964
What sort of things?

>> No.5777974

>>5777970
what? just read on the history of art

>> No.5777987

>>5777974
So you can't answer it.

>> No.5778028

it is a religion based off of stupid logic games
it breeds passivity and compliance and doesn't leave enough room for action
other than stroking your beard and saying "hmmmm....ah yes"

>> No.5778040

partially interesting mostly trite

>> No.5778052

>>5773560
Nothing.
Reincarnation is an illusion, as well.

>> No.5778066

Has anyone ever synthesized Zen and Christianity?

>> No.5778138

>>5777946
>>5776047
He has a point, you know. It's the same as with the Christian Mystic tradition, you'll never fully understand them until you've had the same experience.

>> No.5778143

It's very close to modern science in that modern science and zen buddhism both think that objective reality doesn't exist and all we have is "models". The difference is that science worships these idols whereas buddhism spurns them.

It's shit because objective reality exists. There is an eternal God and eternal moral law.

>> No.5778145

>>5772573
A slug mentality for slug people.

>> No.5778146

>>5778143
I thought this was an atheist only board lol

>> No.5778149

>>5778143
>modern science and zen buddhism both think that objective reality doesn't exist
No, science doesn't make claims without evidence.

>> No.5778150

>>5778066
You can't because they fundamentally contradict one and other.
However, I know what you are really getting at (whether Christianity has ever preached detachment from thought and desire) and the answer is yes.

read this now, it's very short
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/albert/cleaving.pdf

then these if you are more interested
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/john_cross/ascent.pdf
http://holybooks.lichtenbergpress.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/Philokalia.pdf

>> No.5778154

Zen is not Buddhism.

>> No.5778157

>>5778154
If you grasp the meaning of "Zen is not Buddhism" you have finished studying Zen.

>> No.5778178

>>5778150
here are some quotes from just one of the many authors of the Philokalia (Hesychios the Priest). These should dismiss the idea that Christianity has never known any spiritual praxis. There is a common misconception that the Eastern religions are "spiritual" whereas the western ones are more concerned with outward forms and rituals.

Watchfulness is a spiritual method which, if sedulously practiced over a long period, completely frees us: with
God's help from impassioned thoughts, impassioned words and evil actions. It leads, in so far as this is possible, to a
sure knowledge of the inapprehensible God, and helps us to penetrate the divine and hidden mysteries. It enables us
to fulfill every divine commandment in the Old and New Testaments and bestows upon us every blessing of the age
to come. It is, in the true sense, purity of heart, a state blessed by Christ when He says: 'Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they shall see God' (Matt. 5:8); and one which, because of its spiritual nobility and beauty - or, rather, because of
our negligence - is now extremely rare among monks. Because this is its nature, watchfulness is to be bought only at
a great price. But once established in us, it guides us to a true and holy way of life. It teaches us how to activate the
three aspects of our soul correctly, and how to keep a firm guard over the senses. It promotes the daily growth of the
four principal virtues, and is the basis of our contemplation.

>> No.5778188

>>5778178
Watchfulness is a way embracing every virtue, every
commandment. It is the heart’s stillness and, when free from mental images, it is the guarding of the intellect.

. Watchfulness is a continual fixing and. halting of thought at the entrance to the heart. In this way predatory and
murderous thoughts are marked down as they approach and what they say and do is noted; and we can see in what
specious and delusive form the demons are trying to deceive the intellect. If we are conscientious in this, we can
gain much experience and knowledge of spiritual warfare.

Impassioned droughts follow hard upon thoughts that appear to be innocent and dispassionate: the latter open
the way for the former. This we have found through years of experience and observation.

If we have not attained prayer that is free from thoughts, we have no weapon to fight with. By this prayer I
mean the prayer which is ever active in the inner shrine of the soul, and which by invoking Christ scourges and
sears our secret enemy.

>> No.5778189

>>5778157

There is no zen nor Buddhism. There just is

>> No.5778267

>>5778189
>still believing in is
you have much to learn

>> No.5778280

>>5776047
>rational criticsm of concepts that originate from outside the bounds of normal awareness


t o p l e l
o
p
l
e
l

>> No.5778386

>>5778150
I was more wondering if anyone had ever tried to reconcile those fundamentally different principles. I feel like it would be an interesting undertaking. I'm aware of the spiritual core of Christianity, also thanks for the links m8.

>> No.5778395

>>5778188
>If we have not attained prayer that is free from thoughts, we have no weapon to fight with.
That's so Zen it hurts.

>> No.5778425

>>5772573

If you think about Zen,
you don't think about Zen

>> No.5779198

>>5778149
A lot of modern sciences "evidence" is circumstantial and inferred at best.

>> No.5779202

>>5777754
>>5777960
>>5777970
>>5777987
"...art must must carry man's craving for the ideal, must be an expression of his reaching out towards it; that art must give man hope and faith. And the more hopeless the world in the artist's version, the more clearly perhaps must we see the ideal that stands in opposition - otherwise life becomes impossible! Art symbolises the meaning of our existence."

>> No.5779210

>>5774826

>Zen is correct in that "you" don't really exist anywhere, but we know that your consciousness or "being" is a product of your brain.

I think you completely misunderstood what anatman is, mostly because you've yet to understand what emptiness is.

>> No.5780859

>>5778386

Christianity requires thinking about the future; forgoing present trivial pleasures and vices in favor of eventually reuniting with God in the afterlife.

Zen rejects the value of thought, is about the now, makes no statements about immediate pleasures and vices besides avoiding things which may distract from enlightenment, lacks a concept of a God, and more or less rejects the concept of the afterlife as a meaningful pursuit for the living; either you're enlightened or not. Trying means you're not enlightened because to try is to not already be there.