There were 325 comments on my previous post the last time I checked. I haven’t read all of them. But a number of them appear to be discussing the matter of Enlightenment. Someone said that Zen is definitely a religion because it promises Enlightenment, which is the freedom from suffering.
I never really understood that. My teachers never said anything remotely like, “This practice will bring you to Enlightenment, which is freedom from suffering.” The only places I ever saw or heard statements like that were in books and magazine articles that I did not trust, or from people who clearly had no idea what they were talking about. Those people and, of course, Yoda from Star Wars.
I can’t tell you whether the practice of Zen will lead you to Enlightenment and relieve you from suffering. I’ve done this stuff for over thirty years now, though, so I may be able to say a little about what it seems to have done for me.
To me, meditation – zazen specifically – is a way to decrease some of the distractions of the mind. We don’t realize, generally, how incredibly distracted we are by the processes going on in our own brains. But if you work on dealing with some of your distractions you discover that there was a whole world out there you had not noticed before because you were too distracted to perceive it. Do this for long enough and a shift in perception/understanding occurs. At least that’s how it was for me.
I don’t like words like “Enlightenment” or “kensho” or “satori” or “awakening” or any of the other terms commonly used to refer to what happens after you do this process for a long time. They’re inaccurate and misleading. However, after years of doing this process I had a number of interesting shifts in my understanding of things. There was one major shift and countless clusters of others that accompanied it and that keep on occurring even now.
People tend to picture these experiences as a change from confusion to certainty. In a sense that’s kind of the way it is. But the certainty is more about what’s not true than about what is true.
For example, before this stuff started happening to me, I would have pictured Enlightenment as giving me, among other things, certainty about whether there is or is not a God and whether there is or is not life after death. I thought the answer would be either yes or no. How could there be any other answer to questions like that?
Now I comprehend that there is another answer and that is; “framing such questions in the form that requires a yes or a no as an answer is absurd.”
The problem is that EVERYONE HATES THAT ANSWER. You hate it. I hate it. The Pope hates it. Pat Robertson hates it. Richard Dawkins hates and despises it so much he hacks up a giant phlegm ball and spits on it. Deepak Chopra hates it more than Oprah does. You will never make big money with that kind of answer.
I understand now that the very way I was trained to think and to communicate my thoughts to others does not allow for me to answer these questions any better than that. There is no linguistic solution to this particular problem. When I say that there is certainty, that’s what I’m referring to. This aspect of the problem is certain.
Language communicates common experience. If you have seen a plate of shrimp and I have seen a plate of shrimp, then when I say “plate of shrimp” to you, you have some idea what I’m talking about. But if you said “plate of shrimp” to an inhabitant of the planet Mephiras in the Andromeda Galaxy, zhe would have no idea what you were talking about.
Sometimes, if I’m talking to someone else who has sat with their own minds for a few decades, I can discuss matters like this and can communicate about them. But I can’t put straightforward answers to these kinds of questions into a blog or a book. I’ve tried. Dogen tried. Lots of people have tried. It doesn’t work. The questions themselves make it impossible. Although if you sit for a long time observing your own mind, you can sometimes read things like the stuff Dogen wrote (to take one specific example) and they’ll make sense to you.
So that’s Enlightenment in 200 words or less. What about suffering? Does this practice lead you to freedom from suffering?
Well… my friend Logan died last year and that made me very sad. It still does. A couple months ago I caught a cold and I felt like shit for a few days. Next time I catch a cold, the same thing will happen. I sometimes wish I had things I don’t have. I sometimes wish I did not have things I do have. I dislike doing certain things that I nevertheless must do, like my taxes. And so on and on.
Any excuse to run this pic again is good enough for me. Look! It’s in color now!
What would relief from suffering look like? Would it look like Father Yod in his swimming pool full of naked girls? Would it look like Neem Karoli Baba sitting under a blanket with a bunch of people asking him questions and feeding him oranges? Would it look like Tom Cruise in a mansion in Beverley Hills with enough money and fame to buy him anything on eBay or Craig’s List? Would it look like Krishna, perpetually beautiful and immortal?
What are you asking for when you ask for an end to suffering? Do you even know? Maybe you do, but I don’t.
Are you asking for a way in which you can do your taxes and enjoy it? Are you asking for a way in which you can have cancer and yet not feel shitty? Do you think that exists? Do you wish it existed? Will wishing it existed make it so?
Don’t fill my comments section up with answers. Thanks.
UPCOMING EVENTS
April 3, 2015 Pomona, CA Open Door 2 Yoga 6 pm 163 W 2nd St, Pomona, California 91766
April 24-26, 2015 Mt. Baldy, CA 3-DAY ZEN & YOGA RETREAT
May 16-17, 2015 Nashville, TN 2-DAY RETREAT AT NASHVILLE ZEN CENTER
July 8-12, 2015 Vancouver, BC Canada 5-DAY RETREAT at HOLLYHOCK RETREAT CENTER
August 14-16, 2015 Munich, Germany 3 DAY ZEN RETREAT
August 19, 2015 Munich, Germany LECTURE
August 24-29, 2015 Felsentor, Switzerland 5-DAY RETREAT AT STIFTUNG FELSENTOR
August 30-September 4, 2015 Holzkirchen, Germany 5-DAY RETREAT AT BENEDIKTUSHOF MONASTERY
September 10-13, 2015 Finland 4-DAY RETREAT
ONGOING EVENTS
Every Monday at 8pm I lead zazen at Silverlake Yoga Studio 2 located at 2810 Glendale Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90039. All are welcome!
Every Saturday at 9:30 am I lead zazen at the Veteran’s Memorial Complex located at 4117 Overland Blvd., Culver City, CA 90230. All are welcome!
Registration is now open for our 3-day Zen & Yoga Retreat at Mt. Baldy Zen Center April 24-26, 2015. CLICK HERE for more info!
Plenty more info is available on the Dogen Sangha Los Angeles website, dsla.info
* * *
Are you suffering from too much money? Relieve your suffering with a donation to the continuing operation of this blog!
I agree. There’s no excuse too flimsy to justify running the picture of Father Yod and his harem. That’s just way too much fun to pass up!
You wrote, “… after years of doing this process I had a number of interesting shifts in my understanding of things..” I think the same way. In my opinion, I doubt if there is satori or enlightenment (unless maybe it’s the Dalai Lama or someone like him) and telling people they can reach it might discourage them from continuing the practice.
I listened to a dharma talk from Alan Watts and he said meditation is about “grooving in the now.” I like his interpretation because I can relate to that.
I get hung up on the word God. Every time I hear someone talking about God I picture; an old bearded guy in the sky judging people.. and I equate it to oppression.
I also think my shift in consciousness is always changing and (hopefully) evolving and that includes understanding I will never know all the answers to the questions I seek. But I choose to continue to meditate because it has made me aware of my behavior and my surroundings. Most of the time I can respond instead of react to a situation I believe to be negative, but even that is a work in progress.
It’s incredibly lame, that’s true. The honest answer is “I don’t know.” But religious folk can’t afford to be honest. The price is more than they can afford, when their storehouse of meaning is running low anyway.
And don’t think we didn’t notice that you failed to disagree with the *belief* that Buddhism promises the cessation of suffering.
FYI: There IS a REPLY button to choose when deciding to post a (pathetic) message. In case you weren’t aware, Brad is a Buddhist Priest/Monk/Master – take your pick. When YOU are addressing HIM on HIS FORUM, you should at least offer some amount of respect. Do you HONESTLY think it’s fair to corner Brad about the legions of “religious folk” you refer to. There are a great many large religions, all the way down to the smallest groups who study together, worldwide. Perhaps your should be more specific as to what your angle is, so that you can formulate your angle in order to just try to knock him down. In your 2 month and 3 weeks on the forum, you’ve demonstrated quite an interest in religion and more and more recently Zen Buddhism. Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to find a free server to sponsor your own forum instead of attempting to be the center of Brad’s and turning people off (from you – not Brad). That way you can write stories that you are capable, and when it’s slow, you can comment until your heart’s content!
FYI: There IS a REPLY button to choose when deciding to post a (pathetic) message. In case you weren’t aware, Brad is a Buddhist Priest/Monk/Master – take your pick. When YOU are addressing HIM on HIS FORUM, you should at least offer some amount of respect. Do you HONESTLY think it’s fair to corner Brad about the legions of “religious folk” you refer to. There are a great many large religions, all the way down to the smallest groups who study together, worldwide. Perhaps your should be more specific as to what your angle is, so that you can formulate your next “stunt” in order to just try to knock him down. In your 2 month and 3 weeks on the forum, you’ve demonstrated quite an interest in religion and more and more recently Zen Buddhism. Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to find a free server to sponsor your own forum instead of attempting to be the center of Brad’s and turning people off (from you – not Brad). That way you can write stories that you are capable, and when it’s slow, you can comment until your heart’s content!
FYI: When posting a REPLY, the REPLY button is very helpful for everyone on the board to follow the various conversations and eliminating confusing. The reply remarks will follow the original comment – just like this!!
I’m just wondering why Brad is your Designated Buddist – the one with the special license to tell you everything you want to hear? No matter where you are on your path, it helps to solicit answers about the questions you have, on the internet, a knowledgeable Buddhist or Sangha in person. Every time you don’t like a statement that Brad makes, or a reply, you act like an ill tempered child.
As for this: It’s incredibly lame, that’s true. The honest answer is “I don’t know.” But religious folk can’t afford to be honest. The price is more than they can afford, when their storehouse of meaning is running low anyway.
And don’t think we didn’t notice that you failed to disagree with the *belief* that Buddhism promises the cessation of suffering.
It is true that there are a lot of religious people all over the globe, many who have no answer but “I don’t know.” “I don’t know is universal – visit an Emergency Room on a Saturday night and start counting how many times the employees repeat that question. Walk into a University and ask a Math Professor to tell you the square root or 109,217 (without a calculator) – it doesn’t mean the answer doesn’t exist or won’t surface (Will the 17 year old boy in room 2 make it? Who are these “religious folk” you speak of? I’m extremely intrigued because in my training, I’ve never heard of a religious group referred to in that manner
Before you have a tantrum because you assume Brad will answer “I don’t know.” Maybe you should ask WHY, or give him a better chance to elaborate. If I have heard it once, I’ve heard it a million times that “Buddhism isn’t blak ot white.”
“Are you asking for a way in which you can have cancer and yet not feel shitty?”
Apparently, that exists. At least, that’s what all the stories about saints and gurus and various spiritual badasses tell us. They tell us that such people can have the most hideous and terrible things happen to them, or alternatively be showered with riches and power, and either way they don’t suffer. Regardless of whether those stories are true, those are the stories which are told to keep us going.
There’s a Sufi story where a sheikh is asked, on a terribly hot day, “do Sufis have special powers to deal with terrible heat or cold?” and the sheikh replies: “Yes. We put up with it.” And I suppose that’s what I thought I was looking for: a way in which I could put up with anything without my ego or my thoughts causing unnecessary suffering about it.
The fourth noble truth is not just written in books and magazines. And if the Buddha had no idea of what he was talking about why are you practicing Buddhism?
Suffering is just looking at reality in an immature way. If you weren’t grasping at concepts the way you wanted them to be, you wouldn’t suffer. If you weren’t holding on to an abstraction called you, you wouldn’t suffer.
When we go to heaven we won’t suffer either. That’s far simpler, and just as unexplainable in how it would actually work in reality.
The problem with “when we go to heaven” is that it is only theoretical. We don’t actually knows what happens after we die. We may have some kind of *belief* about it, but we don’t actually know. Maybe we just stop. Or maybe we pop out on the off-ramp of a turnpike in New Jersey…
The problem with “when we stop suffering” or “we can cease suffering by doing X…” is that it is also theoretical.
Despite claims made by many Buddhists and New Agers and other religious folk, there’s no proof whatsoever that it is possible to eliminate suffering through a contemplative practice.
Just as there is no proof that Pat Robertson is in touch with Jesus–but Pat will tell you he “knows” because he’s accepted Jesus. Just as Buddhists will state that they “know” its possible to eliminate suffering because Buddha did it, or some teacher they believe in did it–or because they themselves believe they’ve accomplished the feat.
But there is just as little proof for the major claims of Buddhism (elimination of suffering, enlightenment) as there is proof that Jesus rose from the dead.
I have an honest question – do you actually “practice” Buddhism, let alone Zen , or are you just fishing in order to flame the boards like a troll? I think you should carry on with your Christianity, find a forum, join up and enjoy fellow minds. If you have a true desire for Buddhist knowledge, I would check Google and find a nearby Teacher, Priest, Monk or Master and I’m sure that they would make time in their schedule to meet in person or on the phone to take time and answer any questions you might have. If you proceed in that directions, I would suggest that you try a not-so combative attitude.
******WARNING***TOP SECRET*****FOURTH NOBLE SECRET*******
Books (There are SOOO many, I listed a few to get you started)
The Four Noble Truths: The Foundation of Buddhist Thought
Tashi Tsering, ”ŽGordon McDougall – 2005
Four Noble Truths
JD Buxton – 2014, page 330
From the Four Noble Truths to the Four Universal Vows
Xingyun, ”ŽHsing Yun – 2002
The Psychology Of Awakening
Gay Watson, ”ŽStephen Batchelor, ”ŽGuy Claxton – 2012 page 22
Cultural Issues in End-of-Life Decision Making
Kathryn L. Braun, ”ŽJames H. Pietsch, ”ŽPatricia L. Blanchette – 1999 page 218
The Complete Book of Buddha’s Lists — Explained
Booklet page 33
An Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy
Stephen J. Laumakis – 2008 page 58
I have about 20 years back issues of the 4 main Buddhist magazines, but I’m not about to dig through them!
You look at your mother in an immature way..
My mother died in her own bed. I wiped her ass for her and fed her.
It was a joke Fred. Relax.
Brad, what’s up with ripping off Repo Man without giving a shout out? Especially since that bit’s in your first book, only there properly credited. Or are you being sly? In that case you really ought to change “plate of shrimp” to “plate of tacos” or “plate of rabbit shit” or “plate of cosmic wisdom” or something.
If it was a plate of rabbit shit it would have to be about the Aghoris
I am relaxed. There is no suffering. Everyone is going to die.
Brad wrote:
“Someone said that Zen is definitely a religion because it promises Enlightenment, which is the freedom from suffering.
I never really understood that. My teachers never said anything remotely like, ‘This practice will bring you to Enlightenment, which is freedom from suffering.'”
Are you honestly saying that you don’t understand how people get the idea that Zen promises enlightenment or freedom from suffering if you engage sincerely in the practice?
I think that’s a very strange comment to make.
You must be aware of the countless books and stories and dharma talks where people specifically discuss the notion of enlightenment, kensho, satori, and the cessation of suffering. I know you’re well read enough to be familiar with these ideas and how pervasive they are in the Buddhist and Zen community.
It seems to me that you and Gudo and others of the Soto sect have attempted to redefine concepts like enlightenment and nirvana to mean something quite different from how most people–and most Buddhists (even Zen Buddhists)–would typically define it.
This reminds me a bit of how you’ve also attempted to redefine the concept of God to mean something that renders the word itself meaningless for most people.
Words have standard definitions for a reason.
It’s actually a very dangerous thing, in my opinion, when religious folk redefine words and terminology to mean something slightly different from the norm. Having a unique code, a linguistic labyrinth to learn is something that creates a feeling of “specialness” and “progression” amongst the followers of said religion.
Scientologists and others are well aware of the importance of changing the meanings of words and creating new culture around those changes.
So now you have those cool insiders who either won’t use the term enlightenment, or use it and mean something totally different, dude. Enlightenment used in the common way is just–like, lame.
But the thing is, all you’ve done is attempted to move the goal posts of the discussion.
You’re correct that most people won’t be interested in the concepts you’re offering, because what you’re offering is very unclear, mysterious and ambiguous.
You say, “However, after years of doing this process I had a number of interesting shifts in my understanding of things. There was one major shift and countless clusters of others that accompanied it and that keep on occurring even now.”
But then you refuse to really explain how that shift has changed any of the normal reactions to life, other than being a bit less distracted. You mention still getting sad, wanting things, experiencing normal emotions–yet you hint at this mysterious “thing” or “shift” you’ve gotten.
I’ve also meditated for years–probably close to fifteen–and if I’m quite honest, I think I understand what you’re getting at in some places…and at the same time, I think that it’s a bit of a cop out to assume that what you’ve gotten is directly related to your meditation practice.
Corollation does not equal causation.
You have no certain way of knowing that these shifts can only come about through meditation, or even that what you’ve experienced are correct perceptions of the universe or reality. Anymore than a born again Christian knows that they’ve had a revelation that God exists and Jesus was his son who died for our sins.
I say this because I’ve had shifts–but if I’m being honest, they are not nearly as meaningful as religious folk (myself included) want to believe.
You mention still getting sad, wanting things, experiencing normal emotions—yet you hint at this mysterious “thing” or “shift” you’ve gotten.
————————————————————————————————
I’ll let Brad speak for himself about this. But my understanding of the above is that all the normal phenomena continue just as before, but your relationship to them is what has changed. You still feel sad, but it’s not a problem. You still want things, but you have a greater understanding of what “wanting” involves. You still experience “normal” emotions, but you don’t take them as seriously as before.
IOW, suffering is reduced when you quit being at odds with what arises. It’s not that anything disappears necessarily, although it could. But the expectation that all vexing situations will mysteriously vanish upon the “achievement” of enlightenment once and for all – that expectation is itself another (and a rather big one for the spiritual seekers) form of suffering. Make sense? Or BS?
Hey MB,
Yeah I’m familiar with that take on things. A couple responses to that premise, regarding the change in how we relate to our emotions, etc.
First of all, that sort of change can happen simply through life experience and growing older, more mature. As we get older, we start to realize that sad things happen and are part of life.
Also, it seems to me that there should be some clear evidence that longtime practitioners behave differently than non-practitioners. However, much evidence that’s out there shows very little discernible difference (for example, the poor behavior of Joshu Sazaki and the like) in behavior.
It seems that Buddhists react in life just the same way to life’s challenges as the rest of us–but claim to “feel” differently inside or have a different “relationship” to those feelings.
That seems like a linguistic dance meant to obfuscate. The facts show that the training has not had the kinds of impacts that Buddhists lay claim to.
That doesn’t mean meditation is useless, but merely that Buddhists overreach in what they claim it can do, imo.
First of all, that sort of change can happen simply through life experience and growing older, more mature. As we get older, we start to realize that sad things happen and are part of life.
——————————————————————————-
Good point. I have a yoga teacher of 20+ years of experience who has said much the same thing, that getting older is in some ways
the largest factor in feeling more calm in her life. Prior to that, it was all type-A stuff: over-achieve, work really hard, expend great efforts in pursuit of that (ever-elusive) goal while gritting your teeth and not really enjoying yourself.
I would say for most people (myself included) you have to burn out with what you think you need to do before you can really relax. And perhaps meditation is that universal safety valve that can hasten that process, even if it takes decades.
——————————————————————————
Also, it seems to me that there should be some clear evidence that longtime practitioners behave differently than non-practitioners. However, much evidence that’s out there shows very little discernible difference (for example, the poor behavior of Joshu Sazaki and the like) in behavior.
——————————————————————————
To me, it’s like the mainstream media – you only hear bad news about people and situations that are messed up. There’s certainly scientific research that shows long-time meditators’ brains measure up differently than other folks. For example, what about Mathieu Ricard?
—————————————————————————–
That doesn’t mean meditation is useless, but merely that Buddhists overreach in what they claim it can do, imo.
—————————————————————————–
All Buddhists overreach?
To me the long and short of it is personal experience. You can hear claims from whomever, but you gots to do the work yourself. And if your expectations are unrealistic, or you were led to believe that more was going to happen and you’re disappointed after x years, then it’s time to re-evaluate. We live in a world of hucksters. Trust nobody, but try not to take anything too seriously. You sound as if you’d like to get the Buddhist establishment (whoever they are) to just shut up about their grandiose claims – ain’t gonna happen. And really, you shouldn’t care.
Great responses, MB.
As for what my intent is–this is actually me arguing against myself.
I’ve spent the last decade or so heavily invested in the kinds of stuff Brad is saying. I said these things to myself to the point where now I’m trying to look at the other side of the coin.
Now I’m going to say, I don’t believe a word of it.
I’m strictly bonpu zen because thats the only way its been proven to be effective–stress reduction, calming the fight/flight, and perhaps helping to sharpen focus.
By the way, many other activities also can do these same things…so meditation/zen is hardly unique.
MB,
You mention Mathieu Ricard. A couple of things–I believe he’s a Tibetan Buddhist, no? He seems to believe in the traditional view of enlightenment and practices different forms of meditation from shikantaza, although he also seems to practice one form of “open awareness” that’s similar…
So, first off–one of the best examples of someone whose brain has been shown to be qualitatively different from the norm does NOT come from a Zen lineage. His beliefs and the way he practices is quite more elaborate and different in lots of ways.
Next, you would need to have checked Mathieu’s brain prior to his Buddhist practice in order to truly match it against his brain after years of practicing to see how much of the difference came from his practicing.
It’s pretty well established that everyone has different set points in terms of mood, happiness, etc. It could very well have been that Mathieu Ricard started from a much higher happiness set point. We just don’t know because the data is not there…
And again, there are so many variables to look at.
I agree that meditation has been shown to have effects, good effects that can be measured.
But the kinds of wild claims that people in the religion make about enlightenment, perfection, cessation of suffering, knowing the truth of the universe or knowing who we are beyond our body/mind…
These kinds of claims are not even remotely established, and I think that even the more tame claims about happiness, concentration and relaxation effect–those things have been shown to come about from running, yoga, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, among other things.
Zen Buddhism does not have a lock on meditation or truth or anything else it claims, or that its adherents claim.
gniz –
You mention Mathieu Ricard. A couple of things—I believe he’s a Tibetan Buddhist, no?
———————————————————————–
Yes, Vajrayana. Actually, he’s French but studied with Tibetan teachers. And his father was a philosopher and his mother was a painter and he was a biochemist before he became a monk. I just mention him because he has volunteered as a well-experienced meditator for scientific research, so he’s a public example of someone well-known who hasn’t gone “bad”.
Hey, I’m certain Zen isn’t for everybody. Not even me – I’m just a dabbler here. I’ve sat with Brad’s group a couple of times. I go regularly to Shambhala-sponsored public sits
not because I explicitly believe in Chogyam Trungpa’s exposition of Buddhism, but because they (Shambhala) make such a situation regularly available to the public and I laud them for that. (I do admit a newfound fondness for their gomden meditation cushions – very comfortable).
In Dan Harris’ case, he had 0% expectation and got 10% happier. Still, there’s other people who got 10% happier through their practice, but since they expected at least 20%, they’re in the dumps.
BTW, are you equating “Bonpu” with McMindfulness? At any rate, seems like you got a bone to pick with orthodox Zen in particular, not all of Buddhism. In the spiritual marketplace, I guess you gotta hold onto the receipt if you want to return it later. And be willing to admit to mistakes and adjust.
Could be that my nearly 2 years of cult experience in the mid-’70s knocked the idealism out of me at a young age in regard to becoming any kind of a “serious” or “professional” spiritual seeker (though the tendency still seems to persist, vestigially)…
For instance, the consumption of margarine can seem as though it’s tied to the divorce rate in Main over a period of years. http://www.tylervigen.com
In other words, because you sit still and have certain shifts or experiences that change perception, this does not necessarily mean that you wouldn’t have had those shifts or other equally interesting ones doing some other activity like running or hang gliding.
Also, as mentioned with the born again Christian example I spoke of in the previous post, the fact that I have a shift or realization does not mean my new worldview is anyway more accurate than before. It may now be less accurate, even though I feel strongly that I’ve gotten it right.
That’s because our perceptions are fallible.
Your inability to provide concrete evidence or accurately explain anything to a degree beyond ‘you know it if you practice for 30 years like me’ is not a point that helps to further the cause.
I’d say it simply further illustrates that you actually aren’t very convinced or convincing that meditation or zen practice has had many tangible benefits. But after practicing for so long, it would be very painful to admit that.
It has provided meaning. That’s all it needs to do.
Zafu,
I would say that practicing Zen has lead me to question the value of so-called “meaning,” rather than providing it. For me, the concept of “meaning” is just too vague and dreamy. If you examine the words of some of the ancient teachers, you can see that they shy away from “meaning.”
Why did the Ancestor come from the West? The cypress tree in the garden.
That’s just pointing to concrete reality. Nothing special. No “meaning” required.
For starters, the original texts and information, stories, Koans, etc. were authored in various languages like Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, Japanese and others. Unfortunately most Asian languages do not have the exact word or phrase that we would use to explain very old (and some newer) documents that date back more than 2,000 years.
In order to convey such information to teachers or practicing buddhists or the public at large, the information is matched to the original the best ways that they can. I’m certain no Buddhist leader would intentionally precede a discussion, reading, or conversation with “This selection “means,” or “comes witih meaning, etc.” And they would not want what is discussed or studied to be “Dreamy” because that would likely put that thought into everyone’s head, and soon you have a room of inattentive sleepy-heads.
No matter where you began your way down the path of Buddhism, it’s always the right time. Always try to give your best attention and LISTEN, it’s invaluable. Find a teacher or Sangha. DO ask questions without assumptions. You may have roommates or relatives that know of your interest in Buddhism and they love to question what you’ve learned. Even with stacks of books and a zafu (if Zen is your thing), you will learning for the rest of your life – but don’t worry about that, it will likely be so much a part of you that you won’t notice that you’re learning. You might attend a Brad Talk, or find a newly published book on Amazon you have to have!
Then why chasing your tail arguing what you already believe>
Then why chasing your tail arguing what you already believe?
Brad wrote: “Don’t fill my comments section up with answers. Thanks.”
Dude weak.
You are pretty lucky to be able to share your thoughts and get them ripped apart all the time, man. That’s a reflection that not everyone gets. I would love that.
If I had a blog and it got hundreds of comments from people discussing zen stuff, I would think it was pretty cool. That and it helps index this blog more and more. I guess I would have the comments set up much differently if it were mine, but still, how cool to actually have people engage with your website at all. Sheesh.
Hey MB,
I’m not fighting against orthodox Buddhists. Brad is hardly orthodox, but I think his logic is sloppy and his conclusions are not well-informed.
Oftentimes, Brad will state that he “didn’t really read” some book or “doesn’t really know” some teacher’s teachings, but then will go on to point out why he disagrees with the thing.
This sort of tactic shows a kind of willingness to be very sloppy and not at all rigorous with his assumptions and conclusions.
I have a problem with that because I see it in myself, and so I come here to help pressure test and knock my head against that kind of wall.
Mathieu Ricard’s story gave me personally a lot of hope when I first read about it, and since then, there have been quite a few studies that have shown lots of interesting data regarding meditation’s effects on the mind and body.
But let’s not forget–it isn’t just zen meditation, but many kinds of meditation that have been shown to be helpful in various ways. And not just meditation, but also Yoga, CBT, and other tools.
So my issue is with groups that believe they have a special line to truth or to enlightenment, god or the like.
I think 99.9999 percent of religious groups and their proponents are unwilling to change core beliefs even when science and evidence piles up against those core beliefs.
And I think that’s dangerous, and I’ve noticed that tendency in myself as well.
“What I Did On My Way Home Today”
I had a good time, one thing at a time, right where I was.
It was very meaningful to me. As long as it didn’t matter too much that I was ok and that there was one thing at a time right where I was, I could relax. I didn’t even have to think about it too much!
Thank you;
yours truly, Mark Foote
Hey Mark, sounds like the day anybody could have, whether they’d heard of Zen or not. Sounds like you are just like everyone else. Exactly. Nothing special, no unique discoveries.
Is that okay too?
And by the by, I’m almost certain you could find similar brain changes in long distance runners, christian monks, somebody chanting the rosary or a person engaged in playing a piece of music that they love and know how to play well, but still need to concentrate while doing it.
In other words, what religious “nuts” ascribe to only their particular brand of kookiness–is actually just a very basic form of engagement with the world that everybody can and does do at various times.
Religions try and box the thing up, create rules and systems around it, and then deify and reify it.
Luckily, we have science, which is able to unpack and separate much of the crap from the stuff that actually works. But you’ll always have people that refuse to look at the data and accept what it says, because they’d rather believe their lies, their delusions and their stories (and Buddhists are some of the worst with this, despite their claims that they don’t believe in those stories).
gniz –
And by the by, I’m almost certain you could find similar brain changes in long distance runners, christian monks, somebody chanting the rosary or a person engaged in playing a piece of music that they love and know how to play well, but still need to concentrate while doing it.
———————————————————————————————–
Absolutely! I’m in total agreement with that. I play jazz (caveat: not my primary profession, regrettably) which means diving into an improvisational frame of mind with great regularity. When all the elements align, there’s nothing like it. It is a form of meditation requiring both letting go and concentration and a firm grasp on theory and physical technique which can take years of practice to become automatic. I actually think playing music and meditation are complementary activities. There’s a piano player named Kenny Werner who has courses that purport to teach jazz musicians how to improvise from a meditative POV.
But then explain to me why someone as great as Chick Corea is a Scientologist. Of why someone as transcendent as Wayne Shorter is a Nichiren Shoshu Buddhist (I regard NS as the materialistic, magical-thinking wing of Buddhism).
Kenny Werner is aligned with Siddha Yoga (Muktananda and his forebears). So again, go figure.
You’ll never get science to be able to explain in its own terms what makes a great improvised jazz solo – there’s an x-factor there that can’t be reduced to that kind of explanation. I have seen computer programs that generate complex jazz solos based on some kind of algorithm that takes chord sequences and styles into account and do a pretty respectable job actually…but never transcendent or truly inspiring.
But not everybody meditates or plays music or does yoga or runs or does CBT.
The means to wisdom (and dare I say happiness?) are not generally given in our culture, which instead values competition, celebrity gossip, making money, waging war and fostering hate. So people are desperate for avenues outta that all-pervasive dukkha. And yes, religions play a big part in keeping people baa-ing along. But you and I know better, yes?
Hey MB, We must read the same books or something. Kenny Werner was one of my first introductions to the notion of meditation (through music) a long time ago….wow. Funny that you mention him!
As for why Wayne Shorter could do what he does or Chick Korea could be a scientologist–that’s kind of the point.
Religions like scientology latch onto our basic HUMANITY and try to exploit it to their own ends. In other words, a scientologist can be an amazing jazz player, as can a christian, as can a buddhist.
This is called being HUMAN. Any human is capable of insight, growth, concentration and all of these other wonderful things that religions promise.
I don’t deny that there are various tools that help us to do such things. But we consistently confuse the tools with the thing that told us the tools exist.
There is nothing special about Zen Buddhism, meditation in particular, playing an instrument, or shooting a basketball. Absolutely any activity can be a field of growth and joy and instruction.
On top of that, many of the teachers of these religions not only want to say that it is the religious teaching which is the cause of the understanding, or the practice done a certain way that caused it–they want to tell you all kinds of other stories around these experiences that have no basis in reality.
The experiences are there–I’ve had them to. The interpretation is what I take issue with. And also, I believe as humans its our natural birthright to have such experiences and is not in the purview of any particular prayer, methodology or philosophy to bring them about.
Hmmm,
Hi gniz, I’ve enjoyed reading your comments last couple of days, but I can’t help thinking you’re shooting at an illusory target, as is my pal Zafu.
For example, about the the ‘four noble truths’ and the ‘cessation of suffering’. These things hardly get mentioned in Mahayana Buddhism, and are almost totally irrelevant in Zen discourse. I’ve read quite a diverse range of books about zen and ch’an, and listened to loads of Zen teachers in person and on recordings, over many years, and almost NEVER did I see or hear either of those phrases used. The only time I definitely heard of the ‘four noble truths’ in a specifically Zen context was from Brad’s teacher Nishijima: and his explanation of them is nothing like the “life is suffering… blah… blah… cessation of suffering” story. If anything, his interpretation seems to tally nicely with a lot of what you’re saying: zazen balances the nervous system; there are problems with idealistic and materialistic belief systems; there are limits to human knowledge; reality is ineffable.
Buddhism doesn’t have to be a monolithic inflexible dogma for it to have value: Zen takes a lot of early Buddhist scripture with a big pinch of salt. So what? Sasaki went into a monastery when he was fourteen and got zero useful sex education, he turned into a sex pest as a geriatric. Enlightened people don’t practice unsolicited groping. Says who? Humans are human: what a surprise.
Yes, a lot of Zen teachers are full of shit. A lot of physicists and neuroscientists and philosophers and bonpu-mindfulness teachers are full of shit too. I’m full of shit. Being full of shit is the human condition: it’s our ecological niche as animals: biological matter goes in at one end and glorious manure sprays out the other. We only have legs and arms and brains so we can spray the shit over a wider area.
Or to put it another way, everything you say about the benefits of zazen being hard to prove is correct, but not news to anyone. We just don’t have direct access to another person’s state of mind, or to the quality of their experience – that’s trivially obvious. So if the benefit of zen practice is purely mental, or physiological but subtle, no one can ‘prove’ it to you verbally. If someone says zazen is cool and fun, then you can choose to try it or not, and if you choose to try it you can decide if you benefit or not. You can also decide the benefit isn’t fast enough or obvious enough to justify continuing the experiment. So what? Zen doesn’t promise enlightenment. Really. I studied/practised Zen for years, and nobody ever promised me anything of the sort. I have no grounds to ask for a refund.
Brad is a meditation pusher. When I was younger, someone told me smoking pot was cool and fun: but he couldn’t explain exactly what it was like to be stoned. I had some doubts, but tried it anyway. It turned out it was cool and fun, but had drawbacks, so I stopped after a while. Later I read ‘Hardcore Zen’, and thought zazen sounded interesting so I tried it: I haven’t found a reason to stop yet. But the principle is exactly the same as with pot: try and see if it works for you. No logical argument is ever going to ‘prove’ the worth of meditation to someone who hasn’t tried it.
Zafu says religions just provide meaning. That’s kind of true too, in a trivial way. I like a lot of buddhist philosophy: it does provide meaning in my life. Ideas like interdependent-coorigination and so on strike me as a useful and healthy way of navigating life, that fit well with my wider worldview and experience. But I don’t have to believe them to be true in an absolute, literal, or perpetual way for them to be useful. Everybody makes meanings, everybody has some bearings to help them navigate experience: Zen offers some ready made meanings if you want them, with the advantage that if you like the meditation and other rituals, you can still do them, while openly believing that the ready-made meanings are bunk.
What’s the problem with any of that? What is this big false promise of Zen that’s being talked so much about in these comments. I just can’t see it!
Hey SO,
You bring up some great points. Perhaps you’re correct, my target might be off. in fact, I know my target is myself–my own beliefs and ideas.
Because I’ve spent well over a decade meditating and creating belief systems around it (as well as what I felt my teacher had achieved through his practice), I’ve decided to push myself to relinquish those beliefs.
Although my style of meditation is different from what Brad and many Zen masters advocate, I find that a lot of the discourse is similar to how I’ve tended to approach things in the past.
So I’m trying to poke holes and check out what it says, how I react to it, what others say to make me rethink yet again.
There ARE promises made by Zen masters, and Brad himself. That the promises are cloaked in “see for yourself” terminology doesn’t change the fact that Brad often indicates he’s had a radical readjustment of his worldview, and that he believes it to be more accurate than other folks who don’t practice.
I think a lot of us would like to have that.
With your pot analogy, I’ll just say that when I first got high–within seconds–I absolutely knew I was high and that the weed had caused it.
Meditation is NOTHING like that. Brad even says you might need to do it for ten years or more to catch on to what it can do. He specifically says that it’s not a quick fix.
Getting high is the definition of a quick fix–but we also know it WORKS. There are clear changes in the brain and they correspond almost exactly to what we want this drug to do to us. Fuck us up and make us laugh, scramble our brains a little.
Meditation, on the other hand, is very different. I don’t deny it has effects on the brain and body, as do other activities. What I do deny, is that longterm meditators actually understand MORE about reality, truth, life, or suffering because of engaging in a deep meditation practice.
I don’t think it’s been shown, and I do believe that it is the cornerstone of the religion.
Thanks for your comments. I like being pushed here.
Uh huh, you’re probably right that zazen should have Your Mileage May Vary disclaimers slapped all over it.
In my case though, Zen practice had a rapid and drastic effect on my subjective experience, ie within months of starting daily sitting, I felt pretty much like a different person – at home in the world instead of defensive, tense and fearful. Admittedly the effects may have been amplified because I was at in a fucked up place when I started, and because I brought my own projections of what meditation ‘should’ do into the situation. But there was an undeniable effect: my posture got more relaxed, I was more trusting of others, and they seemed to get on with me a lot easier. Yes, yoga or therapy or playing music or running may have a similar effect for some people. I’d tried all of those, and they didn’t work for me. And now I continue to practice, just because it ‘feels’ right, in some wishy washy, unscientific, inexplicable way – but the initial promising results definitely helped me get into the groove.
You say, “What I do deny, is that longterm meditators actually understand MORE about reality, truth, life, or suffering because of engaging in a deep meditation practice.”
I wonder how you would go about proving or disproving that… or even getting evidence one way or the other? Sounds pretty imponderable to me.
I’m not sure whether you’re right that attaining such knowledge by meditation is the core of the religion (maybe it is), but some other ‘promises’ of buddhist meditation – for example prajna (ie intuition, pre-knowing of how to respond to unexpected situations), or even compassion, might be more accessible to quantification or scientific study?
cheers (to quote Alan Sailer)
Hello SO.
Great points again. Thanks for the dialog.
I’ll just say this in regards to proving things, such as whether meditation can help us be more compassionate and whether that’s provable or not.
So far, neuroscience seems to indicate that the more we do a certain activity, the more our brain creates wiring to get better at said activity. In other words, they say neurons that fire together wire together.
Thus, a Buddhist practicing a Tonglen meditation (or Metta meditation) might be shown to be strengthening those areas of the brain that deal with feelings of compassion.
However, I would bet you’d find the same thing in Christians working with poor people in some third world country. if you measured Mother Theresa’s brain or the brain of a therapist who deals with abused children.
They have more capacity for compassion because they’ve trained themselves through DOING.
That is simply not going to be exclusive property to meditation or Buddhism that I can see. And so, even though I am quite sure meditation of varying kinds will show results–so will other kinds of visualization, prayer, athletics, music, and study.
Our brain wires to what we need to do to live, and so ANYTHING can be that. And training ourselves to be sloppy in our assumptions and delusional in our mindset will also be trained. Zen is also very good at that sort of training. 😉
gniz:
I think the cartoon at the link below sums it up pretty well:
http://xkcd.com/876/
Thanks gniz. I don’t disagree with any of that… but again I’d question whether it’s hot news. Does Zen claim to have some special or exclusive revelation? I never heard that. Does it say that there’s no other way to truth or insight or compassion? I never heard that. Sounds more like the Catholics – extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
You end with, “And training ourselves to be sloppy in our assumptions and delusional in our mindset will also be trained. Zen is also very good at that sort of training.”
How so? … Apart from maybe that Zen can be tolerant of various assumptions and mindsets, and places more emphasis on meditative practice than logical argument.
“Hey Mark, sounds like the day anybody could have, whether they’d heard of Zen or not. Sounds like you are just like everyone else. Exactly. Nothing special, no unique discoveries.”
I imagine it could have been the day anybody could have had, if I hadn’t been below and behind my sternum so much.
I’m thinking, what about the tan-t’ien, what happened to mind at the tan-t’ien? But I felt lucky to be in one place at all, and strangely calm, once I could let go of my eyes and my mind. I just wondered if I could keep driving, but hallelujah!
How do we accept that muscles, ligaments, and tissues generate consciousness of where they are and affect our sense of location? How do we accept the experience of weight that is relaxation in real time throughout the body?
I dreamed I was falling, and in my dream I reminded myself that I can fly in my dreams (that’s been going on for a few years, for me). I slowed and hovered. I realized my feet were only about a foot above the ground, and I was in a crouch, so I put my feet down and ran. I woke up, and reflecting on this dream I realized that the sensation of flying in the dream was exactly the sensation I have when I open to consciousness generated by the aforementioned muscles, ligaments, and tissues. What sensation is that: I can’t say exactly, except that it is blind feeling.
Mostly we’re taught to think of our consciousness as always behind the eyes in our head; we don’t allow ourselves to experience our consciousness as located somewhere else, we say to ourselves “I felt this in my body but my consciousness was observing it from my head”. Well maybe, but shut off your eyes without closing them and see where you are!
So today was special to me. Oh, I know what you’ll say:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmwqnqL3Hbg
Trollnaster!!
Shinchan Ohara wrote: “…prajna (ie intuition, pre-knowing of how to respond to unexpected situations)…”
Now I’ve said this before. But I’m going to say it again – even though S.O. doesn’t say ‘…pre-knowing – cos that’s what pra-jna means.’
It might be nice to think the ancients agreed with moderns who see wisdom as pre-conceptual intuition, so much so that they made up a word which means exactly that. But having studied Sanskrit for a few years it doesn’t ring true to me. Neither is it supported by the comments of Sanskrit grammarians and lexicographers.
Sir Monier Monier-Williams, for example, compiler of the still standard go-to Sanskrit-English Dictionary does say that pra, when prefixed to a verb – primarily a verb of motion — means ‘before, forward, in front, on, forth’ etc. But he also says that when prefixed to an adjective (and so, usage confirms, when prefixed to substantives/nouns) it can, and usually does, act as an intensive, meaning ‘excessively/very/much’. So pracanda (from the root cand, meaning to be ‘fierce, cruel’) means excessively violent, furious; pramatta (from the root mad, meaning to gladden, exhilarate) means ‘drunken, intoxicated, insane’. This is the ‘pre’ of ‘pre-eminent’ — an eminence that is to the fore or in front of; chief, principal, best. So translations of prajna as ‘wisdom’, ‘intelligence’, ‘discrimination’, ‘judgement’ &c – with all the ambigious baggage those terms also carry in English, are much closer to the original meaning of the word than ‘pre-knowing’ or ‘intuition’. I suggest.
Sure, you can say (*Buddhist*?) wisdom is a form of intuition or preconceptual understanding and/or vice-versa. Perhaps that’s a meaningful expression of your experience. But you’d be wrong to believe that Sanskrit etymology supports your view, as a lot of modern Buddhists do. Apparently.
Thanks anon 108, I stand corrected 🙂
… although I’d suggest that some of the usage of the prajna term in buddhist literature would support a connotation ‘pre-knowing’: not supernatural foresight, but a kind of knowledge/awareness that precedes volition/language/dialectic/egoic response/knowing-that-you-know.
Totally agree about some, even much, of the usage of prajna in Buddhist literature…what little I’m familiar with. I’ve just got a thing about the “pra- means; and -jna means, so pra-jna means” thing. I really should sort that out.
No, no… you make an important, and helpful point: a rare occurrence in the vale of tears which is Brad’s comments section.
I did believe the “pra- means; and -jna means, so pra-jna means” thing … I’m no sanskritist, I heard that definition from a bona fide zen teacher. It just goes to show…
By the way – good stuff fron gniz and Shinchan Ohara, if I may say so. And on topic! What’s happening to this comment section? Me, I really don’t know what I think about Zen Buddhism any more. Progress, right?
“Don’t fill my comments section up with answers. Thanks.”
Fat chance of that! LOL 😀
Dear Brad, on behalf of all filibusting, cantankerous, blowhard, ne’er-do-well, socially retarded, nerdy suffering beings who fill your comments section with crap, let me ask… what the heck do you expect????
Of course, you could sort out the comments section, and help your zen center funding issues with one simple move. Turn the ‘Login to Post Comment’ link into a ‘Login to Post Comment, and simultaneously donate 50¢ via PayPal’ link. It’ll whittle the numbers down a bit, but I can think of at least 10 of my fellow commentards who are sufficiently addicted to the sound of their own typing that they’ll pay the fee every day for life 😉 … I make that out as $1825 per year, minimum.
MAPhdBuddhistStudies wrote: “FYI: When posting a REPLY, the REPLY button is very helpful for everyone on the board to follow the various conversations and eliminating confusing.”
Sadly, that’s only true for immediate or temporally proximate replies. If, as is often the case, time has passed since the comment to which you reply was published, further comments will place your reply far up the page, far from more recently initiated conversations. Your comment will be invisible to all but those readers willing to scroll up and re-read the entire comment thread every time they check in – for if more than five other commenters have commented/replied since your comment/reply, notice of your comment/reply will not appear on the upper right ‘Recent Comments’ list. Anyone with an MA or PhD in Buddhist Studies should know this.
Would that MA be considered a Zen Master’s Degree?
How To Start A Zen Center; Keeping It Simple, by Steve Hagen
If I have heard it once, I’ve heard it a million times that “Buddhism isn’t blak ot white.”
Oh, Buddhism could be blak ot white if it wanted to be
Of course, that would be the living zen in action, and not the dead thought patterns encoded in a brain, unless those patterns were shifting as the chemical arrangements decayed.
anon 108,
I’m taking a 5 minute procrastination break from earning an honest living, and I had another brainfart about the pra- -jna thing. Can you clear something up for me? you say:
” pra, when prefixed to a verb — primarily a verb of motion — means ‘before, forward, in front, on, forth’ etc. But he also says that when prefixed to an adjective (and so, usage confirms, when prefixed to substantives/nouns) it can, and usually does, act as an intensive, meaning ‘excessively/very/much’. So pracanda (from the root cand, meaning to be ‘fierce, cruel’) means excessively violent, furious; pramatta (from the root mad, meaning to gladden, exhilarate) ”
I take the ‘cand’ part in pracanda to be adjectival. But wouldn’t the ‘matta’ part in pramatta also be adjectival, meaning something like ‘exhilarated’? In which case, could the ‘jna’ in prajna be grammatically verbal… in which case the ‘beforehand’ meaning of ‘pra’ might apply?
I’m probably wrong: I’m just basing this on the very few sanskrit wordforms I know, and on how some other IE inflected languages work. Can you elaborate a bit or give some other examples? Sorry: my inner pedant is a bugger once it’s roused.
The pre-knowing is an action state before the semantical overlay of cultural conditioning. Operatives functioning in duality require a “discriminative” type “pra”, whereas pre and post-dualists function in the supra-natural pra-jna.
The language flows with the “state”
Well first off, I’m not an expert, I’m entirley self-taught – worked my way through a few ‘teach yourself’ books (there are a bunch of good ones out there) and had a couple of online chats with pandits. I’ve been doing that, pretty much every day, for the last 8 years. So for whatever that’s worth –
I don’t think the distinction MW makes is inviolable. It’s not the case that all verbal forms preceded by pra must be translated as ‘fore-‘ or’ before -‘, or that all adjectival/substantive forms employ pra as an intensive. That’s just the way things generally are in the language.
Yes, matta is the (adjectival) passive past participle of the root mad and so means ‘gladdened (&c)’, and canda (caNDa in Harvard-Kyoto transliteration if you want to check it in the online MW Dictionary) is – among other things – an adjectival derivation from the root cand (caND). Roots, of course, don’t actually occur in the language, but are convenient grammatical fictions. They’re usually called ‘verbal roots’ but are the basis of very many nominal forms, too – the idea being that acts precede things, linguistically, I guess. I’m not a linguist.
jna – more properly jnaa (jJA), ‘know, perceive, apprehend, understand’ &c – is both an adjectival form (‘knowing , familiar with, intelligent, wise’ and a verbal root (‘to know, have knowledge, become acquainted with, perceive , apprehend , understand…’ I guess you can take your pick which form functions in prajna (prajJA). But as the (standalone) word prajna (prajJA) is itself a noun, I hear the pra- part as a nominal prefix, and, in this case, an intensive.
As for other examples… (I’m checking A. A. Macdonnell’s Practical Sanskrit Dictionary; easier to find things) … prakasha (prakAza) as an adjective means ‘shining (out), clear, bright, manifest &c, also ‘renowned’ — an example of pra meaning ‘forth’, but having little effect on the root meaning of kAz, ‘shine’, except perhaps to intensify it (certainly not meaning ‘before’). As a noun the word means ‘light, elucidation, explanation’ &c. Prefixes are often added to verbal roots to form adjectival or nominal forms with little or no effect. Perhaps a symptom of the requirements of syllabic metre? Perhaps prolixity?.
Let’s find a better example… pradosha (pradoSa): ‘1. disturbed state (of the country) tumult, insurrection 2. bad, wicked, sinful’. dosha is a nominal/substantive form meaning ‘badness, wickedness, sinfulness’, so that’s another use of pra- as an intensive not affecting the root meaning that much (and not meaning ‘before’). One more… prabodha (same in H-K code), meaning ‘awaking, revival, recovery of consciousness’. The unprefixed bodha means ‘waking, becoming or being awake, consciousness (MW)’. Again, not so different from the pra-prefixed form. But it definitely doesn’t mean ‘before waking or becoming conscious. So, if anything, an intensive.
Sorry, not great examples. And I’m not sure I’ve answered your question. Sometimes, as I’ve been studying some Sanskrit text or other, I’ve noticed a word and thought, ‘Now that’s a great example of pra- as an intensive, must jot it down for the next time ‘prajna=before knowing’ comes up. But I never have. I’ll keep a lookout.
Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary online: http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/monier/
my inner pedant is also a bugger once it’s roused : )
Not a false promise, you’re missing the point. The point is that Zen Buddhism is a religion, but this may be irrelevant here. The point is that Hardcore Zen is a religion. The promise in Hardcore Zen is, and I quote, “profound insight into the nature of reality,” aka emptiness. All religions take some experience and spin a narrative around it. It’s curious that Hardcore Zen has included in it’s narrative that it’s not a religion, but this is part of how religions function so it’s understandable. Belief systems must continually distinguish themselves from rival belief systems. Also, all religious folk don’t think their belief system is a religion. They think it is the truth or a description (or insight) of reality.
Isn’t God just as ineffable as emptiness? There’s no essential difference. Some religious folk believe in God, other religious folk believe in emptiness. The only difference is the narrative or system of meaning…
You say that meaning is trivial in Hardcore Zen, yet you make more than a trivial effort to defend it’s meaning (that Hardcore Zen is not a religion, for example). This also means that you could give it up at any time without a second thought. Is that true? It’s not true, right? but that’s how you are ‘supposed to be’ in the Hardcore Zen narrative.
Zen is a shift between functional states. Meaning is essential to a five year old.
The pre-knowing is an action state before the semantical overlay of cultural conditioning. Operatives functioning in duality require a “discriminative” type “pra”, whereas pre and post-dualists function in the supra-natural pra-jna.
The language flows with the “state”
What is the meaning of Hard Kaur?
Hi Zafu, I can only reply once just now, but I will respond to your inevitable response later today.
“The point is that Hardcore Zen is a religion.” … I agree with you on that. Zen Buddhism is a religion. It offers a system of beliefs, which to varying degrees its adherents believe in. I dunno that “Hardcore Zen” is a religion in its own right, just the lunatic fringe of Soto Zen, if anything! Brad Warner may well disagree with that – he’s not my guru, I agree with him on some things, and I like his writing style, is all.
At the same time, Zen has characteristics that fall outside some mainstream definitions of religion. It does fall within your definition though, it does provide meaning. It’s also a great group activity for the socially anxious.
About “emptiness”… the Nishijima-descended Zennists all seem to avoid that word too, like they avoid “enlightenment”. For some Zennists, it is a reified destination concept though, no doubt. Used in that way, yes it’s a object of religious devotion, just like God. On the other hand, there is an experience that can be induced by meditation that corresponds to the concept: I know that from personal experience, not that it’s any great shakes really: just another state of subjectivity, not worth writing home about. In that sense, it’s like being stoned, or orgasm… the explanations all sound stupid until you’ve had the experience.
There’s probably a human experience that corresponds to “the presence of God” as well (might be the same brain-state as ’emptiness’). When religious language points to that, it points to something real. Of course there could be better ways of pointing to it, using neuroscience or whatever.
“This also means that you could give it up at any time without a second thought.”
No, but I could give it up after enough thought, or evidence that it wasn’t working for me, or if I felt enough cognitive dissonance over it, or if I discovered a glaring contradiction. I’ve ditched religious and political belief systems in the past when they didn’t work for me any more. It’d be much easier with Zen, actually, because it doesn’t tie you into shame or doom for apostasy.
“You say that meaning is trivial in Hardcore Zen, yet you make more than a trivial effort to defend it’s meaning”
It’s not that. I’m genuinely curious about why pointing out that Zen is a religion, that it provides meaning, and so on, seem so important to you. I’m stating a case, to see if you can explain that to me. You might be onto something I can learn from.
Nothing to respond to accept maybe that I’m glad we agree.
* except
“I’m genuinely curious about why pointing out that Zen is a religion, that it provides meaning, and so on, seem so important to you. ”
I’m curious about this too. I enjoy this blog and much of the comments section, but lately I can’t help but wonder what’s with the guy who incessantly repeats the same thing over and over after each blog entry.
“Religion is about meaning.” Got it. “People who are into Zen have beliefs.” Check. “‘Religious people’ need to be spoonfed meaning because they can find it on their own.” Ok. “You’re all a bunch of sheep.” I think it’s pretty clear by now to everyone that that’s your opinion.
What I don’t get is why you seem so smug about these relatively banal points and what it is you get out of repeating them so often. Also, I’m wondering if you actually type these phrases out every time you use them or do you cut and paste to save time?
And finally, Shinchin just asked you about this directly and you completely ducked the question. Why?
I almost forgot “Religious people can’t afford to be honest.” I think that’s just about all the stock phrases.
gniz, I think sitting the recommended posture for zazen is easiest when the practice is begun at an early age, say about 8.
For myself, who did not begin the practice at age 8, an understanding of the relationship between practice and posture can be helpful, and for me that understanding must have some roots in Western science; that’s just the way I’m wired, I guess.
The roots in Western science that have been most useful to me, I have documented here, if you have an interest.
My posture is a work in progress; if it wasn’t, I wouldn’t have felt the need to do the research, but I am able to sit the lotus for 40 minutes in the morning now without pain and with only slight numbness (most days). So of course I feel I must have something right!- God help us all.
Hi Mark,
I went and looked at your page, which I’ve also done in the past, just not recently.
I admire your attempt to make scientific the kinds of things written about in the ancient Buddhist texts and various teachers’ teachings/poetry, etc.
However, I think your connections are a bit of a stretch–very difficult to validate if someone’s poetry actually corresponds to the existence of a scientific reality.
It sort of reminds me a bit of how people that believe in astrology try to use the real science of cosmology to back up their pseudoscientific viewpoint.
Although the connections you ascribe may be there, I find that there seems to be a lot of reaching in what you’ve set out in your page. To me, it seems to be the case that Buddhist claims are a mix of grandiosity and exaggeration, coupled with primitive attempts to understand the nature of consciousness through self examination or contemplation.
And although I think certain amazing understandings have happened through contemplation, and some of those can be found in Buddhist writings–many MISunderstandings also came about. There was lots of gibberish and nonsense added onto some very basic, very likely true concepts.
For instance, I think it’s likely there is no soul or discreet self. That’s not been proven yet and the jury’s out scientifically speaking, but evidence points that way currently. And Buddhist thought echoes that sentiment.
However, when it comes to the practice of Buddhism and how it relates to alleviating suffering, elevating human behavior to a higher level through following the path (boddhisatva’s etc), and establishing codes of conduct and so forth (8 fold path and other Buddhist precepts), I think the religion falls down in a major way.
Meditation and contemplation can aid us in understanding more about how our minds work. So can psychology and various other “talking” cures. Buddhism does not explain some of these basic findings very well, because much of how it looks at those findings are through a very primitive and superstitious lens.
However, you must be careful in trying to make scientific the random and odd claims made in Zen poetry and Buddhist writings. They are not scientific or provable observations for the most part. Due to translation issues as well as issues of time and place they were written, much of what those old texts say is almost inscrutable now.
That is why there can be so many different and varied translations of the same old texts.
I think we found one of the trained rats who press the donate button.
Of course Buddhism is about enlightenment and the cessation of dukkha. Just because Brad hasn’t gotten there, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. He probably hasn’t been to China either, but I’m pretty sure that exists too.
Satori and Kensho and so on exist also, whether or not Brad has experienced them. But there’s no point in telling him that, if it’s not his experience.
Buddhism isn’t about believing in any of these things, or making promises that it will magically give them to you just for sitting practicing zazen for a long time.
The truth is, zazen won’t give you these experiences or produce enlightenment. You know what will? The cessation of craving. You can sit zazen until your knees turn into screaming anvils of pain, and it won’t enlighten you unless you cease your cravings. Brad’s lack of enlightenment or satori or whatever is purely due to the fact that he’s still wound up in his cravings. Like everyone. Sitting for all these years has probably lessened his cravings somewhat, which accounts for his improved state of mind. Which is in itself a pretty big deal, don’t get me wrong.
Not many Buddhists want to cease craving. The smart guys, like Brad, notice that their suffering doesn’t really go away just from sitting and practicing a decent ethically sound life. They may not yet put two and two together to understand why, but at least they admit the reality of it. That’s good. They probably tune out all the talk about enlightenment and satori and the cessation of dukkha because that’s not what they’re into or care about or experiencing. They also notice that the people who do talk about that stuff don’t actually experience it, so it seems rather pointless. You might as well argue the theology of unicorns.
The Buddha, on the other hand, really did teach enlightenment through the cessation of craving. He also claims to have achieved it in that manner. Maybe he was deluded, and maybe most of those big guys in Buddhist history were delusional too. Maybe it’s better to have more reasonable views and goals, in live with our desire to keep craving, though in a reduced and reasonable manner. I mean seriously, what kind of nut wants to cease craving? Father Yod knew what he was doing.
Which only goes to show that if you really want to follow the Buddhist path, you have to become something of a nut. And do the practices, including zazen, with the intention of ceasing to crave, rather than just hoping it will even out the biophysiology of your nervous system and lead to a somewhat calmer mind. And endure the fact that almost the whole of Buddhism is geared towards something else entirely, which is the fulfillment of our cravings for a reasonably placid mind and a milder disposition. Okay, not entirely different, but not going very far down the road either.
Hey Conrad, I agree with most of what you say in your above post, aside from your insistence that “The truth is, zazen won’t give you these experiences or produce enlightenment. You know what will? The cessation of craving. You can sit zazen until your knees turn into screaming anvils of pain, and it won’t enlighten you unless you cease your cravings.”
I don’t think anybody has established that the cessation of cravings will bring an end to the unsatisfactory nature (or suffering) of life, nor has it been established that enlightenment is a real “thing”. Anymore than it has been established that there is a creator, a God, that Jesus was his son–or any of the other wilder claims of various religions.
You state these things as if you yourself have experienced enlightenment or the end of cravings. Have you done so? And why should I believe anything you claim?
That you say it exists like China is ridiculous. I can get on a plane and go to China tomorrow.
Actually, come to think of it–as I reread your post, Conrad, I don’t agree with much of any of the unsubstantiated things you wrote there.
Good, you’re onto something then.
I’d agree that no one has proven or established any of these things as consensus facts. They are propositions that can only be demonstrated by doing them yourself. But just as you can go to China, you can also “go” to enlightenment. You can experience satori. You can investigate yourself, as the Buddha did. It depends on how much you want to experience these things. Most people simply don’t want them. Brad doesn’t want them. Even most of the people who say they want them, don’t want them. It’s a costly trip. Who wants to pay the price?
Many of the wild claims of religion can indeed be experienced. When actually experienced, they are found to be a bit different than the objectively described claims. That doesn’t make them untrue. Marco Polo’s stories sounded crazy and wild too.
But my saying that doesn’t make it so to anyone. True, I’ve experienced these things myself, to varying degrees. But unless you go there yourself, it won’t much matter except as one person’s possibly delusional and self-aggrandizing personal myth. I can say these things are true, that enlightenment and satori and the rest are real, but how would you know? To me, they are more real than the basic facts of ordinary life. But who the fuck am I? I’m certainly not important to you. That’s why the Buddha said you have to be a refuge unto yourself. But if you never take that refuge, you’ll never find out. And it comes at a price. Do you want to pay it?
Maybe the problem is that some people believe that Zen promises permanent, continuous enlightenment and freedom from suffering for the rest of their lives (or longer) when it actually teaches enlightenment IN THIS MOMENT and freedom from suffering IN THIS MOMENT.
The problem, as you call it, is outlined in Brads post, specifically with “Someone said that Zen is definitely a religion because it promises Enlightenment, which is the freedom from suffering.” Hardcore Zen doesn’t make this promise, apparently. It makes the promise of “profound insight into the nature of reality.” Hardcore Zen builds it’s narrative around this belief in emptiness. Actually it doesn’t build anything but merely takes what it can accept from the Buddhist narrative. So, different promise and narrative, still amounts to a religion.
Zafu,
Seems to me your read on this is fairly accurate. Brad sidesteps the enlightenment question and focuses instead on emptiness.
And although I think it’s possible that there is no soul, no discreet self, and that impermanence is a basic fact of existence…all of these things have yet to be proven. And hoping to validate them through meditation is a mistake, imo.
Having a set of experiences as an individual does not equate to reality, because our perceptions can be so colored by what we expect and desire and have been taught.
Individuals can have different experiences and insights, many of which are very contradictory and can be interpreted different ways depending on culture, background, etc.
I’m also not at all convinced that insight into the nature of impermanence or emptiness actually changes behavior for the better or lessens suffering one iota. Nor do I believe that zen or meditation is required for having insights such as that. The need to elevate such “shifts” or insights into something unique or important or accurate–is part of the problem.
Many so-called “masters” who’ve seemed to have some kind of insight into impermanence and emptiness seem to just use that to justify their whims and predations.
And so, just as a “Western” scientist can possess knowledge about the world or how our universe functions and still be a nasty, cruel, miserable person with little to offer–so can a Zen master.
But at least the scientist is contributing to science, whereas the zen master is just essentially making shit up with experiences that cannot possibly be validated by others (no different than the Baptist preacher).
In other words, Zen practioners are absolutely no different from any other religious believers, not special, not unique, using possibly incorrect and unproven assumptions about the world to navigate and make themselves feel better.
Grand Canyon said: “Maybe the problem is that some people believe that Zen promises permanent, continuous enlightenment and freedom from suffering for the rest of their lives (or longer) when it actually teaches enlightenment IN THIS MOMENT and freedom from suffering IN THIS MOMENT.”
Yup.
Hi Brad. My old teacher said the same thing about “in this moment.”
Well, I’ll be honest. I don’t think that achieving this moment by moment “enlightenment” which frequently becomes suffering and delusion the next moment and then goes back to “enlightenment” again…
I don’t think that’s a very attractive proposition. And I don’t think that’s how most people view it, and I don’t think there’s much proof it even exists at all.
But now I’m going back to lurk mode. I’ve had my fun and it’s starting to become another troll attack as I get more frustrated in trying to make my points.
It’s been fun ya’ll! See you again in a few years!
Must be why Zen Masta so horney. Freedom from suffering in the MOMENT of orgasming in student.
Like I said to Gniz, even Zen, even just sitting zazen, will indeed result in complete and personal enlightenment, if you are willing to pay the price. If you don’t pay the price, you won’t get the result. You will get only what you pay for. There are no bargain discount bins.
One of the things you find out is that time is an illusion of perspective. Genuine zen will shift your perspective to the timeless. Thus, the whole concept of a “lifetime” and “forever” dissolves and is replaced by an entirely different viewpoint. So the eternal means something entirely different than “a very long time”. Both are concepts. Shed them, and what remains?
Oops. Broke my own rule. America woke up, I guess –
Shinchan – I’ve replied to you. It’s up there somewhere.
Saw your reply anon 108, thanks very much. It was a bit scurrilous of me to put you on the spot like that… but I don’t have enough grasp of the basics to go work it out for myself, even with online dictionaries etc.
I now stand educated as well as just corrected! I’d love to learn some Sanskrit, and some Chinese, and some medieval Japanese (!) just so I could feel my way into the origin sense of Buddhist scriptures… maybe when I’m retired, if I live that long 🙂
“America woke up, I guess” … chance would be a fine thing ;P
Is Zen Buddhism a religion? Sometimes the late Zen Master Seung Sahn would call it a religion. There is certainly an element of faith – we believe in our practice, and we believe it has benefits for ourselves and others.
My wife depends on me to continue my practice; it lends stability to her life. In our tradition, we often repeat the “Four Great Vows,” to cut through all delusions, to save all beings, to learn all dharmas and to attain the Buddha Way. I once told ZM Wu Kwang that I understood how my practice helps my wife, but not how it helps all people. He asked, “She’s not all people?”
But our tradition also lacks something else common to most religions: an orthodox doctrine. The Kwan Um school has a distinct style, and an evolving tradition, but we aren’t asked to accept any orthodoxy. (I’m sure there are people in the school who will tell me I’m doing it wrong, just to contradict my argument.)
So I’m left with the usual “don’t know.” Which is actually rather the point, I think.
In Zen, we are practicing what?
This is a What practice.
Someone who does this practice is a What person.
Doing this practice means only go straight, don’t know.
What is this?
Hi SB,
You say this is a “what” practice, a “don’t know” practice.
But you also state: “In our tradition, we often repeat the “Four Great Vows,” to cut through all delusions, to save all beings, to learn all dharmas and to attain the Buddha Way. I once told ZM Wu Kwang that I understood how my practice helps my wife, but not how it helps all people. He asked, “She’s not all people?””
These are not very compatible philosophies, I don’t think. To cut through ALL delusions? Why would you ever believe that is possible? To Save ALL beings? That’s a very grandiose claim, and sounds delusional in and of itself.
And this cuts to the core of my problems with eastern thought as its typically practiced. Having your cake and eating it too–you can claim on one hand, that it is all a “don’t know” attitude. But then you simultaneously make very grandiose and ridiculous claims about saving all beings and cutting through all delusions.
If you say these are simply “hopes” or “ritualistic prayers” or whatever–then they become almost worthless. Why not just say you would like to see how the mind works and perhaps cut through a few delusions if possible? Why not say, I would like to be able to help myself and others, if possible?
But no, the refrain is to “save all beings”, “cut through all delusions.” If you say these phrases aren’t literal, they become worthless. If you say these phrases are literal or might be taken literally, then I say those claims are absolutely absurd and grandiose.
There is absolutely no evidence that zen practitioners are cutting through even a single delusion, let alone ALL delusions. Nor is there evidence of saving ANY beings through zen practice, let alone ALL beings.
You can see this if you look at other religions like Scientology or Baptists or Mormons, but when it comes to your own, you give it special consideration. These are exactly the kinds of beliefs that I am saying make this a religion that is just as deluded and destructive as any.
Has the comments section become taken over by one person with multiple accounts and a cocktail of dissociative and narcissistic disorders arguing with himself?
Hi Hungry,
I am just one person writing under one account, and I’ve been on this site and Brad’s last for quite a long time. Many folks here know me.
As for your other ad hominems, that’s the classic case of the religious true believer going into attack mode when someone upsets the apple cart.
Ad hominems are ugly I concede – but they are something of a banality here, but as for your other point – I’m not religious nor am I a true believer in anything – I just like Brad’s books and this blog, he seems sincere even when I don’t agree and he helped convince me to sit everyday even when it seems like a total waste of time
“Hello? Hungry Ghost? This is Detective Canyon. We traced the IP addresses of the comments and they are all coming from inside your house! You have to get out of the house immediately!!”
He does far more than sidestep the enlightenment question, he says that people who’ve claimed that the Buddhist path leads to the cessation of suffering “clearly had no idea what they were talking about”. He KNOWS what he’s talking about, but the Buddha, who claimed that the Buddhist path leads to the cessation of suffering, doesn’t know what he was talking about. This is clear to him. He knows better than the Buddha.
If he’s divorcing Buddhism, the ingrate is forced to claim that he knows better. That’s how religions work.
An interesting and creative interpretation, Zafu.
What does the cessation of suffering look like? Please describe it for me.
Thanks!
The fuck kind of zen man are you, Brad? Sheesh! Obviously, the cessation of suffering looks exactly like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsQ_a3PjsHQ
Well, unless you wreck. Then it just looks like suffering minus all the cessation malarky.
Hey they’re your words, dude. Some creative back-peddling would be more appropriate than denial, in my opinion. Oh I know, I know, the good shepherd can never be wrong.
What does cessation of suffering look like? I’m serious.
It looks like the dissolution of body, mind, world and self in an infinite ocean of recognition.
You’re telling me you didn’t already know that?
Observe, gniz, you can fully admit to trolling a religious site and nevertheless the religious folk are helpless to resist the hooks. They have an image to uphold.
What does the cessation of suffering look like? It looks like having the freedom to not swallow the hook, dear Shepard.
And here, Brad seems willing to finally engage you and you completely duck this question as well. Why?
In reading most of the comments in regards to this article, I had a few thoughts I would like to share:
My understanding is that enlightenment was something that could potentially be reached through practice, but not necessarily something that was promised.
There are many things that I have read that refer to people reaching enlightenment (or something that was labeled enlightenment) who did not practice at all, at least not in the terms that we think of.
There are many different things that people can do that can be considered practice, that do not have to have a particular label (religious, buddhist, zen, etc).
The four noble truths and the eightfold path was a system that was set up because it was the best road map that could be created at the time to try and help people get over themselves, to end suffering. I think there are many different interpretations that are being discussed in this forum, on what suffering means.
Some people seem to think that it means literally every single way a person can suffer (physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, etc). Although I do believe that meditation can affect these things, I think when talking about the four noble truths, the type of suffering that is being referred to is the suffering that humans create for themselves through the way they interpret and classify the world. The way we label things, the way we create bias, the negative thoughts we have and so on.
Enlightenment is not promised, but maybe it could happen. The practice is set up to help you understand how your mind works and ease your suffering based on that, and that is different for everyone. You can be a monk, or you can just be a random person, practice comes in any form.
I think the cool thing about Zen is that it is a practice, although steeped in tradition, acknowledges change and acknowledges that the road is different for everyone. At the risk of potentially misquoting Alan Watts: “A cat sits until it is done sitting, and then gets up, stretches, and walks away.”
Thank you for your time.
The four nobel lies according to K. C.:
1) The maybe truth of suffering (dukkha)
2) The maybe truth of the cause of suffering (samudaya)
3) The maybe truth of the end of suffering (nirhodha)
4) The truth of the path that maybe frees us from suffering (magga)
Seems like everybody KNOWS better than the Buddha these days.
I am not claiming they are lies, I am saying that they were statements made by a man. Statements that were made in a system of thought, that at the time was this mans best guess (don’t take that word too seriously), on how to better ourselves, get over our suffering etc. He was not the first Buddha or the last. I know nothing.
You’ve said that you know the Buddhist path may not lead to the cessation of suffering.
No need to be coy about it now. You know what you know.
Which is nothing, same as you. The minute you start believing that you know something over someone else, is when you truly don’t know.
Uh, you’re the one claiming that the Buddha was just guessing. How do you know that anyway?
I never said that the Buddhist path may not lead to the cessation of suffering. I merely suggested that practice comes in any form. But that being said, sure The Buddhist path may not lead to it. But that can be said about everything. A problem with trying to classify these kind of ideas is that they are unique to the individual. Each persons experience is different, sure you have all these rules and traditions and what not, but that may not account for the meat of the practice, which is mostly internal.
I told you not to take that word (guess) to seriously! Maybe he did get it right. I’m not him so I don’t know. I am fairly convinced that he was a person like you or me. He noticed something was up with how humans lived there lives, came to some sort of realization and tried his best to help others come to a realization themselves. I guess?
And if you want to get real mystic-y, how can anyone ever really “know” anything? *Mysterious music plays in background*
So now you know that no one can know anything. Smartypants.
Do I? How can I know, if no one can know anything? I don’t even know if I’m an actual thing! How can I know anything if I don’t even know if I have actual thing thoughts? Oh no, I think I’m slipping into an actual existential crisis. 0-o
He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know. You spoke so you don’t know. But you said you don’t know, so you know.
The clincher:
He who guesses, does not know.
He who knows, is still only guessing. Would you take the red pill or the blue pill?
Yup.
It is possible to know that there is no you, but it isn’t necessary to believe it.
And knowing this is only over or under someone else because they haven’t seen through their personal fiction yet.
But since there is no one there either, knowing something over someone else is an illusion.
The empty hand grasps the hoe handle
Walking along, I ride the ox
The ox crosses the wooden bridge
The bridge is flowing, the water is still
Yay!
Sheep crossing meadow
Shepard opens mouth
Faceplant
Gassho Mastur Zaf, my thinking mind just switched off!
Yup.
a straw sheep fills the empty sack
lost up own ass, it rides the sheep
the sheep is moving, the sack is still
parting cheeks: zafu gets stuffed
Yup.
Yay!
anon 108 might like this
https://soundcloud.com/krishashok/leela
Epic!!!
BTW Shinchan, I first heard the ‘pra-jna=before knowing’ thing from my own bona fide Zen teacher, Mike Luetchford, Nishijima’s first Dharma heir. The same teacher whose translation of Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika inspired me to take up Sanskrit. We discussed my objection in a few emails. Mike’s last words on the subject: “Point taken … I don’t keep to the rules. There are lots of examples of this in my book.” I like Mike.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Between-Heaven-Earth-Nagarjuna-Dogen/dp/0952300257/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426896939&sr=1-1&keywords=luetchford+nagarjuna
I trust Mike won’t mind… Here’s something he said earlier in our discussion. I think it echoes Brad’s approach to traditional Buddhist teaching/terminology:
“But what does “wisdom” mean? When is someone wise? How does practicing Zazen make us wise? It also makes us stupid. Are wise and stupid mutually exclusive?
These are some of the questions I have about interpreting prajna to mean wisdom. On the other hand I do have experience of a pre-conceptual intuition that has become more pronounced with practice, and I do feel that this pre-conceptual something is where a lot of my decisions come from. Whereas I don’t feel particularly wise, and often feel particularly stupid. So I choose the interpretation that makes sense to me from my real experience.”
This pre-conceptual intuition has nothing to do with whether a person is wise or not in egoic terms. It has a life of its own.
Perhaps pra-jna is simply the name given by a simple, ancient people to a type of knowing greater than the commonplace intelligence of the time.
I can’t make make much sense of your first paragraph, Fred (not enlightened, you see). But your second gets a tentative yup.
… and the bona fide zen teacher who I got ‘pra-jna=before knowing’ from is a student of Mike Luetchford’s… so there you go, maybe it’s not a widespread etymological opinion after all. By some weird synchronism, I’ve got Between Heaven on Earth (Mike L’s MMK translation) on the table beside my laptop today (and no other book!). I’m still at the intro, and was planning to delve in further this weekend. I’ve got the Brad Warner / Gudo Nishijima MMK on the shelf too, for later… yes, I’m a sad, sad, sad buddhology geek.
At the risky of inflaming the sentiment of some commenters here, I’d say IMHO that it’s perfectly valid for a Zen teacher to teach ‘pra-jna=before knowing’, even if the derivation is mildly suspect linguistically: so long as it helps to point students in a useful direction. Similarly, I like it that Mike L’s stated aim in his book is to “[seek] for Dogen’s meaning in Nagarjuna’s verses”, rather than to do a literal, dry, translation. I like that he’s adding something creatively, while honouring the tradition he comes from. The more I study the literature of Mahayana and Zen, the more it seems that’s what it was always like – each generation taking the words and theories that came before, and giving them a little twist, a turning word.
To me that’s what it’s all about: a living, evolving dharma tradition – at each moment accepting the received tradition until now, and using it in a new, vital way at that moment. I think that’s what I see as “the core of the religion”, actually: not the canonical version of Gautama’s words; not the noble truths as dogma; not the ‘Cessation of Suffering’ as the sine qua non. Just an encounter between acceptance and effort in the present… I suspect all the rest of the “religion’s” theories can be unravelled from there.
Give the sheep and the shepherds a break will ya?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOWX2-l788A
Does Zen suck this much? Or is it just American Zen that sucks this much?
All of life sucks, I’m sorry to inform you.
http://www.ligotti.net/showthread.php?t=4841
That’s a play I wrote 4.25 years ago about Emil Cioran.
Strong Practice,
It’s hard to imagine that one blogger and about 10 commenters would actually be representing all of zen, or even simply the zen practice of one country. My guess is you are more asking what the problem is right here on this blog.
I can help explain that for you. You see, the answer is the same as the answer to enlightenment, meaning you already have it.
You said: “Does Zen suck this much? Or is it just American Zen that sucks this much?”
What you are is a person who has an opinion. In your case, you think something sucks. You possibly also have a superiority issue being expressed through the comment about American Zen, who knows though, it’s rather hard to know what people really mean. Anyway, so here you are, a person with an opinion. What do you do with that opinion? You share it with everyone here on Brad’s blog. Who care’s if it’s rude, it’s how you see things!
As other’s read the post, and then the comments below, they will see Strong Practice’s totally unneeded opinion. How does he feel? He feels that something here sucks.
See that? The answer is you. Just like enlightenment itself. Aum, dude.
If zen students didn’t suck there would be no point to it at all.
Conrad, you’re unbroken! My understanding of conditioned genesis in the 2nd truth would be that ignorance leads to intention leads to a stationing of consciousness, and thence down the chain to craving and the five groups of grasping (which are the short version of birth, old age, death, sickness, etc.). So an intention to cease craving would not be what the great one proposed, IMO; you can quote me something from the first four Nikayas to show me wrong!
anon 108, interesting that the last authority I read on the historical accuracy of suttas placed the 2nd & 3rd Digha Nikaya volumes in the “suspicious” basket, because of the addition of supernatural feats, such as the assembly crossing the river in the Mahaparanibbana Sutta (which is from the 2nd Digha Nikaya). I did link to that authority somewhere way upstream; I’m just mentioning it as a curiosity. I surely love some of the things attributed to Gautama in that sermon, myself. But the historians appear to regard those supernatural feats as the addition of later editors.
(is everybody asleep yet?)
The cessation of suffering, deliverance from thought without grasping.
gniz, it’s true that Mohr and Blanke only hypothesize that the sense of self is based on the coordination of the ocular, vestibular, and proprioceptive senses, but they do so based on the observation that out-of-body experiences appear linked to damage to these senses and the way they interact. In particular, they speak of the third of the varieties of out-of-body experience, wherein a person sees themselves across the room, and they are in both places simultaneously; this, they said, can lead to suicide, because people so desperately want the sense of being in a single location back again.
I myself feel that the Blue Cliff Record is full of meaning, some of which is specifically related to the three senses Blanke and Mohr single out. Far-fetched, indeed. Much is obscured by the references to the literature of the time, I agree.
How do these three senses coordinate with one another, and with the sense of gravity? Well, they do, as the bottom drops out of the basket.
Mark, I’d suggest per the Buddha’s elaboration of the Noble Eightfold path, that there is such a thing as right intention, and wrong intention. The right intention, springing from right viewpoint, would be to intend to cease living by one’s cravings, until they exhaust themselves by non-use and collapse upon themselves, thus interrupting the chain of dependent origination.
People seem to get themselves pretty fucked up around the issue of intention, because they are mostly in the grip of wrong intentions, and bring those wrong intentions to the practice of Buddhism. That can produce a reactionary attitude that seeks to have no intention. But that is also a wrong intention. One has to get to the root of it, and see that right intention is real, but it is also radically different in nature than wrong intention. So it’s hard to recognize and make use of it, because it’s not what we are accustomed to. That doesn’t make it unreal or deluding.
It’s also true that the Buddha didn’t just teach that we develop an intention to cease craving. We actually have to cease craving in all the very tangible ways, and also the very intangible ways. That’s what I mean by paying the price. One’s intention can be measured by the price one pays, not by some imagined inner will. Even though one needs an inner will, it better not be imaginary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pM7Xwx6TiE
Beautiful song from “The World of Peter Rabbit and Friends” based off Beatrix Potter’s works.
youtube
.com/watch
?v=SMDTCc1suJo
Beautiful song based off an anime adaptation of LM Montgomery’s Emily of New Moon.
…
..
I shall kill God. I shall destroy the Dharmakaya. I shall destroy the Dao. I shall destroy the All. I shall destroy the Infinite. I shall destroy the One Mind.
I will be reborn endlessly until I can end the mistake of this existence. I will destroy the entire Cosmos and replace it with a cozy cartoon. I will end all these kalpas from iterating in their recursive existence.
I shall create a better universe based of my dreams. I shall create an idyllic paradise for all beings where there won’t be too much struggle or suffering…
If there is a an Infinite, then I shall be the one destroy it.
Mark wrote: “…interesting that the last authority I read on the historical accuracy of suttas placed the 2nd & 3rd Digha Nikaya volumes in the “suspicious” basket, because of the addition of supernatural feats…”
I’ve not as familiar with the Pali suttas as you are, Mark. But I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that authority was right. …What I mean is, I’d like to believe that authority was right.
I want to read Richard Gombrich’s ‘What the Buddha Thought’ sometime soon. Have you read it?/What do think of it?
[ https://thebuddhistcentre.com/system/files/groups/files/Dh%C4%ABvan-What%20the%20Buddha%20Thought_0.pdf ]
* * * * *
Shinchan – I’ve come across various (online) Zen/Budddhists citing ‘prajna=pre-knowing’ as suport for their belief/experience that pre-conceptual intuition rather than wisdom is the thing one gets – or allows to more freely function – if one sticks at Buddhist practice. So it’s not just a Dogen Sangha thing.
So who’s your teacher? Care to out him on a public forum? If not, maybe you can tell me which part of the UK you’re in and I can guess.
You wrote: “The more I study the literature of Mahayana and Zen, the more it seems that’s what it was always like — each generation taking the words and theories that came before, and giving them a little twist, a turning word.”
And I say: Yup. So much so that it’s no surprise some folks get confused – angry, even – when they encounter something calling itself ‘Buddhism’ that has little in common with what they’ve been calling ‘Buddhism’.
anon 108, I won’t name any names: I tend to use this section as a sounding board for my half baked ideas, and sometimes I use some pretty gamey language when doing so… i’d hate for anyone to be thought guilty by association with that
Sorry MAPhdBuddhiststudies, I just realized anon ws right and the reply button is effectively useless if you aren’t conversing in real time, wo I’m reposting this down here where it might actually get seen and responded to. This one’s for Zafu:
Shinchan said: “I’m genuinely curious about why pointing out that Zen is a religion, that it provides meaning, and so on, seem so important to you. ”
I’m curious about this too. I enjoy this blog and much of the comments section, but lately I can’t help but wonder what’s with the guy who incessantly repeats the same thing over and over after each blog entry.
“Religion is about meaning.” Got it. “People who are into Zen have beliefs.” Check. “‘Religious people’ need to be spoonfed meaning because they can find it on their own.” Ok. “You’re all a bunch of sheep. Baaa-aaaaa! Baaaah!” I think it’s pretty clear to everyone by now that that’s your opinion. “‘Religious people’ can’t afford to be honest.” Well, it’s a sweeping generalization involving, literally, billions of people you’ve never met, but you’ve made it pretty clear that this is your take on things.
What I don’t get is why you seem so smug about these relatively banal points and what it is you get out of repeating them so often. Also, I’m wondering if you actually type these phrases out every time you use them or do you cut and paste to save time?
And finally, Shinchin just asked you about this directly and you completely ducked the question. Why?
Also, after a good couple months of you trolling his blog Brad finally addressed you with a direct question and you ducked that as well. Why?
“Shinchan — I’ve come across various (online) Zen/Budddhists citing ‘prajna=pre-knowing’ as support for their belief/experience that pre-conceptual intuition rather than wisdom is the thing one gets — or allows to more freely function — if one sticks at Buddhist practice. So it’s not just a Dogen Sangha thing.”
This would be good for an entire discussion, and whether “it” is “wisdom”, ” “preconceptual intuition”, or something else entirely different.
Perhaps so, Fred. Just before I went out to the shops I wrote this, thinking I might post it when I got back –
Do words such as ‘wisdom’, ‘intuition’, ‘judgement’ ‘discrimination’ describe different phenomena, related phenomena, or aspects of the same phenomenon? Does any perceived difference have to do with whether or not our actions are informed by (prior) conscious thinking? Can a line be drawn between thinking and non-thinking? Can a line be drawn between cleverness/intelligence and intuition? I don’t know. I’m not sure what, if anything, can be achieved by trying to decide one way or another. All I’m saying is that pra-jna doesn’t necessarily mean ‘pre-knowing’.
Zafu – I’d also like to know what Jason, Shinchan and Brad would like to know.
I didn’t duck it, I gave an example of what it looks like. Having the freedom to act wisely, rather than being a slave to your religious beliefs.
Well his question was “what do you think the cessation of suffering looks like?” So, you’re saying that the freedom to act wisely is the cessation of suffering? I’m sorry, this just sounds like a nonsequitor. It looks like you’re just replying to a question by restating your position with regards to religion again, even though the question wasn’t asking about that.
See this is part of the mystery of Zafu. It’s like no matter what anyone here says to you or asks you, you either duck the point by tossing off a glib comment or you just repeat one of your standard talking points regardless of whether or not the topic at hand has anything to do with said point. It’s like watching someone with OCD being compelled to say the same things, often using the exact same phrases in response to any stimuli no matter how inappropriate those responses may be to the circumstances.
I’m not trying to accuse you or even judge you, I’ve literally become fascinated by this phenomenon, and I’m wondering if you can shed some light on it.
I clearly said that it was an “example.” An example is a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule of something, not the thing in its entirety.
If you read with more care I’m sure there will be far fewer non sequiturs in your life.
Searching for question marks…
I type them.
Hold on a sec and I’ll see if I can find Shinsy’s question.
There are at least three question marks in my posts to you. I’ll let you continue your search.
Zafu said: “What does the cessation of suffering look like? It looks like having the freedom to not swallow the hook, dear Shepard.” I don’t see the word “example” here, clearly or otherwise, and I’m not sure how it would change my point if I did.
“If you read with more care I’m sure there will be far fewer non sequiturs in your life.” Are there a lot of nonsequitors in my life? Can you provide examples other than your own? As far as I can tell, it’s not a big problem in my life, just in my reading of your trolling project.
He asked for a view (“what it looks like”) and I gave him a view, silly goose. By design, it was an open ended question.
You haven’t explained how my my response is insufficient. Can you do that? Please.
P.S.–You’ve ducked my questions as well.
108:
“I want to read Richard Gombrich’s ‘What the Buddha Thought’ sometime soon. Have you read it?/What do think of it?
[ https://thebuddhistcentre.com/system/files/groups/files/Dh%C4%ABvan-What%20the%20Buddha%20Thought_0.pdf ]”
From this came this:
“Gombrich’s historical approach………………..because he is not at all sceptical about the Buddha’s claim to have attained enlightenment, nor about ineffability of the enlightenment experience.”
The “ineffability of the enlightenment experience” does not imply a preconceptual intuition, but you could say that it is preconceptual cognition occurring right now, ie., thinking non-thinking here and now.
“…he is not at all sceptical about the Buddha’s claim to have attained enlightenment…
Yeah, that’s on p.152, apparently – the first page I’ll go to if/when I get the book. RG has always insisted he’s not a Buddhist. I don’t know if he meditates or not.
I’m simply fascinated by it. Maybe an example of what it looks like from my perspective could help you understand the fascination. Metaphors are often helpful in bridging gaps in understanding.
Imagine you saw someone walking down the street wearing a red hat. Admiring the hat, you commented as they walked past, “Wowsers! That’s a fine red hat you got there, Sir!” The redhatter replies, “what are you talking about, I’m not wearing a hat.” Perplexed, you try to think of a way to show the redhatter that he is in fact a redhatter. Perhaps if I can show that the hat has influence on the hatter, you think, that will convince him. You say to the redhatter, “wait here a sec, I’ll be right back.” The redhatter replies, “okay, but don’t take long, I’ve got a hat appointment.” So you run home and fetch some string with a hook on it. Returning to the redhatter, you hook him by the hat and pull. As expected, the redhatter faceplants the sidewalk. “Oh, sorry.” you say. “Sorry for what?,” asks the redhatter, as he gets up and begins tending to his bloody nose. “I’m sorry you suffer the hat,” you reply.
And what god selected you to enlighten all these deluded souls as to their true state of their – uh, insidious headgear (cute)? Two things jump out at me. One, the fact that you are so, so certain that you don’t suffer from any similar blind spots. And two, the fact that you seem to think it always necessary to cause offense – bloody people’s noses – in order to make your point (also the fact that you seem to get off on the prospect of bloodying people’s noses).
Is this really what you believe? I.e. that you are actually performing some sort of service to humanity or the universe or whatever by acting like such an obnoxious prick? Or are you just trolling? I confess I have trouble distinguishing between the trolls and the genuine narcissists these days… though trolls don’t usually have this kind of staying power.
” I confess I have trouble distinguishing between the trolls and the genuine narcissists these days… ”
I confess that I have very little direct experience with trolls since this is the only site on the web that I routinely post on. A quick search turned up an article about a study done in an attempt to understand trolling behavior.
From the article:
The studies examined personality traits and commenting styles of 1,215 people and found that the trolls had personality traits that exactly lined up with what is known as the “Dark Tetrad” of personality traits: sadism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism, a psychological term used to describe those who manipulate and trick others for personal gain.
The investigators found a link between online commenting frequency and the enjoyment of trolling, which is consistent with previous research that has established an association between excessive use of technology and antisocial behavior.
There does seem to be some correlation between behavior on this comments section and the above outlined traits. Maybe people grow out of it. One can hope.
The original article:
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/why_do_internet_trolls_troll_they_might_be_sadists/
Cheers.
To me the difference is that trolls fuck with people and make a massive nuisance of themselves for their own personal entertainment, while narcissists engage in the same behavior for the sake of some “higher purpose”… though, actually, there’s other ways of being a narcissist. Some are a lot slicker than that (the really scary ones) But it’s the manic and malicious types that most plague the internet as their preferred stomping grounds in my experience.
Starting over down here.
Zafu said “You haven’t explained how my my response is insufficient. Can you do that? Please.”
Can you explain how it is? Please.