• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Is there anything in Zen?

O:
I don't know if the difference is that the center I went to is Soto Zen? All they do is sit. Except when it's paella+movie day.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the walking meditation. But, yeah, most of it is shikantaza.

In short: zazen+walking meditation+mindful cleaning up+teatime chitchat.
 
O:
I don't know if the difference is that the center I went to is Soto Zen? All they do is sit. Except when it's paella+movie day.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the walking meditation. But, yeah, most of it is shikantaza.

In short: zazen+walking meditation+mindful cleaning up+teatime chitchat.

I think it's more that I have "special circumstances." I'd been previously trained in Diamond and Heart Sutras, which both require a different methodology for sitting meditation. The Heart and Medicine Buddha mantra states are automatic to me now, so it was decided that in order to grasp the teachings - I required a different physical state to do so. Also being a Westerner...they are sometimes more liberal with the application of the teachings.
 
I'm content with my no-ideology thing. That's why I love Zen. Even if I'm attracted to, say, metta and core Siddhartha Gautama teaching, I'd hate to be preached at. I cna get all the cool Siddhartha reading, thank you! Blabla was important at times of widespread illiteracy, because books were an impossibly rare and expensive commodity before Guttenberg. Now it's just mind-control IMHO.

I like my shit to be a practice. When I went into Transcendental Meditation (which I love) they started all secular-ish, then we got the Gita and crap, which I tolerate but I can't stomach.

Zen is perfect for an empiricist such as I because I don't get any ideological mumbojumbo, no worshipping, and chants are just rote repetition of obvious things about being and becoming mindful. We had a 10 minute introduction and then we were told to sit. At first I thought it was crappy instruction, but after a while I got used to zero sutras, zero talkablabla, zero minding sexy GuanYin statues or any religious trappings. Soto Zen rocks. For me.

Also, I guess, the deal is you can have your own religion and participate in zazen, and yes, there are practicing Catholics, but most, I suspect, are non-religious like me. It goes well with skeptical and get-yer-Jesus-off-my-penis modernity.

It floats my boat.
 
I'm content with my no-ideology thing. That's why I love Zen. Even if I'm attracted to, say, metta and core Siddhartha Gautama teaching, I'd hate to be preached at. I cna get all the cool Siddhartha reading, thank you! Blabla was important at times of widespread illiteracy, because books were an impossibly rare and expensive commodity before Guttenberg. Now it's just mind-control IMHO.
I think the issue with other practices is that the teacher can become a large scale obstacle to inner peace via wrong view. The other thing is that the teachers are said to be infallible. I do not believe this and had to leave a Buddhist order because of this misguided belief. I don't mind the preaching as much. I find the rhythm of it soothing, especially the mantras.

That said, there is nothing like Zen. I always come back to it. It is easy, effortless, peaceful. Utterly without all the bells and whistles because it doesn't need it. :)

I like my shit to be a practice. When I went into Transcendental Meditation (which I love) they started all secular-ish, then we got the Gita and crap, which I tolerate but I can't stomach.
lol! That is the other aspect I enjoy: all of everyday life is the practice. Effortless.

Zen is perfect for an empiricist such as I because I don't get any ideological mumbojumbo, no worshipping, and chants are just rote repetition of obvious things about being and becoming mindful. We had a 10 minute introduction and then we were told to sit. At first I thought it was crappy instruction, but after a while I got used to zero sutras, zero talkablabla, zero minding sexy GuanYin statues or any religious trappings. Soto Zen rocks. For me.
Agreed. Zen is also the reason why my name is "0" (zero), which I call a state of "effortless effort."

Also, I guess, the deal is you can have your own religion and participate in zazen, and yes, there are practicing Catholics, but most, I suspect, are non-religious like me. It goes well with skeptical and get-yer-Jesus-off-my-penis modernity.
Much of Buddhism is like this, though. At its root, it is more akin to philosophy than religion. So it is often compatible with just about any other ideology save nihilistic based world-views, which result in psychotic breaks when fused with intense meditative practices.
 
Much of Buddhism is like this, though. At its root, it is more akin to philosophy than religion. So it is often compatible with just about any other ideology save nihilistic based world-views, which result in psychotic breaks when fused with intense meditative practices.

Could you elaborate on this? As I understand it, nihilism is the central tenet of Buddhism: everything is empty, value is nowhere to be found in the world, all things are transient, and attachment causes suffering.
 
Much of Buddhism is like this, though. At its root, it is more akin to philosophy than religion. So it is often compatible with just about any other ideology save nihilistic based world-views, which result in psychotic breaks when fused with intense meditative practices.

Could you elaborate on this? As I understand it, nihilism is the central tenet of Buddhism: everything is empty, value is nowhere to be found in the world, all things are transient, and attachment causes suffering.
Certainly. What follows are general explanations as I understood them academically rather than definitive truths I espouse myself:

From my limited understanding, the Buddhist concept of "inherent emptiness" of all external manifestations merely equates to the scientific understanding that our reality is comprised of empty space. Yet simultaneously, this empty space is not empty. From the Tibetan Buddhists, one learns the concept of "Clear Light Wisdom," which is essentially the full knowledge and acceptance of what this emptiness really means: that all things are one interconnected fabric of living conscious awareness.

The multitudes are unaware that existence is transient, yet eternal, empty, yet full, valueless, yet priceless - all at the same time. This lack of awareness is called Samsara, the false or superficial world of perception. Meditation, The Eight Fold Path, and so forth are techniques to lift the veil of Samsara to truly see existence as it is. Therefore, the enlightened person equipped with this knowledge feels compassion towards all others because they are unenlightened to this fundamental truth, yet are still an extension of ourselves worthy of acceptance, forgiveness and unconditional love.

Nihilism, on the other hand, in its three most common manifestations (existentialist, metaphysical or epidemiological) argues that:

1) external reality holds no intrinsic value, meaning or purpose
2) knowledge of the external world is impossible or always incomplete in its acquisition and comprehension
3) reality (internal and/or external) does not actually exist

Nihilists often fuse this view with negative, anarchistic, cynical and destructive conclusions, often the result of pre-existing anti-social and dysfunctional mental states. Nihilism when taken to its conclusion creates an island of an individual consciousness. External reality is unknowable, empty, unconscious. Therefore, the only will is your own. The only rules are those that the individual can create. The only limitation - positive "feel good" emotions and ideologies that seek to blunt the edges of the truth: that all things are disconnected, unconscious and without purpose at all.

In Nihilism, Man becomes an island of One. In Buddhism, Man becomes One with The Great All.

Now to clarify the dangerous aspects: I took classes with The 14th Dalai Lama for six full days among over 400 students and other academics. One of the central lectures consisted of the effects of meditation on the Western mind, specifically when paired with a nihilistic view point. Nihilism in these circles is said to be akin to a disease that is highly prevalent in the West and toxic to our societies.

When fused with meditation, such a person may come to the conclusion that he or she is a lone god/consciousness in a sea of illusion. This can create depression, anger and hostility. If the person is unprepared for the visions that certain meditative states can cause, they may also take them literally and act on what they've seen. If the belief is that others are not real, for example, it begs the question if there are really consequences when performing harmful actions. It can also lead to the elevation of concepts like chaos and pain as core methodologies used to "feel something." In extreme cases, the classes described instances of suicide and rampant violence towards others. Some Buddhists also equate the self-emulations of monks as a type of nihilistic "wrong view" as well.
 
It should, as it's nearly all zinc these days. Way to let yourself go, nickel.
 
Emptiness boils down to there not being a unitary self.

It was (and is) their bone of contention with Vedanta (Hinduism). Hindus collectively believe in everything in the ontological textbook: souls, God, everything. Ones believe that the core soul/self is God, within you, whereas others believe that every soul is different, like little oil droplets out of the big blob of soul grease, called Brahman. They don't agree among themselves, but they all agree that soul/ego/self exists, in opposition to Buddhism.

In the end, most Buddhists would not be very different in terms of mysticism with the Hindus. In Mahayana Buddhism, "buddha-nature" could be seen as a stand-in for Brahman, according to some commentators. I don't agree. I think that buddha nature is a primeval state of no stress/worry/pain which things in themselves have. The bird is the bird, the rock is a rock. It is a commonality of state, not a unity of substance (as would be with the Hindu universal soul).

In practice I don't give a zit. When I practice Transcendental Meditation (TM is Vedantic) or when I practice zazen (Buddhist) I'm not doing philosophy, so none of that comes to mind.

If it ever does come to mind, you're doing it wrong, because the point of dyhana (the practice oft translated as meditation) is samadhi (the process where the mind becomes still, one-pointed or concentrated while the person remains conscious), no matter if it's Hindu or Buddhist. "Still, boy, still!" is the point of "Sit, boy, sit!".
 
Could you elaborate on this? As I understand it, nihilism is the central tenet of Buddhism: everything is empty, value is nowhere to be found in the world, all things are transient, and attachment causes suffering.
Certainly. What follows are general explanations as I understood them academically rather than definitive truths I espouse myself:

From my limited understanding, the Buddhist concept of "inherent emptiness" of all external manifestations merely equates to the scientific understanding that our reality is comprised of empty space. Yet simultaneously, this empty space is not empty.

I am not convinced that this is the mainstream interpretation, as Buddhism is many centuries older than the scientific experiments that demonstrated this. Unless it was a lucky guess, Indian gurus would have no way of knowing that elementary particles are separated by comparably vast stretches of space.

From the Tibetan Buddhists, one learns the concept of "Clear Light Wisdom," which is essentially the full knowledge and acceptance of what this emptiness really means: that all things are one interconnected fabric of living conscious awareness.

If this is what Tibetan Buddhists believe, I think it is mostly true except for the 'conscious awareness' part.

The multitudes are unaware that existence is transient, yet eternal, empty, yet full, valueless, yet priceless - all at the same time. This lack of awareness is called Samsara, the false or superficial world of perception. Meditation, The Eight Fold Path, and so forth are techniques to lift the veil of Samsara to truly see existence as it is. Therefore, the enlightened person equipped with this knowledge feels compassion towards all others because they are unenlightened to this fundamental truth, yet are still an extension of ourselves worthy of acceptance, forgiveness and unconditional love.

Nihilism, on the other hand, in its three most common manifestations (existentialist, metaphysical or epidemiological) argues that:

1) external reality holds no intrinsic value, meaning or purpose
2) knowledge of the external world is impossible or always incomplete in its acquisition and comprehension
3) reality (internal and/or external) does not actually exist

I have not come across number 3 as a form of nihilism, and would not call number 2 nihilism, but rather skepticism. But number 1 seems to be completely compatible with Buddhism. Do Buddhists claim anything is inherently valuable?

Nihilists often fuse this view with negative, anarchistic, cynical and destructive conclusions, often the result of pre-existing anti-social and dysfunctional mental states. Nihilism when taken to its conclusion creates an island of an individual consciousness. External reality is unknowable, empty, unconscious. Therefore, the only will is your own. The only rules are those that the individual can create. The only limitation - positive "feel good" emotions and ideologies that seek to blunt the edges of the truth: that all things are disconnected, unconscious and without purpose at all.

In Nihilism, Man becomes an island of One. In Buddhism, Man becomes One with The Great All.

This could be a particular manifestation of a particular combination of the 3 things you mentioned, but is not a necessary conclusion of nihilism.

Now to clarify the dangerous aspects: I took classes with The 14th Dalai Lama for six full days among over 400 students and other academics. One of the central lectures consisted of the effects of meditation on the Western mind, specifically when paired with a nihilistic view point. Nihilism in these circles is said to be akin to a disease that is highly prevalent in the West and toxic to our societies.

When fused with meditation, such a person may come to the conclusion that he or she is a lone god/consciousness in a sea of illusion. This can create depression, anger and hostility. If the person is unprepared for the visions that certain meditative states can cause, they may also take them literally and act on what they've seen. If the belief is that others are not real, for example, it begs the question if there are really consequences when performing harmful actions. It can also lead to the elevation of concepts like chaos and pain as core methodologies used to "feel something." In extreme cases, the classes described instances of suicide and rampant violence towards others. Some Buddhists also equate the self-emulations of monks as a type of nihilistic "wrong view" as well.

I find it interesting that they assume it to be a "wrong view" based on its consequences in the context of meditation, not based on actually showing that it misrepresents reality. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. I don't fit the definition of a nihilist under those conditions, but I certainly believe that nothing is valuable in itself, and consciousness is (thankfully) extremely rare in our otherwise interconnected universe. These views are often accompanied by depression, anger, and anxiety, but why shouldn't they be? Where is it established in stone that reflecting upon how reality actually is must be a peaceful experience?

This may be where I part ways with some interpretations of Buddhism and/or Zen; as a means to quiet the mind and move efficiently throughout the world, they may be highly advantageous techniques to learn. But I am not persuaded that a quiet mind is a wise mind, nor that being calm and attentive has anything to do with ascertaining "ultimate reality". The brain, as Marvin Minsky says, is a meat machine. Just a big processor made out of soggy meat. It is not a gateway to cosmic bliss (though it can reliably be induced to other forms of bliss).

I therefore approach Zen traditions carefully, because they appear to me more like a distraction from the actual world, rather than a revelation of the actual world; I just have a hard time swallowing that as evolved beings, we can tap into the ability to sit quietly and discover something true about life, and the accompanying sensation is pleasurable. Most of life's pleasures are reserved for things that helped our ancestors reproduce better than their competition. It is easier for me to imagine self-deception being one such survival strategy.
 
I therefore approach Zen traditions carefully, because they appear to me more like a distraction from the actual world, rather than a revelation of the actual world; I just have a hard time swallowing that as evolved beings, we can tap into the ability to sit quietly and discover something true about life, and the accompanying sensation is pleasurable.

I agree with everything you say here, except that it is a distraction. It's an exercise.

An exercise in awareness much less of a distraction than watching a movie, reading a book or daydreaming. The point in case for Zen is that worries and stress and "priorities" are a terrible distraction which takes us away from who we really are, if we're lost in shose stresses of life.

That's the true value of Zen. Becoming aware. It's like craning your head above your paperwork and realize what ever became of that idealistic youth who is not to be found anywhere between nine a.m. and five p.m.

That is what it means, and that is what mindfulness practice helps you to tune into any time of day. Tune into yourself.


That's what it really means, not that you are going to discover "the true meaning of existence", that you are an evolved ape carbon-hydrogen-oxygen-nitrogen based organism in a 13 billion-plus year old universe. That would not be getting it. It's practice in being here, and that's the reality you find. It's a completely different objective to science's, it has nothing to do about discovering the laws of chemistry or the size of the moon. It's wayyy different, but not incompatible, as is sleeping or jogging or reading or a massage.
 
I am not convinced that this is the mainstream interpretation, as Buddhism is many centuries older than the scientific experiments that demonstrated this. Unless it was a lucky guess, Indian gurus would have no way of knowing that elementary particles are separated by comparably vast stretches of space.
I forget the literalness that comes along with engaging in secular language. I am rusty. Apologies. What I said is a metaphor, just as all aspects of describing emptiness are. I asked the monks at Nechung and during the classes with the Dalai Lama about it. I was told this interpretation is accurate because it is a better way for the Western mind grasp the notion.

PyramidHead said:
If this is what Tibetan Buddhists believe, I think it is mostly true except for the 'conscious awareness' part.
Conscious awareness as described by the Tibetans in difficult for me to translate into words. Our vocabulary is inadequate.

PyramidHead said:
I have not come across number 3 as a form of nihilism, and would not call number 2 nihilism, but rather skepticism. But number 1 seems to be completely compatible with Buddhism. Do Buddhists claim anything is inherently valuable?
I have come across all three. Beyond this, these wording of these definitions come from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Secondly, I can't speak for all Buddhists. I just know that a type of universal compassion seems to be valued above all other concepts among those I know.

PyramidHead said:
This could be a particular manifestation of a particular combination of the 3 things you mentioned, but is not a necessary conclusion of nihilism.
I am not attempting to assert that every person with this view will end up that way. But I do know this: Had I been a nihilist, my teachers would have refused to train me on these grounds.

PyramidHead said:
I find it interesting that they assume it to be a "wrong view" based on its consequences in the context of meditation, not based on actually showing that it misrepresents reality.
Nihilism was not the focus of the lectures. Meditation was.

PyramidHead said:
Where is it established in stone that reflecting upon how reality actually is must be a peaceful experience?
While I do not think it is always a peaceful experience, I have a more peaceful demeanor after practice. It is a pretty nifty side effect. :)

PyramidHead said:
I therefore approach Zen traditions carefully, because they appear to me more like a distraction from the actual world, rather than a revelation of the actual world; I just have a hard time swallowing that as evolved beings, we can tap into the ability to sit quietly and discover something true about life, and the accompanying sensation is pleasurable. Most of life's pleasures are reserved for things that helped our ancestors reproduce better than their competition. It is easier for me to imagine self-deception being one such survival strategy.
Then this is where we part ways in our thoughts.

I do not believe we have evolved. I believe that humanity has preferred to languish in the throes of an extended childhood to avoid taking responsibility for the knowledge we have attained. And I also believe that we do learn something by sitting quietly and stilling the mind: we learn that many of our reactions to the external world are based on internal projections, subconscious fears and unresolved issues that often have little or nothing to do with reality itself. That kind of awareness is quiet useful to know thyself.
 
Alex,

In the type of meditation I practice (T.M.), (I think Perspicuo too) we don't "explore" thoughts. Thoughts just come and go and they are irrelevant. To concentrate in any way defeats the purpose because it keeps the mind "stuck" in a superficial level of activity...

Thomas,

This is interesting.

Yes, observing the passage of arising thoughts is good practice and has served me well, particularly with unwanted or unpleasant thoughts that might pop up. I don't do it if the thoughts don't bother me.

Noticing and exploring a feeling is in my view (and the guy on another forum), different and helpful. Many people are easily distracted by a feeling, such as anger or selfishness, and then act as if the feeling is doing the acting for them. Much unhappiness comes from this, both for that person and those around them.

I worked with a guy who was regularly going to silent meditation weekends for some kind of Buddhism. Anyway, one night he knocked on our front door, and asked to see me. He was in tears. Turns out that his wife had just left him and taken the kids. He thought of me as a shoulder in this crisis.

Anyway, I did my best, but two thoughts passed through my mind. One was that the Buddhism hadn't done him much good in dealing with his emotions. Second was that his obsession with Buddhism and all these weekends away might have contributed to this crisis, perhaps, who knows? Anyway, his wife never came back, he got to see his kids some weekends and he gave up Buddhism. At the time, I thought that, for him, Buddhism might have been a superficial activity, and I still do to be honest. Of course, others will approach the project with more self awareness.

Alex.
 
Much of Buddhism is like this, though. At its root, it is more akin to philosophy than religion. So it is often compatible with just about any other ideology save nihilistic based world-views, which result in psychotic breaks when fused with intense meditative practices.

O,

I remember an advertised Buddhist weekend which barred any person from attending who had "Suffered from panic attacks, anxiety disorders or depression."

Alex.
 
O,

I remember an advertised Buddhist weekend which barred any person from attending who had "Suffered from panic attacks, anxiety disorders or depression."

Alex.

Yes, I am familiar with retreats and gatherings like this. They will tell you that certain teachings will only make those conditions worse.
It is the same with yoga practices. I was restricted from doing fire breath techniques because there was a concern it would induce more panic attacks.
 
Alex,

In the type of meditation I practice (T.M.), (I think Perspicuo too) we don't "explore" thoughts. Thoughts just come and go and they are irrelevant. To concentrate in any way defeats the purpose because it keeps the mind "stuck" in a superficial level of activity...

Thomas,

This is interesting.

Yes, observing the passage of arising thoughts is good practice and has served me well, particularly with unwanted or unpleasant thoughts that might pop up. I don't do it if the thoughts don't bother me.

Noticing and exploring a feeling is in my view (and the guy on another forum), different and helpful. Many people are easily distracted by a feeling, such as anger or selfishness, and then act as if the feeling is doing the acting for them. Much unhappiness comes from this, both for that person and those around them.

I worked with a guy who was regularly going to silent meditation weekends for some kind of Buddhism. Anyway, one night he knocked on our front door, and asked to see me. He was in tears. Turns out that his wife had just left him and taken the kids. He thought of me as a shoulder in this crisis.

Anyway, I did my best, but two thoughts passed through my mind. One was that the Buddhism hadn't done him much good in dealing with his emotions. Second was that his obsession with Buddhism and all these weekends away might have contributed to this crisis, perhaps, who knows? Anyway, his wife never came back, he got to see his kids some weekends and he gave up Buddhism. At the time, I thought that, for him, Buddhism might have been a superficial activity, and I still do to be honest. Of course, others will approach the project with more self awareness.

Alex.

Alex,

While we mediate (in TM) there are two strokes to the process: a)An internalizing effect of the repetition of the "mantra" b) an externalizing effect of the thoughts that show up on our mental screen.

In other words, a) while we repeat the mantra we become more relaxed. As we become more relaxed, there is a release of stress on a physical level, b)which correlates with a thought event on our mental screen, and that thought brings us back to a more active mental state (superficial/towards the surface). We then effortlessly go back to the mantra, and another internalizing episode takes place with the consequent release of stress, and so on...That goes on for 20 minutes. And then we take a few minutes without repeating the mantra to open our eyes until it's comfortable to gain awareness of our surroundings. One does this meditation sitting in a comfortable position.

What I like the most about it is that it works. It's very easy to do and there is no need whatsoever to have faith, or religious beliefs of any kind, or to follow any particular philosophy. Anyone can do it.

That was the context of the word "superficial"...
 
Zen, like any religious practice, is what it is.

It works for some and not for others.

THEREFORE you can not make universal statements about whether there is anything to it.
 
Back
Top Bottom