Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Do you agree or disagree? ''zen has no metaphysics''
when asking about his name, he said Zen means at one & cosmic means the universe.. his vibes didn't resonate well with me to say the least... some people just refuse to acknowledge the divine whereas for others it is almost an instinctual response to the beauty of creation.
zen is just this. just this isn't a metaphysical claim as it is apparently right in front of us at all times. so yes i would agree with you but if i'd disagree i'd be doing the same thing.
In my opinion, metaphysics would complicate zen too much. It's already complicated by the contradictions ( koans, among other things) and it's own philosophy of life.
Zen would disagree. & instead he might suggest everything is rather more simple than our minds make them seem.. As well he might agree this act of disagreeing is merely the illusion of disagreeing. & then say good luck :buck:
My Zen priest told us to open our divine eye. And I think he literally meant the third eye. So I consider third eye in the metaphysical category..so then yes Zen may have some metaphysical elements in it:) lol...and I am actually quite suprised he said that...
Yes, I agree. In Zen, reality is what it is, and the minute we label experience as metaphysical or mundane we miss the point. That is the trap, the tendency to focus on our beliefs about what we experience must mean and confuse our beliefs with reality.
Any philosophical question about Zen has something futile about it. Of course a lot can be said about these questions; but the bottom line is always the same. What was said about Zen does not cover Zen; the concepts we tossed around were meant to point away from concepts. So just forget all you heard. Drink your tea.
When I followed dharma-talks from an American teacher for some time; I noticed that his talks had a pattern. What ever firm ground he seemed to give to us in the beginning of the talk he always took away again near the end. So whether he talked for one our or three; the result was always the same. We had received no answers; all our questions had been thrown back at us. And that’s the way it should be.
Metaphysics, physics, mundane, supramundane is all just reality. Reality is there whether we know all of it or not. The unknown exists even if we're ignorant.
Just need to learn and see as much reality as we can
I don't believe that Zen is intrinsically opposed to metaphysics, so long as one realizes that Zen has no need of metaphysics. The true transmission of Zen cannot come through words and letters. I believe that it takes discipline and training.
Comments
I see Zen as a single entity. an old poet writing about buddhism.. he lives on lol
i do love zen.. i'm just not attached to the nonsense.
just this isn't a metaphysical claim as it is apparently right in front of us at all times.
so yes i would agree with you but if i'd disagree i'd be doing the same thing.
you live life even if you don't want to live it.
Of course a lot can be said about these questions; but the bottom line is always the same.
What was said about Zen does not cover Zen; the concepts we tossed around were meant to point away from concepts. So just forget all you heard. Drink your tea.
When I followed dharma-talks from an American teacher for some time; I noticed that his talks had a pattern.
What ever firm ground he seemed to give to us in the beginning of the talk he always took away again near the end.
So whether he talked for one our or three; the result was always the same. We had received no answers; all our questions had been thrown back at us.
And that’s the way it should be.
Just need to learn and see as much reality as we can