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.
@wondering I have the same frustration with some comments made in this forum. I know only what rings true to me. And I love amicable debate but condescending judgements surprise me every time.
I'm with Mountains, I don't "get" Zen, precisely because of what people here describe as Zen being mostly about sitting, or one doesn't "do" Zen, one "is" Zen, and so forth. Doesn't one need a basic understanding of the Buddha's teachings, at the very least? The 4 Noble Truths, etc.? An explanation of what it is to "be" Zen? Or is one supposed to somehow arrive at all that mysteriously via meditation? Or is knowing the basic tenets of Buddhism irrelevant in Zen, the main thing is insight into the workings of one's own mind via meditation? What is Buddhism without the teachings of the Buddha? Is Zen a radical type of Buddhism that reduces everything to meditation? Just trying to understand...
From what I understand of the different Chan schools (from which Zen evolved), they offer plenty of teachings and guidance to students of various sorts, not limited to instruction and guidance in meditation.
As @reiverflow said Zen is just a flavour of Buddhism. At its core the same teachings of Buddha, however, the difference came with Bodhidharma, who decided to emphasize the "transmission outside words and scriptures" doctrine, that the true realization is beyond words and sutras. There's a famous flower sermon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_Sermon where Makayshapa was the only one who smiled when Buddha raised a flower at a sermon. That was "the first transmission outside words and scriptures" according to Zen lore. One can argue that Zen is even more traditionalist and orthodox than any other school of Buddhism because at its core is the sitting meditation, the only tool that Buddha used to achieve his realization. As far as I know sitting meditation is the main tool even in Chinese chan tradition.
Doesn't one need a basic understanding of the Buddha's teachings, at the very least?
Zen is very much grounded in the Four Noble Truths. There is a certain stereotype of Zen (and some zennies apparently like to relish in that stereotype, which doesn't help matters any) that zennies just sit all day long getting hit by sticks. But then why did Dogen write prolifically on all things Buddhist and study sutras closely? And as far as contemporary Zen teachers, I haven't come across a single book by zennies (American or Japanese) that doesn't address these fundamental issues.
I wonder though if there are certain things we aren't seeing that are inherent in different cultures. In the west, where Christianity in some form is prevalent, we make certain assumptions about things that someone entirely foreign to Christianity would miss, and which many Christians themselves don't talk about. There are certain tacit assumptions shared in this case, and for the outsider, they might miss the point (a big one I've encountered repeatedly is that Jesus is not just a really great teacher, but the human incarnation of the Christian god himself-- some "outsiders"-- not just to the religion, but the culture-- miss that).
Likewise, in many Asian cultures where Buddhism in some form or other is prevalent, there is the assumption that one already knows the basics of the Four Noble Truths. I could be totally wrong on that, but I do think cultural assumptions play a huge role in religious and philosophical matters, more than we really recognize.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
sometimes, replies from a zen perspective seem rather smart(a$$) or irritating. but i just brush it off because i think that has more to do with me than with them.
but on a side note, i just found this whole post interesting because i experienced the opposite from @Talisman after practicing Nichiren buddhism for years, i felt like i wanted to run away from structure and dogma and the fact that i could "just sit" was like... "ahhh... relief." i like sort of figuring things out myself and not being forced to swallow things that i don't understand.
I literally had a master with Dharma trasmission from the D.T. Suzuki lineage tell me that "there is no Dukkha." That is literally the opposite of what the Buddha taught!
Conventionally there is dukkha, but ultimately there is not; dukkha is impermanent and relies on causes and conditions, therefore can't inherently exist. Have a read of the The Two Truths to find out how these conflicting statements you find in Buddhism marry up; and they marry up perfectly.
So your teacher is correct. Maybe you need to find another tradition that gives more of a formal teaching? I don't think Zen would be my cup of tea. I like to start with a concept and then try and get a deeper understanding of it, where as (and I could be wrong), Zen sounds like they don't even give you the concept to start with.
I've read somewhere that all the different styles of Buddhism suit people with different personalities. I'm logical, rational, and analytical (so I like to think anyway) - of course this is all convention - so I'm drawn to the analytical and rational aspects of Tibetan Buddhism.
Or is one supposed to somehow arrive at all that mysteriously via meditation? Or is knowing the basic tenets of Buddhism irrelevant in Zen, the main thing is insight into the workings of one's own mind via meditation?
It's really not mysteriously. Hui Neng, the 6th Zen Patriarch puts it like this:
Learned Audience: Samadhi and Prajna are fundamental. But you must not be under the wrong impression that they are independent of each other, for they are not two entities, they are inseparably united. Samadhi is the quintessence of Prajna, while Prajna is the activity of Samadhi. At the very moment that one attains Prajna, Samadhi is present; when one enters Samadhi, Prajna is present.
PRAJNA: The sixth of the Six Paramitas (perfections) in the Buddhist concept of the Bodhisattva path. It is referred to as “wisdom” or “understanding” that is capable of extinguishing afflictions and bringing about Enlightenment. Simply stated, it is the field of pure consciousness beyond concepts, beliefs and imaginations. In Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions, Prajna means the realization of the emptiness of all phenomenal existence. For the Theravada Buddhists, Prajna means to gain an intuitive understanding of the Four Noble Truths, Dependent Origination and the Law of Karma. Insight or Vipassana Meditation, like the other traditions, is the means to attain such wisdom. Through diligent practice, the meditation reveals the inherent suffering, impermanence and absence of self in all phenomena thus leading one to see reality.
I am contemplating a lot lately on this thread and Zen's objective compaired to oher schools of Buddhism and wonder if it is simplly. A more dirrect path to liberation. From what I have read, Buddhism's objective is to end suffering by letting go of attachments...
It seems to me that most schools of Buddhism deal a lot with seeking for the method of how to let go of their attachments and end their suffering.
I have mostly investigated schools of Therevada and the amount of information one must absorb seems astronomical to me. The more one must know and do to try and attain enlightenment, the stages that must be attained seems that one has much to cling to on their path.
I see Zen as having realized this, looked at the end of the path and said, "perhaps if we take out all the learning and simply practice what we wish to accomplish, letting go, we can get there quicker and without amassing more and more concepts and ideas that we will eventually have to let go of down the road.
I am speaking as an outsider looking in as I have not begun my zen practice yet, so I am only talking theory here.
To me, Zen, seems to have cut out everything but what is important and that is to simply practice letting go... Letting go of information seeking, answer seeking, end goal seeking, let go of even trying to attain enlightenment... It does not seek jhana's, or stages or attainments of any kind... Those can be clung to and obscure the path...
Zen seems to be a path free of obstacles except ones our minds create which by their ego feel they need to attain something in order to validate the time and effort put into their practice.
I am leaning towards Zen currently. Any critisism or support for my above view would be appreciated.
Just to post some good introductory books on Zen Buddhism:
Kosho Uchiyama: Opening the Hand of Thought: Foundations of Zen Practice This book is probably the best place to start, and gives the basics for understanding shikantaza ("just sitting").
Thich Nhat Hanh: Zen Keys: A Guide to Zen Practice A good introduction to Zen Buddhism, with a more detailed look into the "theory" side of it.
Sheng Yen: Hoofprint of the Ox: Principles of the Chan Buddhist Path A very detailed survey of the whole gamut of Zen Buddhism, looking at Rinzai and Soto perspectives. Something well worth reading, though I recommend the previously mentioned books first.
John Daido Loori: The Art of Just Sitting: Essential Writings on the Zen Practice of Shikantaza An excellent resource, full of essays ranging from Honzhi and Dogen to more contemporary teachers such as Shohaku Okumura and Dainin Katagiri. Anyone serious about pursuing Zen Buddhism-- especially from the Soto angle-- should read this book.
HOWEVER, before reading ANY of this, you need to understand the basics of Buddhism in general (i.e. the Four Noble Truths), so I'd suggest Steve Hagen's Buddhism Plain and Simple (Hagen is a Zen teacher, a student of Katagiri's). And also, an overview of Mahayana is needed for some basic grounding in things, and Thich Nhat Hanh's The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching provides a good overview of these things.
Personally, I have found these books the most helpful for understanding Zen Buddhism (my own particular focus is from the Soto school). While it is true that Zen Buddhism is, in the end, about non-abiding (or "letting go") and the focus is on zazen, zazen and more zazen, there are some basic ideas, all firmly rooted in Mahayana, that are really needed in order to really understand what all this sitting is about. And THEN you have to unlearn all of it!
Comments
I wonder though if there are certain things we aren't seeing that are inherent in different cultures. In the west, where Christianity in some form is prevalent, we make certain assumptions about things that someone entirely foreign to Christianity would miss, and which many Christians themselves don't talk about. There are certain tacit assumptions shared in this case, and for the outsider, they might miss the point (a big one I've encountered repeatedly is that Jesus is not just a really great teacher, but the human incarnation of the Christian god himself-- some "outsiders"-- not just to the religion, but the culture-- miss that).
Likewise, in many Asian cultures where Buddhism in some form or other is prevalent, there is the assumption that one already knows the basics of the Four Noble Truths. I could be totally wrong on that, but I do think cultural assumptions play a huge role in religious and philosophical matters, more than we really recognize.
but on a side note, i just found this whole post interesting because i experienced the opposite from @Talisman
after practicing Nichiren buddhism for years, i felt like i wanted to run away from structure and dogma and the fact that i could "just sit" was like... "ahhh... relief." i like sort of figuring things out myself and not being forced to swallow things that i don't understand.
So your teacher is correct. Maybe you need to find another tradition that gives more of a formal teaching? I don't think Zen would be my cup of tea. I like to start with a concept and then try and get a deeper understanding of it, where as (and I could be wrong), Zen sounds like they don't even give you the concept to start with.
I've read somewhere that all the different styles of Buddhism suit people with different personalities. I'm logical, rational, and analytical (so I like to think anyway) - of course this is all convention - so I'm drawn to the analytical and rational aspects of Tibetan Buddhism.
Horses for courses I guess.
I'm also new to Buddhism myself.
Learned Audience: Samadhi and Prajna are fundamental. But you must not be under the wrong impression that they are independent of each other, for they are not two entities, they are inseparably united. Samadhi is the quintessence of Prajna, while Prajna is the activity of Samadhi. At the very moment that one attains Prajna, Samadhi is present; when one enters Samadhi, Prajna is present.
PRAJNA: The sixth of the Six Paramitas (perfections) in the Buddhist concept of the Bodhisattva path. It is referred to as “wisdom” or “understanding” that is capable of extinguishing afflictions and bringing about Enlightenment. Simply stated, it is the field of pure consciousness beyond concepts, beliefs and imaginations. In Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions, Prajna means the realization of the emptiness of all phenomenal existence. For the Theravada Buddhists, Prajna means to gain an intuitive understanding of the Four Noble Truths, Dependent Origination and the Law of Karma. Insight or Vipassana Meditation, like the other traditions, is the means to attain such wisdom. Through diligent practice, the meditation reveals the inherent suffering, impermanence and absence of self in all phenomena thus leading one to see reality.
It seems to me that most schools of Buddhism deal a lot with seeking for the method of how to let go of their attachments and end their suffering.
I have mostly investigated schools of Therevada and the amount of information one must absorb seems astronomical to me. The more one must know and do to try and attain enlightenment, the stages that must be attained seems that one has much to cling to on their path.
I see Zen as having realized this, looked at the end of the path and said, "perhaps if we take out all the learning and simply practice what we wish to accomplish, letting go, we can get there quicker and without amassing more and more concepts and ideas that we will eventually have to let go of down the road.
I am speaking as an outsider looking in as I have not begun my zen practice yet, so I am only talking theory here.
To me, Zen, seems to have cut out everything but what is important and that is to simply practice letting go... Letting go of information seeking, answer seeking, end goal seeking, let go of even trying to attain enlightenment... It does not seek jhana's, or stages or attainments of any kind... Those can be clung to and obscure the path...
Zen seems to be a path free of obstacles except ones our minds create which by their ego feel they need to attain something in order to validate the time and effort put into their practice.
I am leaning towards Zen currently. Any critisism or support for my above view would be appreciated.
Kosho Uchiyama: Opening the Hand of Thought: Foundations of Zen Practice
This book is probably the best place to start, and gives the basics for understanding shikantaza ("just sitting").
Thich Nhat Hanh: Zen Keys: A Guide to Zen Practice
A good introduction to Zen Buddhism, with a more detailed look into the "theory" side of it.
Sheng Yen: Hoofprint of the Ox: Principles of the Chan Buddhist Path
A very detailed survey of the whole gamut of Zen Buddhism, looking at Rinzai and Soto perspectives. Something well worth reading, though I recommend the previously mentioned books first.
John Daido Loori: The Art of Just Sitting: Essential Writings on the Zen Practice of Shikantaza
An excellent resource, full of essays ranging from Honzhi and Dogen to more contemporary teachers such as Shohaku Okumura and Dainin Katagiri. Anyone serious about pursuing Zen Buddhism-- especially from the Soto angle-- should read this book.
HOWEVER, before reading ANY of this, you need to understand the basics of Buddhism in general (i.e. the Four Noble Truths), so I'd suggest Steve Hagen's Buddhism Plain and Simple (Hagen is a Zen teacher, a student of Katagiri's). And also, an overview of Mahayana is needed for some basic grounding in things, and Thich Nhat Hanh's The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching provides a good overview of these things.
Personally, I have found these books the most helpful for understanding Zen Buddhism (my own particular focus is from the Soto school). While it is true that Zen Buddhism is, in the end, about non-abiding (or "letting go") and the focus is on zazen, zazen and more zazen, there are some basic ideas, all firmly rooted in Mahayana, that are really needed in order to really understand what all this sitting is about. And THEN you have to unlearn all of it!
John Daido Loori: Finding the Still Point: A Beginner's Guide to Zen Meditation (also comes with a CD)
John Daishin Buksbazen: Zen Meditation in Plain English
http://www.amazon.com/lm/R3TVZBDFZ0NMGF/ref=cm_lm_pthnk_view?ie=UTF8&lm_bb=