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.
For those of you seeking more information on Zen, I think you may find this book by Shunryo Suzuki quite helpfuland worth several re-reads. Has anyone else had experience with this writing?
For those of you seeking more information on Zen, I think you may find this book by Shunryo Suzuki quite helpfuland worth several re-reads. Has anyone else had experience with this writing?
I have read his book and I really like it! I also listened to the audio tape on youtube! It's really nice. Highly suggest it. Thanks for bringing this book up again!:)
For those of you seeking more information on Zen, I think you may find this book by Shunryo Suzuki quite helpfuland worth several re-reads. Has anyone else had experience with this writing?
I have read his book and I really like it! I also listened to the audio tape on youtube! It's really nice. Highly suggest it. Thanks for bringing this book up again!:)
I find the writing to be straight forward, without the usual zen gibberish. Upon further investigation, I find that Shunryo Suzuki was greatly respected by those who knew him. I have not heard the audio tape yet but thank you for the information
This may be a good time to raise a question I've had about Zen, after observing some zen forum discussions. In my limited experience I've found that Zen practitioners tend to get into paradoxes that are based on the concepts of ordinary reality or truth, and what's been called here supramundane teachings, or "absolute truth". So I find Zen discussants addressing each other as "provisionally Mark" , "provisionally so-and-so", going by the theory that reality is empty of inherent existence, and thus, so are we, and our identities. And I find statements like "all views are relative". I think the Buddha would roll in his grave (or would cringe in Buddha heaven) at the latter statement, after taking so much care to teach right view and ethics to his disciples. The first situation--not being able to simply address people by their names and leave it at that, seems to be so caught up in theory as to be downright silly. The Buddha had no problem addressing people by name, and didn't become oddly paralyzed by his own teaching of emptiness.
I haven't run into these extremes in other Mahayana traditions (again, limited experience), with the possible exception of the belief that teachers are exempt from ordinary morality or ethics. Can anyone explain or help me get a perspective over this seemingly odd tendency in Zen?
I love ZMBM- one of my favorite books. The first time I read it I thought he was talking gibberish. Since reading it several more times I have come to understand what he is saying.
@compassionate_warrior -- Although those attempting to express the ineffable often do so at f-ing great length and with assorted contortions, I think that this is just a mark of inexperience combined with an over-zealousness.
My own Zen teacher was very straight in conversation. "People say Zen is like this or Zen is like that," he might say. "But I say it's like drinking tea. No need for discussion. You drink tea and I drink tea and then we both know what tea tastes like."
Such things are easy to say and easily felt as a metaphor for "enlightenment" or "satori" or "compassion" or some other similar Buddhist bright light. It's yummy on the surface ... and then practice kicks in and the complications and implications seem to be endless ... and that's where the f-ing talk about the ineffable kicks in.
OK ... everyone chooses the mud s/he wishes to slog through.
This may be a good time to raise a question I've had about Zen, after observing some zen forum discussions. In my limited experience I've found that Zen practitioners tend to get into paradoxes that are based on the concepts of ordinary reality or truth, and what's been called here supramundane teachings, or "absolute truth". So I find Zen discussants addressing each other as "provisionally Mark" , "provisionally so-and-so", going by the theory that reality is empty of inherent existence, and thus, so are we, and our identities. And I find statements like "all views are relative". I think the Buddha would roll in his grave (or would cringe in Buddha heaven) at the latter statement, after taking so much care to teach right view and ethics to his disciples. The first situation--not being able to simply address people by their names and leave it at that, seems to be so caught up in theory as to be downright silly. The Buddha had no problem addressing people by name, and didn't become oddly paralyzed by his own teaching of emptiness.
I haven't run into these extremes in other Mahayana traditions (again, limited experience), with the possible exception of the belief that teachers are exempt from ordinary morality or ethics. Can anyone explain or help me get a perspective over this seemingly odd tendency in Zen?
Eh, some people find the Zen take on absolute versus relative reality fascinating and get stuck in the "form is emptiness" stage. It's fun to make deep philosphical, nonsense statements like "Reality isn't really real, man!" So trees are not really trees, mountains and not really mountains, everything is inherently empty, etc. I think I went through the same stage, but at the time I had the fortune to have a Teacher who let me know this was incomplete understanding.
The Teacher's standard response to someone saying, "I don't really exist!" is to smack them with a stick and say, "So who is it feeling pain, then?"
And I find statements like "all views are relative". I think the Buddha would roll in his grave (or would cringe in Buddha heaven) at the latter statement, after taking so much care to teach right view and ethics to his disciples.
Thich Nhat Hanh has this to say about that. "In Buddhism, all views are wrong views. When you have a direct encounter with reality, in depth, that is no longer called 'views', that is called wisdom." It's a matter of semantics, IMO.
The Buddha had no problem addressing people by name, and didn't become oddly paralyzed by his own teaching of emptiness.
Can anyone explain or help me get a perspective over this seemingly odd tendency in Zen?
IMO, this is a result of people being "attached to emptiness" where people deny the relative and only speak and think in terms of the absolute. Many people refer to it as "zen sickness" or being "stuck in nihilism". It's a result of misunderstanding and a clever way to avoid the real issues. For example, I have heard people say things like "Well, I really don't exist so it does not matter if I follow the precepts or not. Now it's ok to get drunk every weekend! Woohoo! Which of course is ridiculous.
My comment was about my experience (which was the initial question) not necessarily the book itself. My relationship with Buddhism goes back almost 30 years. And on my initial foray into Buddhism, this is a book I chose to read to help me understand Buddhism because of it's use of the word "Beginner" in the title.
Maybe the book, for what it is, is very good, I can't speak to that. Now some almost thirty years later I realize that this was the totally wrong book to choose for an understanding of Buddhism. Although I didn't know it then, what I was looking for was more akin to "Awaken The Buddha Within" by Lama Surya Das or even "Buddhism for Dummies" than this one.
Although I had no idea what Buddhism really was, let alone what I was looking for, I was not to find anything about the Buddha, the Four Noble Truths or the Noble Eightfold Path within its pages.
What I found (and perhaps this book's strength) is a treatise on meditation, as with Zen its all about meditation. Written in it's koan-like style, I found it so confusing and unhelpful, that I compounded my first error (of choosing this book) with a second error of deciding that THIS was Buddhism, and said this is not for me! I filed it away with all my other discarded books, never to be seen for a quarter century later.
Eventually my need to discover Buddhism, caused me to find Buddhism again, and this time, I found the path I was searching for. From time to time, especially on this forum, this book's title, like now, would make an appearance. I would often think about my experience with this book, and whether I had unfairly judged the material. Now a fairly seasoned practitioner and daily meditator, I wondered if I would view the book differently today than all those years ago.
I recently moved house, and during the move, my wife came to me with a small collection of Buddhist books from all those years ago that had been hidden in the bottom of a trunk. Among them were Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind and Buddhism: A Way of Life and Thought. I thought here was my chance to revisit ZMBM and look at it afresh, without greater insight now than then. The second book was completely unfamiliar to me. I decided to read them both.
On the second reading, I tried to be open to the contents of this book, but try as I might, I struggled with the content almost as much on this second reading as I had all those years ago. I couldn't finish it, so like before, I put it back on the bookshelf, probably never to be opened again. The second book, Buddhism: A Way of Life and Thought, was exactly what I had been looking for way back then. It contained all the explanations and path I was seeking. I had never read this book. I had obviously made this the second book to read after ZMBM, and due to my horrendous experience with ZMBM, and what I wrongly assumed Buddhism to be about, threw the baby out with the bath water.
As I mentioned earlier, this was my experience, due in no small part to the fact I had no Sangha in my country, not even a collection of Buddhists as visiting workers as exists today, no one to bounce things off of, the internet did not exist for the common man, so no one to correct my point of view. In my opinion this single book set my search back ten years. For some, particularly students of Zen, this may well be a great book, I cannot speak to that. For regular folks grasping to get a handle on Buddhism in general this is a terrible book. In my opinion it should carry a warning label... WARNING: Use of this book is not recommended for beginners despite the title, and may set your practice back several years! It's no wonder @Dakini has struggled with it, I feel for you.
So there you have it, (be careful what you ask for) that was MY experience, your mileage my vary. But I would never recommend this book to someone just starting out in Buddhism.
I love ZMBM- one of my favorite books. The first time I read it I thought he was talking gibberish. Since reading it several more times I have come to understand what he is saying.
What I used to say to those dictatorship moderators at e-Sangha: "Just because you do not understand it, it does not mean that it is not true. Please."
That's funny because I found 'Awakening the Buddha Within' one of those severe commercial copouts of Buddhism, and found very little substance (in terms of practice realisation) from the book myself. I would definitely not recommend it to beginners or beginner-wanabees
I can never get my mind around that stuff. I guess I'm not a very advanced practitioner. :-/
Personally, I trust resonance to a degree. If a book or author does not speak to me, then I usually put it aside. Not necessarily because I do not trust or disdain the author/writings, but because -
1. I trust at some stage I will understand what is written through my own practice/realisations i.e. I put aside what seems complex or unknown to me - or is just plain theory/speculation - and focus back within the practice. It is only real when it is real for you. I think this is a good standard to operate within in Dharma practice. 2. It's just not for me. Like not every person is going to be your soul mate For example, I know many people rate Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche's books but I have never been able to complete one with that much interest. That's just me. And I do not disbelieve that he has been helpful for many, and his books are probably useful. On the other hand I loved all these old Zen texts, from the moment I read them many years ago now, they just clicked.
Sometimes it is like this, I believe. And I trust my own practice, and the path of Dharma enough to trust with what goes where. Individual resonance, practice, Path.
This may be a good time to raise a question I've had about Zen, after observing some zen forum discussions. In my limited experience I've found that Zen practitioners tend to get into paradoxes that are based on the concepts of ordinary reality or truth, and what's been called here supramundane teachings, or "absolute truth". So I find Zen discussants addressing each other as "provisionally Mark" , "provisionally so-and-so", going by the theory that reality is empty of inherent existence, and thus, so are we, and our identities. And I find statements like "all views are relative". I think the Buddha would roll in his grave (or would cringe in Buddha heaven) at the latter statement, after taking so much care to teach right view and ethics to his disciples. The first situation--not being able to simply address people by their names and leave it at that, seems to be so caught up in theory as to be downright silly. The Buddha had no problem addressing people by name, and didn't become oddly paralyzed by his own teaching of emptiness.
I haven't run into these extremes in other Mahayana traditions (again, limited experience), with the possible exception of the belief that teachers are exempt from ordinary morality or ethics. Can anyone explain or help me get a perspective over this seemingly odd tendency in Zen?
My take is that it just shows the immature status of those practitioners (immature as in not yet ripened, not meant as an insult or derogotary). Zen as a system and context is very good (speaking as a student in this School) - but it can also be very difficult. Hard is sometimes easier though because it shows us where we are failing .. Different horses for different courses, but personally I have a lot to be grateful for in the practices of Zen Buddhism and traditions. My own understandings whilst they remained on the level of verbal understandings/transmissions and internet discussion though was always limited - and it was not until I trained with a (genuine) Zen master in a rather intensive manner, was I able to gain a little bit more genuine ..well who know what things are called. Nor does it really matter I guess.
I believe that one of the 'problems' and indeed very real risks of Zen Buddhist practice is there so much information available today - more than ever. On the internet, on public forums, via books. Question, advice, answer. There is a very real risk that people mistake 'Zen Buddhism' for Zen Buddhism, 'understanding' for insight, 'words' for understanding etc. - and the plethora of misguided intention and discussion is perhaps also a symptom of this very real phenomena of information overindulgence/misuse. Zazen is one good way to address these imaginations.
@abu - great post, really agree on the last point. Zen Bhuddism has gotten so popular that it has gotten lost underneath the labels and stereotypes. People now use Zen to just mean "calm mind" when it is so much more than that. Zen is an experience and any conceptual understanding we have of Zen is meaningless without first experiencing Zen first hand.
My comment was about my experience (which was the initial question) not necessarily the book itself. My relationship with Buddhism goes back almost 30 years. And on my initial foray into Buddhism, this is a book I chose to read to help me understand Buddhism because of it's use of the word "Beginner" in the title.
Maybe the book, for what it is, is very good, I can't speak to that. Now some almost thirty years later I realize that this was the totally wrong book to choose for an understanding of Buddhism. Although I didn't know it then, what I was looking for was more akin to "Awaken The Buddha Within" by Lama Surya Das or even "Buddhism for Dummies" than this one.
Although I had no idea what Buddhism really was, let alone what I was looking for, I was not to find anything about the Buddha, the Four Noble Truths or the Noble Eightfold Path within its pages.
What I found (and perhaps this book's strength) is a treatise on meditation, as with Zen its all about meditation. Written in it's koan-like style, I found it so confusing and unhelpful, that I compounded my first error (of choosing this book) with a second error of deciding that THIS was Buddhism, and said this is not for me! I filed it away with all my other discarded books, never to be seen for a quarter century later.
Eventually my need to discover Buddhism, caused me to find Buddhism again, and this time, I found the path I was searching for. From time to time, especially on this forum, this book's title, like now, would make an appearance. I would often think about my experience with this book, and whether I had unfairly judged the material. Now a fairly seasoned practitioner and daily meditator, I wondered if I would view the book differently today than all those years ago.
I recently moved house, and during the move, my wife came to me with a small collection of Buddhist books from all those years ago that had been hidden in the bottom of a trunk. Among them were Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind and Buddhism: A Way of Life and Thought. I thought here was my chance to revisit ZMBM and look at it afresh, without greater insight now than then. The second book was completely unfamiliar to me. I decided to read them both.
On the second reading, I tried to be open to the contents of this book, but try as I might, I struggled with the content almost as much on this second reading as I had all those years ago. I couldn't finish it, so like before, I put it back on the bookshelf, probably never to be opened again. The second book, Buddhism: A Way of Life and Thought, was exactly what I had been looking for way back then. It contained all the explanations and path I was seeking. I had never read this book. I had obviously made this the second book to read after ZMBM, and due to my horrendous experience with ZMBM, and what I wrongly assumed Buddhism to be about, threw the baby out with the bath water.
As I mentioned earlier, this was my experience, due in no small part to the fact I had no Sangha in my country, not even a collection of Buddhists as visiting workers as exists today, no one to bounce things off of, the internet did not exist for the common man, so no one to correct my point of view. In my opinion this single book set my search back ten years. For some, particularly students of Zen, this may well be a great book, I cannot speak to that. For regular folks grasping to get a handle on Buddhism in general this is a terrible book. In my opinion it should carry a warning label... WARNING: Use of this book is not recommended for beginners despite the title, and may set your practice back several years! It's no wonder @Dakini has struggled with it, I feel for you.
So there you have it, (be careful what you ask for) that was MY experience, your mileage my vary. But I would never recommend this book to someone just starting out in Buddhism.
Les
Hence the reason this OP was not published in the begginer's category. Begginer's mind, as you ultimately discovered has nothing to do with being a begginer.
@compassionate_warrior --My own Zen teacher was very straight in conversation. "People say Zen is like this or Zen is like that," he might say. "But I say it's like drinking tea. No need for discussion. You drink tea and I drink tea and then we both know what tea tastes like."
.
I really like that, I am going to write it down. each person has different things that they resonate with.
"Begginer's mind, as you ultimately discovered has nothing to do with being a begginer."
This is the attitude that makes it difficult for me to overcome my hesitation towards Zen, even though I love some of the intellectual aspects of what little I know. When intellectuals begin to not care whether anyone else understands, I find it self-serving, elitist, and ultimately self-defeating. (Haven't read the book.)
Beginner's Mind is as necessary for old monks as well as people who sit for the first time. Also called "Don't Know mind". It is simply being mindful of the fact that life itself and the people around you are always teaching you something, if you actually pay attention to what it's trying to say.
@compassionate_warrior --My own Zen teacher was very straight in conversation. "People say Zen is like this or Zen is like that," he might say. "But I say it's like drinking tea. No need for discussion. You drink tea and I drink tea and then we both know what tea tastes like."
.
I really like that, I am going to write it down. each person has different things that they resonate with.
Me, too. I like "the tea doesn't mind."
These are such commonsense answers, wise in their simplicity. Here on NB Zen comes across completely differently (certainly more accessibly) than on Zen websites. That goes for Ch'an, too, which I've been considering as a practice.I guess I should stick to NB.
Another book that I very much enjoyed was "Crooked Cucumber" by David Chadwick. Biography of Shunryu Suzuki, but also serves as a primer of Zen thinking. Suzuki seemed to me to be a very humble man that did not see Zen as an exercise in intellectualism.
I am reading the ZMBM book now, and I do not think the book is really for beginners. IMO, the author is just saying that the "beginner's mind" is the right mind to approach the Zen teachings because it is a mind that is not hindered by "baggages", that is more "open" like the mind of a child.
I think its a great book, I study Theravada but a lot of Suzuki Roshi's "cryptic" statements made a lot of sense to me. My mind went very still after reading it.
A good book for a student of any school, along with with Not always so.
"These are such commonsense answers, wise in their simplicity. Here on NB Zen comes across completely differently (certainly more accessibly) than on Zen websites. That goes for Ch'an, too, which I've been considering as a practice.I guess I should stick to NB." -- @Dakini
Dakini -- I don't think it makes any difference whatsoever what practice you choose. As soon as anyone makes a choice and actually begins practicing, the 'complications' kick in. Discipline means doing what we don't want to do. So, a chosen practice by definition creates some friction with the current state of affairs. No practice is ever as sweet and soothing as the intellectual or emotional mind depicts it. Daydream spiritual life (books, temples, incense, teachers) is yummy in the mind and draws us forward, but in action (practice), well, pardon my French, but the shit inevitably hits the fan.
After 40 years, I can both recommend Zen practice and encourage you to stay as far away from it as possible. I recommend it in the sense that zazen -- the seated meditation on which Zen lays some emphasis -- is simple and direct. Many people may CLAIM they would like a simple and direct practice, but the fact is that they would prefer something more 'caring' or 'compassionate' ... something with whipped cream on top...something that is distinctly not simple and direct. There are plenty of Zen promoters who will lay on the whipped cream, but these malingering exponents merely cloud the eyes and lower the banner. Simple and direct means simple and direct.
And it is the very simple and direct aspect of Zen practice that is so hard ... and perhaps worth avoiding. We're not talking 'better' or 'worse' here. Spiritual endeavor is meant for individuals (real, live human beings). And individuals have differing ways of approaching things. It is good to know which way suits you best and then practice in accordance with that way ... with a gentle firmness and determination. I don't care if someone worships the Holy Spaghetti Monster in their pursuit of peace and contentment ... as long as they don't wuss out in that pursuit. Taste is taste ... but getting to the bottom of things counts.
And it is the very simple and direct aspect of Zen practice that is so hard ... and perhaps worth avoiding.
@genkaku Care to elaborate? I figure you didn't mean the avoidance literally. I am curious about the "simple and direct" aspects of Zen practice that make it hard.... Which ones are they, why is it hard to practice them?
(Not baiting, really asking. Don't know much about Zen.)
@possibilities -- Ordinarily, most of us operate according to our intellect or emotion. And there is nothing wrong with that ... except that attempting to become happy by means of emotion or intellect simply doesn't work. Or perhaps it works for a while, but then things change and what was joy becomes sorrow (or vice versa), what was love becomes anger (or vice versa), etc. etc.
In Zen practice, there is sometimes talk about discovering or actualizing your true nature, your Buddha nature, your perfectly simple and straightforward self. Intellect cannot do this because intellect is limited. Emotion cannot do this because emotion is limited. "Limited" just means that things change. But the heart of things is not like this. It is firm and clear. Your true self is firm and clear and simple and straightforward ... but it's not easy to actualize this truth... even if you can't escape actualizing it in every breath, with every sneeze, in every kiss.
Without getting too airy-fairy, did you ever pick up a rock and look at it. Maybe it was very pretty or somehow unusual. Pretty neat! But then maybe you think a little and wonder, "I call this a rock. But the rock doesn't call itself 'rock.' So what is a rock? What does the rock say? What is it really?" There it sits in your hand, plain as the nose on your face ... and yet in one sense you have no clue as to what it is. And the same query might be put to all of the intellectual and emotional experiences we have: What is this? What is it really? Or, alternatively, who am 'I' really? Without the intellectual and emotional add-ons, how about it?
A rock is pretty simple on the one hand and yet it is not so easy to touch base with that simplicity. Those who choose to give it a whirl are often surrounded with difficulties. Difficulties in every corner of every day. It's not a question of "which ones are they, why is it hard to practice them." There is no limit to the difficulties encountered when making some effort to actualize our own simplicities. The ordinary way is to sidestep the straightforward questions and uncertainties of life and remain content with intellect and emotions, with philosophy and religion, with belief and hope. Everyone else is doing it ... so why not? Well, why not is because the sort of very simple peace that any of us might long for cannot be actualized by agreeing or disagreeing with others. It requires an intimate and sweaty effort.
Just last night, reflecting on answers in another thread, I was wrestling with "intellect and feelings" and what you wrote above really helps.
What does Buddhism/Zen say about those who remain content not having/pursuing all those difficult answers?
What does the average Zen Buddhist in Japan practice?
I wonder if you have some sense of that, given that a lot of us come to Buddhism with loaded questions while those who grow up Buddhist probably don't delve into the finer points of Buddhism very much.
..... and thanks for taking the time to respond above!
@possibilities -- I have heard wise analyses about the differences in Buddhist appreciations as they are found in the East and in the West. I have read explanations that can parse and dissect. It's vaguely interesting.
But where the rubber hits the road -- where your questions come up and smack you in the face and you consent to take them seriously -- what does it matter what the cultural divergences are? What does it matter whether others choose or refuse to address similar questions? Naturally, we'd all like to have some company (receive reassurance that there are others who are every bit as batty as we are, asking impenetrable questions when they might more profitably be eating a chocolate bar), but your questions are just that -- your questions.
Such questions are not terribly refined in my experience. They are down-and-dirty, personal, gnawing ... and where there is willingness and determination, there is some effort to answer them. As a rule of thumb, I think that the more complex those questions become, the more assured we can be that we are avoiding the questions by wreathing them in complexity. It's like admiring a beautiful new car without actually driving it.
The bedrock of Buddhism is suffering (unsatisfactoriness, uncertainty, etc.) Those in the West suffer. Those in the East suffer. Some in the West choose not to address the matter in any very useful way. Some in the East do the same. Some in the West content themselves with belief and hope. Some in the East do the same. Everyone suffers, though some may seem more kool about it than others.
When I started out, I came to the intellectual/emotional conclusion that because the Zen center I belonged to had Japanese roots and connections, all I had to do was to become more Japanese in order to be a good Zen Buddhist. Stuff like eating seaweed or learning Japanese or being wowed by the subtle ability to not-talk about things. Japanese were kool and I was a klutz. (I'm sure there are some Japanese who might agree with that childish assessment just as there are Americans who might think they are the first-est with the best-est.) But with the passage of time and the practice of zazen, I was forced to let go of that conclusion. My questions were my questions. My suffering was my suffering. Right, wrong, indifferent ... klutz or kool ... this life was all I had. Ornate cultural comparisons and a couple of bucks would still only get me a bus ride.
Buddhism just means to get on your own bus -- to pay attention with gentle firmness to your own straightforward questions. Sure, we all learn from those who went before us, but to rely on those who came before us for the intimately satisfying answer to our questions is a mistake ... common enough, but a mistake nonetheless. Our questions are not better or worse, more or less profound, than the questions posited by others. They are simply our own and the fact that we can ask them implies (as improbable as it may sound) that we can also answer them. Really answer them.
Sorry for the running-on. In my next incarnation ( ) I think I will be William Faulkner.
Sure, we all learn from those who went before us, but to rely on those who came before us for the intimately satisfying answer to our questions is a mistake...
@genkaku Awesome. Thanks for all the above! :clap:
So glad I asked!
I don't do this much at all, but here you go: :bowdown:
And for the person above who said, beginners's mind does not mean it is for beginners - rather it is pointing to the beginner's mind that is possible to be emphasised through practice, I would agree.
As Shunryu said, to keep beginner's mind is hard. And as Ajahn Sumedho once said, the mind of an enlightened person is flexible and free-er than not.
@compassionate_warrior --My own Zen teacher was very straight in conversation. "People say Zen is like this or Zen is like that," he might say. "But I say it's like drinking tea. No need for discussion. You drink tea and I drink tea and then we both know what tea tastes like."
.
I really like that, I am going to write it down. each person has different things that they resonate with.
Me, too. I like "the tea doesn't mind."
These are such commonsense answers, wise in their simplicity. Here on NB Zen comes across completely differently (certainly more accessibly) than on Zen websites. That goes for Ch'an, too, which I've been considering as a practice.I guess I should stick to NB.
Hi @Daikini I was more of an internet groupie until I met my teacher, who helped me cross the line that does not exist, yet I could never pass myself. Real life to real life.
Comments
I haven't run into these extremes in other Mahayana traditions (again, limited experience), with the possible exception of the belief that teachers are exempt from ordinary morality or ethics. Can anyone explain or help me get a perspective over this seemingly odd tendency in Zen?
I hope you'll try reading it.
With Metta
My own Zen teacher was very straight in conversation. "People say Zen is like this or Zen is like that," he might say. "But I say it's like drinking tea. No need for discussion. You drink tea and I drink tea and then we both know what tea tastes like."
Such things are easy to say and easily felt as a metaphor for "enlightenment" or "satori" or "compassion" or some other similar Buddhist bright light. It's yummy on the surface ... and then practice kicks in and the complications and implications seem to be endless ... and that's where the f-ing talk about the ineffable kicks in.
OK ... everyone chooses the mud s/he wishes to slog through.
The tea doesn't mind.
The Teacher's standard response to someone saying, "I don't really exist!" is to smack them with a stick and say, "So who is it feeling pain, then?"
It is silly. Your inner compass is correct.
IMO, this is a result of people being "attached to emptiness" where people deny the relative and only speak and think in terms of the absolute. Many people refer to it as "zen sickness" or being "stuck in nihilism". It's a result of misunderstanding and a clever way to avoid the real issues. For example, I have heard people say things like "Well, I really don't exist so it does not matter if I follow the precepts or not. Now it's ok to get drunk every weekend! Woohoo! Which of course is ridiculous.
My comment was about my experience (which was the initial question) not necessarily the book itself. My relationship with Buddhism goes back almost 30 years. And on my initial foray into Buddhism, this is a book I chose to read to help me understand Buddhism because of it's use of the word "Beginner" in the title.
Maybe the book, for what it is, is very good, I can't speak to that. Now some almost thirty years later I realize that this was the totally wrong book to choose for an understanding of Buddhism. Although I didn't know it then, what I was looking for was more akin to "Awaken The Buddha Within" by Lama Surya Das or even "Buddhism for Dummies" than this one.
Although I had no idea what Buddhism really was, let alone what I was looking for, I was not to find anything about the Buddha, the Four Noble Truths or the Noble Eightfold Path within its pages.
What I found (and perhaps this book's strength) is a treatise on meditation, as with Zen its all about meditation. Written in it's koan-like style, I found it so confusing and unhelpful, that I compounded my first error (of choosing this book) with a second error of deciding that THIS was Buddhism, and said this is not for me! I filed it away with all my other discarded books, never to be seen for a quarter century later.
Eventually my need to discover Buddhism, caused me to find Buddhism again, and this time, I found the path I was searching for. From time to time, especially on this forum, this book's title, like now, would make an appearance. I would often think about my experience with this book, and whether I had unfairly judged the material. Now a fairly seasoned practitioner and daily meditator, I wondered if I would view the book differently today than all those years ago.
I recently moved house, and during the move, my wife came to me with a small collection of Buddhist books from all those years ago that had been hidden in the bottom of a trunk. Among them were Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind and Buddhism: A Way of Life and Thought. I thought here was my chance to revisit ZMBM and look at it afresh, without greater insight now than then. The second book was completely unfamiliar to me. I decided to read them both.
On the second reading, I tried to be open to the contents of this book, but try as I might, I struggled with the content almost as much on this second reading as I had all those years ago. I couldn't finish it, so like before, I put it back on the bookshelf, probably never to be opened again. The second book, Buddhism: A Way of Life and Thought, was exactly what I had been looking for way back then. It contained all the explanations and path I was seeking. I had never read this book. I had obviously made this the second book to read after ZMBM, and due to my horrendous experience with ZMBM, and what I wrongly assumed Buddhism to be about, threw the baby out with the bath water.
As I mentioned earlier, this was my experience, due in no small part to the fact I had no Sangha in my country, not even a collection of Buddhists as visiting workers as exists today, no one to bounce things off of, the internet did not exist for the common man, so no one to correct my point of view. In my opinion this single book set my search back ten years. For some, particularly students of Zen, this may well be a great book, I cannot speak to that. For regular folks grasping to get a handle on Buddhism in general this is a terrible book. In my opinion it should carry a warning label... WARNING: Use of this book is not recommended for beginners despite the title, and may set your practice back several years! It's no wonder @Dakini has struggled with it, I feel for you.
So there you have it, (be careful what you ask for) that was MY experience, your mileage my vary. But I would never recommend this book to someone just starting out in Buddhism.
Les
Sixth paragraph second to last line should read:
"with greater insight now than then"...
"Just because you do not understand it, it does not mean that it is not true. Please."
They never understood.
Thanks lamarama
1. I trust at some stage I will understand what is written through my own practice/realisations i.e. I put aside what seems complex or unknown to me - or is just plain theory/speculation - and focus back within the practice. It is only real when it is real for you. I think this is a good standard to operate within in Dharma practice.
2. It's just not for me. Like not every person is going to be your soul mate
For example, I know many people rate Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche's books but I have never been able to complete one with that much interest. That's just me. And I do not disbelieve that he has been helpful for many, and his books are probably useful. On the other hand I loved all these old Zen texts, from the moment I read them many years ago now, they just clicked.
Sometimes it is like this, I believe. And I trust my own practice, and the path of Dharma enough to trust with what goes where. Individual resonance, practice, Path.
Well wishes,
Abu-bu
My take is that it just shows the immature status of those practitioners (immature as in not yet ripened, not meant as an insult or derogotary). Zen as a system and context is very good (speaking as a student in this School) - but it can also be very difficult. Hard is sometimes easier though because it shows us where we are failing .. Different horses for different courses, but personally I have a lot to be grateful for in the practices of Zen Buddhism and traditions. My own understandings whilst they remained on the level of verbal understandings/transmissions and internet discussion though was always limited - and it was not until I trained with a (genuine) Zen master in a rather intensive manner, was I able to gain a little bit more genuine ..well who know what things are called. Nor does it really matter I guess.
I believe that one of the 'problems' and indeed very real risks of Zen Buddhist practice is there so much information available today - more than ever. On the internet, on public forums, via books. Question, advice, answer. There is a very real risk that people mistake 'Zen Buddhism' for Zen Buddhism, 'understanding' for insight, 'words' for understanding etc. - and the plethora of misguided intention and discussion is perhaps also a symptom of this very real phenomena of information overindulgence/misuse. Zazen is one good way to address these imaginations.
Best wishes,
Abu
I appreciate everyone's candid and sensible responses. If I took the thread off topic, I apologize to the OP, but I needed this reality check.
Hence the reason this OP was not published in the begginer's category. Begginer's mind, as you ultimately discovered has nothing to do with being a begginer.
This is the attitude that makes it difficult for me to overcome my hesitation towards Zen, even though I love some of the intellectual aspects of what little I know. When intellectuals begin to not care whether anyone else understands, I find it self-serving, elitist, and ultimately self-defeating.
(Haven't read the book.)
These are such commonsense answers, wise in their simplicity. Here on NB Zen comes across completely differently (certainly more accessibly) than on Zen websites. That goes for Ch'an, too, which I've been considering as a practice.I guess I should stick to NB.
A good book for a student of any school, along with with Not always so.
Dakini -- I don't think it makes any difference whatsoever what practice you choose. As soon as anyone makes a choice and actually begins practicing, the 'complications' kick in. Discipline means doing what we don't want to do. So, a chosen practice by definition creates some friction with the current state of affairs. No practice is ever as sweet and soothing as the intellectual or emotional mind depicts it. Daydream spiritual life (books, temples, incense, teachers) is yummy in the mind and draws us forward, but in action (practice), well, pardon my French, but the shit inevitably hits the fan.
After 40 years, I can both recommend Zen practice and encourage you to stay as far away from it as possible. I recommend it in the sense that zazen -- the seated meditation on which Zen lays some emphasis -- is simple and direct. Many people may CLAIM they would like a simple and direct practice, but the fact is that they would prefer something more 'caring' or 'compassionate' ... something with whipped cream on top...something that is distinctly not simple and direct. There are plenty of Zen promoters who will lay on the whipped cream, but these malingering exponents merely cloud the eyes and lower the banner. Simple and direct means simple and direct.
And it is the very simple and direct aspect of Zen practice that is so hard ... and perhaps worth avoiding. We're not talking 'better' or 'worse' here. Spiritual endeavor is meant for individuals (real, live human beings). And individuals have differing ways of approaching things. It is good to know which way suits you best and then practice in accordance with that way ... with a gentle firmness and determination. I don't care if someone worships the Holy Spaghetti Monster in their pursuit of peace and contentment ... as long as they don't wuss out in that pursuit. Taste is taste ... but getting to the bottom of things counts.
Just noodling here.
(Not baiting, really asking. Don't know much about Zen.)
In Zen practice, there is sometimes talk about discovering or actualizing your true nature, your Buddha nature, your perfectly simple and straightforward self. Intellect cannot do this because intellect is limited. Emotion cannot do this because emotion is limited. "Limited" just means that things change. But the heart of things is not like this. It is firm and clear. Your true self is firm and clear and simple and straightforward ... but it's not easy to actualize this truth... even if you can't escape actualizing it in every breath, with every sneeze, in every kiss.
Without getting too airy-fairy, did you ever pick up a rock and look at it. Maybe it was very pretty or somehow unusual. Pretty neat! But then maybe you think a little and wonder, "I call this a rock. But the rock doesn't call itself 'rock.' So what is a rock? What does the rock say? What is it really?" There it sits in your hand, plain as the nose on your face ... and yet in one sense you have no clue as to what it is. And the same query might be put to all of the intellectual and emotional experiences we have: What is this? What is it really? Or, alternatively, who am 'I' really? Without the intellectual and emotional add-ons, how about it?
A rock is pretty simple on the one hand and yet it is not so easy to touch base with that simplicity. Those who choose to give it a whirl are often surrounded with difficulties. Difficulties in every corner of every day. It's not a question of "which ones are they, why is it hard to practice them." There is no limit to the difficulties encountered when making some effort to actualize our own simplicities. The ordinary way is to sidestep the straightforward questions and uncertainties of life and remain content with intellect and emotions, with philosophy and religion, with belief and hope. Everyone else is doing it ... so why not? Well, why not is because the sort of very simple peace that any of us might long for cannot be actualized by agreeing or disagreeing with others. It requires an intimate and sweaty effort.
Who wouldn't rather take a nap?
Just last night, reflecting on answers in another thread, I was wrestling with "intellect and feelings" and what you wrote above really helps.
What does Buddhism/Zen say about those who remain content not having/pursuing all those difficult answers?
What does the average Zen Buddhist in Japan practice?
I wonder if you have some sense of that, given that a lot of us come to Buddhism with loaded questions while those who grow up Buddhist probably don't delve into the finer points of Buddhism very much.
..... and thanks for taking the time to respond above!
But where the rubber hits the road -- where your questions come up and smack you in the face and you consent to take them seriously -- what does it matter what the cultural divergences are? What does it matter whether others choose or refuse to address similar questions? Naturally, we'd all like to have some company (receive reassurance that there are others who are every bit as batty as we are, asking impenetrable questions when they might more profitably be eating a chocolate bar), but your questions are just that -- your questions.
Such questions are not terribly refined in my experience. They are down-and-dirty, personal, gnawing ... and where there is willingness and determination, there is some effort to answer them. As a rule of thumb, I think that the more complex those questions become, the more assured we can be that we are avoiding the questions by wreathing them in complexity. It's like admiring a beautiful new car without actually driving it.
The bedrock of Buddhism is suffering (unsatisfactoriness, uncertainty, etc.) Those in the West suffer. Those in the East suffer. Some in the West choose not to address the matter in any very useful way. Some in the East do the same. Some in the West content themselves with belief and hope. Some in the East do the same. Everyone suffers, though some may seem more kool about it than others.
When I started out, I came to the intellectual/emotional conclusion that because the Zen center I belonged to had Japanese roots and connections, all I had to do was to become more Japanese in order to be a good Zen Buddhist. Stuff like eating seaweed or learning Japanese or being wowed by the subtle ability to not-talk about things. Japanese were kool and I was a klutz. (I'm sure there are some Japanese who might agree with that childish assessment just as there are Americans who might think they are the first-est with the best-est.) But with the passage of time and the practice of zazen, I was forced to let go of that conclusion. My questions were my questions. My suffering was my suffering. Right, wrong, indifferent ... klutz or kool ... this life was all I had. Ornate cultural comparisons and a couple of bucks would still only get me a bus ride.
Buddhism just means to get on your own bus -- to pay attention with gentle firmness to your own straightforward questions. Sure, we all learn from those who went before us, but to rely on those who came before us for the intimately satisfying answer to our questions is a mistake ... common enough, but a mistake nonetheless. Our questions are not better or worse, more or less profound, than the questions posited by others. They are simply our own and the fact that we can ask them implies (as improbable as it may sound) that we can also answer them. Really answer them.
Sorry for the running-on. In my next incarnation (
So glad I asked!
I don't do this much at all, but here you go:
:bowdown:
Btw genkaku has a book reflecting on snippets of his Zen 'practice' - http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000225793/Answer-Your-Love-Letters.aspx
And for the person above who said, beginners's mind does not mean it is for beginners - rather it is pointing to the beginner's mind that is possible to be emphasised through practice, I would agree.
As Shunryu said, to keep beginner's mind is hard. And as Ajahn Sumedho once said, the mind of an enlightened person is flexible and free-er than not.
Thanks everyone for the honest discussions.
Best wishes,
Abu
Well wishes,
Abu