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.
Sick of Zen
Talisman
Veteran
Not so much the history or focus upon meditation. I'm sick of Zen because there is no structure. There are no answers. It's all "go with the flow," "stop searching for an answer," "you are already enlightened you just don't know it yet." None of that makes any sense to me. I understand where they're coming from, but when you tell a person that "there is no path," that defeats the entire purpose of FOLLOWING A PATH.
I don't trust this tradition any longer. Perhaps I have not met the right kind of teachers or practitioners. In any case, in my opinion delegating the monumental task of achieiving self-attained awakening and liberation to some "non-issue" or "mental concept" completely undermines the purpose of taking refuge in the Buddha. If the Buddha was no different than any other man, why pay any attention to the teachings at all. You might as well just go about your life, doing what you were doing, when you want, what you want, how you want.
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!
Not to mention the sutras as well. The mahayana sutras are, for the most part, very beautifully written, and the characters and concepts are interesting. But once again, there is no structure. And it seems like one of the themes is to explicitly deny the validity of the Sravaka path while praising the Bodhisattva path. The Buddha taught the Sravaka path. This just does not sit well with me.
In my opinion, I don't even think the Bodhisattva path could ever be taught. That's the whole point! The Bodhisattva discovers and realizes the path through their own efforts, without the help of any other. The Buddha's enlightnement is called self-attained for a reason. He was on his own, without instruction regarding the 3 characterisitcs or 4 noble truths or 12 nidanas. He discovered these truths for himself, by himself and because he had personally exerted himself toward perfection of faculty and understanding, he was capable of instructing others in a way that exeeds all others. He is the self-mastered, self-taught, self-perfected, self-awoken, self-liberated.
I'm not completely writing Zen off, especially since zazen is a comfortable form of mediation for me. However, the more I interact with other zen practitioners and become more aquainted with contemporary teachings and methods, the less I trust that this tradition continues to uphold the virtues of the true path to liberation. Even when other teachers and students describe the purpose and practice of meditation, it doesn't resonate with me any more.
Has anyone else felt disenchanted with Zen or any other tradition in this way before?
I don't trust this tradition any longer. Perhaps I have not met the right kind of teachers or practitioners. In any case, in my opinion delegating the monumental task of achieiving self-attained awakening and liberation to some "non-issue" or "mental concept" completely undermines the purpose of taking refuge in the Buddha. If the Buddha was no different than any other man, why pay any attention to the teachings at all. You might as well just go about your life, doing what you were doing, when you want, what you want, how you want.
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!
Not to mention the sutras as well. The mahayana sutras are, for the most part, very beautifully written, and the characters and concepts are interesting. But once again, there is no structure. And it seems like one of the themes is to explicitly deny the validity of the Sravaka path while praising the Bodhisattva path. The Buddha taught the Sravaka path. This just does not sit well with me.
In my opinion, I don't even think the Bodhisattva path could ever be taught. That's the whole point! The Bodhisattva discovers and realizes the path through their own efforts, without the help of any other. The Buddha's enlightnement is called self-attained for a reason. He was on his own, without instruction regarding the 3 characterisitcs or 4 noble truths or 12 nidanas. He discovered these truths for himself, by himself and because he had personally exerted himself toward perfection of faculty and understanding, he was capable of instructing others in a way that exeeds all others. He is the self-mastered, self-taught, self-perfected, self-awoken, self-liberated.
I'm not completely writing Zen off, especially since zazen is a comfortable form of mediation for me. However, the more I interact with other zen practitioners and become more aquainted with contemporary teachings and methods, the less I trust that this tradition continues to uphold the virtues of the true path to liberation. Even when other teachers and students describe the purpose and practice of meditation, it doesn't resonate with me any more.
Has anyone else felt disenchanted with Zen or any other tradition in this way before?
1
Comments
Right. The Buddha was no different than any other man. He wasn't magic, or anything different. Buddhism isn't about being different or special. Its about being perfectly fine where you are now. Its a strange concept to grasp, and if it wasn't so hard to truly understand then we'd all be enlightened. The Buddha was just fine with everything. He still felt emotions, happiness, sadness, but that was okay. Bad things still happened to him, but that was okay. He enjoyed every minute because everything was okay.
There are three levels of practice traditionally in the mahayana. Practicing to live a better life. Practicing to escape the wheel of rebirths. And practice to the enlightenment of all beings.
The sravaka path is a noble path as said in Khenpo Gyamptso Tsultrim Rinpoches book progressive stages of meditation on emptiness. The different views on emptiness come about for different levels of practice. It is not wrong to see the five skhandas as empty.
I recommend that book as a read for you since you are longing for structure. Five views on emptiness are spelled out for you in that text. The sravaka is included. It is a wonderful thing to become a hearer. Most of us are actually not attained that level.
So, if that doesn't work for you, try a different Buddhist tradition. Or study on your own for awhile. No harm in that. One isn't bound for life to one's first choice in Buddhism. You tried Zen, it didn't work out. It wasn't a good fit. Maybe another tradition, or home study for awhile, will be a better fit.
Yes, quite frequently. But I try not to worry about it any more. Zen makes no sense and perfect sense at the same time. All contradiction and no contradiction. It doesn't seem to be something that should be thought about. I exhausted myself trying to figure it out. My main issue was (and still is) subjectivity. Anyway, most days now I prefer to just float downstream. I try not to figure out what makes gravity or the origin of water.
The funny thing is that these feelings are embraced in zen-practice, like anything else.
They probably call it Great Doubt or something and feel happy for you. Haha.
Stick to Therevada if that feels better.
But Therevada can make people sick too, I’m sure.
And yes, I’m with Mindgate. The Buddha that you worship (as it seems) is a huge projection.
We are who we are, we will never match this projection of our religious fantasies.
If you keep practicing with it (this happens in theravada too though you might resonate better with that?)... If you keep practicing with that it becomes cool boredom. Boredom where you are like a lake. People appreciate a lake for what it is. It does not have to do or be something.
This boredom is necessary to find 'buddhism without credentials' and without hope or fear. The boredom is antidote to spiritual materialism.
In my opinion, Gotama was a man, but the Buddha was not.
I understand where you are coming from. I'm not so much "hot" or "cool," I'm just talking about my disenchantment with zen. I do appreciate your input.
>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!
That is according to ultimate reality. People have a hard time with Zen sometimes when they can't differentiate between conventional truth and absolute truth. Zen only speaks of the absolute, the truth of emptiness. He is saying the same thing as the Buddha said. Did the Buddha say there is dukkha in emptiness? No, the Buddha said there is no dukkha in emptiness. There is no dukkha in emptiness! Since everything is inherently emptiness, how can there be dukkha, according to the absolute? There can't be! However, zen does not deny that you mind makes dukkha, which is the whole point of the practice but the truth of it does not come from words and ideas, it only comes from the actual practice. Zen appears to have contradictions, but when you understand that there is conventional truth and absolute truth, there are no more contradictions.
>However, the more I interact with other zen practitioners and become more aquainted with contemporary teachings and methods, the less I trust that this tradition continues to uphold the virtues of the true path to liberation.
Don't mistake the practitioners for the practice, they aren't the same thing.
You want progress in your life, so you feel satisfied, and so your void is filled.
The reason you have the void is because it is your true nature, emptiness.
Actually, the more you progress, the more you will notice the emptiness/void. So your doubt will rise to your practice because the void in you become more and more appearent and it is not pleasent. So you are doing fine actually. The problem is not Zen or any other tradition, the problem is the void in you. Notice that.
Everything is going to be okay...
See, emptiness is not bad. It is actually a gift, a miracle It means you can fill it with anything you want when you ready. You need to learn how...
The glass is empty...Fill it with wine, coke, you name it.
May I ask (apologies - I'm new here), are you working with a teacher on a regular basis, or is your experience primarily with books? A good teacher will take all of this drive and energy that you have (in it's current mask of frustration) and direct it in a skillful way that will give you more than enough structure and "path".
gassho,
Daemyo
Although, truth be told, I don't really recall any of the Zen material I've read go into that sort of stuff. That's more a sort of Dao-like idea more in the line of western popularizers.
I've skimmed over things like that in popular Zen literature, but not in actual Chan or Zen writings like Huang Po, Bodhidharma, countless koans, Dogen, or more modern material such as Katagiri, David Loy, John Daido Loori, Taigen Dan Leighton, Shohaku Okumura. No light weight "just go with the flow" here.
Zen is hard work and requires a concentrated effort and requires discipline. "Stop searching" be damned. There is a time for that, but there is a time for self-discipline as well. It annoys me to no end for unthinking zennies to say "Don't cling to the raft" when it has not occurred to them that first one must get ON the raft to begin with. Its sheer laziness for people to think enlightenment is just going to show up without doing anything. Its a mis-application of a very important Zen doctrine I think. There is a time for "letting go of the raft," but not prematurely (the Diamond Sutra is a dialogue that takes place between the Buddha and Subhuti, not the Buddha and some novice).
It is true, IN A CERTAIN SENSE, that there is no dukkha. But just parroting Nagarjuna or the Diamond Sutra is no help. One must realise it (I haven't!). The dosctrine of the two truths must be handled carefully, otherwise its all unskillfully taught and handled anyway.
As far as wanting a systematic structure to go by, I don't think Buddhism has evry really had that anyway. You can't approach the sutras like you would the Bible-- they don't even *work* the same way the Bible does.
Unfortunately, where I currently live, and because of my work hours, being part of a sangha is not possible for me. So I don't have any face-to-face experience with fellow zennies. So through lots of reading and research, I've had to learn through reading, and creating a structure for myself.
Certain sutras and other classic writings (not necessarily Zen material) are a part of my personal study, including quite a lot of commentary on Dogen. In the meantime, I read a lot of Sheng Yen to keep myself grounded in some basic discipline.
As I mentioned before, I think its significant that the Buddha addresses Subhuti, an advanced practitioner (not a novice!) in the Diamond Sutra. Ultimately its ALL just skilful means, the Buddha, the Four Noble Truths, everything. But parroting enlightened masters who realised this in their own lives is pointless and ultimately unskillful.
I don't want long answers and philosophies. I just want a road sign. If I don't understand the sign - well then I suppose I'll be passing it again soon for another look.
http://mro.org/zmm/training/eightgates.php
:coffee:
(Probably.)
I've read John Daido Loori's booksand listened to some of his dharma talks-- I'd say he's pretty hardcore. He may have helped to communicate Zen to westerners to a great degree, but he's not one to water down actual practice. The "Eight Gates" is a program for Zen training, but it isn't a substitute for the Eightfold Path. Definitely no lightweight, Loori started one of the better Soto Zen monasteries in the US.
There are so many people who think that there is no structure in Zen. As soon as it is conceived as some perfected structure, you loose the essence of freedom that Buddhism is supposed to provide. That seems to be the great conflict with Zen. Why do most Zen folk always say one has to sit Zazen, and have a teacher? Isn't the Buddha nature in all of us human beings? Maybe the Buddha never taught you HAD to do this or that. It was only those who needed a religious leader that turned his teaching into rules, and strict observance. Didn't he give up all the ascetic practices and teach the middle way?
http://speculativenonbuddhism.wordpress.com/
As for zazen - there's no better way of calming one's mind and yet keeping fully alert than zazen type meditation. Buddha did it himself. Yes you're correct – he chose a middle way between ascetism and indulgence. I think to this day Zen is advocating the same. You don't have to give up your job or your family to practice it. Your family and your job is the practice.
As for the Buddha nature in everyone – yes it's there but one must realize. There's nothing in this life that comes by itself…one must apply some effort.
May be Buddha didn't teach those thing, may be Buddha didn't even exist, you don't have to believe in anything, but what's important is that there's a very practical teaching that helps people to this day, even if only a small number of them.
A monk had been at Fayan's monastery for some time, but had never gone to see the master for an interview. Fayan asked why. The monk said, “Didn't you know that when I was with Ch'ing Lin's place I had an entry?”
Fayan said, “Try to recall it for me.”
The monk said “I asked, 'What is Buddha?' and Lin said, 'The Fire God comes for fire.'”
Fayan said, “Good words, but I'm afraid you misunderstood. Can you say something more for me?”
The monk said, “The Fire God is in the province of fire; he is seeking fire with fire. Likewise I am Buddha, yet I went on searching for Buddha.”
Fayan said, “Sure enough, you have misunderstood it.”
The monk became angry and left the monastery. But once he was on the road and had cooled down a little, he had second thoughts. He knew that Fayan was a highly respected teacher and so he decided to return to the monastery. I think this was a very important moment – the moment when he cooled down and decided to go back to the monastery. He had to let go of his pride and sense of accomplishment, but his desire to learn the truth was strong so he turned back and called on Fayan again.
Fayan said, “Just ask me and I'll answer you.”
The monk asked his question again, “What is Buddha?” and Fayan answered, “The Fire God comes looking for fire.”
At these words the monk was greatly enlightened.
What is he difference? The monk was simply parroting words, and had a purely intellectual understanding of "The fire god comes looking for fire." This is why Fayan said he misunderstood it. But then when Fayan says the same words later, the monk has an awakening. What is the difference? The difference lies beyond the words themselves. The monk now realized existentially that he was a Buddha searching for Buddha.
Just saying "I am a Buddha" is not the same thing as actualizing it.
>Why do most Zen folk always say one has to sit Zazen, and have a teacher?
Because that is how Zen is properly practiced.
>Didn't he give up all the ascetic practices and teach the middle way?
Yes he did. Sitting zazen, following the precepts, having a teacher, etc. IS the middle way.
Of course people can disagree with it. People can believe whatever they want. However, to believe that Zen practice is "whatever you want" is simply not correct. Zen practice is Zen practice and it involves doing zazen, following the precepts and having a teacher, etc. If you're not doing those things then you are not doing Zen practice, you're doing some other thing.
Yes you can get rid of the raft, but first you have to at least get on that raft and take some effort to reach the other shore.
Yes you're right Buddhism that it's just another tool. You can do whatever you want with your life, but if you have doubts and questions about your self nature and such other things, Buddhism may offer you answers. But it's up to you to find it out.
I placed perenthesis' around practice because from what I understand of Zen is that one does not practice Zen so much as one simply is Zen. To practice something implies to seek an outcome that one feels they cannot currently reach, and Zen, I believe, is not about achieving anything or seeking any kind of outcome. It is simply to express our true nature... To simply be...
Specifically to the OP, it is possible you are sick of Zen because you are expecting to achieve something. That is not the purpose of Zen. Zen is the opposite... Non-achievement... To want to achieve something, you attach to some result. Buddhism is about letting go of attachments. Zen seems a perfect "practice" to me in learning through experience of what it means to truely let go of the desire for expected results... The desire for anything and just simply being... Breathing... Sitting... Being in this moment... Now...
Well, I'm just guessing here, most of my study to date has been around Therevada and am just now revisiting Zen with a deeper understanding and appreciation for its simplicity. (Note: not implying it is by any means easy)
The OP speaks of being "Sick of Zen". If this gulf exists in the understanding of Zen Buddhism one can understand why one would become sick of it.
If what Buddhism comes down to is following what a special school of Buddhism says it is, it somehow seems that the whole thing is subject to much debate, and frustration in knowing what the Buddha originally taught.
All the schools of Buddhism are skilful means to awakening. They all have in common the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. The rest is just different ways of understanding and practicing this, which is, to a large degree, shaped by the culture with which it contacts.
Think of the different schools of Buddhism as playing a particular melody, but some play that melody using a flute, others a violin, and others a trumpet. Different instruments, but the same melody, and they all play together, but each with their own particular sound.
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.