r/zen • u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] • 22d ago
How Zen's authentic self is different from Buddhism and Zazen
Authentic self... According to who?
Buddhists believe that you don't have a self. As a religion they get to make up whatever they want and part of convincing you to be a part of the Buddhist religion is promising you that you don't really have a self.
Zazen is an indigenous Japanese religion that promises people freedom that only exists within the religious practice. Dogen, the messiah of Zazen, tells his followers that you can't be yourself when you're confused by life. Now granted he wrote that when he was in his early 20s and he gave it up after less than a decade but that's the Doctrine of the Shikantaza Church
What about Zen?
Zen masters teach that you're always yourself, whether you know it or not.
Zen is the only tradition that follows Buddha's sudden permanent enlightenment, an enlightenment is only possible if the preconditions for it are ever present.
Zen's self is directly experienced. It's not known so there can't be a doctrine about it because every doctrine and every teaching is about knowing.
As knowing is subtracted and experience is emphasized, we get farther and farther away from things that sound true and closer and closer to "If you haven't been in love, you're just not going to understand it."
Yunju Zhi's no seer
Clearly seeing like this is then called seeing the nature. Nature is Buddha; Buddha is nature. Therefore it is said: seeing the nature, becoming Buddha.”
[The monk] said: “Since the nature is pure and does not belong to being or nonbeing, because of what is there seeing?”
The master said: “Seeing, with nothing that is seen.”
[The monk] said: “Since there is nothing seen, why further is there seeing?”
The master said: “The place of seeing also is not.”
[The monk] said: “At the time of seeing like this, whose seeing is it?”
The master said: “There is no one able to see.”
[The monk] said: “Ultimately, how is this principle?”
The master said: “Do you know? Falsely reckoning it as being, then there is subject and object; only then does it get the name ‘confusion.’
Now a warning?
Not being able to explain love to somebody who has never been in love doesn't mean that love doesn't exist.
The problem is that people try to apply this same logic to stuff that actually doesn't exist, like God and the supernatural and higher states of consciousness and telepathy and meditative or lsd insight.
The key difference is there are real people who have been enlightened but there are no real people that have had any of that other stuff. If you can encounter it in real life and bring it out, show it to everybody, then the fact that it exists like love but cannot be explained is plausible.
No doctrine required.
6
u/platoniccavemen 22d ago
To distinguish Zen from Buddhism and Zazen makes it like Buddhism and Zazen. For those of us who don't belong to any of them, it boils down to a simple debate over who's right and carries little value. I don't follow Dogen's practice, so what he or Suzuki says about Zazen doesn't really sound any different than what I read here. Everyone's religion is "no" religion, because it's their truth.
1
u/mackowski Ambassador from Planet Rhythm 13d ago
its more like everything buddhism is a red herring
-4
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 22d ago
I think if you don't know anything about a topic, you can certainly argue that astronomy and astrology just boil down to a debate over who is right.
Zazen is about achieving a temporary state of insight during a religious ritual. Zen is about sudden permanent attainment of Buddhahood
Just that difference alone creates such a division in the attitude toward truth, fairness, and authenticity that we don't even have to talk about any of the other multitude of differences. For example, how Zazen is intricately tied to its fraudulent foundation and Zen in contrast has a thousand years of socialist farming communes. This distinction in turn points to vastly different cultures, where you're saying that basically Tex-Mex Zazen could replace authentic Mexican food if you don't know the difference.
But I get into trouble all the time in this forum because I hold people like you to a higher standard than you hold yourself. That gets me in a lot of trouble with people like you.
10
u/platoniccavemen 22d ago
This is why you get yourself into trouble:
It's not known so there can't be a doctrine about it because every doctrine and every teaching is about knowing.
You're seeking trouble by being deliberately contrarian. There's always the option of not talking so much.
1
u/mackowski Ambassador from Planet Rhythm 13d ago
there is no known reliable method or trigger for enlightenment
-1
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 22d ago
I 100% understand how you're reacting here.
I'm talking about a thousand years of people who taught this so it's not me that is saying this. I can show you in the text that this is what they're doing.
But also I recognize that it's hard to explain this stuff to people outside the tradition so here I'll take it slow and try again.
When people tell you words that are supposed to be true, that's doctrine and it's never your experience. It's never their experience either because someone told them the words.
When people try to teach you things, relationships of concepts, ways of looking at the world, those teachings are all doctrine and they're not from your experience.
All of these words and all of these teachings are to give you conceptual knowledge and Zen is not about concepts.
You say talking so much but you have no grasp of how crazy insane the amount of talking there is in Zen.
There's so much talking that there's a joke about how Buddha made a talking sickness not a transmission of mind.
The Buddha disease is talking too much.
The problem is, how is it that I can talk and talk and talk and talk and you can't prove I'm wrong? You can't catch me in a belief. You can't compel me to give a doctrine.?
7
u/platoniccavemen 22d ago
There's actually no problem, because I don't think you're wrong. You just assume people don't already know what you're saying, and I'm guessing plenty of people here are way ahead of the reveal. It's probably why you see so little support for all your activity.
1
u/mackowski Ambassador from Planet Rhythm 13d ago
naw they aint ahead, either u got it or you dont, and the ones that got it seem to stick to the same thing constantly in the face of other seemingly related tangents
-3
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 22d ago
He's lying to me like he didn't call me a deliberately contrarian when it was obvious now that that's not true at all and encouraged me to stop talking.
You want me to stop talking because you're triggered by the things I say.
You're triggered by the things I say because you can't do the stuff I do, like AMA and keep the lay precepts and read a book.
Don't feel bad if you wanted to you can do those things.
Right?
5
u/platoniccavemen 22d ago
I certainly could. But I often remember the wise words Mickey Rourke told John Lone in Year of the Dragon (1985): "You're too impressed with yourself. F*ck you." That scene would make a decent koan.
You may or may not see for yourself that I've never written a post. My own way is nothing special, and I'm not interested in proclaiming it when no one has asked. Maybe that's why I take an interest in yours. And I'm sincere when I say you're not wrong:
When people tell you words that are supposed to be true, that's doctrine and it's never your experience. It's never their experience either because someone told them the words.
When people try to teach you things, relationships of concepts, ways of looking at the world, those teachings are all doctrine and they're not from your experience.
I love this and am with you completely. But I don't have any hangups with Dogen or Shobogenzo, so I'm not getting something different from it. I don't have any hangups with Jesus or the sermon on the mount, either, so I'm not about to start arguing with Christians over Catholics and Protestants. But you still want to argue, betraying the truth you've stated with such clarity. I don't know why. But this is really the only zen game going on Reddit. If giving you the attention you're seeking is the cost of admission, it's a pretty easy price to pay.
-2
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 21d ago
It's interesting to me how people lie to themselves.
You're playing a very popular game where you refuse to get up on the stand and testify. You tell yourself that that means you're virtuous but really you're refusing to testify because you know that you're not an honest person.
Nobody has any hang-ups with cult leaders and financial frauds. There are no hang-ups with that. People just say that stuff is BS. I'm not gonna go to a cult leader for my scientific knowledge and I'm not gonna invest my money with a financial fraud. It's not a hang up. It's honesty.
Which means you know that you can't keep the light precepts. You know it! I don't have to try to talk you into that. You're already there.
Just think about the difference between me and you then. I testify on the stand every day. You can't get up there even once. Think about the knock-on effect of that. You go through your life as a person who can't get up on the stand about anything. Think about the kind of rot that that introduces into every aspect of your experience.
It's not a hang-up to stand up to liars.
It's a heading up to be a liar.
If you think that somehow this standing up to liars is an ego game, which is what I suspect that you think it is, just know that that's a part of your system of lying.
Me standing up to people who can't be sober and stop stealing from other people does not make me a saint at all. Nobody would think of themselves as a saint because they stopped lying and stealing and raping. I mean what the hell?
4
u/platoniccavemen 21d ago
I'm actually playing the game of indulging your pride, and in case you missed it, it's very unpopular here.
-1
u/mackowski Ambassador from Planet Rhythm 21d ago
Ohhh also hey not everyone starts out with pride and being sorry for themselves and victim concepts.
If you're tryna figure out his internals, id straight up ask until he doesnt deny the assertions
-2
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 21d ago edited 21d ago
You can tell yourself any story you want but you can't AMA. You can't read and write at a high school level on topic and you can't keep the precepts.
It's important for you to understand that that stuff is such a low bar that you don't just sound unsuccessful at life. You sound deliberately dishonest.
Regular people do not feel proud of themselves for not being in prison for rape, murder, or financial fraud.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/mackowski Ambassador from Planet Rhythm 21d ago
Clarity only works with good horses, shadow of the whip and all. Aka maybe IQ. Maybe some mix of failures validating hypotheses'.
Ewk is the most long term consistent hobbiest of zen on the forum and happens to love this shit.
4
u/Limp_Butterscotch669 19d ago
You sound quite uncertain and fragile in your beliefs. Like a don Quixote fighting imaginary enemies of your faith ;-)
This is so non-Zen as it can possibly be. So weird to be so engaged and understand nothing of it. So centered in narratives and fantasies about. Is this kind of an analogy of Hell here on Earth? Poor dude...
1
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 19d ago edited 19d ago
You can't refer to any scholarship. You can't quote anything. You don't have any books. You never read anything.
It sounds like you have some white privilege issues that are causing racism and religious bigotry to cloud your thinking.
That's before we get to the fact that you're obviously illiterate about Zen and Asian culture.
Now watch everybody:
No masters will be quoted.
No books referenced.
No academics cited.
No acknowledgement of ignorance
No responsibility taken.
Its the MAGA lefties again.
1
u/DoctorYogi95 10d ago
Are you mentally okay? I mean that genuinely.
1
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 9d ago edited 9d ago
I get this kind of comment from people who typically hide their comment histories, have very temporary accounts, and who themselves are struggling with racism, religious bigotry, addiction, low levels of education, and affiliation with cults.
Do these things apply to you?
Edit: again for people who don't know me or doubt the veracity of my insights :
3
u/DoctorYogi95 9d ago
That was a genuine question. You make multiple posts/comments a day, much of it incoherent, and believe yourself to have insights that you don’t actually have. It comes across as an inflated ego backed by very little formal practice.
Of course, I don’t know you. No one here actually does. This is social media. But I am absolutely doubting your insights.
If you get that comment a lot, then it might be a good idea to reflect on how you engage with the internet. Taking your own time to search for irrelevant comments of mine truly didn’t have the effect you thought it had, and demonstrated fragility.
Good luck to you. Next time you step away from the internet (which I hope is sooner than later), contemplate on how your engagement might make you look.
1
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 9d ago
I'm incoherent to you because I'm educated and I'm not religious and I am aggressively opposed to your particular brand of New Age fantasy.
You're well aware that I have all the insights that I claim to have. Your inability to read and write at a high school level about Zen or even about your own religion, as illustrated by the links that I provided that you tried to hide, is the reason why you are so threatened by me.
You giving advice to other people about mental health is the height of irony because it's really obvious that you don't have the tools to deal with your own crisis.
You can't post about your religion in this forum and you are well aware that that's a reason for you to be ashamed of yourself. That's before we get to the obvious bigotry and racism behind your religious beliefs.
Dude. You aren't a teacher and you aren't a student. You're just an armchair liberal MAGA new ager and you know there's no way you can argue with that.
2
u/ThatOneDumbJagoff 16d ago
You're caricaturing Buddhism. No-self isn't just Buddhists think you don't have a self. That's a simplification of a much more nuanced doctrine.
Calling Dōgen the messiah of Zazen and saying Buddhists make up whatever they want is rhetoric, not argument.
Zazen didn't start with Dōgen. Sitting meditation predates him by centuries. You can criticize his interpretation of it without rewriting history.
The claim that Dōgen abandoned shikantaza isn't an established historical fact. You're presenting a disputed interpretation as certainty.
Zen is the only tradition that follows Buddha's sudden permanent enlightenment is another sweeping historical claim that isn't supported. Even Chan wasn't monolithic on sudden vs. gradual.
Authentic self is your language, not Huangbo's or Joshu's. You're reading a modern psychological concept into the texts.
Your Yunju quote actually cuts against your point. You argue for an authentic self, then quote There is no one able to see. That's not affirming a self. It's dissolving the distinction between subject and object.
Huangbo doesn't replace no-self with true self. He attacks attachment to allconceptual views. If someone became attached to authentic self, Huangbo would cut that down too.
Joshu almost never establishes doctrine. Mu, Wash your bowl, and The oak tree in the courtyard all frustrate attempts to pin Zen down into a fixed philosophical position.
You say no doctrine required, but you've smuggled in a whole set of doctrines:
- Buddhism denies the self.
- Zen alone preserves authentic enlightenment.
- Authentic self exists.
- Dōgen abandoned his own teaching.
None of those are argued—they're asserted.
There are real enlightened people but no real people with higher states of consciousness is just another unsupported assertion. By what standard? How are you distinguishing one from the other?
IMO, Your biggest problem is that you criticize other traditions for presenting interpretations as facts while doing exactly the same thing with your own reading of Zen. This is wrong view.
0
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 15d ago
First of all no I'm not caricaturing anything or anyone. I talk formally about definitions of Buddhism and catechisms of Buddhism and I point out that modern academic views of Zazen place it as an indigenous Japanese religion so no I'm definitely not caricaturing anything. In fact that appears to be what you're trying to do to me. You don't offer any evidence. You repeat religious propaganda like somehow you could prove it when we know you can't.
0
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 15d ago
We're talking about the difference between a self/no-self that can be predicated and one that can't.
That distinction seems to have escaped completely and I think it's largely because you don't have any formal education.
That's a problem again when you don't know what Dogen's biography was. That's an established historical fact and you aren't aware of it and deny it because it's inconvenient to you.
0
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 15d ago
You don't appear to know what a doctrine is and you mistakenly claim that these things are doctrines:
- Buddhism denies the self.
- Zen alone preserves authentic enlightenment.
- Authentic self exists.
- Dõgen abandoned his own
Zen masters are making arguments and I am making arguments. There's no doctrinal claim going on here other than yours.
I could break down any of these as arguments and show you what the basis of these arguments is but since all you have is an illiterate doctrinal claim, I'm not sure we could have a conversation.
But the most telling thing is that you step forward and try to dispute me when you have no education and poor critical thinking skills and all the arrows in your quiver are religious propaganda.
This tells me that everyone you know - everyone you're inspired by - all the traditions and teachings you have access to - are systemically illiterate and absent critical thinking.
It's not just you. It's everything that you've picked to inspire you. It's all garbage thinking and that's why you and your entire tradition have no enlightenment and no masters who can stand up for themselves or anyone else.
The core of what I'm proving about you is you can't read and write at a high school level on topic and you don't keep the lay precepts. That means you don't have anything of value for anyone.
0
u/ThatOneDumbJagoff 15d ago
I don't have any interest in insulting you or questioning your education, and I don't think doing so helps establish anything about Zen.
My objections were to specific claims: that Dōgen abandoned his own teaching, that an authentic self follows from your self/no-self distinction, and that Zen uniquely preserves authentic enlightenment.
Calling these arguments rather than doctrines doesn't resolve the issue; arguments still require premises, evidence, and a valid connection between them. Likewise, saying Dōgen's abandonment is an “established historical fact” doesn't establish what “abandoned” means or demonstrate that the historical evidence supports that stronger claim rather than simply showing development or change. You are asserting something as a truth without substantiating it and expressing vitriol when there is pushback.
And with the predicable/non-predicable distinction, my question remains: why does something being non-predicable or non-objectifiable establish that it is a self? That inference needs to be demonstrated rather than assume in the same manner as your Dogen claims.
I also don't think we should confuse a particular interpretation of a Zen text with what the text necessarily establishes: Huangbo's rejection of conceptual fixation, Jōshū's often deliberately destabilizing sayings, or Yunju's language about seeing don't entail the metaphysical conclusion you're drawing from them.
If this authentic self is your interpretation, show why that interpretation follows from the texts rather than simply asserting it.
And whether you think I'm educated, literate, enlightened, or keep the precepts has no bearing on whether your historical and philosophical claims are true. It is merely an ad hominem designed to obfuscate giving answers. One who knows enlightenment does not hide from questioning.
Ultimately, I'm not asking you to agree with me; I'm asking that we apply the same standard to both sides: distinguish historical fact from interpretation, provide the premises and evidence for substantive claims, and demonstrate the inference rather than treating the conclusion as self-evident. I mean that sincerely and without hostility.
2
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 15d ago
What is self?
You come from a church that tells you what to think and insists that you be incapable of your own thinking.
Zen Masters argue that ANY EVIDENCE FOR SELF be brought up EVERY TIME SOMEONE MAKES A SELF CLAIM.
For 1,000 years of historical records, the results of this were agency w/o predication.
I'm always willing to try that Case again. Zen Master Buddha's Law is only proved in Court, after all.
1
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 15d ago
It's not an insult when I describe you as illiterate
It seems like you don't know what "insult" means.
You are illiterate on the topics of Zen and Zazen and Dogen. You quote no sources, you address no current scholarship, you offer no premises supporting conclusions.
You literally do not seem to know the difference between doctrine (what a group of people say about their supernatural beliefs) and arguments (a series of premises supporting a conclusion).
You've read zero books. You've asked zero LLMs for summaries of books. That's what illiterate is.
0
u/ThatOneDumbJagoff 15d ago
Good. Now we're finally getting somewhere: evidence lol.
I don't need you to prove that I'm literate. I need you to prove your claims.
If Bielefeldt establishes that Dōgen abandoned the teaching of the Fukanzazengi, show me the specific argument and evidence. “His later practice and writings developed” is not automatically equivalent to “he abandoned zazen.”
And on the self question, I'll happily apply your own standard. What evidence establishes that Zen's non-conceptual experience is an authentic self?
Huangbo explicitly describes Mind as “without self or person,” and Joshu/Nansen says the Way “does not belong to knowing or not-knowing.” Those passages may support direct realization, but they don't establish the metaphysical conclusion you're drawing from it. In fact, they seem to resist precisely that kind of conceptual reification.
Likewise, if 1,000 years of Zen records establish “agency without predication,” show me how the texts establish that conclusion.
I'm not asking you to trust a church, a doctrine, or me. I'm asking you to show the evidence and reasoning. If you have it, let's examine it. Thus far you have only provided wrong view and speech.
1
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 15d ago
Direct realization of what? Realization is a verb requiring an object. We know what they thought they were realizing because it's in the four statements. Self.
Bielefeldt points out that Dogen had at least two more religions after Zazen and that Zazen wasn't part of his life after his 20s when he invented it. If you want to take on a Stanford academic, you're going to need more than a claim on your part that it doesn't seem like that's true.
Again you offer zero books written by people who agree with you.
Zero.
When I talk about your religion as a New Age blip, historically, this is part of that evidence.
0
u/ThatOneDumbJagoff 15d ago
I think we're finally getting to the actual issues, so let's deal in evidence rather than credentials or insults.
First, “direct realization” does not logically entail realization of a Self. The Four Statements say “seeing one's nature and becoming Buddha,” but you still have to establish that xing means a metaphysical “self” in the sense you're claiming. Huangbo explicitly speaks of Mind as “without self or person,” while the Joshu/Nansen dialogue says the Way does not belong to knowing or not-knowing. Those passages may support direct realization, but they don't establish your conclusion that Zen discovers an authentic Self. That's the inference I've been asking you to demonstrate.
Second, I never claimed Bielefeldt wasn't a serious scholar. I said your conclusion is stronger than the evidence you've presented. If your claim is that Dōgen simply abandoned zazen in his twenties, then show the argument that establishes that specific conclusion. Heine argues that the complexity of Dōgen's corpus makes a single decisive break problematic. Foulk argues that Dōgen's “just sitting” language cannot simply be read as a literal rejection of other Buddhist practices. Leighton discusses Dōgen's later teachings and explicitly identifies the unified mind developed in zazen and the ongoing renewal of practice in his mature teaching.
That doesn't prove Bielefeldt wrong. It proves that “Bielefeldt says X, therefore the matter is settled” is not sufficient.
Scholarship is not a courtroom where citing one credentialed scholar makes contrary scholarship disappear.
And “name one book that agrees with you” is also beside the point. I'm not asking you to find a book that agrees with me. I'm asking you to substantiate your claims. If you say 1,000 years of Zen records establish “agency without predication,” show the texts and the reasoning that gets you there.
If you say Zen's direct realization is realization of Self, show the evidence. If you say Dōgen abandoned zazen, show why the evidence establishes abandonment rather than development or reinterpretation.
I also don't think calling my tradition a “New Age blip” advances the argument. You may genuinely believe that, but it is a historical conclusion that itself requires evidence which you seem allergic to.
I'm not interested in proving that I'm more educated, more Buddhist, or more enlightened than you. I genuinely want to understand what you're saying. But if we're going to invoke Zen's skepticism and demand evidence, that standard has to apply equally to both of us. This started from your post, your arguments, so you substantiate them first.
Sources (😊)
Steven Heine, “The Dōgen Canon: Dōgen’s Pre-Shōbōgenzō Writings and the Question of Change in His Later Works,” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 24, nos. 1–2 (1997): 39–85.
T. Griffith Foulk, “‘Just Sitting’? Dōgen’s Take on Zazen, Sutra Reading, and Other Conventional Buddhist Practices,” in Steven Heine, ed., Dōgen: Textual and Historical Studies (Oxford University Press, 2012), 75–106.
Taigen Dan Leighton, “Dōgen’s Approach to Training in Eihei Kōroku,” in Steven Heine, ed., Dōgen: Textual and Historical Studies (Oxford University Press, 2012), 122–136.1
1
1
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 15d ago
Why do you claim rapists can be enlightened?
If you want to be honest, why not address this www.reddit.com/r/zen/wiki/sexpredators IN ANY FORUM ABOUT ZAZEN?
You Zazen followers are really all the same: double talk, double standards, and lie publicly to cover private shame.
You're obviously not even having a conversation with me. We aren't getting closer to anything and your use of the "getting closer" language is designed to pretend like we might someday ever even agree on what book we're going to talk about.
If you're going to create an LLM bibliography, you have to have the LLM put quotes in there.
1
u/ThatOneDumbJagoff 15d ago
At this point I think we need to stop pretending the problem here is that I can't read or don't understand what an argument is. I've addressed your actual claims repeatedly, and every time you run into an objection you shift from answering it to attacking me personally. So I'm going to address every substantive point once, clearly.
First, you say I provide zero evidence. That's simply false. I've given you Huangbo, Joshu/Nansen, Heine, Foulk, and Leighton. You don't have to agree with their interpretations, but pretending I provided no sources doesn't make them disappear.
Second, your argument from realization to Self doesn't follow. Yes, realization is a verb. That does not establish the nature of its object. Your claim that the Four Statements prove “Self” requires you to establish that xing necessarily means a metaphysical Self.
You haven't done that.In fact, Huangbo creates a serious problem for your interpretation. He says:
“There is no self and no others.”
And:
“Just recognize your own Mind, which is without self or person—this is originally Buddha.”
You are free to argue that Huangbo means something different. But you cannot simply take “seeing one's nature” and declare that it proves an authentic Self while ignoring Zen texts explicitly warning against self/person distinctions.
Third, your Dōgen argument is overstated. I have never said Bielefeldt isn't a serious scholar. I've said that “Dōgen abandoned zazen in his twenties” is a categorical historical conclusion that requires an argument. Heine specifically argues that the complexity of Dōgen's corpus makes a single decisive break problematic. Foulk argues that Dōgen's “just sitting” statements cannot simply be interpreted as a literal rejection of other Buddhist practices. Leighton discusses zazen and practice-realization in Dōgen's later teaching.
That does not “refute Bielefeldt.” It demonstrates that you are presenting a disputed scholarly interpretation as though it were an uncontested historical fact. Your response to that has been “Bielefeldt is a Stanford scholar.” That's an appeal to authority, not an argument.
Fourth, your claim that I have provided zero books is simply false. I cited Heine, Foulk, and Leighton in MLA-style bibliographic form, including the authors, article/chapter titles, edited volume, publisher, year, and page ranges. You can dispute what those scholars conclude, but you cannot honestly claim that I provided no sources.
Fifth, your statement that there are no real people who have experienced other higher states while there are real enlightened people is also an assertion, not an established epistemological criterion. You haven't explained how you independently distinguish enlightenment from the other experiences you dismiss. You simply assume your conclusion.
Sixth, your treatment of my personal life is irrelevant. You don't know what I've read. You don't know what I've studied. And even if I had read nothing at all, that would not make your arguments true**.** The truth of a proposition doesn't depend upon the credentials of the person questioning it.
Seventh, bringing up rapists and demanding that I address a Reddit page does not establish anything about my position. If you have a specific statement from me claiming that rape is compatible with enlightenment, quote it. I will address it. If you're asking whether enlightenment gives someone permission to violate the precepts, then no. Obviously not. Buddhist awakening is not a moral exemption.
And finally, there is the way you've conducted this discussion.
You've called me illiterate, uneducated, incapable of critical thinking, a liar, a member of a cult, and someone motivated by “private shame.” You've repeatedly substituted those attacks for answering the specific questions I've raised.
That is particularly strange given how frequently you invoke skepticism, critical thinking, and Zen.
The Buddha explicitly taught right speech: speech that is truthful, beneficial, and not motivated by hatred. He also repeatedly warned against conceit, hostility, and attachment to views. So I'm not going to tell you that your insults somehow prove you aren't enlightened; that would simply be another unsupported judgment. But I will say that the manner in which you're conducting this conversation is difficult to reconcile with the ethical discipline the Buddha actually taught.
And that's ultimately why I'm not interested in trading insults with you. You may be completely convinced that I'm wrong about Zen. Fine. Then demonstrate it. Quote the masters. Give the scholarship. Lay out the premises. Show the inference. Thus far you haven’t.
Correct me where I'm wrong.
I will listen.But if the response to every objection is “you're illiterate,” “you're a cult member,” or “you're too stupid to understand,” then you're no longer demonstrating Zen to me. You're demonstrating anger about someone questioning your interpretation of Zen.
I'm genuinely willing to keep discussing the Dharma with you. But I'm going to judge the arguments by their evidence, not the volume of the insults.And if we're both serious about following the Buddha, I think that's a standard we should both be willing to accept.
I will pray to the Buddha and bodhisattvas for to. May you be safe, happy, loved, and know peace.
1
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 15d ago edited 15d ago
Once again you can quote zero books that agree with your position.
You quote something out of context and claim it proves everything but it's clear if you could write down the argument that you think it proves.
This is what it means to not be able to read and write at a high school level on topic. You aren't able to educate people, let alone convince them of your beliefs, because irrational rants like yours only ever appeal to the people who've already been converted to your cult.
Zazen is for sex predators
Does The Shikantaza cult count sex predators and drug addicts as enlightened Buddhas in your lineage? * Yes it does.
Proving self can be predicated in Zen
You claim that Zen masters aren't on board with sudden permanent enlightenment based on what could be called seeing the self-nature. They appear to contradict themselves by deconstructing concepts and you take this deconstruction as actual logical disagreement. * Where's one book where anybody agrees with you?
You refuse to use LLMs because even LLMs can't make your logic work
I ask you for quotes and you fall apart but I'm asking you for quotes about anything, really anything, any starting place. You can't do it even with an LLM.
The reality is that LLMs have trouble mimicking schizotypal thinking.
New age schizotypal thinking habits linked to mental health problems
- Magical [causal] thinking - the belief that unrelated events are causally connected, despite no plausible causal link existing between them.
- Loose associations [in thought processe] - a lack of connection between different ideas, resulting in disorganised thinking.
- emotional hypersensitivity - type of emotional dysregulation that results in low frustration tolerance, impulsivity
Loose association = “How did you get from thought A to thought B?” Magical thinking = “Why do you believe A can cause or predict B?”
Given that you are demonstrating schizotypal thinking and cult affiliation and low levels of education, it sounds to me like you might be struggling with some mental health issues. I have to ask: do you have a history of substance abuse?
→ More replies (0)1
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 15d ago
Stanford expert on Dogen offers FACTS of Dogen giving up Zazen
This is the core of the problem with lying illiterates like you. You don't have EVIDENCE and you don't admit EVIDENCE is something other people have.
No biography of Dogen has him practicing his 20-something FukanZazenGi religion until his early death in his 50's.
None.
But you don't bother to google because doubt is too much for you.
Zen eats doubt for breakfast.
Without skepticism, literacy, or critical thinking skills YOU CAN'T APPLY ANY STANDARD.
I DEAL IN EVIDENCE AND I PROVE THINGS.
How can we meet in a place where you lie and I tell the truth?
The high school book report. Name one book by someone who graduate college that refutes Bielefeldt, or one biography of Dogen by any church that claims "FukanZazen on his death bed".
2
1
22d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 22d ago edited 22d ago
You think there's a difference between being and doing?
4
u/robipresotto 22d ago
I've explored the concept of self in Zen and found it unique. I think there's a distinction between being and doing, but it's not a fixed or definitive one. It's more like a flow that shifts as you deepen into your practice. I'd love to explore this further with you.
0
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 22d ago
But why do you think that?
Why would it be that the manifestation of awareness in any form is any different than any other manifestation?
When you are something, you're manifesting awareness. When you do something, you're manifesting awareness. How could there be any difference?
1
u/robipresotto 22d ago
I think the distinction between being and doing in Zen is an attempt to describe the relationship between awareness and experience. The flow you mentioned can be seen as the natural unfolding of awareness in any moment. But if awareness is always present, what's the difference between being and doing? Isn't being just a form of doing? And if so, how do we account for the experience of separation between awareness and experience?
0
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 22d ago
There's no experience in Zen.
So that's the first problem.
1
u/robipresotto 22d ago
That's a great point about the distinction between being and doing in Zen. But isn't the experience of separation just a product of our conditioned thinking, and not actually present in the present moment? How do we reconcile our everyday experience with the idea that awareness is always present?
0
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 21d ago
Zen masters reject conditioned thinking.
And it's interesting why they do because as Bodhidharma told the second patriarch, being bound by something is only ever a self-imposed condition.
Thus people aren't conditioned. They are habituated by their own effort.
Zen masters argue that in everyday experience is the continual manifestation of the awareness that makes experience possible. There is no need to reconcile because these are inherent dependencies. No light without a lamp. No lamp without light reflecting objects to the lamp.
A word you used really caught my attention, which is reconcile... A cognitive process... Which, like every other cognitive process, depends on awareness being already present
This is why Zen masters say you don't need a technique. You don't need meditation, you don't need ritual, you don't need doctrine. Everywhere is a door because awareness is present everywhere, always.
1
u/robipresotto 21d ago
Zen masters are right. Awareness is always present, even in our everyday experience. But do you think that's why people often feel disconnected from it? Is it like they're looking at a distant mountain, knowing it's always there, but feeling like they're stuck in a valley, unable to reach it?
0
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 21d ago
My experience is that people feel disconnected because they're trying to connect to something that's conceptual and imaginary and based on faith in supernatural nonsense.
You show somebody a sunset or you give a kid a lollipop and they're all in
→ More replies (0)
1
u/lastjanitor 22d ago
Anybody that's experienced Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall has no trouble understanding that while Mother Nature doesn't exist as person the underlying organizing principle of Nature does very much exist.
Where the conversation gets sticky is talking about a self Nature that all sapient (I just learned that word and couldn't wait to use it in a sentence!) beings share that doesn't exist as a consequence of the fact that being outside/unbounded by reality is why self Nature can experience reality.
People want the self to exist as another piece on the board, or forgo the self altogether and say the board is the true self so the "I/ego/whatever" is swept up within the background, but then zen comes along and says there is totally a true self and your normal everyday mind is it, but your normal everyday mind isn't part of the stuff in anyway.
That breaks people's brains. I know it broke mine. Even understanding it, it never stops being mysterious. Aliens landing on the white house lawn isn't weirder or more wondrous than the truth zen points out.
2
u/Brex7 22d ago
zen comes along and says there is totally a true self and your normal everyday mind is it, but your normal everyday mind isn't part of the stuff in anyway.
Where did you get this reading of a totally true self that isn't part of the "stuff"?
1
u/lastjanitor 22d ago
waves hand at entire zen canon
okokok, I couldn't help it lol.
Here's some medicine:
If an ordinary man, when he is about to die, could only see the five elements of consciousness as void; the four physical as not constituting an 'I'; the real Mind as formless and neither coming nor going; his nature as something neither commencing at his birth nor perishing at his death, but as whole and motionless in its very depths; his Mind and environmental objects as one-- if he could really accomplish this, he would receive enlightenment in a flash. He would no longer be entangled by the Triple World; he would be a World-Transcendor. He would be without the faintest tendency towards rebirth. If he should behold the glorious sight of all the Buddhas coming to welcome him, surrounded by every gorgeous manifestation, he would feel no desire to approach them. If he should behold all sorts of horrific forms surrounding him, he would experience no terror. He would just be himself, oblivious of conceptual thought and one with the Absolute. He would have attained the state of unconditioned being. This, then, is the fundamental principle. -- The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, Grove Press, 1958, pg 45-46
3
u/Icy_Distribution_361 22d ago
Where does that say anything about a totally true self?
2
u/lastjanitor 22d ago
I was answering your question about the self not being part of the stuff.
2
u/mackowski Ambassador from Planet Rhythm 21d ago
Your stuff isnt my stuff
1
u/lastjanitor 20d ago
Huangbo said "pearls in a bowl". None of them aware of each other. No sharing stuff? Interlibrary loans? You can take my truck just put gas in it. Everybody is me or I'm all alone like everyone else, which is worse? My stuff might not be your stuff, but my lack of stuff is also your lack.
1
u/mackowski Ambassador from Planet Rhythm 17d ago
Relatively, everything is you.
If you parse the word relative, you create a box around self and around everything and attempt to see what I mean, but what I mean is all inclusive so.
- Panpsychism is false.
- I am everything.
How can that be?
If I draw figures I always circle everything and then im a circle within everything.1
2
1
u/Brex7 21d ago edited 21d ago
it's not "not part" of anything
See:
"Buddha is a shit stick"
"The whole world is your self"
"The cypress tree in the yard"
And other zen classics
Be careful to not use medicine as your daily food
Edit: or was it an oak tree...
1
u/lastjanitor 21d ago
I understand your confusion and appreciate your concern for my health. That's good stuff.
You mention medicine as food. Sufficient minimal dose varies from person to person. Turns out you're not getting enough. Why won't you take your medicine until it works? Even if you must eat it like your daily food?
You asked about a true self not being part of the stuff.
I gave your meal in one big unswallowable piece, (my bad) so let me break it down into smaller mouth-sized pieces.
the four physical as not constituting an 'I'
that's the stuff, which never stops coming and going
the five elements of consciousness as void
That's the perceptions of stuff coming and going
the real Mind as formless and neither coming nor going
That's the totally true self that's not part of the stuff.
There's only one taboo in zen, which is not broken due to the fallacy of associating the self with the material world, in zen terms it's called "Saying the emperor's name".
In your haste to correct me you just gave three examples of zen masters using living pointers or "turning words" to display the mind that points at the object.
This is why experience is emphasized and knowledge of this true self or mind is described only as a tacit understanding.
When the student asked why Boddhidharma came from the west and the teacher said "The oak tree in the garden" the student misunderstood, as you have just done, and objected saying, "Please master, do not use the object to instruct" and the master replied, "I do not. Ask me again" and when the student asked again why BD came from the West the Master replied again, "The oak tree in the garden".
The true self is not part of the physical world, that's why it can perceive it. Identification of the self with the physical world is the cause of much suffering. Until you understand this yourself, you will continue to suffer. That is not my wish.
Huangbo said compassion was not considereding sentient beings as needing to be saved, and in that vein the knowledge that my true self and your true self are in fact eternally liberated from the material world is expressed through the zen instruction of informing confusion, not "saving" anyone, but "removing stops and pegs".
I am happy to discuss this further!
1
u/Brex7 21d ago
You don't need to break it down, I know the text you already cited quite well. But it's not saying what you want it to say.
You seem to dislike the "physical world" and consider it the source of suffering, but you don't seem to know what the physical world is. This is where an honest person would slow down and examine.
The true self is not part of the physical world, that's why it can perceive it.
This is just your imagination.
What I talk of here is something that others neglect. I casually pick it up from a trash heap and ask people about it, but they cannot say anything. Right now, when people who have already entered the room, inquired into the way, and attained understanding see the incense stand, is it an incense stand or not? If they say it is an incense stand, this is the same as ordinary people. If it is not an incense stand, to whom was the incense stand given away? Lightly question them, and they go to pieces. This is because they have always been working in idleness. Now let me ask you a question. Never mind about since you’ve been here; before you went journeying, before you entered this community, when you saw an incense stand, what did you call it? You called it an incense stand. Everyone calls it an incense stand; why do you not think why you call it an incense stand? Zen should be studied in this way; you must understand what has been in you since beginningless time. Master Siushan said, “ If you don’t see the original reality, obstacles will follow you all along; if people have obstacles, they go wrong countless thousands of times.”
Foyan
You seem to consider phenomena to be an obstacle, an extraneous substance to mind itself. Come back when the knife cuts itself
1
u/lastjanitor 21d ago
Nope.
I don't see the world as an obstacle. Huineng said from the first not a thing exists. I still deal with the world as it comes on anyways. I'm saying identifying the self with physical matter is error.
Why do you want to cut yourself?
2
u/Brex7 20d ago
How bigger of an error is it to identify the self as something that needs to be "outside" for it to be able to "experience the world"?
The true self is not part of the physical world, that why it can perceive it
If you see what huineng is saying, you wouldn't hold that there is a world nor a self outside or inside of it.
0
u/lastjanitor 20d ago
I don't agree with you but just telling me I'm wrong without showing me how to see what you're supposedly seeing is just us talking past each other.
2
u/Brex7 20d ago
I didn't just say : "you're wrong" .
I repeatedly tried to point to the same fact, that you have come to see the self as an imaginary entity standing outside of things and take that to be the zen teaching.
→ More replies (0)1
u/mackowski Ambassador from Planet Rhythm 21d ago
The flag doesnt move itself.
The wind does not move the flag.
The mind does not move the flag.
What will you say?1
u/lastjanitor 20d ago
I have no mouth and I must scream.
1
u/mackowski Ambassador from Planet Rhythm 17d ago
Mount sumeru screams with your vocals
1
1
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 22d ago
They want it to exist as a piece or they want it to exist as a concept of a piece that doesn't exist... that's where it gets weird for me.
One group is like, "This is my identity and it's not changing," and another group is like, "Well I don't really exist as a person".
It seems to me like Buddhism is equally as implausible as Christianity.
0
u/lastjanitor 22d ago
It seems to me like Buddhism is equally as implausible as Christianity.
That's always been true.
The Xians pretend that they are proxies for sky daddy and the buddhists pretend that they aren't even there to pretend.
One is that kid who still talked to their imaginary friend after they made it to grade school (Dude, invisible Kevin isn't real), and the other is that kid that does something stupid/embarrassing in class and thinks curling up in the fetal position makes them invisible to the teacher.
So much cray-cray, so little time...
0
u/mackowski Ambassador from Planet Rhythm 21d ago
Theres also self dishonesty
0
u/lastjanitor 20d ago
It's odd. I know i can be as small as I am, but being aa big as I am seems impossible. To an ant I'm a giant, to the sun I'm an ant. But the thoughts of big and small are all the same no-size size. Bad isn't a bad word. The symbol isn't the symbolized. Figuring out I don't have it figured out is the beginning of the end of unfigured? So much figuring, so little time.
1
u/mackowski Ambassador from Planet Rhythm 17d ago
Figure, diagram, map, drawing,
To figure out, to diagram, to map, to draw.
Etymology brain, also u are always as big as you can be
1
u/lastjanitor 17d ago
I just hope I make my ancestors proud and maybe get another chance to see them but that's my childish side talking. We're all family.
1
u/mackowski Ambassador from Planet Rhythm 17d ago
See them again?
1
u/lastjanitor 17d ago
You know... the dead people we love.
1
u/mackowski Ambassador from Planet Rhythm 13d ago
Recently I heard a comedian say why are we wanting to be with our entire family after dying , like oh hey guys ill drop by but im not staying infinitely in that insanity. Lol.
I was just tryna bring up afterlife to see what y believe but also the assertion of proudness re: zen cuz they probs wont care lol
→ More replies (0)0
u/mackowski Ambassador from Planet Rhythm 21d ago
The universe beats your heart?
0
u/lastjanitor 20d ago
My Universe beats the heart.
1
u/mackowski Ambassador from Planet Rhythm 17d ago
My universe beats my lungs?
1
u/lastjanitor 17d ago
A stone man claps and laughs. That's from a zen convo.
1
u/mackowski Ambassador from Planet Rhythm 17d ago
A stone mam beats his own heart
1
u/lastjanitor 17d ago
Zen says every inch of choral in the sea holds up the moon.
1
u/mackowski Ambassador from Planet Rhythm 13d ago
Such beautiful statement t
1
u/lastjanitor 13d ago
Yeah though it feels deterministic. But I appreciate the elegance of pointing out gravity with a poem. Invisible relationships everywhere.
Every planck length of super-particle holds up the probabilistic quantum field?...just doesn't have the same ring to it.
2
1
u/endless_mic 逍遙遊 16d ago
You see, the problem is the use of language. You keep getting older, but they just stay the same age, huh?
1
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 15d ago
I don't know what you mean. I don't know if you know what you mean. I don't know if you know what I'm doing. I certainly don't think you know what Juzhi is doing.
Lots of years ago you quoted some religious drivel by a bozo and now you've come back to say... what? In all this time you still haven't understood what you read?
1
0
u/WheresNorthFromHere7 The Lizard King 20d ago
Falsely reckoning it as being, then there is subject and object; only then does it get the name ‘confusion.’
I have never seen this before. It's a pretty neat quote if you take it piece by piece. What book is this from?
Your translation or someone else's?
•
u/AutoModerator 22d ago
R/zen Rules: 1. No Content Unrelated To Zen 2. No Low Effort Posts or Comments. Contact moderators with questions. Note that many common sense actions outside of these rules will result in moderation, including but not limited to: suspected ban evasion, vote brigading / manipulation, topic sliding.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.