Approaching The Science Of Zen

[redraven]

The Zen tradition is very rich, and it makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Most Zen Monks revere the kami or local spirits of their land, but other than that, everything is as dry as a bone.

Why?

Because Zen is a science. There are different forms of satori, many more than I know of, there are ways of discerning satori, there are methods of meditation, and there is koan work, which dovetails with meditation.

All of this is overseen by a Master, and it is very organic. The master makes determinations about satori, he makes determinations about chores, and he determines whether someone has passed a koan, and what koans they will get. A great deal of Zen is orally transmitted, although people have recorded things and they are being translated as we speak.

The first meditation given to the twelve-year-olds that enter the monastery is called "Mu." What you do is sit in the zazen posture and you breathe in normally. Then you breathe out with all the force you can muster, mental and physical and think "mu," while you're doing it. Then you breathe in normally. If you try it, don't exhaust your breath, but do it with much force.

This proceeds to zazen, and then you start koan work a little later. The Master manages your koans according to how you're doing. Are you distraught? Rude? Lazy? Overzealous? Too focused on results? Dallying too long on his koans?

It has been noted, and it should be, that it's a form of therapy. There are two goals in Zen:

1. To be a good monk if you're a monk.
2. To be a happier more fulfilled person who can live a good life.

That's it. You get your bowl of rice. AND THAT'S IT. No heaven, no nirvana, no eternal peace, no nothing. All of this insight is for a better life, but not to make you wise, in particular, or to make you a genius, or anything. THAT'S IT.

It's an odd thing to dedicate your life too.

[scameter]

I disagree. Zen is not a science, nor is it dry. They do not focus on the external as much as many religions, such as with things like huge churches and large colourful paintings and structures, and that is because Zen is about conquering and knowing the self, and to do this, external discipline is required. As the Tao Te Ching says, "Conquering others is strength. Conquering yourself makes you fearless." Since Zen is a combination of Buddhism and Taoism, it implements both of these philosophies into it's self.

[redraven]

The reason that I say that Zen is dry is because it has no belief system. Anything which helps the student is true, and anything that does not is untrue. When one dies, one dies, and when one achieves the final stage of satori, if he ever does, he continues his practice and receives only emptiness. Most people find that hard to take.

Also, what I am getting at with this science thing is that their is a method. Further, Zen is not about self-mastery. The teaching of Zen is that one does nothing apart from the dharma, and that there is no self to master.

I have never seen a Zen Master reference the Tao, and I would like proof. Zen is Japanese, and the Japanese as a whole don't do Taoism, although there are exceptions to that. Chinese Ch'an Buddhism, of the same school but of Chinese origin, most likely references the Tao, but their texts are not translated into English, as far as I can determine. Perhaps I'll look for some writings of Bodhidharma, the founder of the Ch'an school.

Thich Nhat Hanh is a Vietnamese Ch'an Buddhist and I have read him extensively and I know that he never references Taoism. I find that he is a little more focused on the eightfold path than the Japanese Zen Masters, and I think that this may be a characteristic of Vietnamese Ch'an. It may be a characteristic of Chinese Ch'an as well, but as I said, I've been unable to locate any books.

Ch'an and Zen mean to sit, and in Sotto Zen enlightenment is simply "to sit." Rinzai focuses more on satori, but is extremely harsh in its teaching methods, as well as the fact that Rinzai was once the school of the Samurai.

[scameter]

Also, what I am getting at with this science thing is that their is a method. Further, Zen is not about self-mastery. The teaching of Zen is that one does nothing apart from the dharma, and that there is no self to master.

I haven't heard that before personally, but of course I am no Buddhist or Zen master. I think that to be a Zen master would require being a master of the teachings of Zen, and I think the teachings of Zen, regardless the attached beliefs, are about self-mastery and self-awareness, which can then be put forth into the external. It is about emptiness, peace and serenity in harmony with life, but it is also about making the self this way, which would require mastering the self. I do not think Zen is a science because every science is logical, or at least is backed up by science. If something is not, it is not considered a true science; such as, for instance, psychology which is *negotiably* a science. Zen is not logical; in fact, in Zen, it is said that because life is illogical logic cannot be used. Thus, it is not a science.

I have never seen a Zen Master reference the Tao, and I would like proof. Zen is Japanese, and the Japanese as a whole don't do Taoism, although there are exceptions to that. Chinese Ch'an Buddhism, of the same school but of Chinese origin, most likely references the Tao, but their texts are not translated into English, as far as I can determine. Perhaps I'll look for some writings of Bodhidharma, the founder of the Ch'an school.

It is Japanese, but it did not begin there. It began in India with Buddhism, which traveled to China and incorporated Taoism, and then moved to Japan where it flourished. If you would like a very good, concise explanation, read Osho's book Zen.

Thich Nhat Hanh is a Vietnamese Ch'an Buddhist and I have read him extensively and I know that he never references Taoism. I find that he is a little more focused on the eightfold path than the Japanese Zen Masters, and I think that this may be a characteristic of Vietnamese Ch'an. It may be a characteristic of Chinese Ch'an as well, but as I said, I've been unable to locate any books.

And yet he makes many comparisons from Buddhism to Christianity. :D

[Michael]

I think that to be a Zen master would require being a master of the teachings of Zen,


So, was the first Zen master a chicken or an egg?

[scameter]

The first Zen master invented Zen. :)

[______]

But who taught him how to arrive at Zen?

[MidnightSun]

Silence

[scameter]

Well, Buddha was the first Zen master, so wherever else he got his other Buddhist teachings at.

[______]

But it wasn't Zen that the Buddha taught. <_< I think he was just the first master of himself then taught others how to do so as well. :D

[scameter]

Actually, he didn't teach Zen. It is said that a flower is the most receptive thing in existence. One day, one where Buddha regularly taught, people were gathered around him and he simply stood on a hill, silently gazing into a flower, smiling. Nobody had any idea what he was doing; but then, someone in the crowd smiled. Buddha called up the man, handed him the flower, and the man took it and it's contents, being an essential replica of Buddha's spirit, to China, where he spread the teachings, and then they were carried to Japan, where they truly blossomed. There's more to it, but that's how Zen began. That is why I said he was the first Zen master. :)

[______]

Ah, beautiful! :) I think I recall this story, but not in that version. I never made the connection with it and Zen. Thank you, Scam. :thumbsup:

[scameter]

Certainly. :) I may not know about anything through experience, but that doesn't mean I can't study. :) Btw, I got that story from Osho's book Zen.

[______]

:think: hmm... But studying and experiencing are very different. One can study a subject and know everything there may be to know about it, but when they experience it, they are caught completly off guard. Perhaps you should try Zen for yourself.

I don't practice Zen nor do I know a whole lot about it, but I have been sitting zazen every so often for about a week and a half now. I plan to learn about Zen through experience! ;)

[scameter]

I'd rather avoid the personal effect of subjectivity by remaining a studier rather than an experiencer of the things I enjoy, such as religion, science and history (the latter two being inherently objective anyways, or as much as a human can be). Exclusivity and objectivity are my things, and the things I aim for, even if I often fail. :)

[______]

You have plenty of time to learn from studying, but some things can only be learnt through experience. Besides, what is life if not a chain of experiences?

[scameter]

There are different kinds of experiences. You are speaking mainly of intentionally subjective experience; I am speaking of studying, which is an intentionally objective type of experience.

[______]

:lol: Indeed!

But why isolate oneself to one or the other?

[scameter]

Because objectivity pursues truth and releases the self, and thus the personal. But, I didn't say it should be pursued exclusively in all matters, or that it is appropriate for everyone. :) Some people can be themselves and not feel constant pain from simply being who they are.

[______]

:D You are most wise, Scam. But subjectivity helps develop one's understanding of truth while objectivity--as you said--pursues truth. Having used both, one can grow beyond what one or the other exclusively offers.

[scameter]

Except that if one remains totally subjective, so many biases and boundaries are formed in one's view of the truth that deciphering what is true becomes most difficult, as I myself have recently discovered.

[______]

Except that if one remains totally subjective, so many biases and boundaries are formed in one's view of the truth that deciphering what is true becomes most difficult, as I myself have recently discovered.
Perhaps you should avoid this in the future and use both subjectivity and objectivity equally.

[scameter]

Why equally?

[______]

...subjectivity helps develop one's understanding of truth while objectivity--as you said--pursues truth. Having used both, one can grow beyond what one or the other exclusively offers.
:D

[scameter]

Originally posted by @--
Why equally?
:)

[______]

Why unevenly? :D

[scameter]

You proposed to do it equally, and I'm wondering why.

[______]

Perhaps you should avoid this in the future and use both subjectivity and objectivity equally.
Having used both, one can grow beyond what one or the other exclusively offers.
I thought that was quite obvious. ;)

[locomotive]

What you call subjective experience is an experience and therefore just as objective as what you call objective experience.

[scameter]

I don't see what you mean ________, sorry. Maybe I'm blind to your point, but what you just said wouldn't answer why you say to use them equally.

Actually, I think it is just as subjective as objective experience, but I think that the difference is, objective experience is an at least attempt to be objective, even within the limitations afforded by our inevitable subjectivity as beings within this existence.

[locomotive]

Actually, I think it is just as subjective as objective experience, but I think that the difference is, objective experience is an at least attempt to be objective, even within the limitations afforded by our inevitable subjectivity as beings within this existence.

No, I don't think the difference is in ones desire or effort to become either objective or subjective but the state that the persons understanding is in. For example you feal fear when you see a dog and say the dog is scary. Another would say no you are not seeing it objectively; you are scared and identify the dog as beeing part of that feeling. But for you at that time you where objective Now that you understand you call it a subjective experience. A comparison of understanding. It is just a fact that is missing or you could say the events that result in the percieving of the fact ( I think that is what you meant).

[scameter]

No, I don't think the difference is in ones desire or effort to become either objective or subjective but the state that the persons understanding is in.

I think it is the state a persons' intentions are in for gaining understanding/knowledge. If one does it simply to gain it, and for no emotional or selfish reasons, then it is objective. If it done for a selfish reason, it is not and could not be objective. But, objective and subjective also have their own requirements; for instance, us simply being human means when we try willingly to gain knowledge/understanding, or anything for that matter, we are doing it for some reason or another, usually for enjoyment, and when we do get it we enjoy having it. That enjoyment is selfish, and thus we cannot be entirely objective. Subjectivity will always inevitably be with us, even if we can be objective partially, that being by making our intents not for oursevles, and avoiding letting the potential for enjoyment hinder our vision.

For example you feal fear when you see a dog and say the dog is scary.

Perhaps. Unless you were, for instance, saying the dog could look scary to someone else, or if you just say the dog is scary, you could be saying it's appearance and demeanour could inspire fear to you or someone else, even if you do not feel the fear at that time.

Another would say no you are not seeing it objectively; you are scared and identify the dog as beeing part of that feeling.

Actually if you did see a dog and feel fear from it and thus call the dog scary to yourself, that would be being objective; you are recognizing the connection between what you are seeing and the emotions you are reactively feeling. Now, if you saw the dog, thought it was scary and accordingly felt the fear, and then decided to kill the dog or run it off, that would be acting subjectively. But again, the feeling of fear it's self is it's self a subjective thing, but how you view it does not have to be subjective beyond the point of inevitably subjectivity, that being yourself thinking about yourself (the about yourself only being an attachment to the inevitably subjective fact that it is "you thinking").

( I think that is what you meant).

Nope. :)

[______]

Um... Not to tread on this wonderful discussion we are having, but how does this all tie into Zen?

[scameter]

Hmm... I think subjectivity and objectivity could definitely play a part in a discussion of Zen, but as this is not a formal debate thread or forum, this discussion has currently gone the route of discussing objectivity and subjectivity, for now.

[locomotive]

"Actually if you did see a dog and feel fear from it and thus call the dog scary to yourself, that would be being objective; you are recognizing the connection between what you are seeing and the emotions you are reactively feeling."

Yes I agree but then again it is subjective because if you see the dog as scary you are imagining a part of your body to be a dog. The dog is just color.

"Now, if you saw the dog, thought it was scary and accordingly felt the fear, and then decided to kill the dog or run it off, that would be acting subjectively"

don't understand the difference.

"( I think that is what you meant).

Nope. "

You say that it is the intention that determance wether one is going to obtain objective or subjective knowledge. To you one is objective and the other is subjective and accordingly you say that the difference between the one beeing subjective is ego or whatever and the other is self-less. Now my claim is that too both of them it is objective. It is only when you compare that you say this was subjective experience and this was real.
Now would you not agree that the intentions of a person is equavelent to the actions of a person( where thought or intending is also an action) and therefore it is as I stated : "the events that result in the percieving of the fact"?

[scameter]

Yes I agree but then again it is subjective because if you see the dog as scary you are imagining a part of your body to be a dog. The dog is just color.

:think: Huh?

don't understand the difference.

Just look closer.

You say that it is the intention that determance wether one is going to obtain objective or subjective knowledge.

Somewhat. But as I also said, we are inevitably subjective; our intentions only make us able to obtain a limited range of objectivity.

Now would you not agree that the intentions of a person is equavelent to the actions of a person( where thought or intending is also an action) and therefore it is as I stated : "the events that result in the percieving of the fact"?

No, mainly because the actions pursued in the interest of completing the preconceived intention(s) isn't/aren't always fulfilled, hence the saying "some of the worst evil has been done with the best intentions".

[locomotive]

Damn I had a whole post here but it got erased..


science of zen.
what do you want to talk about?

[______]

..."some of the worst evil has been done with the best intentions".
So then, intent is a point of view?

[scameter]

Intent is derived from the ability to have points of view, derived from the inevitable subjectivity of being an individual human.

[______]

science of zen.
what do you want to talk about?
Mu

[scameter]

Oui? :D

[Arctic-Stranger]

Originally posted by @--
Mu

oink

[______]

Muoink
:lol: :lol: :lol:
It means emptiness. (at least that's my understanding)

[VossistArts]

Im pretty sure Zen avoids conceptualizing. Im pretty sure Zen is about self mastery. As much as I know about, is through sitting and breathing for 20 years. For me its been about learning to not identify with my thoughts thus giving me the ability to let my thoughts and concepts and emotions go. Its been about experiencing the world without without internal dialoge and language. It would be interesting to examine it more formally. When I first became interested in Zen when I was 17 there were just no resources where I live. There may be now. Ill have to look. I will. :)

[______]

There's always a resource through the net! :D ;)

[VossistArts]

Yeah I think Ill use the net to see if I can locate someone qualified I can actually talk to in person locally. The net is great... but human contact is too... I mean.. at least... I imagine it to be heh

[drewpiece]

I don't think there is much science to Zen at all. In fact, I think they are opposites. Sciences engages analytical thinking, and Zen disengages it.

[logan]

"It has been noted, and it should be, that it's a form of therapy. There are two goals in Zen:

1. To be a good monk if you're a monk.
2. To be a happier more fulfilled person who can live a good life.

That's it. You get your bowl of rice. AND THAT'S IT. No heaven, no nirvana, no eternal peace, no nothing. All of this insight is for a better life, but not to make you wise, in particular, or to make you a genius, or anything. THAT'S IT.

It's an odd thing to dedicate your life too. "

I think that most people will find that in any spiritual practice the desired results are typically:

A-Be a kind, loving, and tolerant person.
B- Have a happy, good life.

This is basically how you described the "goals" of zen.

Now, each philosophy, religion, or school of thought prescribes its own path to achieve these objectives. As you said, some teachings call upon wisdom, nirvana, or heaven to gain this, but the end results are typically the same. With this in mind, I don't see why you think Zen is so strange.

I have to say though, as a practioner of Zen, I don't feel it is nearly as straightforward, dull, or rigid as you described. It is a rich, fulfilling practice. Plus, as with any religion, it's just another finger pointing at the moon.

[sahyo]

no goals zen


word

[logan]

that doesn't mean that people go into Zen practice without goals.

[sahyo]

did say meant that?

[drewpiece]

Maybe it would be better to go into Zen practice without any goals at all.

[Michael]

Zen what?

[Noway2Zero]

exactly! -.-

[sahyo]

word

[WanderingTaoist]

void

[sahyo]

word

[Starry_Canopy]

Plus, as with any religion, it's just another finger pointing at the moon.


My understanding is that zen doesn't point at the moon, it is the moon.

zen is shunyata

zen is pure being

'Dhyan', in Sanskrit, is loosely translated as meditation, but is actually the restfully alert state of pure being. What I have read is that the word 'Dhyan' got transformed due to pronouning convenience of pronouncing to 'Cha'an' and then 'Chen' in China and 'Zen' in Japan.

An illustration of the principle of zen, where the mind remains in the present restfully alert state and doesn't wander off into the past, or the future, or any imagination of its own making:

A zen master came out from the room and stood in the doorway to the garden watching his students working on the vegetable patch.

He saw a snake moving on the ground near him.

"Watch this", he said and snatching the snake by its tail with one hand, used the other to slash it in two with a sword.

The students continued gazing stupified... trying to get the significance of what they had seen, except one. He rushed forward, took the two parts of the dead snake, threw them over the compound wall into the rubbish bin and returned to his work.

The zen master smiled and said, "How brisk!"

[drewpiece]

Originally posted by @--
The zen master smiled and said, "How brisk!"
:lol:

Zen masters are funny!

[Starry_Canopy]

Yeah :)

They'll never break their real time living for telling about it :)