Zen Buddhism

[sabaijai]

I thought Zen was transmitted via silence, the passing of a flower. Why so much noise?

And there are so many Zens! A stick is just a stick until you need it for something. Then it's either too long or too short.

[Darknight]

great comment sabaijai

Just tried to make some more noise to get over minds rambling.

Time for a silent meditative post.....

AAUUUUMMMMMM...

ps: it's ok to be distracted by my avatar

[lungmi]

Acupuncture is a by the WHO admitted therapy. It's scientifically proved. Recent publications by Prof. Alexander Meng (University of Vienna) even show the moving of the Ch'i in the meridians (registered by developed Kirlian photography).

I practice acupuncture (low level laser, needles, electric and magnetic stimulation for over 20 years in a Buddhist wat. Ask my patients (hemiplegia, paraplegic symptoms) if it works.

Edited December 23, 2010 by lungmi

[lungmi]

A famous Zen Koan is: What is the noise of the clapping hand of a one handed man?

No problem. The Zen master has a shaved head.

Edited December 28, 2010 by lungmi

[Xangsamhua]

Koans are beyond me, and I'm pleased to see there are Zen schools that don't use koans.

I'm fairly new to Zen, though have read a bit over the years, including stuff by Suzuki and Thich Nhat Hanh, but it's only clicked with me when reading the American approaches of William Jakusho Kwong and Charlotte Joko Beck.

There seems to be many kinds of Zen and some are quite obscure. It's interesting to read over the old posts from 2004 in this thread and the earnestness with which the posters present their arguments. I think that Camerata was right to suggest that Zen is not a universal teaching; it works for some and not others. And I don't see that it's exclusive; surely some Zen teaching and practice could be included in Theravada and/or Mahayana teaching and practice also.

I don't think I have "caught" Bill Kwong's and Charlotte Beck's teaching. I read what they say and it's all perfectly clear at the time, but I don't think I've got it all together, so I can say that I don't really understand Zen, but it seems to work for me. In the last three months anyway, it has certainly got me through the barriers that were preventing a sustained meditation practice before.

I think, though, it is something to do with letting go, with focussing on the moment and not worrying about goals. That's very liberating for me (but I think easier for an older person than for a younger one with all the responsibilities and anxiety that go with family, finances and career). Really seeing the interdependence of all things is also central, and, yes, getting the ego to stand aside at least for a moment is very important. Sometimes I think the phrase "What you see is what you are" (not that I've seen or heard this phrase anywhere) encapsulates an important aspect of Zen. In acknowledging that we usually put our ego at the front and centre, we realize that much of the time we are projecting. When I see my wife, for example, worrying too much over some detail, what I see is my ego's projection of my wife as one who, if she were me, wouldn't do that. Of course she isn't me and it's neither fair nor realistic for me to be critical of her. But she is me, too, in that what I see is my mind's (and my ego's) construction of her, and we both are to some extent a product of each other's responses. Of course, there are times (quite frequent, I hope) when my construction of her corresponds to her construction of herself, but there are certainly others when it doesn't, and then our two egos lock horns.

Still, I don't really think Zen is about ratiocination and systematic reflection. Noticing, acknowledging and labelling thoughts is not the same as reflection, which by definition is an egocentric activity. Joko Beck makes the point that whatever enlightenment does issue from Zen practice usually takes a long time, and the necessary awarenesses emerge of their own accord from frequent and sustained sitting. Other kinds of awareness arises from mindful practice in everyday life, but sitting is necessary for significant awakening to occur and to be sustained. She never talks about satori, unless by that she means false enlightenment - the flash of awareness one might have, which then lapses; it can't be sustained.

I sound like a new convert in full flush - maybe I am - but I'm old enough to know that enthusiasms arise and fall away and what seems to work one day loses its effect the next, so I'm not getting carried away. Suffice to say, though, I have found these two teachers very refreshing and practical. Whether they are real Zen or not I don't know, or even if their teachings are real Buddhism (they don't use much Buddhist terminology or even refer much to the Buddha; Joko Beck is just as likely to use Christian terms and illustrations as Buddhist ones - I guess she feels that resonates more with her cultural setting), but they have evolved from Buddhist teaching and practice, and, in the way of evolution, they are adapting to their cultural context of time and place.

Edited January 3, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[lungmi]

When I made my brown belt for tradtional Karate (shotokan, no contact), the instructor Master was a Zen Monk, coach of the national Japan Karate team staying in Germany.

For the free fight belonging to the examination he called me to fight with him. I piss and shit in my clothes. No problem. HE took out the best of me, he went down to my level

and developed this level. Great! But the best was: When I had the diploma he said to me: You will never be a winner in your life, but never a loser.

He was right.

For me this is Zen. His teaching in this moment gave me the power to do what I wanted to do.

[Svenn]

It seems to me that the main point of zen is to to get rid of the ego - the self-observing component of our brains which millions of years of natural selection developed for us, and presumably gave us some evolutionary advantage. So, after attaining satori, the zen master would be something like an intelligent child, without stress and with no fear of death.

This is singularly the most thought-provoking post I've ever seen on thaivisa, not least of which because I have had the exact same thoughts.

Despite all the trouble it causes me, I think I'd prefer to keep my ego.

How rare it is to see people, especially Buddhists, to admit this. Most Buddhists seem to think that letting go of the ego is a calm, happy task to be performed in quietude. Various Zen Masters however have described it as the most difficult, terrible, and trauma-inducing ordeals man is capable of. It is akin to a sort of death, and I too honestly admit I'm not ready to do it either

"Men are afraid to forget their minds, fearing to fall through the Void with nothing to stay their fall...."

-Huang Po, 800AD

[Xangsamhua]

It seems to me that the main point of zen is to to get rid of the ego - the self-observing component of our brains which millions of years of natural selection developed for us, and presumably gave us some evolutionary advantage. So, after attaining satori, the zen master would be something like an intelligent child, without stress and with no fear of death.

This is singularly the most thought-provoking post I've ever seen on thaivisa, not least of which because I have had the exact same thoughts.

Despite all the trouble it causes me, I think I'd prefer to keep my ego.

How rare it is to see people, especially Buddhists, to admit this. Most Buddhists seem to think that letting go of the ego is a calm, happy task to be performed in quietude. Various Zen Masters however have described it as the most difficult, terrible, and trauma-inducing ordeals man is capable of. It is akin to a sort of death, and I too honestly admit I'm not ready to do it either

"Men are afraid to forget their minds, fearing to fall through the Void with nothing to stay their fall...."

-Huang Po, 800AD

Is it that the ego, being a mental construct in response to experience, has both positive and negative value? In its positive form it contributes to evolutionary advantage; in its negative form it generates suffering.

The trick is to reduce and minimize the negative products of ego-centrism while not exposing oneself to physical damage and intellectual atrophy; i.e. potential extinction, the future of Camerata's "intelligent child".

In attaining benefit from positive ego, the next trick is avoid attachmentto these benefits, i.e. not to subject them to greed, anger and delusion. This requires constant mindfulness of the interdependent origination of all those factors that have contributed to any sense of achievement and well-being.

[rockyysdt]

Is it that the ego, being a mental construct in response to experience, has both positive and negative value?

In its positive form it contributes to evolutionary advantage; in its negative form it generates suffering.

The trick is to reduce and minimize the negative products of ego-centrism while not exposing oneself to physical damage and intellectual atrophy; i.e. potential extinction, the future of Camerata's "intelligent child".

In attaining benefit from positive ego, the next trick is avoid attachment to these benefits, i.e. not to subject them to greed, anger and delusion. This requires constant mindfulness of the interdependent origination of all those factors that have contributed to any sense of achievement and well-being.

Are there examples of the positive side or value of ego?

If one annihilates ego, can one still function positively, or said another way, is one still able to contribute to evolutionary advantage as well as continue to generate positive values?

I've read that the final step to enlightenment, the total abandonment of ones ego, is akin to jumping off a precipice.

It probably constitutes the annihilation of the one you know yourself to be, ego.

If there's any doubt that ego is a construct or delusion, then the fear would be extreme.

[Svenn]

If one annihilates ego, can one still function positively, or said another way, is one still able to contribute to evolutionary advantage as well as continue to generate positive values?

Strangely I think one still can... one even still experiences emotions and normal thoughts, just from a radically different perspective. I know there is endless dispute about who is or isn't enlightened, but many ancient Zen masters, and Taoist, are recorded as crying, getting angry, etc... if you believe DT Suzuki had an awakening, he is recorded as crying at the death of his wife, but said 'the tears had no roots,' and when asked by a student what living by Zen was like, he said 'like everyday life, just 6 inches off the ground.'

I have endlessly thought what psychologically could be going on when a human brain attains Enlightenment, but I've never come upon a satisfactory answer. It seems a cruel result of natural selection that we would be afforded an ego and all the suffering it entails, when it is ultimately superfluous.

I've read that the final step to enlightenment, the total abandonment of ones ego, is akin to jumping off a precipice.

It probably constitutes the annihilation of the one you know yourself to be, ego.

If there's any doubt that ego is a construct or delusion, then the fear would be extreme.

I 100% agree, and I wish some of the 'new age' Buddhists back in the West would realize how profoundly serious the practice actually is! Somewhere I read there was one young monk at a temple who arduously practiced for a year or so, and then ultimately decided to take his own life by jumping off a nearby cliff... the Master at the temple said he was sure that as soon as his feet left the ground, he attained satori.

[lungmi]

If one annihilates ego, can one still function positively, or said another way, is one still able to contribute to evolutionary advantage as well as continue to generate positive values?

Strangely I think one still can... one even still experiences emotions and normal thoughts, just from a radically different perspective. I know there is endless dispute about who is or isn't enlightened, but many ancient Zen masters, and Taoist, are recorded as crying, getting angry, etc... if you believe DT Suzuki had an awakening, he is recorded as crying at the death of his wife, but said 'the tears had no roots,' and when asked by a student what living by Zen was like, he said 'like everyday life, just 6 inches off the ground.'

I have endlessly thought what psychologically could be going on when a human brain attains Enlightenment, but I've never come upon a satisfactory answer. It seems a cruel result of natural selection that we would be afforded an ego and all the suffering it entails, when it is ultimately superfluous.

I've read that the final step to enlightenment, the total abandonment of ones ego, is akin to jumping off a precipice.

It probably constitutes the annihilation of the one you know yourself to be, ego.emp

If there's any doubt that ego is a construct or delusion, then the fear would be extreme.

I 100% agree, and I wish some of the 'new age' Buddhists back in the West would realize how profoof Yenundly serious the practice actually is! Somewhere I read there was one young monk at a temple who arduously practiced for a year or so, and then ultimately decided to take his own life by jumping off a nearby cliff... the Master at the temple said he was sure that as soon as his feet left the ground, he attained satori.

A lot of zen is fake.

I read the books of

Janwillem van de Wetering, a great analyst of Japanese Zen.

But the Ch'an Masters are different. (Huang Pho). My son started his Chinese studies at the University of Heidelberg, before 1 year half at the National University of Taiwan.

His subject was Ch'an Bddhism.

Tan Buddhadasa used the Zen way to explain the Dhamma, go out of your limited limit.

-----You want awakening?

Go to shit, at the toilet you have Sunnyata, voidness, emptiness, mind and body stay together, you give back to nature what you take from nature.

Where is your ego when you shit like this with awareness?

[Brucenkhamen]

Is it that the ego, being a mental construct in response to experience, has both positive and negative value? In its positive form it contributes to evolutionary advantage; in its negative form it generates suffering.

The trick is to reduce and minimize the negative products of ego-centrism while not exposing oneself to physical damage and intellectual atrophy; i.e. potential extinction, the future of Camerata's "intelligent child".

I think a lot of people seem to think that letting go of the ego is akin to a labotomy, or becoming a some kind of emotional eunuch.

I've often wondered if we were all enlightened and therefore content and equanimous what would motivate us to achieve things, to gain advancement. Without greed and aversion to motivate us how would man have achieved what he has, after all a lot of our technological advancement has happened during the time of war.

However if you look at the life of the Buddha, the energy he put into teaching, the work he did, and what he achieved in setting up a movement with a whole new way of life this doesn't appear to me to be the life of an emotional eunuch, so he must have still have had something motivating him with the ego gone.

I think the answer to that is compassion, enlightened beings are motivated by the betterment of others, not by the egocentric greed and aversion that we can't imagine ourselves without.

Are there examples of the positive side or value of ego?

No, I don't believe so.

If one annihilates ego, can one still function positively, or said another way, is one still able to contribute to evolutionary advantage as well as continue to generate positive values?

There a lots of unenlightened people who do generate positive values, however because they are unenlightened they are subject to dukkha, they suffer, so presumably the positive values they generate are influenced by this.

Edited January 8, 2011 by Brucenkhamen

[Brucenkhamen]

A lot of zen is fake.

A lot of Zen is irreverant and seeks to shake our ego's attachment to religiousness and the idea that I am achieving enlightenment through my actions as a step by step process. I think this is a good thing.

Other than that I don't see a lot of difference between Zen and Theravada practice.

[Xangsamhua]

I've often wondered if we were all enlightened and therefore content and equanimous what would motivate us to achieve things, to gain advancement. Without greed and aversion to motivate us how would man have achieved what he has, after all a lot of our technological advancement has happened during the time of war.

However if you look at the life of the Buddha, the energy he put into teaching, the work he did, and what he achieved in setting up a movement with a whole new way of life this doesn't appear to me to be the life of an emotional eunuch, so he must have still have had something motivating him with the ego gone.

I think the answer to that is compassion, enlightened beings are motivated by the betterment of others, not by the egocentric greed and aversion that we can't imagine ourselves without.

Good reflection. However, does it take us back to the alpha question: What is the source of compassion? Is compassion simply the absence of greed, anger and delusion or is it an active force, the beneficial aspect of an ego in its uncorrupted state? What comes first: the three poisons as corruption of one's "natural state" of compassion, equanimity and understanding, or the opposite?

Actually, I have difficulty talking about "natural states", but the Buddhist author Andrew Olendski does so quite blithely in his recent book Unlimiting Mind (2010), e.g. "It is natural for attachment (to survival) and aversion (to becoming a predator's lunch) to be evoked in times of danger, but it is equally natural for these to subside when the danger is passed and for the human mind and body to fall back into the more peaceful default mode of a nurturing, cooperative mammal." (Kindle location 655-665)

Edited January 10, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[lungmi]

A lot of zen is fake.

A lot of Zen is irreverant and seeks to shake our ego's attachment to religiousness and the idea that I am achieving enlightenment through my actions as a step by step process. I think this is a good thing.

Other than that I don't see a lot of difference between Zen and Theravada practice.

If you mean the teaching of Tan Buddhadasa, I agree.

[lungmi]

The misused spirit of Zen created many Kamikaze pilotes, supported by some Zen sects,

a war against Korea has been promoted by a venerated Zen Master.

I cannot quote, but my son can.

A high monk of the Thai Sangha justified the killing of communists as a killing of a mosquito, not good, but necessary.

Individual aberration, not to generalise.

Japanese fascism has a background created by some zen-sects.

In Wat Umong Chiangmai (one of the oldest wat of Thailand) we had a cave Buddha statue. During the World War II the japanese army put an anti-aircraft gun just over the Buddha.

A Japanese academic told me that the reason was not disrespect for the Buddha, it was just the opposite, with the help of this old Buddha statue they could do a better job.

Shinto and Zen. We don't know little about this connection.

[Brucenkhamen]

Good reflection. However, does it take us back to the alpha question: What is the source of compassion? Is compassion simply the absence of greed, anger and delusion or is it an active force, the beneficial aspect of an ego in its uncorrupted state? What comes first: the three poisons as corruption of one's "natural state" of compassion, equanimity and understanding, or the opposite?

Actually, I have difficulty talking about "natural states", but the Buddhist author Andrew Olendski does so quite blithely in his recent book Unlimiting Mind (2010), e.g. "It is natural for attachment (to survival) and aversion (to becoming a predator's lunch) to be evoked in times of danger, but it is equally natural for these to subside when the danger is passed and for the human mind and body to fall back into the more peaceful default mode of a nurturing, cooperative mammal." (Kindle location 655-665)

Observing my 3 year old daughter I'd say it's normal for us to react immediately without thinking to pleasant or unpleasant experience with greed or aversion, so I guess you could say it's natural. As we grow up and evolve we all learn to some extent that there are times where it's unbeneficial to react, however for most of us either it's not enough or we just learn to internalise the reaction and so create more suffering for ourselves. The next step in evolution I think is where the reaction doesn't happen at all.

What Andrew Olendski says is interesting and maybe it's a matter of our wires getting crossed and we are maintaining fight or flight mode when unecessary and we should be in nurturing cooperative mode, however I think we can evolve to the stage where we can act appropriately without the necessity for any reaction to spur us on.

[rockyysdt]

Is it that the ego, being a mental construct in response to experience, has both positive and negative value? In its positive form it contributes to evolutionary advantage; in its negative form it generates suffering.

The trick is to reduce and minimize the negative products of ego-centrism while not exposing oneself to physical damage and intellectual atrophy; i.e. potential extinction, the future of Camerata's "intelligent child".

I think a lot of people seem to think that letting go of the ego is akin to a labotomy, or becoming a some kind of emotional eunuch.

I've often wondered if we were all enlightened and therefore content and equanimous what would motivate us to achieve things, to gain advancement. Without greed and aversion to motivate us how would man have achieved what he has, after all a lot of our technological advancement has happened during the time of war.

However if you look at the life of the Buddha, the energy he put into teaching, the work he did, and what he achieved in setting up a movement with a whole new way of life this doesn't appear to me to be the life of an emotional eunuch, so he must have still have had something motivating him with the ego gone.

I think the answer to that is compassion, enlightened beings are motivated by the betterment of others, not by the egocentric greed and aversion that we can't imagine ourselves without.

My ego or self talk indicates to me that this is one of the big questions (lobotomy or revelation).

We'll only know through personal experience, but until then the final step of abandoning ego can be frightening.

In moments of mindfulness and general thought I've tried to analyze compassion, charity, & good will.

In most cases there seems to be something in it for the ego.

The saying, "beware of Greeks bearing gifts" seems apt.

In order to fit into this driver, the only thing I can think of is that enlightenment reveals our connection to all.

Doing something for another would then be akin to doing it for oneself/all.

Edited January 12, 2011 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

In order to fit into this driver, the only thing I can think of is that enlightenment reveals our connection to all.

Doing something for another would then be akin to doing it for oneself/all.

The way I imagine it is that concerns about self and other or what's in it for me and what's not in it for me become irrelevant. One spontaneously does what is right at the time simply because of the rightness of it.

[rockyysdt]

In order to fit into this driver, the only thing I can think of is that enlightenment reveals our connection to all.

Doing something for another would then be akin to doing it for oneself/all.

The way I imagine it is that concerns about self and other or what's in it for me and what's not in it for me become irrelevant. One spontaneously does what is right at the time simply because of the rightness of it.

Yes, but isn't that only after enlightenment?

Until then everything we do has an ulterior motive or reward for the ego.

[Brucenkhamen]

Yes, but isn't that only after enlightenment?

Until then everything we do has an ulterior motive or reward for the ego.

Yes, that's what we were talking about. Even so the shift happens in degrees as you go along the path I think.

[AYJAYDEE]

ive always thought that threvadans equate ego with an unchanging self and as such is illusory.

I praticed Kiudo for a time, and read a lot of books about it, the main line was ...

something inside you has to let this arrow go ...

in other words, I had and still have to let go some of inside feelings, emotions, fears, actions and thoughts, basicaly to get in my ownself and going on without useless brain's artificial interferences ...

better thoughts, clearer.

better actions, strong decisions, no looking backward.

taking time for thoughts.

the moment of now, here and now!

francois

It seems to me that the main point of zen is to to get rid of the ego - the self-observing component of our brains which millions of years of natural selection developed for us, and presumably gave us some evolutionary advantage. So, after attaining satori, the zen master would be something like an intelligent child, without stress and with no fear of death.

For westerners there seems to be a lot of romance in the idea of mindfully sweeping leaves in the temple courtyard year after year, but in terms of the human race's dreams and aspirations, zen is a retrograde step. We'd never leave Earth before the next once-every-200,000-years meteor hits the planet if we were all practising zen for our own peace of mind.

Despite all the trouble it causes me, I think I'd prefer to keep my ego.

[Brucenkhamen]

ive always thought that threvadans equate ego with an unchanging self and as such is illusory.

Ego isn't a word used by pali translators as far as I know so I've always assumed as you do that it's synonymous with atta, or self.

[AYJAYDEE]

as have most commentators and teachers i have read

ive always thought that threvadans equate ego with an unchanging self and as such is illusory.

Ego isn't a word used by pali translators as far as I know so I've always assumed as you do that it's synonymous with atta, or self.