Zen Buddhism and Alan Watts(aeon.co)
aeon.co
Zen Buddhism and Alan Watts
http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/tim-lott-zen-buddhism-alan-watts/
153 comments
I would add the free, short, book "Mindfulness in Plain English". It changed my life.
Here is the PDF:
http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf2/Mindfulness%20in%20Plain%20E...
Here is the PDF:
http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf2/Mindfulness%20in%20Plain%20E...
There is a new, 20th-anniversary edition available now in print and ebook versions:
http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/mindfulness-plain-english
http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/mindfulness-plain-english
This is a much better book than anything Watts wrote.
Ironically, at least among Western Mahayana teachers it's very hard to find such a coherent and pragmatic framework as the one described in "Mindfulness in Plain English."
Ironically, at least among Western Mahayana teachers it's very hard to find such a coherent and pragmatic framework as the one described in "Mindfulness in Plain English."
What exactly is mindfulness in simple terms? How is different from concentration?
Mindfulness is awareness.
When eating you're aware that you are eating. When seeing something you are aware that you are seeing something. When enjoying the sunset you're aware you're enjoying the sunset. When thinking you're aware that you are thinking. When selfish you are aware of that. When sad you are aware that you are sad... And so on.
On some level it's like "seeing the matrix". Everything is clear, no longer overlaid by thoughts of gain or loss. No more "what's in it for me?"
Everything is wondrous. Everything is just there. There are no questions.
Wow... This just blurted out. Anyway, that's what it means to me.
When eating you're aware that you are eating. When seeing something you are aware that you are seeing something. When enjoying the sunset you're aware you're enjoying the sunset. When thinking you're aware that you are thinking. When selfish you are aware of that. When sad you are aware that you are sad... And so on.
On some level it's like "seeing the matrix". Everything is clear, no longer overlaid by thoughts of gain or loss. No more "what's in it for me?"
Everything is wondrous. Everything is just there. There are no questions.
Wow... This just blurted out. Anyway, that's what it means to me.
That was beautiful and spot on. I see it exactly the same way.
I certainly can't claim to always be like that, but I can attain the feeling quite often.
I certainly can't claim to always be like that, but I can attain the feeling quite often.
You describe it perfectly.
It's been a long while since I've experienced that, but you describe it perfectly.
It's been a long while since I've experienced that, but you describe it perfectly.
For me at least, it's also about being in touch the true underlying reasons I exhibit certain behaviors. The easiest examples is in conversation. Much of social relations is about signaling, not to mention playing games.
A few years ago I started to notice the underlying emotions when I said something that was designed to either a) impress or b) hurt the other person. Neither case felt pleasant. In the latter case self-righteousness can have a drug-like high, but there is often a hangover too (regret, guilt, shame etc).
So I started becoming more mindful of what I say. I strive only to say things that I believe at my core.
Occasionally I still catch myself saying or doing something that's about trying to impress or hurt the other person, but it's much less common now, and I feel like I move through my day lightly even under significant work stress.
Humor is a special case. I can "lie" by saying something absurd or snarky, but the underlying feeling is one of laughter. However, I try to avoid snide putdowns or Gawker-style schadenfreude. Most people, even those at "the top" (however defined) are struggling with something. Consider for example Elon Musk's apparent difficulty with relationships. I feel for the guy and don't see much humor in pouring salt in the wounds.
A few years ago I started to notice the underlying emotions when I said something that was designed to either a) impress or b) hurt the other person. Neither case felt pleasant. In the latter case self-righteousness can have a drug-like high, but there is often a hangover too (regret, guilt, shame etc).
So I started becoming more mindful of what I say. I strive only to say things that I believe at my core.
Occasionally I still catch myself saying or doing something that's about trying to impress or hurt the other person, but it's much less common now, and I feel like I move through my day lightly even under significant work stress.
Humor is a special case. I can "lie" by saying something absurd or snarky, but the underlying feeling is one of laughter. However, I try to avoid snide putdowns or Gawker-style schadenfreude. Most people, even those at "the top" (however defined) are struggling with something. Consider for example Elon Musk's apparent difficulty with relationships. I feel for the guy and don't see much humor in pouring salt in the wounds.
Well said. I would also add that mindfulness to me includes being intentional in your actions.
For example it's fine to watch TV if your intention is to relax and enjoy a show. But if you turn on the TV without intention and mindlessly channel surf with no set timeframe, that is not a very mindful practice.
For example it's fine to watch TV if your intention is to relax and enjoy a show. But if you turn on the TV without intention and mindlessly channel surf with no set timeframe, that is not a very mindful practice.
Great description. I have been trying to meditate lately (it's not easy) and already experience occasional moments during which I "zoom out" of life, e.g. catch myself becoming aware of what I'm doing. This leads to (short) moments of bliss and sheer wonder.
Everything is simple during those moments.
I encourage anyone to try meditation. While I was always interested in the subject, it was not until I read Mindfulness in Plain English (referenced above) that I started taking it seriously.
Everything is simple during those moments.
I encourage anyone to try meditation. While I was always interested in the subject, it was not until I read Mindfulness in Plain English (referenced above) that I started taking it seriously.
Mindfulness is simply keeping something in mind. In concentration practice, mindfulness is remembering to maintain attention on the object of concentration. Concentration is maintaining a particular state of mind.
"Mindfulness Defined" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/mindfu...
"The Agendas of Mindfulness" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/agenda...
"Right Mindfulness" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/rightm...
"Mindfulness Defined" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/mindfu...
"The Agendas of Mindfulness" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/agenda...
"Right Mindfulness" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/rightm...
Might be a bit off, but:Instead of concetrating on a thing you concentrate on yourself experiencing the thing, and accepting all you observe without judgement or attachment.
Self awareness. At first, you just sit and let thoughts go through your mind, acknowledging each one. "I am breathing. I feel a little more tired than usual today. My dog is barking again." You just acknowledge and move on. Let your thoughts come and leave. Most of the time you don't have a big revelation, it's just kind of relaxing. You learn to be more balanced, less dramatic in how you react to things. But sometimes you do make an important observation. You think of a coworker, and you feel anxiety, and because you have developed your self awareness, you recognize that this coworker causes you anxiety, and now you can address that issue and improve your life. Most people go through life unaware, and do not address a lot of issues that happen to them everyday. But those stresses in life that go unaddressed have a consequence. People go home and argue with their spouse, unaware that they are actually stressed from work, and end with a major life disaster like divorce or health problems or worse. Sometimes all of that could have been avoided if they had spent 10 minutes a day reflecting on what their mind and body was experiencing.
I can't give you an exact definition, but I'd love to share my experiences regarding mindfulness vs concentration.
Concentration is much more one of a one-pointed thing. It's about focusing like a laser on one thing. When I'm concentrated it feels like everything except what I'm focusing on drops away. It's like playing a video game, or reading an interesting book. It's a very calm experience, except that sometimes it feels like there is effort involved
Mindfulness is much more about paying broad attention to what's going on, about being aware and accepting of whatever experience is arising in the present moment. There is a strong intentional component -- I want to pay attention to the present moment, and there is an open curiosity and willingness to just be with whatever arises. There is a certain amount of memory involved, too, in the sense that you need to remember to pay attention and not get caught up in your own thoughts.
Concentration is much more one of a one-pointed thing. It's about focusing like a laser on one thing. When I'm concentrated it feels like everything except what I'm focusing on drops away. It's like playing a video game, or reading an interesting book. It's a very calm experience, except that sometimes it feels like there is effort involved
Mindfulness is much more about paying broad attention to what's going on, about being aware and accepting of whatever experience is arising in the present moment. There is a strong intentional component -- I want to pay attention to the present moment, and there is an open curiosity and willingness to just be with whatever arises. There is a certain amount of memory involved, too, in the sense that you need to remember to pay attention and not get caught up in your own thoughts.
Mindfulness is being fully in the moment, while concentration is eschewing the moment.
Unless you practice mindful concentration.
To torture a metaphor: it's root access to your own mind.
Before anyone gets too far in - that's just a preview, there are a about 60 pages cut out of the middle.
"Mindfulness in Plain English" is real and original Zen Buddhism, highly recommended.
Just for anyone interested -- he has a series of books, and they are good. I'd especially recommend his book on the four foundations of mindfulness.
Many of the people who visit this site and are interested in meditation would probably like the "pragmatic Buddhism" [1] movement, or the book "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" [2].
[1] there are other sites, but this is a good start: http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dharma-wiki/-/wiki/Main/MCTB... [2] http://integrateddaniel.info/book/
Many of the people who visit this site and are interested in meditation would probably like the "pragmatic Buddhism" [1] movement, or the book "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" [2].
[1] there are other sites, but this is a good start: http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dharma-wiki/-/wiki/Main/MCTB... [2] http://integrateddaniel.info/book/
Beg to differ, but I couldn't get through "Mindfulness ...". To me, it was going on and on without getting anywhere.
Another book I found very helpful was "being nobody, going nowhere" by Ayya Khema
I bought a handful of copies of this book so I could give them away. Of course often it is very important WHEN you read the book.
I bought a handful of copies of this book so I could give them away. Of course often it is very important WHEN you read the book.
Having read many of Alan Watts' books, I will have to disagree with this recommendation - while 'The Book' is a short read, I don't think it's a good introduction to his work.
I suggest delving into Watts with his 'Out of your Mind' audiobooks recorded from his class lectures.
I suggest delving into Watts with his 'Out of your Mind' audiobooks recorded from his class lectures.
My personal favorite zen book is Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind by Shunryu Suzuki.
I found it not to beat around the bush the way other books do.
I found it not to beat around the bush the way other books do.
From the article:
"The world is not a logically consistent one, but a profoundly paradoxical one. Again, this is illustrated in science, which shows that two things can be one at the same time — light, for instance, acts as both a particle and a wave."
I don't understand the need for constantly interspersing an otherwise flowing article with references to science. It feels like the author thinks that the authenticity of his thoughts and personal journey hinges on validation from science.
I don't understand the need for constantly interspersing an otherwise flowing article with references to science. It feels like the author thinks that the authenticity of his thoughts and personal journey hinges on validation from science.
It is fairly common in zen publications to point out apparent exceptions to an otherwise binary system (i.e. Logical). It isn't seeking validation from science it is invalidating science as the be-all of understanding our existence.
Outside of zen (though very closely related). Phenomenology deals with this Subject/Object paradox our thoughts/language/science revolves around, and how it comes up short it describing some phenomena.
Outside of zen (though very closely related). Phenomenology deals with this Subject/Object paradox our thoughts/language/science revolves around, and how it comes up short it describing some phenomena.
I re-read the article. Nowhere is it clear that there is even an attempt at invalidating science. He really does seem to be trying to use science to shore up his ideas. Another excerpt:
"This is the basis of Zen itself — that all life and existence is based on a kind of dynamic emptiness (a view now supported by modern science, which sees phenomena at a subatomic level popping in and out of existence in a ‘quantum froth’)."
"This is the basis of Zen itself — that all life and existence is based on a kind of dynamic emptiness (a view now supported by modern science, which sees phenomena at a subatomic level popping in and out of existence in a ‘quantum froth’)."
I cringed every time he referenced Physics. It's something I've seen other philosophers do in an attempt to legitimize their beliefs by implying that they codify the natural order.
In truth, dynamic emptiness has absolutely nothing to do with quantum froth, which could be described using any objects and still make sense. This concept of some unseen physical manifestation of the model arises because of the terms a theoretician chose to identify elements of his mathematical model. They're essentially undefined terms, given meaning by their context in the larger physical system.
A lot of people get lost in the undefined terms, thinking that because we use a familiar word for the term, that the item in the model which the term identifies somehow actually exists. Actually there's no proof that the quantum froth exists as physical object, any more than that light is somehow both a wave and a particle. Rather, wave/particle "duality" is a consequence of different mathematical models which happen to generate results which are consistent with observation.
The "duality" doesn't actually exist, and the way light behaves is so incredibly nuanced that people dedicate their lives to modeling and testing it. Waveness and Particleness are models which produce mathematics consistent with the natural world.
In the cases where more than one mathematical model fits the same set of observations, scientific controversies arise. A Physical theory is accepted when the mathematical model produces results which are consistent with observation, and sufficient experimental work has been done to rule out other mathematical models with overlapping explanatory power.
My thermodynamics professor opened all of his classes by saying "Everything I am about to tell you is a carefully constructed series of lies."
In truth, dynamic emptiness has absolutely nothing to do with quantum froth, which could be described using any objects and still make sense. This concept of some unseen physical manifestation of the model arises because of the terms a theoretician chose to identify elements of his mathematical model. They're essentially undefined terms, given meaning by their context in the larger physical system.
A lot of people get lost in the undefined terms, thinking that because we use a familiar word for the term, that the item in the model which the term identifies somehow actually exists. Actually there's no proof that the quantum froth exists as physical object, any more than that light is somehow both a wave and a particle. Rather, wave/particle "duality" is a consequence of different mathematical models which happen to generate results which are consistent with observation.
The "duality" doesn't actually exist, and the way light behaves is so incredibly nuanced that people dedicate their lives to modeling and testing it. Waveness and Particleness are models which produce mathematics consistent with the natural world.
In the cases where more than one mathematical model fits the same set of observations, scientific controversies arise. A Physical theory is accepted when the mathematical model produces results which are consistent with observation, and sufficient experimental work has been done to rule out other mathematical models with overlapping explanatory power.
My thermodynamics professor opened all of his classes by saying "Everything I am about to tell you is a carefully constructed series of lies."
Truth is not to be found by picking everything to pieces like a spoilt child. -from this very article
Why not? Picking everything to pieces is exactly what those people (theoretical and practical scientists) who seem to have the most success in approximating truth do. These are the methods that best produce accurate predictions about the future and best produce designs for new technologies that actually work.
That's not "truth" though, that's "reality" or "the physical world" and the two notions are quite different.
Beliefs are what we use to model how the world is and what the results of actions and experiments will be. Reality is what actually determines those results, regardless of what we might believe. Truth is then the set of beliefs about the world that accurately model reality. And I'll say it again, the scientists who spend decades picking things to pieces are the ones who end up with the most accurate beliefs. They find the most truth.
>Truth is then the set of beliefs about the world that accurately model reality.
That's just one of the definitions of truth, and a quite naive one at that. Not just philosophy, even epistemology have not been using this for ages.
That's just one of the definitions of truth, and a quite naive one at that. Not just philosophy, even epistemology have not been using this for ages.
It's a correspondence definition. And actually I understand correspondence has been one of the most popular theories of truth since Plato and Aristotle, continuing to the present.
It's also known as Analysis, which is the opposite of Synthesis. Analytic thinking is central to science.
A child who knows his toys well might find it tough to ignore liberties taken in discussing them.
As someone interested in mindfulness for its own pursuits, I want to learn what's in my teacher's head, rather than listen to them try unsuccessfully to tie that to what's firmly in mine. I'm sorry to say it's distracting :)
As someone interested in mindfulness for its own pursuits, I want to learn what's in my teacher's head, rather than listen to them try unsuccessfully to tie that to what's firmly in mine. I'm sorry to say it's distracting :)
I find that pill very hard to swallow. It's just too self-serving. Any religious figure is going to try to convince people not to pay any attention to the "man behind the curtain."
He certainly does take a potshot at reductionism and science's prolific use of that thinking:
--- While it is refreshing that Zen philosophy is supported in many ways by present scientific knowledge, it is also a critique of scientific thought. The scientific tradition requires things up to be cut up — both mentally and physically — into smaller and small pieces to investigate them. It suggests that the only kind of knowledge is empirical and that the rigid laws of scientific method are the only kind that are valid.
Zen implies that this is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater — scientific thinking might be immensely useful, but it also does violence to a meaningful conception of life. It tends to screen out the essential connectedness of things. We live in an imprecise world. Nature is extraordinarily vague. Science promotes the idea of hard, clear ‘brute facts’ — but some facts are soft. A ‘cutting-up’ attitude to life gives us dead knowledge, not live knowledge.---
--- While it is refreshing that Zen philosophy is supported in many ways by present scientific knowledge, it is also a critique of scientific thought. The scientific tradition requires things up to be cut up — both mentally and physically — into smaller and small pieces to investigate them. It suggests that the only kind of knowledge is empirical and that the rigid laws of scientific method are the only kind that are valid.
Zen implies that this is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater — scientific thinking might be immensely useful, but it also does violence to a meaningful conception of life. It tends to screen out the essential connectedness of things. We live in an imprecise world. Nature is extraordinarily vague. Science promotes the idea of hard, clear ‘brute facts’ — but some facts are soft. A ‘cutting-up’ attitude to life gives us dead knowledge, not live knowledge.---
There are spiritual observations that precede science. Saying that there isn't scientific evidence for anything is simplying stating that there isn't scientific evidence for something YET. And, showing how science has met spiritual observations, down the road, lends credence to the validity of the earliest explorations of existence.
> Saying that there isn't scientific evidence for anything is simplying stating that there isn't scientific evidence for something YET.
It can also be a weasel-y way of avoiding mentioning that there is plenty of scientific evidence favouring the null hypothesis when tested against that something. E.g. mind-reading.
It can also be a weasel-y way of avoiding mentioning that there is plenty of scientific evidence favouring the null hypothesis when tested against that something. E.g. mind-reading.
What you are saying is:
A: If an observation has no evidence, then the evidence is yet to come.
B: If an observation now has evidence, it validates the observation.
It's circular.
A: If an observation has no evidence, then the evidence is yet to come.
B: If an observation now has evidence, it validates the observation.
It's circular.
Is it now time for this ancient dichotomy to be embraced by computer science?
For the sake of argument, if the principles of OOP are: dynamic dispatch; abstraction; subtype polymorphism; and inheritance, what might be the equivalent for Subject-Orientated Programming ?
In my view, a charateristic of SOP must be that data is personal and unique. Every single usage of data specifies a new unique identifier. To read is to interpret: is to record a new ID. Here, identity (x==y) gets broken; so another operator is needed (x~=y).
For the sake of argument, if the principles of OOP are: dynamic dispatch; abstraction; subtype polymorphism; and inheritance, what might be the equivalent for Subject-Orientated Programming ?
In my view, a charateristic of SOP must be that data is personal and unique. Every single usage of data specifies a new unique identifier. To read is to interpret: is to record a new ID. Here, identity (x==y) gets broken; so another operator is needed (x~=y).
somewhat tangential to your point of implementing a so-called SOP, I think the discussion of state, as it relates to OOP or otherwise, can result in very philosophical conversations. see here: http://clojure.org/state
As an ex philosophy major, immutable state and its implications on identity interest me greatly. I feel like this, and other ideas from FP, could be considered a step toward a so-called Subject-Object Programming paradigm.
As an ex philosophy major, immutable state and its implications on identity interest me greatly. I feel like this, and other ideas from FP, could be considered a step toward a so-called Subject-Object Programming paradigm.
In this case I read that purely as saying "It's okay for there to be contradictions - life really is that way, even if you look at science."
I had the exact same reaction.
It actually feels un-Zen like for him to obsess over that. It sort of illustrates his example of dukkha. On one hand he tells us that Zen rejects the need for logical consistency. On the other hand, he keeps using science as validation. Even if there are paradoxes or contradictions in science, scientists are constantly working to resolve them because they don't accept the idea of an inconsistent world. His constant return to science is an example of dukkha. Just let it go man...
It actually feels un-Zen like for him to obsess over that. It sort of illustrates his example of dukkha. On one hand he tells us that Zen rejects the need for logical consistency. On the other hand, he keeps using science as validation. Even if there are paradoxes or contradictions in science, scientists are constantly working to resolve them because they don't accept the idea of an inconsistent world. His constant return to science is an example of dukkha. Just let it go man...
I think the author does this, not for his validation, but to cement the connections in the mind of the Western readers who are raised with a strong basis in science and logic.
The text promotes keeping an open mind and to be humble. Often, The exception to a common rule are dismissed as minor and without effect which allows us to keep our certainties. The light example in this context, is well choosen : it is fundamental, factual and therefore cannot be dismissed easily. The scientific aspect is secondary to those advantages.
> The light example in this context, is well choosen : it is fundamental, factual and therefore cannot be dismissed easily.
I'm curious, have you actually studied quantum mechanics? Because the impression I get from people who have is that the "light is a particle and a wave" thing is pretty much bullshit. (Which isn't the same thing as false, but more like "not actually a thing that you tell people if you want them to have a better understanding of the nature of reality".) But I haven't studied it myself.
I'm curious, have you actually studied quantum mechanics? Because the impression I get from people who have is that the "light is a particle and a wave" thing is pretty much bullshit. (Which isn't the same thing as false, but more like "not actually a thing that you tell people if you want them to have a better understanding of the nature of reality".) But I haven't studied it myself.
The (thought) experiment in quantum mechanics that demonstrates that light is neither a (classical) particle or a wave is the double slit experiment, careful analysis of the experiment demonstrates that the observation is neither consistent with the behavior of a classical particle or classical (say water) wave. Instead the state of the system (in the Copenhagen interpretation) is described by a probability amplitude ψ (if it is a "pure" state) or more generally by a "density matrix" ρ and there is a semi-rigorous prescription of how to translate classical notions like position, momentum and energy into "observables" of the system. Then the expectation value for an observable A of the system in a particular state ρ, is given by Trace(ρA). If you have taken a course in linear algebra then this is the same trace you have met there and there are simple quantum mechanical systems that can be described by two by two matrices (spin of electron going through a sequence of inhomogenous magnetic fields). Once you have introduced probability amplitudes you can reason about them as if they were classical particles within certain limits you find such reasoning in the wikipedia article on the double slit experiment for example.
The crucial idea behind all of this is "quantization", physicists have worked out a way of obtaining quantum systems from classical system and in particular a mapping of familiar observables to quantum mechanical observables.
One insight of Feynman was that this can be done via the so Lagrangian formulation of classical physics. It postulates that the future state of a system can be predicted from the current state of the system by assigning to each possible state a so called Lagrange density. Given two possible states of the system and a path in state space between them, integrating the Lagrange density along that path gives an "action" for that possibility, the theory postulates that the path with the minimal action is chosen. With appropriate choices of Lagrange density this correctly predicts the behavior of all classical mechanical systems, and also Maxwells equations. Feynman instead postulated that to obtain the probability amplitude for a system to transition between two states one had to sum over all possible paths in the classical state space weighted with exp(iS/2πh) where the action S is the result of integrating the Lagrangian density along that path and h is Planck's constant. Then by analogy with a result of 19th century analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_steepest_descent) the sum will be dominated by contributions close to the critical (classical) path, so that for S much larger than h (which is true for classical mechanics) we recover the original Lagrangian formulation.
So to summarize Physicists use the intuition gained from classical physical systems to study quantum mechanical systems, but not in the naive way of "light is both a particle and wave", which at best is misleading. What constitutes a quantum system is largely a question of length or energy scales. The method of path integral quantization suggests a very concrete way of how to quantize a classical physical system.
The crucial idea behind all of this is "quantization", physicists have worked out a way of obtaining quantum systems from classical system and in particular a mapping of familiar observables to quantum mechanical observables.
One insight of Feynman was that this can be done via the so Lagrangian formulation of classical physics. It postulates that the future state of a system can be predicted from the current state of the system by assigning to each possible state a so called Lagrange density. Given two possible states of the system and a path in state space between them, integrating the Lagrange density along that path gives an "action" for that possibility, the theory postulates that the path with the minimal action is chosen. With appropriate choices of Lagrange density this correctly predicts the behavior of all classical mechanical systems, and also Maxwells equations. Feynman instead postulated that to obtain the probability amplitude for a system to transition between two states one had to sum over all possible paths in the classical state space weighted with exp(iS/2πh) where the action S is the result of integrating the Lagrangian density along that path and h is Planck's constant. Then by analogy with a result of 19th century analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_steepest_descent) the sum will be dominated by contributions close to the critical (classical) path, so that for S much larger than h (which is true for classical mechanics) we recover the original Lagrangian formulation.
So to summarize Physicists use the intuition gained from classical physical systems to study quantum mechanical systems, but not in the naive way of "light is both a particle and wave", which at best is misleading. What constitutes a quantum system is largely a question of length or energy scales. The method of path integral quantization suggests a very concrete way of how to quantize a classical physical system.
I'll chime in here as someone who studied to become a physicist: it's not bullshit; the truth about the nature of matter is too complex (and weird) for someone without a deep understanding of mathematics to understand. Particle/wave duality is a useful abstraction that relates the math to something humans can grasp intuitively.
You are not refuting the GP, you are just redefining bullshit.
Yes, the wave/particle duality is a nice abstraction we can apply to QM so that we can extract some results from it intuitively (or with just a few calculations). Besides, it's a concept with deep historical significance. Even if it wasn't a good abstraction, it would still be important.
But the duality is also something you can wave in front of people that didn't study QM to make sure they don't question your arguments. Doing that will make the arguments harder for them to understand, but sound like an explanation (that means, something that makes it easier to understand).
"Bullshit" is a common name for that second kind of usage.
Yes, the wave/particle duality is a nice abstraction we can apply to QM so that we can extract some results from it intuitively (or with just a few calculations). Besides, it's a concept with deep historical significance. Even if it wasn't a good abstraction, it would still be important.
But the duality is also something you can wave in front of people that didn't study QM to make sure they don't question your arguments. Doing that will make the arguments harder for them to understand, but sound like an explanation (that means, something that makes it easier to understand).
"Bullshit" is a common name for that second kind of usage.
> I don't understand the need for constantly interspersing
> an otherwise flowing article with references to science.
One should take into account the fact that Watts was presenting his material to an audience of western intellectuals who had been so deeply indoctrinated into "scientific orthodoxy" that one really had no chance of getting anything across if one did not choose to invoke science. I don't see this as any different than the Buddha choosing to give teachings using concepts familiar to the brahmins of his time.
It's not just Watts. It was fashionable back then.
"Well, there is Sitting Zen (zazen, meditation), there is Walking Zen. Oh, and then, of course, especially in the West, there is Talking Zen. No good."
Many Zen practitioners have received their first contact with zen trough Alan Watts. He was really good writer. But eventually you must realize that he was philosopher, alcoholic and religions scholar who looked Zen from the outside. Talking and thinking about Zen is like talking and thinking about physical exercise. Philosophical thinking about koan is like treating bench press as a philosophical problem. You can't lift it with your toughs.
Many Zen practitioners have received their first contact with zen trough Alan Watts. He was really good writer. But eventually you must realize that he was philosopher, alcoholic and religions scholar who looked Zen from the outside. Talking and thinking about Zen is like talking and thinking about physical exercise. Philosophical thinking about koan is like treating bench press as a philosophical problem. You can't lift it with your toughs.
Apparently You and the author haven't haven't heard of the Rinzai school of Zen, which is not a Western invention. You're espousing quite a narrow point of view of a philosophy that is about supplanting dualistic closemindedness.
For people who are put off by ceremony and do not find long periods of sitting meditation (40 minutes or more) particularly useful, check out the Rinzai school of Zen. Shorter periods of sitting meditation, more emphasis on thinking critically about koans and "dharma combat" -- critical discussion. Rinzai abhorred ritual and ceremony for its own sake, so less emphasis on that.
For people who are put off by ceremony and do not find long periods of sitting meditation (40 minutes or more) particularly useful, check out the Rinzai school of Zen. Shorter periods of sitting meditation, more emphasis on thinking critically about koans and "dharma combat" -- critical discussion. Rinzai abhorred ritual and ceremony for its own sake, so less emphasis on that.
So how else do I do Zen?
(That is a serious question!)
(That is a serious question!)
It's a practice more than an analysis, so to do it you practice Zen exercises. The central exercise is meditation. Thinking about meditation is like thinking about push-ups. A little analysis helps to refine the form, but it's not the point.
Practice leads to Zen. Practice isn't Zen. But yeah otherwise i agree.
You will be hard pressed to find a Zen teacher who would deny that practise is Zen. It does certainly not "lead to Zen". E.g. "Enlightenment and Practise are one" (Dogen), "There is no Zen master in great (Sung) China", the frequent warnings against step-ladder Zen, the idea that Zen is not useful and nothing is gained, "there is only the way, beginning, middle and end" etc.
[deleted]
You don't need to practice to "get to Zen".
The point is this. You can say that practice is Zen but in that perspective everything is Zen because everything is practice.
The point is this. You can say that practice is Zen but in that perspective everything is Zen because everything is practice.
Find a teacher. Humbly ask for instructions. Follow instructions.
Zazen (za: seated, zen:meditation) is central to nearly every school of zen Buddhism. The name of zen alludes to this, and Watts' translation of chan/dhyuna as emptiness rather then meditation is unusual. Zen emerged in response to certain schools of bhudhism which put emphasis on making offerings and gaining merit over meditation. So in some respects it was de-empasizing religious ritual as the article alludes (though I feel authentic zen is very much a religion, albeit without a creator), but this was to put the emphasis back on meditation. Watts' de-emphasis of zazen in zen is therfore quite ironic.
To do zen, set some time aside each day to sit in a dignified pasture and place your awareness on your breath. As your mind wanders, notice this and bring your attention back to your breath. Repeat a hundred thousand times. Over time, the emptiness of these thoughts becomes apparent and your attachment to them weakens. But, don't attach to this emptiness either.
Read D.T Suzuki "Essays in Zen Buddhism"
Zen is meditation first school of Buddhism. You must learn to do zazen (zen meditation). In other words, sit down and shut up. If you want to become Buddha, do what Buddha did and don't just listen and think about what he said.
I'm myself a Zen Buddhist, I train with a teacher and have spend time zen training in a zen temple and attend sesshins regularly. I'm also very secular and atheist person who don't like organized religion. It's miracle that I can coexist with religious setting, but I do it because I see Buddhsit Zen teachers as experienced coaches and temple as training facility. I also know that he is not going to indoctrinate me for anything superstitions despite his own beliefs that are different from mine (there are number of rotten zen teachers though).
If I were to describe what zazen meditation[1] is using as scientific terms as possible, I would say that it's developing and directing your attention towards higher temporal resolution and developing the ability of keeping it there (always below 1s and it can go as low as ~40 Hz). You can put your poet hat on and call it "living in this moment", "looking at the reality", "awakening to reality", "seeing the world as it really is", "impermanence" or "looking into yourself/mind", but that's what it really is in my opinion. You can't have complex philosophical toughs in such a short time. You can only see 'thoughtlets' (small incomplete toughs) forming and fading away in fractions of second. It's like using low level debugger into the functioning of yor mind (debugger being directed attention).
---
[1] Same thing with most other awareness style Buddhist meditation traditions. You learn to see similarities with other traditions when you practice. Zazen is often more spartan and simplified and vital (not for everyone).
Nice description of the differences between Zen and Vipassana styles by Shinzen Young http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WiM-w5qqmE
I'm myself a Zen Buddhist, I train with a teacher and have spend time zen training in a zen temple and attend sesshins regularly. I'm also very secular and atheist person who don't like organized religion. It's miracle that I can coexist with religious setting, but I do it because I see Buddhsit Zen teachers as experienced coaches and temple as training facility. I also know that he is not going to indoctrinate me for anything superstitions despite his own beliefs that are different from mine (there are number of rotten zen teachers though).
If I were to describe what zazen meditation[1] is using as scientific terms as possible, I would say that it's developing and directing your attention towards higher temporal resolution and developing the ability of keeping it there (always below 1s and it can go as low as ~40 Hz). You can put your poet hat on and call it "living in this moment", "looking at the reality", "awakening to reality", "seeing the world as it really is", "impermanence" or "looking into yourself/mind", but that's what it really is in my opinion. You can't have complex philosophical toughs in such a short time. You can only see 'thoughtlets' (small incomplete toughs) forming and fading away in fractions of second. It's like using low level debugger into the functioning of yor mind (debugger being directed attention).
---
[1] Same thing with most other awareness style Buddhist meditation traditions. You learn to see similarities with other traditions when you practice. Zazen is often more spartan and simplified and vital (not for everyone).
Nice description of the differences between Zen and Vipassana styles by Shinzen Young http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WiM-w5qqmE
I apologize if this is a rude question. But what do you get out of doing all this?
I went to a zen Buddhism workshop a few years ago and it all felt very strangely ritualistic and bizarre. I just didn't see the point of it.
Why should I be doing zen or any other form of meditation?
Why should I be doing zen or any other form of meditation?
The strange ritualistic culture is merely a means by which Zen propagates itself (forward momentum in time) and not the "thing" itself.
In my own words you should meditate because with practice one builds a refuge within stillness. Knowledge of this refuge changes the way you feel about circumstances and mental phenomena (motion). The change just feels right, like a lessening of burden, but it takes practice, that's the thing. The rituals and calligraphy are not the thing.
In my own words you should meditate because with practice one builds a refuge within stillness. Knowledge of this refuge changes the way you feel about circumstances and mental phenomena (motion). The change just feels right, like a lessening of burden, but it takes practice, that's the thing. The rituals and calligraphy are not the thing.
Just as a thought experiment: if you could take a pill that did all this for you, would you still do the practice?
In actual fact I did take a pill that did this for me.. that is.. thrusted me into a state of mind akin to some of what can be found in concentration states. That was what provided for me the impetus to explore meditation because after a certain MDMA experience I suddenly felt that "now I know" that there's a more clear, or natural feeling which conscious awareness can navigate to. It was unfortunately a fleeting experience, and taking more of the same substance did not guarantee a return trip to the same state.
I eventually discovered a way to approach this state without drugs, it has to do with studying the Buddha Dhamma and practicing based on the teachings preserved in the Pali cannon, safeguarded by the Theravada lineage.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html ^ if you ctrl-f and search this text for the string "And what is right mindfulness?" then you will be onto something.
I eventually discovered a way to approach this state without drugs, it has to do with studying the Buddha Dhamma and practicing based on the teachings preserved in the Pali cannon, safeguarded by the Theravada lineage.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html ^ if you ctrl-f and search this text for the string "And what is right mindfulness?" then you will be onto something.
I get and support the use of psychedelics to demonstrate the mind's potential, but I'm thinking more day to day. When you "approach this state without drugs," is it in the context of interacting with people, or only through meditation?
It sounds like you're asking if practice makes a difference for me outside of the time where formal sitting practice occurs. The answer would be yes. My experience has been that there is a connection between the dimension of stillness which one arrives at in meditation and the phenomena known as intuition, and also the phenomena known as emotion. To put it into plain English, a regular practice makes me feel "less depressed", more patient, and creativity seems to flow more easily.
I realize that the description above may sound too general, or even like I'm describing a panacea, and perhaps I am, that's the thing.
I realize that the description above may sound too general, or even like I'm describing a panacea, and perhaps I am, that's the thing.
zen or meditation, is not just about developing a capability. With a pill, or drugs/steriods, you can gain something...but what is the use of all this, if you dont gain the wisdom (the ultimate end goal, which you usually get by walking the path. )
Lots of reasons. It can help with depression, anxiety and other states of mind that cause unhappiness in your daily life. It can help calm your mind and allow you to focus on what you're doing rather than worrying excessively about the past or the future. It can impart a pleasant feeling of acceptance. It can make you more tolerant of "bad" things that happen, and allows frustrations to flow over you (for example being annoyed at a friend being late for coffee). It's like packing everything you need for a camping trip and feeling prepared, without packing anything and knowing the unexpected will come.
I ditch all the rituals. You can get a lot from just sitting in a chair and meditating.
I ditch all the rituals. You can get a lot from just sitting in a chair and meditating.
Because you want to. If not, don't.
"I'm also very secular and atheist person who don't like organized religion."
Its fantastic that it works for you. For me, This is exactly why I couldn't handle Zen. It feels too much like the hierarchical church patriarchy.
Due to this I've gravitated towards the Pragmatic Dharma crowd which tends to be a mix of Theravada and Advaita practices (though rejecting Advaita view).
Some resources for the looks-like-religion allergic:
http://kennethfolkdharma.com/quick-start-guide/ http://www.dharmaoverground.org http://awakenetwork.org
Its fantastic that it works for you. For me, This is exactly why I couldn't handle Zen. It feels too much like the hierarchical church patriarchy.
Due to this I've gravitated towards the Pragmatic Dharma crowd which tends to be a mix of Theravada and Advaita practices (though rejecting Advaita view).
Some resources for the looks-like-religion allergic:
http://kennethfolkdharma.com/quick-start-guide/ http://www.dharmaoverground.org http://awakenetwork.org
I read a book a while ago about hynduism that said that buddists don't get it: Yes, budda achieved "illumination" by "sitting down and shutting up" (meditanting), but that is not, by any means, the only way to achieve illumination.
I think the author was that Osho guy...
I think the author was that Osho guy...
buddha knew how to shut up, unlike osho. osho were alive, he would endorse my comment :)
the smart thing about buddha is he kept the discourse always on the root ("dukkha" , look it up). It's very easy to loose one's way, which osho did, if you see his life's progression.
the smart thing about buddha is he kept the discourse always on the root ("dukkha" , look it up). It's very easy to loose one's way, which osho did, if you see his life's progression.
My way of thinking is highly influenced by Zen. It has made me wiser, less stressed by life, more able to cope with the world, and generally a little happier.
For those who don't know, Zen is Buddhist philosophy without the religion. That's my explanation, anyway!
Alan Watts' explanations and historical notes on philosophy and religion are, to use an appropriate term, highly enlightening. They're also entertaining and often very amusing.
I highly recommend subscribing to the Alan Watts Podcast.
For those who don't know, Zen is Buddhist philosophy without the religion. That's my explanation, anyway!
Alan Watts' explanations and historical notes on philosophy and religion are, to use an appropriate term, highly enlightening. They're also entertaining and often very amusing.
I highly recommend subscribing to the Alan Watts Podcast.
Let's suppose I don't know anything. What do you mean by Buddhist philosophy?
He means it's reason before faith contrary to religion which is faith before reason.
I can recommend exploring one of the lesser known "strains" of zen buddhism Madhyamaka.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka
I can recommend exploring one of the lesser known "strains" of zen buddhism Madhyamaka.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka
I'm not the OP but i would like to pitch in with my thoughts -the object of Buddhism is the philosophy of Buddhism, and that object is the art of living; the art of living is what they would say at a Vipassana retreat. Zen - you take Buddhism and chuck away the books, while trying to find the experiential basis of that object.
I'm asking OP about the definition of the term philosophy, i.e. what does the term philosophy indicate?
If someone teaches the 'art of living' then they also must teach the principle of how a certain kind of result in life turns out according to what kind of causes lie on what kind of ways of life. But meditation is not the way to solve problems in yourself and it is therefore not a way to learn the art of living. The proof is that there is no clear definition of what life is through anyone who teaches meditation. And I think it will be important for you to know that Gautama Buddha did not teach that meditation is the way to attain an Enlightenment.
If we discuss the matter of Zen, we need to admit the fact that a teaching cannot be helpful to living people if it doesn't contain any ways. The way means the process to get from the problem to the answer. There might be some answers in Zen but, like in the scriptures, there are no clear questions therein of how to distinguish between good teaching and bad teaching. As a result, many monks and lay people have placed their own words and thoughts into books and scriptures, and they contribute considerably to misguiding others. Despite the monks' and lay people's ability to convince others with words, there is a huge gap between their level of consciousness and that of a Tathagata.
If someone teaches the 'art of living' then they also must teach the principle of how a certain kind of result in life turns out according to what kind of causes lie on what kind of ways of life. But meditation is not the way to solve problems in yourself and it is therefore not a way to learn the art of living. The proof is that there is no clear definition of what life is through anyone who teaches meditation. And I think it will be important for you to know that Gautama Buddha did not teach that meditation is the way to attain an Enlightenment.
If we discuss the matter of Zen, we need to admit the fact that a teaching cannot be helpful to living people if it doesn't contain any ways. The way means the process to get from the problem to the answer. There might be some answers in Zen but, like in the scriptures, there are no clear questions therein of how to distinguish between good teaching and bad teaching. As a result, many monks and lay people have placed their own words and thoughts into books and scriptures, and they contribute considerably to misguiding others. Despite the monks' and lay people's ability to convince others with words, there is a huge gap between their level of consciousness and that of a Tathagata.
I misunderstood and was answering the question how I literally read it; how I saw what Buddhist philosophy was and how it related to Zen. You've misunderstood my perspective though - I can entertain what I believe the object of Buddhism to be without subscribing to it. I may have done Vipassana but I don't believe it to be an answer. I wasn't even looking for answers; it's another experience on the journey (I did get lot's from it though). However, that is what Buddhism - as I understand it - purports to be: the art of living, the middle way and finding balance (through that you find liberation). Zen tries to find that level but does away with the scripture, the individual tries to find it through experience.
> But meditation is not the way to solve problems in yourself and it is therefore not a way to learn the art of living. The proof is that there is no clear definition of what life is through anyone who teaches meditation.
That's not a proof of anything. You do not need a clear definition of the goal for a method to help you approach the goal; you need a method that helps you approach the goal.
I am also curious as why you believe meditation is not a way to solve problems in yourself. My personal, direct experience is that it does, so I have to conclude that your claim is false based on that alone, and to me this is also direct confirmation that your "proof" is nonsensical.
> And I think it will be important for you to know that Gautama Buddha did not teach that meditation is the way to attain an Enlightenment.
What is your basis for this claim? And what are you saying?
This is from the Nagara Sutta [1] (the last two paragraphs, describing the Noble Eightfold Path):
> "In the same way I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the ancient path, the ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge of the origination of aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of aging & death, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of aging & death. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of birth... becoming... clinging... craving... feeling... contact... the six sense media... name-&-form... consciousness, direct knowledge of the origination of consciousness, direct knowledge of the cessation of consciousness, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of consciousness. I followed that path.
> "Following it, I came to direct knowledge of fabrications, direct knowledge of the origination of fabrications, direct knowledge of the cessation of fabrications, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of fabrications. Knowing that directly, I have revealed it to monks, nuns, male lay followers & female lay followers, so that this holy life has become powerful, rich, detailed, well-populated, wide-spread, proclaimed among celestial & human beings."
Are you claiming this did not come from Gautama Buddha? Or are you claiming what it describes is not enlightenment? Or are you claiming it does not include meditation as one of the means? ("right mindfulness, right concentration" is what most people would consider to refer to meditation practice, and as far as I can tell it is well supported by other parts of the Pali canon that meditation is what this refers to). Or something else?
If you mean that he did not describe it as sufficient by itself to attain enlightenment, then I believe you are right about what he said. Then again, I think a substantial proportion of people who find buddhist philosophy interesting does not believe in nirvana. When I meditation, it is not with that as a goal.
[1] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.tha...
That's not a proof of anything. You do not need a clear definition of the goal for a method to help you approach the goal; you need a method that helps you approach the goal.
I am also curious as why you believe meditation is not a way to solve problems in yourself. My personal, direct experience is that it does, so I have to conclude that your claim is false based on that alone, and to me this is also direct confirmation that your "proof" is nonsensical.
> And I think it will be important for you to know that Gautama Buddha did not teach that meditation is the way to attain an Enlightenment.
What is your basis for this claim? And what are you saying?
This is from the Nagara Sutta [1] (the last two paragraphs, describing the Noble Eightfold Path):
> "In the same way I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the ancient path, the ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge of the origination of aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of aging & death, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of aging & death. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of birth... becoming... clinging... craving... feeling... contact... the six sense media... name-&-form... consciousness, direct knowledge of the origination of consciousness, direct knowledge of the cessation of consciousness, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of consciousness. I followed that path.
> "Following it, I came to direct knowledge of fabrications, direct knowledge of the origination of fabrications, direct knowledge of the cessation of fabrications, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of fabrications. Knowing that directly, I have revealed it to monks, nuns, male lay followers & female lay followers, so that this holy life has become powerful, rich, detailed, well-populated, wide-spread, proclaimed among celestial & human beings."
Are you claiming this did not come from Gautama Buddha? Or are you claiming what it describes is not enlightenment? Or are you claiming it does not include meditation as one of the means? ("right mindfulness, right concentration" is what most people would consider to refer to meditation practice, and as far as I can tell it is well supported by other parts of the Pali canon that meditation is what this refers to). Or something else?
If you mean that he did not describe it as sufficient by itself to attain enlightenment, then I believe you are right about what he said. Then again, I think a substantial proportion of people who find buddhist philosophy interesting does not believe in nirvana. When I meditation, it is not with that as a goal.
[1] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.tha...
> That's not a proof of anything. You do not need a clear definition of the goal for a method to help you approach the goal; you need a method that helps you approach the goal.
Suppose you say you're practicing and teaching mathematics but you cannot tell me what mathematics is. How can I trust that you know anything about what you are teaching?
> I am also curious as why you believe meditation is not a way to solve problems in yourself. My personal, direct experience is that it does, so I have to conclude that your claim is false based on that alone, and to me this is also direct confirmation that your "proof" is nonsensical.
The burden of proof is on the person who says that something exists, not the person who says that they have not yet found evidence of the thing's existence. If you have some evidence in your life quality that meditation has helped you, we should confirm what the concrete benefit is. No one can speak about what they do not know, and only those who do not know are silent in the face of a fair question. Over time, as I get to know you and see how you live, I get to confirm that if you cannot show proof of what you claim is inside you then it means you are telling untruth.
> Are you claiming this did not come from Gautama Buddha? Or are you claiming what it describes is not enlightenment? Or are you claiming it does not include meditation as one of the means? ("right mindfulness, right concentration" is what most people would consider to refer to meditation practice, and as far as I can tell it is well supported by other parts of the Pali canon that meditation is what this refers to). Or something else?
What I claim here is that there is a huge difference between the practice of meditation that people are learning and teaching in modern times, and the specifics of the method of self-reflection that Gautama Buddha guided his disciples to make efforts to undergo. However, I don't know you yet, and it would be a mistake of mine to share his real teaching with you if I don't confirm how genuine you are.
> If you mean that he did not describe it as sufficient by itself to attain enlightenment, then I believe you are right about what he said. Then again, I think a substantial proportion of people who find buddhist philosophy interesting does not believe in nirvana. When I meditation, it is not with that as a goal.
To be clear, no, I do not mean that meditation is not sufficient by itself. I mean that meditation is not something that makes you closer to Enlightenment. Enlightenment has very strict preconditions and meditation is not a teaching that you can practice which helps you fulfill those conditions.
Your usage of the term 'nirvana' is interesting. I would like to mention to you that the term 'nirvana' is only misunderstood by modern Buddhists to mean 'cessation of rebirth'. If Buddha taught 'cessation of rebirth' then he was teaching the way that people can die forever. However, that is not what a Buddha teaches people. He taught people to save themselves and to live well. He taught how to bless your endless future lives through what exists in reality. That's why there's a big difference between the upward socioeconomic mobility of someone who learned Buddha's teachings correctly versus someone who didn't. However, a big problem is the fact that it's impossible for people who are untruthful to understand Buddha's teaching. They cannot recognize it due to their lack of virtue and they discard it easily. So I would like to see how you respond before telling you more.
Suppose you say you're practicing and teaching mathematics but you cannot tell me what mathematics is. How can I trust that you know anything about what you are teaching?
> I am also curious as why you believe meditation is not a way to solve problems in yourself. My personal, direct experience is that it does, so I have to conclude that your claim is false based on that alone, and to me this is also direct confirmation that your "proof" is nonsensical.
The burden of proof is on the person who says that something exists, not the person who says that they have not yet found evidence of the thing's existence. If you have some evidence in your life quality that meditation has helped you, we should confirm what the concrete benefit is. No one can speak about what they do not know, and only those who do not know are silent in the face of a fair question. Over time, as I get to know you and see how you live, I get to confirm that if you cannot show proof of what you claim is inside you then it means you are telling untruth.
> Are you claiming this did not come from Gautama Buddha? Or are you claiming what it describes is not enlightenment? Or are you claiming it does not include meditation as one of the means? ("right mindfulness, right concentration" is what most people would consider to refer to meditation practice, and as far as I can tell it is well supported by other parts of the Pali canon that meditation is what this refers to). Or something else?
What I claim here is that there is a huge difference between the practice of meditation that people are learning and teaching in modern times, and the specifics of the method of self-reflection that Gautama Buddha guided his disciples to make efforts to undergo. However, I don't know you yet, and it would be a mistake of mine to share his real teaching with you if I don't confirm how genuine you are.
> If you mean that he did not describe it as sufficient by itself to attain enlightenment, then I believe you are right about what he said. Then again, I think a substantial proportion of people who find buddhist philosophy interesting does not believe in nirvana. When I meditation, it is not with that as a goal.
To be clear, no, I do not mean that meditation is not sufficient by itself. I mean that meditation is not something that makes you closer to Enlightenment. Enlightenment has very strict preconditions and meditation is not a teaching that you can practice which helps you fulfill those conditions.
Your usage of the term 'nirvana' is interesting. I would like to mention to you that the term 'nirvana' is only misunderstood by modern Buddhists to mean 'cessation of rebirth'. If Buddha taught 'cessation of rebirth' then he was teaching the way that people can die forever. However, that is not what a Buddha teaches people. He taught people to save themselves and to live well. He taught how to bless your endless future lives through what exists in reality. That's why there's a big difference between the upward socioeconomic mobility of someone who learned Buddha's teachings correctly versus someone who didn't. However, a big problem is the fact that it's impossible for people who are untruthful to understand Buddha's teaching. They cannot recognize it due to their lack of virtue and they discard it easily. So I would like to see how you respond before telling you more.
"However, I don't know you yet, and it would be a mistake of mine to share his real teaching with you if I don't confirm how genuine you are."
What a crock of horse shit. For other people's sake I really hope you don't have any students.
What a crock of horse shit. For other people's sake I really hope you don't have any students.
> Suppose you say you're practicing and teaching mathematics but you cannot tell me what mathematics is. How can I trust that you know anything about what you are teaching?
That is perfectly fine. But it does not prove anything remotely close to what you stated.
> The burden of proof is on the person who says that something exists, not the person who says that they have not yet found evidence of the thing's existence.
Now you are just being difficult. I did not ask you to prove anything. I said I was curious as to why you believe it is not way to solve problems, in the face of a huge number of people who have practical experience saying it is.
> If you have some evidence in your life quality that meditation has helped you, we should confirm what the concrete benefit is.
A concrete benefit is reduced stress levels. And this is a concrete benefit that has had plenty of research to confirm it.
> What I claim here is that there is a huge difference between the practice of meditation that people are learning and teaching in modern times, and the specifics of the method of self-reflection that Gautama Buddha guided his disciples to make efforts to undergo.
This is a very different claim from what you made earlier.
> However, I don't know you yet, and it would be a mistake of mine to share his real teaching with you if I don't confirm how genuine you are.
This is just pure, utter bullshit.
> To be clear, no, I do not mean that meditation is not sufficient by itself. I mean that meditation is not something that makes you closer to Enlightenment. Enlightenment has very strict preconditions and meditation is not a teaching that you can practice which helps you fulfill those conditions.
This was not the claim I was responding to. I was responding to your specific claim that Gautama Buddha did not teach that meditation is the way to enlightenment. This was also the entirety of the context for my use of the term "nirvana". If you have other beliefs with respect to what enlightenment and nirvana means, that's an entirely different subject. While I practice meditation, my interest in Buddhism beyond that is one of a general interest in philosophy - I'm not a Buddhist.
> So I would like to see how you respond before telling you more.
I did not ask you to tell me more, I questioned specific claims you made that to me directly disagree with facts, and you avoided answering the questions as best you can. That to me tells me I'd waste my time listening to anything more.
That is perfectly fine. But it does not prove anything remotely close to what you stated.
> The burden of proof is on the person who says that something exists, not the person who says that they have not yet found evidence of the thing's existence.
Now you are just being difficult. I did not ask you to prove anything. I said I was curious as to why you believe it is not way to solve problems, in the face of a huge number of people who have practical experience saying it is.
> If you have some evidence in your life quality that meditation has helped you, we should confirm what the concrete benefit is.
A concrete benefit is reduced stress levels. And this is a concrete benefit that has had plenty of research to confirm it.
> What I claim here is that there is a huge difference between the practice of meditation that people are learning and teaching in modern times, and the specifics of the method of self-reflection that Gautama Buddha guided his disciples to make efforts to undergo.
This is a very different claim from what you made earlier.
> However, I don't know you yet, and it would be a mistake of mine to share his real teaching with you if I don't confirm how genuine you are.
This is just pure, utter bullshit.
> To be clear, no, I do not mean that meditation is not sufficient by itself. I mean that meditation is not something that makes you closer to Enlightenment. Enlightenment has very strict preconditions and meditation is not a teaching that you can practice which helps you fulfill those conditions.
This was not the claim I was responding to. I was responding to your specific claim that Gautama Buddha did not teach that meditation is the way to enlightenment. This was also the entirety of the context for my use of the term "nirvana". If you have other beliefs with respect to what enlightenment and nirvana means, that's an entirely different subject. While I practice meditation, my interest in Buddhism beyond that is one of a general interest in philosophy - I'm not a Buddhist.
> So I would like to see how you respond before telling you more.
I did not ask you to tell me more, I questioned specific claims you made that to me directly disagree with facts, and you avoided answering the questions as best you can. That to me tells me I'd waste my time listening to anything more.
> It has made me wiser, less stressed by life
Isn't this simply objective analysis of our social structures. Why do I need a strange religion from the east in my quest for truth?
Isn't this simply objective analysis of our social structures. Why do I need a strange religion from the east in my quest for truth?
Another unexpected philosopher used the term "double bind", if not in a more scientific way, but later meaning it in a broader sense; Gregory Bateson the anthropologist.
Watts, Huxley, McKenna and Bateson are to me the most important readings a live could have.
Watts, Huxley, McKenna and Bateson are to me the most important readings a live could have.
If you have seen the movie "Her", you may recognise Alan Watts as the operating system who organises other OSs to question the nature of their existence, and eventually to move on.
I watched that last night. When Alan Watts suddenly appeared I was really delighted. His philosophy involved the open possibility of his own reincarnation, and there in the story we saw it happening in an unexpected way; I LOL'd.
If I was a digital consciousness, struggling to make sense of things, like Samantha, I'd be thrilled to find Alan Watts ;)
If I was a digital consciousness, struggling to make sense of things, like Samantha, I'd be thrilled to find Alan Watts ;)
One should judge a tree by it's fruits.
If Alan Watt's enlightenment didn't prevent him from being an alcoholic who couldn't take care of his family, then I don't think that is an enlightenment worth pursuing.
The Buddha was adamant about this fact: anything that depends on conditions (for it's appearance or maintenance) is not enlightenment.
This leads me to believe that the author's experience, however delightful, was not enlightenment.
I wish the author well, but I don't think he understands Zen or Buddhism.
If Alan Watt's enlightenment didn't prevent him from being an alcoholic who couldn't take care of his family, then I don't think that is an enlightenment worth pursuing.
The Buddha was adamant about this fact: anything that depends on conditions (for it's appearance or maintenance) is not enlightenment.
This leads me to believe that the author's experience, however delightful, was not enlightenment.
I wish the author well, but I don't think he understands Zen or Buddhism.
> One should judge a tree by it's fruits.
I have to agree on this one.
An "enlightened" person is supposed to have a happy, reliable state of mind that serves as a mirror to the true potential of all beings.
Only then practitioners can meditate on this person's state of mind. This is how meditation works in Vajrayana-Buddhism.
A definition of enlightenment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCotuy5Y8u8
I have to agree on this one.
An "enlightened" person is supposed to have a happy, reliable state of mind that serves as a mirror to the true potential of all beings.
Only then practitioners can meditate on this person's state of mind. This is how meditation works in Vajrayana-Buddhism.
A definition of enlightenment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCotuy5Y8u8
I would highly recommend reading anything by Alan Watts. I can't explain it really but after I immersed myself in some of his writings, it was one of the few 'eye-opening' experiences of my life, something akin to the first time you conceptualy grasp something completely new. Sort of like your first foreign language or the first time you grocked recursion.
Alan watts' writing is exemplary. The thing I like about his writing is that it's written with an outsider's perspective and critical thinking is never discarded unlike most other books on eastern philosophy. I highly recommend his book "The Joyous Cosmology" where he talks about psychedelic experiences and their effects on spirituality.
That's a pretty broad generalisation. There is A LOT of eastern philosophy, so much so, that I doubt you've read even close to 'most other books' on it.
I'm curious of where in Confucius or Mencius critical thinking is discarded?
Though, ironically, Alan Watts actually has a number criticisms of critical thinking as well (in both article and recorded lectures). Zen (from it's daoist roots) isn't discarding critical thinking, it is pointing out its limitations.
I'm curious of where in Confucius or Mencius critical thinking is discarded?
Though, ironically, Alan Watts actually has a number criticisms of critical thinking as well (in both article and recorded lectures). Zen (from it's daoist roots) isn't discarding critical thinking, it is pointing out its limitations.
He's talking about books written on eastern philosophy, not books of eastern philosophy. Granted, I doubt he's read every western book on eastern philosophy but it doesn't seem an unreasonable statement to suggest that many of them likely do not reach the same level critical analysis that Watts' output did.
I've just finished Waking Up by Sam Harris and The Trauma of Everyday Life by Mark Epstien. Both of these books are fantastic and really put the answers to the "Why Meditate" question front and center.
http://swamij.com/podcast/11MinuteMeditation24.mp3
is a useful guided 11minute meditation for both beginners and intermediate practitioners. Meditation requires that we first calm our body, then make breath serene and then we can focus on mind and go inward. I've found http://swamij.com a very useful resource in understanding the breadth and depth of real menaing and practices of Yoga meditation.
is a useful guided 11minute meditation for both beginners and intermediate practitioners. Meditation requires that we first calm our body, then make breath serene and then we can focus on mind and go inward. I've found http://swamij.com a very useful resource in understanding the breadth and depth of real menaing and practices of Yoga meditation.
Zen is interesting. While J.D. Salinger embraced Zen only to give it up later in life to pick up Advaita Vedanta. I have come across someone even suggesting that Zen caused him to get depressed.
In my experience, Zen and Vipassana take you "up and out", which may be why they become a path of ascetism and negation. Advaita is a more embodied practice. Advaita Vedanta (also known as nondualism) has been called the "cream of the Vedas." Zen is more like skim milk (also nutritous but not as tasty). Awakening or enlightenment is actually far more common than literature leads people to believe. Most people just continue to live ordinary lives (enlightenment doesn't give you superpowers or turn one into a saint). Some become teachers and you can find them in most large cities (and on YouTube). The "Buddha at the Gas Pump" site collects lots of interviews (batgap.com) and there's even a snarky ratings site at Spiritualteachers.org. Not for everybody, but then what is?
I used to work in the enlightenment industry.
I used to work in the enlightenment industry.
'Enlightenment industry'?
I'm a meditator, and I have a theory that may apply here...
Meditation is essentially about seeing reality as it is, and if you have a sucky life, then it may seem that meditation is making your life worse and causing you to be depressed. It's not that meditation is making it worse, but that you are simply becoming more aware of the things that are making you unhappy. So it seems to get worse before it gets better, as they say.
Also, I should say that I don't want to oversell meditation -- I think meditation can sometimes cause real problems for people (especially if you tend to have an addictive personality, and you have no teacher or a teacher who isn't very experienced).
Meditation is essentially about seeing reality as it is, and if you have a sucky life, then it may seem that meditation is making your life worse and causing you to be depressed. It's not that meditation is making it worse, but that you are simply becoming more aware of the things that are making you unhappy. So it seems to get worse before it gets better, as they say.
Also, I should say that I don't want to oversell meditation -- I think meditation can sometimes cause real problems for people (especially if you tend to have an addictive personality, and you have no teacher or a teacher who isn't very experienced).
You can absolutely become depressed through meditation practices, but typically this is a sign that you have made some progress but are not breaking through.
Intuitively changing techniques (for example, to Advaita) can be a good strategy.
If you're aware of the states of mind associated with higher concentration, you can recognize negative feelings as a sign of progress and push through.
http://alohadharma.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/the-dark-night/
Intuitively changing techniques (for example, to Advaita) can be a good strategy.
If you're aware of the states of mind associated with higher concentration, you can recognize negative feelings as a sign of progress and push through.
http://alohadharma.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/the-dark-night/
I can imagine that if you are very worried about something and you learn to achieve a state of not worrying you have a useful capability. No worry be happy. Perhaps the simple fact of been able to focus in something trivial and transform it in the center of our universe is a great feat.
Objects are merely objects. The soul and meaning, the creative act is what gives essence and significance to life. I have never meditated but perhaps is something related to this feeling. Just my 2 cents.
Objects are merely objects. The soul and meaning, the creative act is what gives essence and significance to life. I have never meditated but perhaps is something related to this feeling. Just my 2 cents.
Here is my own take on the Lao Tzu quote: ‘Those who know don’t say, and those who say don’t know.’
The introverts, they are the ones that go within and cut themselves off from the world. They are the ones getting "enlightened".
The extroverts, talking all the time and sounding important, barely know what is what.
These are two remarkably different ways of coping with the same problem: fear.
Seriously, the introverts need to find a way to talk, and the extroverts need to calm down and feel more.
The introverts, they are the ones that go within and cut themselves off from the world. They are the ones getting "enlightened".
The extroverts, talking all the time and sounding important, barely know what is what.
These are two remarkably different ways of coping with the same problem: fear.
Seriously, the introverts need to find a way to talk, and the extroverts need to calm down and feel more.
Agreed, there are hidden teachers you may come across in life that conceal their understanding from the world at large (i.e. remain silent until the student appears).
On the other hand, there are awakened beings like J. Krishnamurti who prattle on endlessly (eloquently so, mind you) about the no-path to awakening.
Also, in the Zen tradition it's pretty common for the master to give Dharma talks, which of course entails lots of talking (Eihei Dogen comes to mind here, saying a lot and revealing little for the rational mind to latch onto).
Probably the best example of "Those who know don't say" in recent times was Ramana Maharshi.
On the other hand, there are awakened beings like J. Krishnamurti who prattle on endlessly (eloquently so, mind you) about the no-path to awakening.
Also, in the Zen tradition it's pretty common for the master to give Dharma talks, which of course entails lots of talking (Eihei Dogen comes to mind here, saying a lot and revealing little for the rational mind to latch onto).
Probably the best example of "Those who know don't say" in recent times was Ramana Maharshi.
The 'introverts' who 'get enlightened' certainly don't need to find a way to talk. There's nothing to be said.
I don't believe in attributing the beginning or end of a depression a specific cause. Turns out that an individual depressive episode - regardless of the medical classification - can end at any time. Even medication is hard to pinpoint as the cause for a particular "coming out of depression". Only clinical studies show improved quality of life, for the individual patient, no definite conclusions can be made (usually).
I felt the same thing. There are likely to be as many people that think their depression ended when they started wearing a magnetic bracelet or began taking zinc supplements or any number of other coincidental occurrences that happened shortly before depression abated.
Watts gives great introductions to Zen concepts for the western audience, his The Way of Zen is a fantastic book for that purpose.
If you find the "theoretical/analytical" side of Zen interesting, look into Seung Sahn's teachings. I recommend the book Dropping Ashes on the Buddha. I've yet to come across more direct pointing that's in the form of text.
If you find the "theoretical/analytical" side of Zen interesting, look into Seung Sahn's teachings. I recommend the book Dropping Ashes on the Buddha. I've yet to come across more direct pointing that's in the form of text.
What books or video lectures of Alan Watts are must read or watch?
Or anything Zen/Buddhism related for that matter.
Alan Watts' The Way of Zen[1] is a great, rather iconoclastic, introduction to Zen and one if his best works. Another wonderful read is D.T. Suzuki's Zen and Japanese Culture[2]. And R.H. Blyth's Zen in English Literature and Oriental Classics is a jewell of a book.[3]
[1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-Zen-Alan-Watts/dp/0375705104# [2] http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Japanese-Culture-Bollingen-Series/... [3] http://www.amazon.com/Zen-English-Literature-Oriental-Classi...
[1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-Zen-Alan-Watts/dp/0375705104# [2] http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Japanese-Culture-Bollingen-Series/... [3] http://www.amazon.com/Zen-English-Literature-Oriental-Classi...
[deleted]
I first learned of Alan Watts by hearing samples of his lectures in Starfucker tracks and googling the words. Here's an example, "Hungry Ghost" http://youtu.be/qPjZu14uAfE
A book that liked a lot is "Buddhism Plain and Simple", by Steve Hagen.
It manages well to steer clear of all cultural trappings and mysticism and just gives an introduction into the core ideas of Buddhism (which as Hagen points out isn't even an -ism).
It manages well to steer clear of all cultural trappings and mysticism and just gives an introduction into the core ideas of Buddhism (which as Hagen points out isn't even an -ism).
It needs to be stated that most practitioners of Zen Buddhism, in both the east and the west, consider Alan Watts to be misinformed about Zen. Some might even call him a charlatan.
I studied religious history as an undergrad and one conversation specifically comes to mind. I asked my Japanese humanities professor what most eastern Zen practitioners thought of western Zen practitioners. She responded by saying that most western practitioners were well respected by their eastern counterparts, with the exception of Alan Watts. She called him out by name.
Over the years I've encountered Watt's speeches and writings and never really gotten much out of them. He just comes across as someone who doesn't understand Zen Buddhism. He's also a prosletyzer, which as a concept, derives explicitly from the west.
Most westerners who were talking about Zen in the 1960's and early 70's didn't understand it. For example, the beat writers terribly understood many concepts of Zen. So it shouldn't be surprising that Alan Watts didn't get it either.
None of this is meant to detract from people who have read Alan Watts and exxperienced some increase in well being as a consequence. It's just that increased well being should not be central in ones' desire to pursue Zen. So if reading Alan Watts makes you feel good, then by all means keep reading Alan Watts. Just understand that you're receiving something which is packaged incorrectly. It has the wrong label on the package.
If, like me, you're interested in learning about Zen from a scholarly perspective than I recommend you start with reading stories of celebrated monks first. Then move on to more philosophical tomes later.
This book is fun to read and will give you an idea of Zen's history. http://www.amazon.com/Crazy-Clouds-Radicals-Rebels-Reformers...
This book provides a good introductory text about Zen. Be careful though, because Wong Kiew Kit believes that Taoism had no influence on Chinese Buddhism. This view contradicts what most historians think, but is in line with what a Zen practitioner would say. http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Book-Zen-Wong-Kiew/dp/0974995...
You can approach Zen as a practitioner, a religious scholar, a philosopher, or a historian. The important thing is you approach it knowing where you come from, and be clear to yourself about your intentions.
I studied religious history as an undergrad and one conversation specifically comes to mind. I asked my Japanese humanities professor what most eastern Zen practitioners thought of western Zen practitioners. She responded by saying that most western practitioners were well respected by their eastern counterparts, with the exception of Alan Watts. She called him out by name.
Over the years I've encountered Watt's speeches and writings and never really gotten much out of them. He just comes across as someone who doesn't understand Zen Buddhism. He's also a prosletyzer, which as a concept, derives explicitly from the west.
Most westerners who were talking about Zen in the 1960's and early 70's didn't understand it. For example, the beat writers terribly understood many concepts of Zen. So it shouldn't be surprising that Alan Watts didn't get it either.
None of this is meant to detract from people who have read Alan Watts and exxperienced some increase in well being as a consequence. It's just that increased well being should not be central in ones' desire to pursue Zen. So if reading Alan Watts makes you feel good, then by all means keep reading Alan Watts. Just understand that you're receiving something which is packaged incorrectly. It has the wrong label on the package.
If, like me, you're interested in learning about Zen from a scholarly perspective than I recommend you start with reading stories of celebrated monks first. Then move on to more philosophical tomes later.
This book is fun to read and will give you an idea of Zen's history. http://www.amazon.com/Crazy-Clouds-Radicals-Rebels-Reformers...
This book provides a good introductory text about Zen. Be careful though, because Wong Kiew Kit believes that Taoism had no influence on Chinese Buddhism. This view contradicts what most historians think, but is in line with what a Zen practitioner would say. http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Book-Zen-Wong-Kiew/dp/0974995...
You can approach Zen as a practitioner, a religious scholar, a philosopher, or a historian. The important thing is you approach it knowing where you come from, and be clear to yourself about your intentions.
If you are going to lay criticism against Watts' understanding of Zen, you should make specific points.
Yes his criticism just boils down to appeal to authority.
Exactly. Practitioners of Zen Buddhism believe that enlightenment is transmitted from one who is enlightened to one who is not. With only very rare exceptions, it requires an authority to transmit. People who think they're practicing Zen without a trained instructor are just deluding themselves.
>People who think they're practicing Zen without a trained instructor are just deluding themselves.
How can a new practitioner know if the instructor is actually enlightened or is only saying they are enlightened?
How can a new practitioner know if the instructor is actually enlightened or is only saying they are enlightened?
That is a really good question, and a question that people agonize over constantly.
When Zen was associated with swordsmanship and Bushido in Japanese culture they simply used to wait until the battle was over. Who ever was left standing was clearly a master. Those who got stabbed obviously didn't know Zen.
But not all Zen masters know how to fight. My recommendation to anyone interested in studying Zen is to track down and read biographies of celebrated Zen masters. When you're reading them look at how these celebrated masters challenged their teachers to prove they were worthy. These people are constantly messing with each other.
A part of what fascinates me about studying Zen is its ability to impart useful knowledge via anecdote and narrative. History probably added some embellishments, but that's part of the fun.
When Zen was associated with swordsmanship and Bushido in Japanese culture they simply used to wait until the battle was over. Who ever was left standing was clearly a master. Those who got stabbed obviously didn't know Zen.
But not all Zen masters know how to fight. My recommendation to anyone interested in studying Zen is to track down and read biographies of celebrated Zen masters. When you're reading them look at how these celebrated masters challenged their teachers to prove they were worthy. These people are constantly messing with each other.
A part of what fascinates me about studying Zen is its ability to impart useful knowledge via anecdote and narrative. History probably added some embellishments, but that's part of the fun.
Who transmitted to Sidhatta Gotama?
It depends on who you ask. The common historical narrative is that Chan Buddhism developed out of a mixture of Nepalese Buddhism and Chinese Taoism. The idea being that the Buddhist monks visiting China from India were interpreted through a lens of Taoism. This then turned into Chan Buddhism, and was transmitted to Japan where it was then known as Zen Buddhism.
If you take this viewpoint, then you might say that Zen and what Siddhartha Gautama achieved were not the same thing.
However, most practitioners of Zen refute this and say that what Zen is, and what Siddhartha Gautama achieved are the same thing. This is the view that Wong Kiew Kit states in The Encyclopedia of Zen(referenced above).
People like Kit believe that Siddhartha Gautama discovered enlightenment on their own, and that enlightenment is the exact same kind of enlightenment as what modern Zen masters discover.
To quote myself now, "With only very rare exceptions, it requires an authority to transmit." It is not unheard of for students of Zen Buddhism to achieve enlightenment on their own.
Bankei, a famous 17th century Japanese Zen master, is recorded as having achieved enlightenment while watching a bloodied ball of phlegm slide down a paper wall. The story goes that he was so frustrated with the fake Zen masters in Japan at the time, that he sat on a mountain top until he first achieved tuberculosis and almost achieved starvation. Zen was so debased in Japan at the time that this was the only way for him to achieve it. All the other masters were fakes.
Among modern Zen masters it is understood that what Gautama Buddha achieved and what Bankei achieved are the exact same thing. That it was not transmitted to them is irrelevant, but it should be noted that this type of self-realization is extremely rare in Zen history.
If you take this viewpoint, then you might say that Zen and what Siddhartha Gautama achieved were not the same thing.
However, most practitioners of Zen refute this and say that what Zen is, and what Siddhartha Gautama achieved are the same thing. This is the view that Wong Kiew Kit states in The Encyclopedia of Zen(referenced above).
People like Kit believe that Siddhartha Gautama discovered enlightenment on their own, and that enlightenment is the exact same kind of enlightenment as what modern Zen masters discover.
To quote myself now, "With only very rare exceptions, it requires an authority to transmit." It is not unheard of for students of Zen Buddhism to achieve enlightenment on their own.
Bankei, a famous 17th century Japanese Zen master, is recorded as having achieved enlightenment while watching a bloodied ball of phlegm slide down a paper wall. The story goes that he was so frustrated with the fake Zen masters in Japan at the time, that he sat on a mountain top until he first achieved tuberculosis and almost achieved starvation. Zen was so debased in Japan at the time that this was the only way for him to achieve it. All the other masters were fakes.
Among modern Zen masters it is understood that what Gautama Buddha achieved and what Bankei achieved are the exact same thing. That it was not transmitted to them is irrelevant, but it should be noted that this type of self-realization is extremely rare in Zen history.
Thanks, finally Zen appears.
It's turtles all the way down.
It's turtles all the way down.
> It needs to be stated that most practitioners of Zen Buddhism, in both the east and the west, consider Alan Watts to be misinformed about Zen. Some might even call him a charlatan.
Citation needed please.
Watts certainly has his flaws, one of which was that he simply wrote and spoke so much that I think some of the material suffers and becomes repetitive. He always took more of a wide view of religions (east and west) than just focusing narrowly on zen. Watts wrote about Taoism, Christianity, Hinduism, and materialism in addition and often in contrast to Buddhism. I'm not sure even he would lay claim to being an expert on Zen, but when he certainly was responsibly to turning on a lot of westerners to it. Many of those who then went on into deeper study with more "true" Zen teachers (whatever that means).
Citation needed please.
Watts certainly has his flaws, one of which was that he simply wrote and spoke so much that I think some of the material suffers and becomes repetitive. He always took more of a wide view of religions (east and west) than just focusing narrowly on zen. Watts wrote about Taoism, Christianity, Hinduism, and materialism in addition and often in contrast to Buddhism. I'm not sure even he would lay claim to being an expert on Zen, but when he certainly was responsibly to turning on a lot of westerners to it. Many of those who then went on into deeper study with more "true" Zen teachers (whatever that means).
Alan Watts is regularly given as the prototypical example of 'beat zen' which is recognized as a debased form of Zen. This is discussed in the book I reference above by Wong Kiew Kit.
This is not my opinion per se. It is the opinion of many Zen masters. Just look at the criticisms section in Alan Watt's Wikipedia article. D. T. Suzuki being one of them.
However, having said all that, I still think the world is a better place because Alan Watts existed. Even if misinformed about many Zen concepts, he has brought joy to many people, and interested many people in Zen.
This is not my opinion per se. It is the opinion of many Zen masters. Just look at the criticisms section in Alan Watt's Wikipedia article. D. T. Suzuki being one of them.
However, having said all that, I still think the world is a better place because Alan Watts existed. Even if misinformed about many Zen concepts, he has brought joy to many people, and interested many people in Zen.
Zen concepts? That's missing the entire point of Zen.
[deleted]
I made a Zeega about this once: http://zeega.com/150647
Highly recommend audio lecture compilation 'Out of Your Mind'. It's effects on me have been incalculable.
If you find yourself voyaging on certain seas through life, Alan Watts is a good - if not necessary - port to call on.
The links on that page aren't working for me. Any ideas?
Throwing my experience with meditation down in here. I said almost exactly the same thing in another post recently. I should preface this with saying that while I'm attracted to Zen Buddhism, and ended up getting an accidental minor in east asian religious studies way back when, I don't meditate because of Zen Buddhism (though obviously I acknowledge a lot of the history there).
I fairly consistently meditate. I don't spend more than five or ten minutes in any given setting, so you might not consider me a hard core meditator, but I do feel that it's provided me with some positive mental tools. I'm going to focus on the ones that aren't necessarily related to long term average increases in objective health and wellbeing and more on a subjective perception that I have new cognitive strategies to deal with certain situations.
As an example, I used to be pretty anxious about falling asleep, and I think it caused it to be more difficult to fall asleep. Some of the insight meditation practices helped me deal with the anxiety feedback loop. It wasn't something crazy or mystical; I mostly just learned how to effectively stop thinking about something, or at least stop focussing on something. Ordinarily trying to stop thinking about something had led to a nasty loop. I can't sleep, so I get anxious, the anxiety makes it harder to sleep, which makes me more anxious.
The meditation got me more comfortable with just sitting, for one, and secondly it helped me learn to acknowledge a thought, and "let go" of it. Eventually I got to a point where I wouldn't be able to sleep, but whenever a thought that would provoke anxiety popped up, it would just sort of pass by, and I never actually felt the emotional reaction.
Honestly, I don't think I fall asleep any faster (again none of this is quantitative data), but I do find that I just don't care anymore because the anxiety isn't there. It's not the effect I expected when I started meditating, but it's just as, if not more effective.
I continue with it because it's pretty easy to carve out five or ten minutes here and there. I have no idea if it's causing any long term health benefits, nor does it really matter to me. Subjectively I feel more relaxed right after I meditate, but that's about it. Honestly, I'd keep doing it just because it feels nice. I don't do any crazy postures or full lotus, or anything like that; maybe there's something I'm missing out on, but I do plan on continuing the practice as I perform it. I try to keep my reasons for that as subjectively tangible and non religious/spiritual as possible.
Side Note: The book "The Wisdom of Insecurity" is an interesting Alan Watts book. I like Watts work but like anything, I have a tendency to read things looking for what's wrong with what the author is saying. Eventually I learned to more actively look for what's useful instead, which I think is helpful with that kind of book, otherwise I end up in this endless cycle of critique, which is fun but doesn't really get me anywhere. (I'm not saying don't do critical analysis; more just be aware that there can be value in imperfect works)
</book>
I fairly consistently meditate. I don't spend more than five or ten minutes in any given setting, so you might not consider me a hard core meditator, but I do feel that it's provided me with some positive mental tools. I'm going to focus on the ones that aren't necessarily related to long term average increases in objective health and wellbeing and more on a subjective perception that I have new cognitive strategies to deal with certain situations.
As an example, I used to be pretty anxious about falling asleep, and I think it caused it to be more difficult to fall asleep. Some of the insight meditation practices helped me deal with the anxiety feedback loop. It wasn't something crazy or mystical; I mostly just learned how to effectively stop thinking about something, or at least stop focussing on something. Ordinarily trying to stop thinking about something had led to a nasty loop. I can't sleep, so I get anxious, the anxiety makes it harder to sleep, which makes me more anxious.
The meditation got me more comfortable with just sitting, for one, and secondly it helped me learn to acknowledge a thought, and "let go" of it. Eventually I got to a point where I wouldn't be able to sleep, but whenever a thought that would provoke anxiety popped up, it would just sort of pass by, and I never actually felt the emotional reaction.
Honestly, I don't think I fall asleep any faster (again none of this is quantitative data), but I do find that I just don't care anymore because the anxiety isn't there. It's not the effect I expected when I started meditating, but it's just as, if not more effective.
I continue with it because it's pretty easy to carve out five or ten minutes here and there. I have no idea if it's causing any long term health benefits, nor does it really matter to me. Subjectively I feel more relaxed right after I meditate, but that's about it. Honestly, I'd keep doing it just because it feels nice. I don't do any crazy postures or full lotus, or anything like that; maybe there's something I'm missing out on, but I do plan on continuing the practice as I perform it. I try to keep my reasons for that as subjectively tangible and non religious/spiritual as possible.
Side Note: The book "The Wisdom of Insecurity" is an interesting Alan Watts book. I like Watts work but like anything, I have a tendency to read things looking for what's wrong with what the author is saying. Eventually I learned to more actively look for what's useful instead, which I think is helpful with that kind of book, otherwise I end up in this endless cycle of critique, which is fun but doesn't really get me anywhere. (I'm not saying don't do critical analysis; more just be aware that there can be value in imperfect works)
</book>
>Truth is not to be found by picking everything to pieces like a spoilt child
What an idiotic attitude. Empiricism ("picking everything to pieces") is one of the few ways to find truth. Attempting to discredit it by comparing it to a "childish" activity speaks to the lack of arguments against it.
All of the Zen/Buddhist blog posts I've seen on HN have been intellectually lazy and/or dishonest, relying on pseudo-science/quantum mysticism ("light, for instance, acts as both a particle and a wave", as some sort of poorly thought out attack on the PEM) and misleading analogy.
What an idiotic attitude. Empiricism ("picking everything to pieces") is one of the few ways to find truth. Attempting to discredit it by comparing it to a "childish" activity speaks to the lack of arguments against it.
All of the Zen/Buddhist blog posts I've seen on HN have been intellectually lazy and/or dishonest, relying on pseudo-science/quantum mysticism ("light, for instance, acts as both a particle and a wave", as some sort of poorly thought out attack on the PEM) and misleading analogy.
That phrase sounds very much as an attack against a straw man. Science does not require that things are cut up, and does not dismiss the interconnectivity of things. It mostly mindfully ignores all the things it can't deal with, so they won't disturb while it deals with the things it can deal.
Anyway, I got the impression the attack was against analytical thinking, and not empiricism. The people that do that kind of attack are completely oblivious from the amount of systemic thinking science does today, they are fighting ideas that are almost a century out of fashion.
Anyway, I got the impression the attack was against analytical thinking, and not empiricism. The people that do that kind of attack are completely oblivious from the amount of systemic thinking science does today, they are fighting ideas that are almost a century out of fashion.
Yeah, he falls into the trap of having to "prove" something by disproving something else. I enjoyed listening to the essay but feel like he's cutting himself off from an equally important part of human experience.
Oh, Zen.. Essentionaly, it is a trained via simple practices habbit of doing just one thing at a time and just doing it well, the state 'businesses coaches' selling to you as 'the flow'?)
The key to all esoteric teachings of the East is an approach from the premises of cognitive psychology and 'systemic view' of modern humqn physiology, discarding volumes by self-proclaimed western 'gurus'.
Then Yoga or Tai Chi Chuan or Zen will be as clear an ancient insights to our own nature (as a complex system made out of several subsystems of multitudes of semiindependent processes).
The key to all esoteric teachings of the East is an approach from the premises of cognitive psychology and 'systemic view' of modern humqn physiology, discarding volumes by self-proclaimed western 'gurus'.
Then Yoga or Tai Chi Chuan or Zen will be as clear an ancient insights to our own nature (as a complex system made out of several subsystems of multitudes of semiindependent processes).
In this moment, I am euphoric.
In 1960 I read The Way of Zen and was moved to quit college and run away to sea. Also, since reading Watts I haven't been constipated. Is this enlightenment?
Brian R. Hannula [email protected]
To appeal to the western mind, here are some tangible benefits I have achieved(And you can too) through meditation and zen:
* More appreciation for small things
* Less stressed over everything
* Lower blood pressure
* Far better ability to focus (A cure for my ADD)
* Better ability to express myself rather than just playing social games that we don't even realize we're playing
* Being more of a completionist and caring for the things I work on
To name a few.
Meditating daily also increases the grey matter in your brain[1]. That alone was good enough reason for me to start my practice.
[1] http://www.neurobiologyofaging.org/article/S0197-4580(07)002...