Christ over zen

[AlanFromWichita]

I heard some audio recordings about zen master methods, but it was quite some time ago. If I am totally wrong about zen here, then someone please correct me. I don’t claim any authority other than what you make of it, because I may have not remembered this perfectly.

It sounds like zen, like Christ, both attempt to transform one’s way of thinking.

Like Christ, zen masters often answer in a way exactly opposite what the student is expecting to hear. In both cases, I believe, the practice has one effect of teaching the student not to be presumptuous or accept what appears obvious.

Unlike Christ, zen masters use examples that don’t necessarily mean anything, when giving an opposite answer. Unlike zen, when Christ stunned the people with His answers, they inherently contained Truth.

For example, if a student asks a zen master about something temporal, the answer will be eternal, and vice versa. Similarly, the zen master is asked about something sacred he may give an answer that is repulsive, and vice versa. This is done in monestaries with a great deal of behavioral discipline and control, which is a good thing because as people go through this process it can play tricks on their minds.

Christ is all that, plus instead of nonsensical examples, the content of His words are important as well as the polarity of his words with the expectation of men.

To me that means that zen can have some effect of expanding and liberating the mind from limited thinking, and so can Christ. Christ, however, gives moral guidance and as I understand zen really doesn’t; zen doesn’t have a moral law in the sense that Christianity does.

My ideas about zen came from the past three years. My ideas about Christianity, in the context above, when one Lent I finally started trying to read the Bible instead of flipping around in it to a Protestant sermon. It seemed every time Jesus’ followers jumped to a conclusion He would tell them that the exact opposite is true.

More examples later; right now I have to get off here and talk to my wife about some stuff.

Opinions? I’m not looking for arguing but for critique of the metaphoric merit (ooh, I just made up that phrase) and/or other ways of looking at it.

Alan

Alan

 

[urquhart]

Zen is a reform movement within Buddhism. Since it is a branch of Buddhism, there is a definite moral code. The key precepts are to become conscious and aware and to live your life in a way that causes no harm to other living beings, and to do what you can to alleviate suffering. This is roughly comparable to the Golden Rule. But Buddhism is more of a philosophy of life than a religion; for example, they take no position on the existence of God.

 

[Ahimsa]

Zen definitely has a moral structure to it, since it’s a form of Buddhism, by definition.

The moral structure of Zen is not emphasized so much in America, partly because the Americans who were initially interested in Zen (Beatniks like Kerouac and so forth) were themselves not really interested in moral structures.

As Zen becomes part of American culture, over the next few centuries, you can expect it to become more grounded in the everyday life of the average, morally structured, American.

 

[bengeorge]

In comparing Christianity to any other religion/philosophy it is good to keep in mind that Christ is God. No zen master claimed as much, unless he meant in the whole “everything is god” kinda way.

Christ, as God, is more important for who He is, rather than what He said (though that is important too).

Implicit in many Zen teachings is the idea that nothing really matters, because everything is nothing. A snake eating it’s tail. Emptyness. These teachings are gravely contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Church, to whom all things matter, as God doesn’t act purposelessly.

Zen: “Wake up, reality is meaningless!”
Christ: “Wake up, I am the Truth!”

They both indeed say wake up, but one wakes you up at midnight for a long circular run in the woods. The other wakes you up to the rising Light.

 

[Ahimsa]

bengeorge:

In comparing Christianity to any other religion/philosophy it is good to keep in mind that Christ is God. No zen master claimed as much, unless he meant in the whole “everything is god” kinda way.

Christ, as God, is more important for who He is, rather than what He said (though that is important too).

Implicit in many Zen teachings is the idea that nothing really matters, because everything is nothing. A snake eating it’s tail. Emptyness. These teachings are gravely contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Church, to whom all things matter, as God doesn’t act purposelessly.

Zen: “Wake up, reality is meaningless!”
Christ: “Wake up, I am the Truth!”

They both indeed say wake up, but one wakes you up at midnight for a long circular run in the woods. The other wakes you up to the rising Light.

The Zen-Christ: “Wake up, Reality is Truth!”

 

[bengeorge]

Ahimsa:

The Zen-Christ: “Wake up, Reality is Truth!”

Hah…

But the Zen-Christ doesn’t exist.

Truth is real.
But reality isn’t Truth, in that “reality” (the universe) isn’t all there is.

Christ is the Truth.

Say “Truth” 10 times, it kinda sounds funny. Trooth Troooouuuuth

 

[reen12]

Hi, bengeorge,

I heartily agreed with your first post in this thread.

My contribution:

Truth is that which conforms with reality.

God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM
ie, the “Reality” of realities.

Jesus is that Reality, incarnate.
“I am the Way and the Truth…”

reen

 

[slinky1882]

bengeorge:

In comparing Christianity to any other religion/philosophy it is good to keep in mind that Christ is God. No zen master claimed as much, unless he meant in the whole “everything is god” kinda way.

Christ, as God, is more important for who He is, rather than what He said (though that is important too).

Implicit in many Zen teachings is the idea that nothing really matters, because everything is nothing. A snake eating it’s tail. Emptyness. These teachings are gravely contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Church, to whom all things matter, as God doesn’t act purposelessly.

Zen: “Wake up, reality is meaningless!”
Christ: “Wake up, I am the Truth!”

They both indeed say wake up, but one wakes you up at midnight for a long circular run in the woods. The other wakes you up to the rising Light.

I would have to agree that the underlying Philosophical assumptions of zen differ from Catholicism (particularly in relation to words, Logic and the material world). I think that may be why Catholic Heirarchy are cautious in approaching the Eastern religions. But all religions have elements of Truth (ranging from next to nothing occult to really close say Orthodox), yet to equate Christ with a zen master is improper (I do not think anyone on this board has, but I have run into such people in my daily life ). Thanks and God Bless.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Thank you for all your thoughtful and interesting responses. This is the exact type of discussion I was hoping to hear. Meanwhile I was blessed by an intermittent Internet connection, so I’m reading more than typing – it’s kind of nice!

About the time I became interested in contemplative prayer (in particular centering prayer) and the spiritual journey, I noticed there had been certain conversations by religious Catholics with leaders of eastern religions. When I bring this up around certain Catholics, they get kinda spooked and think I’m going astray.

My experience is that it is worth examining Catholicism from other points of view – not just for apologetics reasons but to truly try to understand what we look like from the outside. Otherwise if we refuse to venture outside the Catholic “box” then we never really know what we look like, and have no real way to relate to what others are saying.

For me, the most interesting aspect is not so much the historicity and theology of the other religions, but how they solve the problem of dealing with forms of consciousness resulting from societal pressures and how it can be “attitude adjusted” to becoming stronger and more at peace. IMO, this is one of the most important roles for a religion. If a religion is to be effective I think it really has to address this shift in consciousness. Catholics may not talk about it in terms of consciousness too often, but the renewing and transforming of the mind is something we pray about, such as on Pentecost, and I like to see what different people are doing to bring that about.

I agree there are elements of truth to other religions,and again I thank you all for your insightful responses.

Alan

 

[Vimalakirti]

Certainly the compilers of the canon had Jesus say he was God in the literal sense, but did he think so?

Also, you make the standard error in talking about the Buddhist strategy of emptiness (sunyata). It is as I’ve just said a stategy not a concept, a way to empty the mind of mere conceptual knowledge and clearing the way for the direct experience of enlightenment, or in Christian terms, God. On a deeper level this error speaks to the failure to understand that the so-called fundamental differences in traditions are merely verbal; i.e., all genuinely deep traditions address the same reality - they have to because by definition we all inhabit roughly the same reality - but employ different verbal strategies. Hence on the deepest level the traditions are one. Doesn’t every tradition affirm that ultimate reality is beyond verbal description? The legitimate differences pertain to their differing social orientations and the appropriate uses in different cultures, contexts and different personalities. Clinging to so-called metaphysical distinctions literally is talking about nothing and merely sows mistrust and confusion. Again, we all inhabit the same reality, so how could the ultimate experience of that reality whether we call it Nirvana, Enlightenment or union with God differ in any essential way? The difference are the ways and means of getting there and the social impacts along the way and that is where the debate should lie. The strength of Christianity lies in its deep rootedness in human relations, culture & history and its warm teachings on love, not in the unfortunate metaphysical absolutism of the Church’s creeds and traditions. Buddhism runs on a parallel and complementary track. It’s strength lies in its unflinching examination of the human mind; like all Indian religions its root paradigm is yoga, in contrast to the Kingdom of God paradigm of the Abrahamic religions. One great tradition really illuminates the other, rightly understood. Informed debate would be of benefit to both.

bengeorge:

In comparing Christianity to any other religion/philosophy it is good to keep in mind that Christ is God. No zen master claimed as much, unless he meant in the whole “everything is god” kinda way.

Christ, as God, is more important for who He is, rather than what He said (though that is important too).

Implicit in many Zen teachings is the idea that nothing really matters, because everything is nothing. A snake eating it’s tail. Emptyness. These teachings are gravely contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Church, to whom all things matter, as God doesn’t act purposelessly.

Zen: “Wake up, reality is meaningless!”
Christ: “Wake up, I am the Truth!”

They both indeed say wake up, but one wakes you up at midnight for a long circular run in the woods. The other wakes you up to the rising Light.

 

[Ahimsa]

Welcome, Vimalakirti.

Vimalakirti:

On a deeper level

Hmm…what level what that be, exactly?

this error speaks to the failure to understand that the so-called fundamental differences in traditions are merely verbal

Are you saying this from direct experience?

; i.e., all genuinely deep traditions address the same reality - they have to because by definition we all inhabit roughly the same reality - but employ different verbal strategies.

It seems the key word here is “genuine”. How would you know if a tradition is genuine, or genuine and deep?

Hence on the deepest level the traditions are one. Doesn’t every tradition affirm that ultimate reality is beyond verbal description?

If ultimate reality were really beyond description, how would you even be able to say that it was “beyond description”? What does that mean? Would anything really “beyond description” have any relationship to the very descriptive world we all live in? I can think of really extraordinary experiences I’ve had, and even though I wouldn’t be able to fully describe them in words, I would be able at least to say something positive about them.

The legitimate differences pertain to their differing social orientations and the appropriate uses in different cultures, contexts and different personalities.

Perhaps these legitimate differences only apply to one particular religion. That is, perhaps Christianity can evolve differences due to the culture and society it situates itself in, while still maintaining its salvific value; while other religions remain unable to fully offer salvific efficacy (no matter what culture they are in).

Clinging to so-called metaphysical distinctions literally is talking about nothing and merely sows mistrust and confusion.

What metaphysical distinctions are you referring to?

Again, we all inhabit the same reality, so how could the ultimate experience of that reality whether we call it Nirvana, Enlightenment or union with God differ in any essential way? The difference are the ways and means of getting there and the social impacts along the way and that is where the debate should lie.

Surely, you’re not equating Nirvana with God-union?

 

[ahimsaman72]

AlanFromWichita:

I heard some audio recordings about zen master methods, but it was quite some time ago. If I am totally wrong about zen here, then someone please correct me. I don’t claim any authority other than what you make of it, because I may have not remembered this perfectly.

It sounds like zen, like Christ, both attempt to transform one’s way of thinking.

Like Christ, zen masters often answer in a way exactly opposite what the student is expecting to hear. In both cases, I believe, the practice has one effect of teaching the student not to be presumptuous or accept what appears obvious.

Unlike Christ, zen masters use examples that don’t necessarily mean anything, when giving an opposite answer. Unlike zen, when Christ stunned the people with His answers, they inherently contained Truth.

For example, if a student asks a zen master about something temporal, the answer will be eternal, and vice versa. Similarly, the zen master is asked about something sacred he may give an answer that is repulsive, and vice versa. This is done in monestaries with a great deal of behavioral discipline and control, which is a good thing because as people go through this process it can play tricks on their minds.

Christ is all that, plus instead of nonsensical examples, the content of His words are important as well as the polarity of his words with the expectation of men.

To me that means that zen can have some effect of expanding and liberating the mind from limited thinking, and so can Christ. Christ, however, gives moral guidance and as I understand zen really doesn’t; zen doesn’t have a moral law in the sense that Christianity does.

My ideas about zen came from the past three years. My ideas about Christianity, in the context above, when one Lent I finally started trying to read the Bible instead of flipping around in it to a Protestant sermon. It seemed every time Jesus’ followers jumped to a conclusion He would tell them that the exact opposite is true.

More examples later; right now I have to get off here and talk to my wife about some stuff.

Opinions? I’m not looking for arguing but for critique of the metaphoric merit (ooh, I just made up that phrase) and/or other ways of looking at it.

Alan

Alan

Zen masters will give their students “koans”, which are repetitive phrases that the student will repeat during meditation as a “centering” and liberating practice. These koans are likely abstract phrases such as “what is the sound of one hand clapping”. Of course, this doesn’t really make sense, but the point is to snap your mind out of a funk - from normal every day thinking.

I believe you hit the nail on the head about Christ. He often gave strange answers to normal questions. Partly, I believe He did it for the same reasons as Zen masters do for their students. But also, Christ knew what those people needed and could see beyond their questioning to get at the root of the matter. He was obviously one of the greatest teachers known to man - in that respect.

I will say that Zen is part of Buddhism and has a moral code. There are moral “precepts” that a student must adhere to. There are 5 that are standard and 8 that is expected of the faithful student. It is the same moral code you will find in most religions - i.e. sexual purity, no killing, lying, etc.

Your post was really insightful.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

bengeorge:

Implicit in many Zen teachings is the idea that nothing really matters, because everything is nothing. A snake eating it’s tail. Emptyness. These teachings are gravely contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Church, to whom all things matter, as God doesn’t act purposelessly.

I wouldn’t say that Zen teachings express the idea that nothing really matters because of its emptiness. This idea of emptiness is a complex one. To me, the emptiness of all things taught equals emptiness of each thing as an independent self. In other words, all things are one and the same. All things are interdependent, not able to “live” by itself.

Many things are important in Zen - morality, discipline, intelligence. They all matter and are emphasized alot. There is an engaged Buddhism which defines the ministry of Thich Nhat Hanh. He is a Zen master who really began to bring social causes into the arena of Buddhism. He wanted a way to live the contemplative Buddhist life while at the same time expressing Buddhist principles of love and social action. He has done a great job.

Anyways, I digress…

Peace.

 

[Ahimsa]

ahimsaman72:

I wouldn’t say that Zen teachings express the idea that nothing really matters because of its emptiness. This idea of emptiness is a complex one. To me, the emptiness of all things taught equals emptiness of each thing as an independent self. In other words, all things are one and the same. All things are interdependent, not able to “live” by itself.

Many things are important in Zen - morality, discipline, intelligence. They all matter and are emphasized alot. There is an engaged Buddhism which defines the ministry of Thich Nhat Hanh. He is a Zen master who really began to bring social causes into the arena of Buddhism. He wanted a way to live the contemplative Buddhist life while at the same time expressing Buddhist principles of love and social action. He has done a great job.

Anyways, I digress…

Peace.

I didn’t want to go into the concept of “emptiness” unless someone else jumped in first. So, thanks, Ahimsaman.

When Buddhists speak of “nothingness”, what they mean is “emptiness”, which is an easily misunderstood concept, perhaps the most misunderstood concept of all time, the Muhammad Ali of misunderstood concepts, the Mother of All Misunderstood Concepts…but I digress.

In Buddhism, emptiness is often described as the space, the open-ness, the nothingness, that is the necessary condition for the existence of the solid “somethings” in our ordinary world. In other words, in order for “something” to exist, you also need “nothing”. One modern way to visualize this is to think of the atom: it contains protons, neutrons, and electrons, but 90% (or thereabouts) of an atom is actually empty space.

From a Buddhist perspective, then, emptiness is form (“form” being the apparently solid things of our ordinary experience – tables, chairs, trees, etc.), because form requires emptiness in order to exist. And, likewise, form is emptiness.

One interesting similarity to Christianity relates to the Christian idea of God creating the universe “from nothingess”. This statement implies that without a previously existing “nothingness”, God would not have been able to create the universe.

 

[reen12]

Hi, Ahimsa,

“One interesting similarity to Christianity relates to the Christian idea of God creating the universe “from nothingess”. This statement implies that without a previously existing “nothingness”, God would not have been able to create the universe” quote, Ahimsa

Can you make the above into a syllogism?

As in:

All dogs are animals,
Spot is a dog,
Therefore, Spot is an animal

by substituting emptiness, creation, God.

I think the Square of Opposition is breached here,
but I can’t quite put my finger on it at the moment.
That’s why I’m requesting a syllogism.

Thanks,
reen

 

[Ahimsa]

reen12:

Hi, Ahimsa,

“One interesting similarity to Christianity relates to the Christian idea of God creating the universe “from nothingess”. This statement implies that without a previously existing “nothingness”, God would not have been able to create the universe” quote, Ahimsa

Can you make the above into a syllogism?

As in:

All dogs are animals,
Spot is a dog,
Therefore, Spot is an animal

by substituting emptiness, creation, God.

I think the Square of Opposition is breached here,
but I can’t quite put my finger on it at the moment.
That’s why I’m requesting a syllogism.

Thanks,
reen

Hi Reen,

I’ll give it a shot.

God is not Creation.
Emptiness is Creation.
Thus, God is not Emptiness.

“Who said Zen? Wash out your mouth if you said Zen. If you see a meditation going by, shoot it.” --Merton

 

[reen12]

Hi, Ahimsa,

Whoa! you’re good!!

Give me a few hours to mull this. I’ll have to
go back to your post, unpack it, and see if I
can come up with an unsupported assertion*.*
is a* lot* more challenging.]

Best,
Maureen*

 

[reen12]

Hi, Ahimsa,

OK, for starters:

the second line of your syllogism is an assertion…
that is, you state X to be true and use
the point in question to prove the
point *being *questioned.

[Isn’t this called “begging the question”?]

To state: God created the universe out of
nothing is not, logically, the same as
Emptiness *is *creation. The switch in verbs
signifies the lapse in logic, in this context.

I did understand your reference to the
emptiness inherent in atoms. To stress
the criticality of a concept does not
render same sufficient to be an efficient cause. [Aristotelian categories]

Howzzat?:tiphat:

Maureen

[will you keep in mind that I spent 25 years
reading Eastern thought, so I’m not unfamiliar with
at least some of the conceptual framework?
I do want to spend more time pouring over
your post, especially the latter part of same,
to see if there are additional comments I
might make, OK?]

 

[Ahimsa]

reen12:

To state: God created the universe out of
nothing is not, logically, the same as
Emptiness is creation. The switch in verbs
signifies the lapse in logic, in this context.

Hi Reen,

I agree completely. The Buddhist identity of emptiness with form is not identical to the Christian idea of God creating from nothingness. In part, the reason is that Buddhist emptiness really is not separable from form – you can’t have emptiness if you don’t have form. But, in traditional Christian theology (as far as I understand it), the nothingness did exist before God created matter – nothingness and matter are exclusive categories.

What I was doing was hinting at another possible interpretation of traditional Christian ideas of nothingness. Perhaps the nothingness itself was “created” by God, and out of this fabric of “nothingness” God molded the universe. That would imply that the foundation of the universe is nothingness – that you can’t have a universe without this inherently built-in nothingness, that whatever one sees and touches is, at bottom, nothingness. If this other possible interpretation of traditional Christian ideas of nothingness holds water, then it would seem to have not a few similarities to Buddhist ideas of emptiness.

Maureen

[will you keep in mind that I spent 25 years
reading Eastern thought, so I’m not unfamiliar with
at least some of the conceptual framework?
I do want to spend more time pouring over
your post, especially the latter part of same,
to see if there are additional comments I
might make, OK?]

Feel free to critique. That’s one of the gifts of the internet.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Okay, now you’re both going over my head -

:bowdown:

Peace…