Teachings from Zen

[ChangeInTime]

I am Catholic however I find a great deal of inspiration from zen stories. Is it fine for me to do this? They seem to also hold a great deal of wisdom.

 

[lifetone]

LOL, this is my first non-introductory post so I’m definitely not official but I was personally curious to see what the teachings from Zen in a Catholic context would be. My maternal side is Zen Buddhist (Okinawan Japanese) but my mom was raised in Catholic school due to growing up in Brazil, where that is what people did at the time if they wanted a decent education.

I could probably say a lot more but for me being a Catholic Christian is a lot like being a kite held by God, who lets me wander as far as my string will allow, while never, ever letting me go.

Because God is a Person - not an ‘essence’ - and we are human beings created in His image. All of which actually makes me more free than chaos would. I like to think. And either way I am never giving up my Best Friend, not for all the transcendental experiences in the world. Among other things that would be a lot of transcendental experiences. Very tiring.

 

[dharmasister]

I could probably say a lot more but for me being a Catholic Christian is a lot like being a kite held by God, who lets me wander as far as my string will allow, while never, ever letting me go.

I really like that imagery. I am very much a Catholic, however, because of my personal upbringing and life experiences I have many, many friends with a very wide range of belief systems. This is strictly my own opinion and I am sure there are many here who will disagree with me, but I believe God can teach us many lessons using any tools he sees fit. My kite soars far and high and my Catholic faith holds me steadfast. I too know that God will never let go of that string!!!

I am Catholic however I find a great deal of inspiration from zen stories. Is it fine for me to do this? They seem to also hold a great deal of wisdom.

I guess what I’m trying to say is, I personally don’t see how the story of emptying your cup (or any other zen story) could not benefit you. I am sure we will both be told otherwise.

 

[Hesychios]

I am Catholic however I find a great deal of inspiration from zen stories. Is it fine for me to do this? They seem to also hold a great deal of wisdom.

I have very little knowledge of Zen stories, but you have me curious.

Would you say that they are parables? If so, they are meant to teach underlying truths. If these truths teach things which clash with Christian Truths (not sure that they do, but perhaps) it can still be alright to learn about but then your study of them should be academic, not for spiritual enrichment.

Having recalled that Zen originated as Chan Buddhism in China I found this article today which purports to briefly explain the basic thought underlying Chan Buddhism (I copy it entirely here). I cannot vouch for it’s accuracy …

**http://www.imperialtours.net/images/inside_china/thought/chan_buddhism/chan_sbhd.gif **

Buddhism is said to have traveled into China along the Silk Road in the first half of the first century AD. Its rise to prominence grew in proportion to the increasing traffic along the Silk Road, so that by the Tang dynasty (618-907AD) when China’s capital, Chang’an, was one of the world’s most prosperous cities, Buddhist translations were for the first time accessible. It was during this period that a new variant of Buddhism arose, which used elements from Daoism to beget a quintessentially Chinese variation of the Indian import. This new school came to be known as the Chan, or in Japan, the Zen school.
**General concepts of Buddhism: **
The general principles of Buddhism are evident in Chan Buddhism. That is to say that the world is an illusion conjured up by each individual’s mind, that every thought has the power to produce a retributive future result (known as *karma *), and that it is this that decides what form we will appear in during our next life. Enlightenment occurs when we understand this, and nirvana is attained when we are emancipated from the endless cycle of life and death to join the Universal Mind. The main Chinese variations within Chan Buddhism are as follows:
1) The Theory of the double truth:
This defines two different kinds of truth, a common one and a higher one, on three different levels. At the heart of this complex theory is an examination of the inter-relationship between existence and non-existence. Truth is complicated by the fact that on the one hand there is physical form or existence and, on the other, everything is said to be illusory or non-existent. In which case, what and where is truth - within existence or non-existence? After considering this, the theory then considers the same question for enlightenment.
2) “A good deed entails no retribution”. This idea stems from the Daoist belief in non-action, i.e. that action without effort, which is natural and spontaneous to the essence of the individual, does not entail any future retribution or " *karma *".
3) The method of attaining enlightenment is to do things without deliberate effort and purpose and live naturally. This (again linked to Daoism ) prepares the mind for enlightenment.
4) That enlightenment occurs suddenly. Although non-action or living the life of non-cultivation diminishes distracting elements and facilitates contemplation, enlightenment itself is not a gradual process but a sudden revelation.
5) Although words can be a useful tool to explain a thought, they can only ever be an approximation to the idea. Thus, the state of enlightenment can never be described.
6) There is no other reality than this phenomenal world. Whereas the unenlightened only see the physical objects around them, the enlightened in addition to this see the Buddha nature within the phenomenal world.
This brief list of variations gives an impression of the far-reaching influence of Daoism on the synthesis of Chan Buddhism.

I have always liked Buddhism (what little I have known), but one thing we must keep in mind is that Buddhism is “I” focused. “It’s all about me!”

Christianity looks outside oneself … “It’s all about God”.

 

[SedesDomi]

         6) There is no other reality than this phenomenal world. Whereas the unenlightened only see the physical objects around them, the enlightened in addition to this see the Buddha nature within the phenomenal world.

This statement would be an inaccurate depiction of Zen, or any other Buddhist tradition. If there is only the phenomenal world, and if there is nothing that “transcends” this phenomenal world, then there would be no possibility of enlightenment.

 

[Hesychios]

This statement would be an inaccurate depiction of Zen, or any other Buddhist tradition. If there is only the phenomenal world, and if there is nothing that “transcends” this phenomenal world, then there would be no possibility of enlightenment.

Perhaps that is an influence of the Dao. I don’t know. The article claims that Chan is not pure Buddhism, but syncretic. Zen Buddhism would then presumably carry that forward in the same tradition.

 

[Eric_Prine]

I am Catholic however I find a great deal of inspiration from zen stories. Is it fine for me to do this? They seem to also hold a great deal of wisdom.

Thomas Merton wrote a book trying to see if there was anything in common between Zen Buddhism and Christianity called “Zen and the Birds of Appetite”. Last half of the book was very interesting and thought had some good points. I think the Catholic Church would agree that there are some good things in Buddhism, since the Catholic Church is not Manichaean, but I do think some books which do try to find common ground between Christianity and other religions can end up distorting true Christianity. Kind of a slippery slope maybe?

 

[SedesDomi]

Perhaps that is an influence of the Dao. I don’t know. The article claims that Chan is not pure Buddhism, but syncretic. Zen Buddhism would then presumably carry that forward in the same tradition.

Zen certainly has Daoist influence, but even Daoism posits that the phenomenal world is not the only reality. The “Dao” itself symbolizes this non-phenomenal reality, as this apophatic statement from the Dao De Ching demonstrates: “The “Dao” that can be spoken is not the true Dao.”

 

[Xuan]

My understanding of Daoism is that the phenomenal world is not reality at all; it is only an illusion, a manifestation of the Dao. Only the Dao is real. It “gives everything and asks nothing in return.”

Xuan

 

[SedesDomi]

My understanding of Daoism is that the phenomenal world is not reality at all; it is only an illusion, a manifestation of the Dao. Only the Dao is real. It “gives everything and asks nothing in return.”

Xuan

Perhaps some Daoists might view phenomenal realms as merely illusion, but overall (from my experience) Daoists seem to see the phenomenal realm as “real”, but not as real in the same sense that the Dao is real.

 

[rossum]

6) There is no other reality than this phenomenal world. Whereas the unenlightened only see the physical objects around them, the enlightened in addition to this see the Buddha nature within the phenomenal world.

This statement would be an inaccurate depiction of Zen, or any other Buddhist tradition. If there is only the phenomenal world, and if there is nothing that “transcends” this phenomenal world, then there would be no possibility of enlightenment.

I disagree. Hesychios has it right. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35. He died age 80. For 45 years he was living in the same phenomenal world as everyone around him yet he was also in nirvana.

We are always ‘here and now’. If we cannot be enlightened ‘here and now’ then we cannot be enlightened at all. We are always ‘here’ and it is always ‘now’.

Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana.
Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara.

Whatever is the end of Nirvana, that is the end of Samsara.
There is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two.

• Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 25:19-20

rossum

 

[Bluegoat]

Christian religious scholars have been studying Greek and Roman mythology forever. And C.S.Lewis had his first inkling of religion from Norse mythology.

All of these are are part of the religious remnant of another culture, although ones that are no longer active. I don’t see why an active religion would be any different.

I’d also say a good understanding of other religious worldviews can give us a better understanding of our own, rather like learning a foreign language can give us a better understanding of our mother tongue.

 

[SedesDomi]

I disagree. Hesychios has it right. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35. He died age 80. For 45 years he was living in the same phenomenal world as everyone around him yet he was also in nirvana.

We are always ‘here and now’. If we cannot be enlightened ‘here and now’ then we cannot be enlightened at all. We are always ‘here’ and it is always ‘now’.

Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana.
Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara.

Whatever is the end of Nirvana, that is the end of Samsara.
There is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two.

• Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 25:19-20

rossum

In the sense that nirvana is only realized within the context of samsara, then, yes, I would agree.

And insofar as nirvana in Madhyamika is not considered the highest state, then, yes, I would agree.

In any event, the claim that “phenomenal reality is the only reality” implies, from a Western perspective, that the only reality is the reality of matter and energy as defined by modern science, a perspective that would be rejected, whether one is Madhyamika or Theravada.

 

[brgregmack]

It must be remembered that all truth comes from the Holy Spirit. While there are shadows of the truth in other world religions, there’s absolutely no need to go outside of the Church for spiritual growth. We Catholics have a plethora of wisdom in the writings of various Saints.
To me, after reading them, any Zen story seems empty and confusing.

 

[rossum]

And insofar as nirvana in Madhyamika is not considered the highest state, then, yes, I would agree.

That is the first I have heard of that, unless you are talking about parinirvana, which long predates the Madhyamika.

In any event, the claim that “phenomenal reality is the only reality” implies, from a Western perspective, that the only reality is the reality of matter and energy as defined by modern science, a perspective that would be rejected, whether one is Madhyamika or Theravada.

Agreed.

rossum

 

[SedesDomi]

That is the first I have heard of that, unless you are talking about parinirvana, which long predates the Madhyamika.

Well, let me put it this way: Nirvana transcends Samsara, and yet there is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two.