To Zen or not ?

[Bennie_P]

The following is an excerpt from Hieromonk Seraphim Rose’s book ORTHODOXY AND THE RELIGION OF THE FUTURE.

I would urge you to take it to heart because he at one time was a Buddhist.

orthodoxphotos.com/readings/future/training.shtml

Especially telliing are from his closing words:
“Of all of today’s Eastern religious currents, Zen is probably the most sophisticated intellectually and the most sober spiritually. With its teaching of compassion and a loving “Cosmic Buddha,” it is perhaps as high a religious ideal as the human mind can attain — without Christ. Its tragedy is precisely that is has no Christ in it, and thus no salvation, and its very sophistication and sobriety effectively prevent its followers from seeking salvation in Christ.”

Very good article thank you for sharing it. another paragraph that jumped out at me is this one -

Zen has, in fact, no theological foundation, relying entirely on “experience” and thus falling into the “pragmatic fallacy” that has already been noted earlier in this book, in the chapter on Hinduism: “If it works, it must be true and good.” Zen, without any theology, is no more able than Hinduism to distinguish between good and evil spiritual experiences; it can only state what seems to be good because it brings “peace” and “harmony,” as judged by the natural powers of the mind and not by any revelation -everything else it rejects as more or less illusory. Zen appeals to the subtle pride — so widespread today — of those who think they can save themselves,

and thus have no need of any Saviour outside themselves.

Something as a Christian I always have to be reminded is the understanding my faith has to be based on faith and trust in God not my own “feel good” experiences or what I think “I” contribute to my salvation, which is nothing, but the acceptance of God’s free gift, which even that is not possible without His Grace.
Thanks again for the article.

 

[Ahimsa]

Very good article thank you for sharing it. another paragraph that jumped out at me is this one -

Zen has, in fact, no theological foundation, relying entirely on “experience” and thus falling into the “pragmatic fallacy” that has already been noted earlier in this book, in the chapter on Hinduism: “If it works, it must be true and good.”

With all due respect to Hieromonk Seraphim Rose, it must be noted that Zen does not operate on a “if it works, it must be true” model. Zen has a specific name for experiences that feel good, or that seem to ‘work’, but really don’t: it’s called “makyo”. Any meditative tradition worth its salt distinguishes between “what seems to work” and “what really works”:

The contemplative literature contains numerous descriptions of the perceptual distortion produced by meditation. It is called makyo in Zen Buddhist sources, and is characterized in some schools as “going to the movies,” a sign of spiritual intensity but a phenomenon that is regarded to be distinctly inferior to the clear insight of settled practice.

Thomas Merton was quite aware of the Zen notion of makyo, and attributed the search for happiness via drugs as a particularly virulent form of makyo:

Later that year [Merton] the Trappist engaged in a series of letters with [Ms. Linda] Sabbath in which he wrote critically of this sort of self-induced psychedelic experience of transcendence. He had never had anything to do with them. but he judged that they were “probably not all they are cracked up to be.” He sensed that is was similar to what the Zen people call makyo. This means the illusions that one has to put up with patiently until he gets rid of them. They were not to be taken seriously. He thought that “systematically induced makyo is hardly a good substitute for a genuine interior life, even though the latter may require more work.” He feared that psychedelics may want to have interior experiences entirely on our own terms which makes the freedom of pure grace impossible. Religiously he thought their value to be “pretty low” but that psychologically they could be of considerable interest. (Sabbath, Linda 12.1.65 HGL 521)

Two weeks later Merton again wrote to Sabbath in answer to her response to the above letter. He shows his sense of the limitations and shallowness of merely psychological approaches to religious experience. More illusion than truth may result, he feared. “If all you are looking for,” he told her, “is psychological integration, then makyo, OK, then maybe mescaline, God knows, I don’t… But what I am trying to say is that when the development of the religious (and mystical) consciousness really gets going, all this makyo, visions, oceanic feelings, lights and music, rapture, etc. etc. is really irrelevant and can become an obstacle.” (Sabbath, Linda 12.17.65 HGL521)

 

[Bennie_P]

With all due respect to Hieromonk Seraphim Rose, it must be noted that Zen does not operate on a “if it works, it must be true” model. Zen has a specific name for experiences that feel good, or that seem to ‘work’, but really don’t: it’s called “makyo”. Any meditative tradition worth its salt distinguishes between “what seems to work” and “what really works”:

Thomas Merton was quite aware of the Zen notion of makyo, and attributed the search for happiness via drugs as a particularly virulent form of makyo:

Quoting Merton to me doesn’t do it … I’m not a fan of his, for many reasons…

Thomas Merton, of course, constitutes a special threat to Christians, because he presents himself as a contemplative Christian monk, and his work has already affected the vitals of Roman Catholicism, its monasticism. Shortly before his death, Father Merton wrote an appreciative introduction to a new translation of the Bhagavad Gita, which is the spiritual manual or “Bible” of all Hindus, and one of the foundation blocks of monism or Advaita Vedanta. The Gita, it must be remembered, opposes almost every important teaching of Christianity. His book on the Zen Masters, published posthumously, is also noteworthy, because the entire work is based on a treacherous mistake: the assumption that all the socalled “mystical experiences” in every religion are true. He should have known better. The warnings against this are loud and clear, both in Holy Scripture and in the Holy Fathers.

This thread is about if Catholics should practice Zen, my answer is still no…
Christian Zen

Envangelizing the West

 

[Greg27]

I think Thomas Merton writes very accurately about Zen and Buddhism in general.

The Asian mystical religions in many ways were founded on the same sorts of questions of ‘ultimate concern’ which led to the founding of the world’s monotheistic religions, including Christianity. There is also a lot of similarity between the mystical traditions which developed in the world’s monotheistic religions and those of the Asian religions.

But at the same time there are a lot of differences, and proper interfaith dialogue and study of the Asian religions I think requires a Westerner to be properly formed and understanding their own traditions first, in religion, philosophy and mysticism.

Thomas Merton was very well formed as a monk in the Christian contemplative tradition before he explored Eastern religious mysticism, and I think that is what enabled him to write very accurately on the matter. Likewise, D.T. Suzuki was a Zen Buddhist who was very well formed in the Eastern contemplative traditions, which enabled him to write quite well on Western mystics such as Meister Eckhart.

However the problem with some people who dabble in either Eastern or Western religious mysticism or spirituality is they divinise the ‘little’ self or ego-self, or fall into the traps which are dangers to contemplative spirituality, especially if they try to engage in a contemplative praxis without any foundation in the religion itself. Both Eastern and Western mystical traditions are meant to be a part of, not divorced from, the religious life as a whole. The writer of the Cloud of Unknowing, John of Cross, and Meister Eckhart, were all devout Catholics who took the church and the life within it for granted, just as the writers of Eastern contemplative texts assume that the persons reading them were practicing members of that religion or else monks or nuns in the sangha (Buddhist monastic communities). As Merton knows well, and warns in many of his writings, people who try and indulge or engage in mystical contemplation without any grounding in a more deeper committment to a religious tradition or practice, are basically indulging in a foolish path spiritually, advice that accords well with the writer of the Cloud, St John, Meister Eckhart, and other spiritual masters in the Christian tradition, as well as those in the Eastern religions as well.

The point of all mystical contemplation is to encounter the mystery which lies at the ground of our being, and is the source of all being. However, all mystical contemplation in a religious setting really can’t be divorced from living, as best as one can, in the religious tradition from which the contemplative tradition comes from. Mystical contemplation differs from rational contemplation (as we find in say, science or philosophy) in that contemplating and beholding the Truth goes past reason and the normal operations of the intellect, and also requires a certain moral purity and personal ascesis of selfishness and egoism, which is the root of sin.

Sadly, many people have harshly condemned Thomas Merton because they misunderstand both him and also Eastern religion, and in a way, their own contemplative tradition. The mystical tradition is common to all of the world’s religions, and they can learn a lot from each other, but they are not a substitute for each other either. One shouldn’t dismiss thousands of years of meditation on things like suffering and death that one finds in Indian and Asian religions and philosophy, merely because of one’s prejudice, but at the same time one must not rush to Indian or Asian religion and philosophy merely because you can’t be bothered to take the time or expend the energy and effort to see the rich treasures which exist in Christianity and Western philosophy on the same issues Asian philosophy and religion try to address. Dialogue is in my view not about forcing the other to come around to your viewpoint, but neither is it about trying to ‘start again’ all over by rejecting your own heritage and running to another. In my own experience, Asian philosophy and religion has helped shed new light on questions Western religion and philosophy has raised over the centuries, with the same profundity you find in the Western tradition, but it is by no means superior to our own tradition or a replacement. I think Thomas Merton points this out, and understands it, and worked on this basis on his interreligious dialogue.

 

[Pophead]

In my own experience, Asian philosophy and religion has helped shed new light on questions Western religion and philosophy has raised over the centuries, with the same profundity you find in the Western tradition, but it is by no means superior to our own tradition or a replacement.

Hello Greg,

A most fine presentation. Thanks.

You might enjoy reading BB Warfield’s sermon, “Christianity and Mysticism” as well as Horatius Bonar’s “Not faith, but Christ”.

Quotes:

The issue which mysticism creates is thus just the issue of Christianity. The question which it raises is, whether we need, whether we have, a provision in the blood of Christ for our sins; or whether we, each of us, possess within ourselves all that can be required for time and for eternity. Both of these things cannot be true, and obviously tertium non datur. We may be mystics, or we may be Christians. We cannot be both. And the pretension of being both usually merely veils defection from Christianity. Mysticism baptized with the name of Christianity is not thereby made Christianity. A rose by any other name will smell as sweet. But it does not follow that whatever we choose to call a rose will possess the rose’s fragrance.

(from: BB Warfield : Mysticism and Christianity)

“Christ in us, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27), is a well-known and blessed truth; but Christ IN US, our justification, is a ruinous error, leading man away from a crucified Christ — a Christ crucified FOR US. Christ for us is one truth; Christ in us is quite another. The mingling of these two together, or the transposition of them, is the nullifying of the one finished work of the Substitute. Let it be granted that Christ in us is the source of holiness and fruitfulness (John 15:4); but let it never be overlooked that first of all there be Christ FOR US, as our propitiation, our justification, our righteousness. The risen Christ in us, our justification, is a modern theory which subverts the cross. Washing, pardoning, reconciling, justifying, all come from the one work of the cross, not from resurrection. The dying Christ completed the work for us from which all the above benefits flow. The risen Christ but sealed and applied what, three days before, He had done once for all.

(from; Not Faith, but Christ by Horatius Bonar.)

Sincerely,
Pophead.

 

[Contarini]

The issue which mysticism creates is thus just the issue of Christianity. The question which it raises is, whether we need, whether we have, a provision in the blood of Christ for our sins; or whether we, each of us, possess within ourselves all that can be required for time and for eternity. Both of these things cannot be true, and obviously tertium non datur. We may be mystics, or we may be Christians. We cannot be both.

Well, it is probably true that we can be Old Princetonian Calvinists or mystics, but not both (I won’t even say “Calvinists” in general, since I would argue that Jonathan Edwards was a mystic, as were many of the Puritans). But that is because Old Princetonian Calvinism is a defective form of Christianity.

However, in this case Warfield is simply caricaturing mysticism. Christian mysticism does not teach that we possess within ourselves all that can be required. Perhaps Zen does (I’ll let the people who know more about it speak to that), but I have never argued that Christians can or should take over Zen wholesale, but that aspects of it may be compatible with Christianity. A Christian who thinks Zen provides everything he/she needs for time and eternity has indeed in some sense ceased to be a Christian. From my own limited knowledge, I think that Zen is useful precisely for “time”–for insights into what it means to be finite, temporal creatures living in the midst of continual change.

                “Christ in us, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27), is a well-known and blessed truth; but Christ IN US, our justification, is a ruinous error, leading man away from a crucified Christ — a Christ crucified FOR US. Christ for us is one truth; Christ in us is quite another. The mingling of these two together, or the transposition of them, is the nullifying of the one finished work of the Substitute. Let it be granted that Christ in us is the source of holiness and fruitfulness (John 15:4); but let it never be overlooked that first of all there be Christ FOR US, as our propitiation, our justification, our righteousness. The risen Christ in us, our justification, is a modern theory which subverts the cross.

No, it’s the ancient faith of the Church. Bonar is creating a false dichotomy because, again, his version of Christianity (and not mysticism) is sub-Christian. He is misled by a false human tradition stemming from Luther. There is no opposition or conflict between Christ in us and Christ for us. Christ died for us that he might live in us–they are two sides of the same coin.

Washing, pardoning, reconciling, justifying, all come from the one work of the cross, not from resurrection. The dying Christ completed the work for us from which all the above benefits flow. The risen Christ but sealed and applied what, three days before, He had done once for all.

Again, Bonar is contradicting basic Christian orthodoxy and presenting this brazenly as Christian orthodoxy (though the brazenness is not his–I believe he was a holy man–but belongs to his defective tradition). The Resurrection does not just “apply” what happened on the Cross. Cross and Resurrection are one organic whole. The exaltation of Cross over resurrection is one of the deep flaws of traditional Protestantism (and by the way makes nonsense of the common Protestant claim that Catholics emphasize a crucified rather than a risen Christ–this is actually something Protestants are far more likely to do).

Edwin

 

[DebChris]

What is the question that God will ask on judgment day? Will he ask us to which theological doctrine we adhere? Mother Teresa said that God will ask us only one question, “How much did you love?”
The stereotype of the Zen Buddhist is sitting still in silence. What is called meditation is compatible with what we as Christian call contemplation. The essential difference being the action of the Holy Spirit. We breath in the very breath of God. When we begin with meditation upon the cross of Christ, we are pulled into contemplation, into the Cloud of Unknowing in which the Holy Spirit pulls us. This contemplative prayer is never an act initiatied by myself. My only decision is to place myself, to center myself on Christ.
There is the story of a man who every day entered a Church. He never opened a book or said anything but merely sat in a back pew. One day the priest asked him what he was doing. “I look at Christ (the Crucifix) and Christ looks at me.” Contemplative prayer, prayer that is beyond words is considered the highest form of prayer, not because of what I do but because of what God does in pulling me into union with his very self.
An earlier post expounded the idea of reincarnation, the many lives through which the Buddha passed. Reincarnation was not unknown to the ancient Greeks, as we read at the end of Plato’s Republic. After a thousand years, or the end of punishment given by the gods, new life is given to the dead, all memory of past lives forgotten. Jesus responded to this idea of reincarnation when asked to whom a woman is married after having wed on earth seven sons in succession as prescribed by the law set down by Moses. “You are mistaken. In heaven you are as the angels, neither marrying nor being given in marriage.” It is these truths, the first being the action of the Holy Spirit and the idea of reincarnation which make Buddhism and Christianity incompatible.
The ideas of quieting our spirits, praying for one another’s peace, and acting in charity we can retain. In the same way we can accept what Marcus Aurelius offers in his Meditations, to detach ourselves from material goods and to seek justice. Marcus Aurelius condemns Christians for their obstinacy. As Christians, we worship one God alone, a heresy to the pagans of that time. It is to God alone that we give our worship.
Recommended reading: John Michael Talbot, Come to the Quiet.

 

[Contarini]

Jesus responded to this idea of reincarnation when asked to whom a woman is married after having wed on earth seven sons in succession as prescribed by the law set down by Moses. “You are mistaken. In heaven you are as the angels, neither marrying nor being given in marriage.” .

Resurrection is hardly the same idea as reincarnation–it involves a glorified version of the old body, and it is not something that happens over and over again in a cyclical fashion.

An argument for reincarnation in the NT would need to rest on the concept of Elijah having returned in John the Baptist (which John the Baptist denies in John 1–Jesus does appear to affirm it in Matt. 17 and parallel passages, and in Matt. 11–but given John’s denial, a theologically harmonizing interpretation would point toward Jesus speaking non-literally in Matthew, a view supported by Luke 1:17), and on the question posed by the disciples to Jesus concerning the blind man in John 9 (since Jesus says that the man did not sin before birth, this again is not conclusive evidence, though Jesus doesn’t repudiate or explain the idea of sinning before birth).

Edwin

 

[Ahimsa]

An argument for reincarnation in the NT would need to rest on the concept of Elijah having returned in John the Baptist (which John the Baptist denies in John 1–Jesus does appear to affirm it in Matt. 17 and parallel passages, and in Matt. 11–but given John’s denial, a theologically harmonizing interpretation would point toward Jesus speaking non-literally in Matthew, a view supported by Luke 1:17)…

John’s denial is certainly not to be dismissed, but (from a reincarnationist standpoint) it need not be necessary for John to have remembered his past-lives. That’s all I’ll say on this issue.

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<An argument for reincarnation in the NT would need to rest on the concept of Elijah having returned in John the Baptist (which John the Baptist denies in John 1–Jesus does appear to affirm it in Matt. 17 and parallel passages, and in Matt. 11–but given John’s denial, a theologically harmonizing interpretation would point toward Jesus speaking non-literally in Matthew, a view supported by Luke 1:17)…
—End Quote—
John’s denial is certainly not to be dismissed, but (from a reincarnationist standpoint) it need not be necessary for John to have remembered his past-lives.>>

To be re-incarnated–to come back as someone or something else–by definition, you have to have died firsst.

Elijah never died. He and Enoch (ditto) are the two witnesses of Revelation who will be martyred by Antichrist.

 

[Contarini]

<<An argument for reincarnation in the NT would need to rest on the concept of Elijah having returned in John the Baptist (which John the Baptist denies in John 1–Jesus does appear to affirm it in Matt. 17 and parallel passages, and in Matt. 11–but given John’s denial, a theologically harmonizing interpretation would point toward Jesus speaking non-literally in Matthew, a view supported by Luke 1:17)…
—End Quote—
John’s denial is certainly not to be dismissed, but (from a reincarnationist standpoint) it need not be necessary for John to have remembered his past-lives.>>

To be re-incarnated–to come back as someone or something else–by definition, you have to have died firsst.

Do you believe in reincarnation? I don’t. So I’ll let the folks who do define what is required for it! I suspect that Hinduism, for instance, may not have this requirement. I would tend to define reincarnation as a soul/consciousness passing into a different body at the point of the birth or conception of that body. How it got out of the former body would not be relevant, I think.

However, from a Judaeo-Christian point of view your argument is a very strong one, because we do not believe that souls and bodies can be mixed and matched like that. The assumption of Enoch or Elijah or (extra-biblically) the Blessed Virgin demonstrates that the body is destined to be glorified rather than discarded or traded in for a new model.

Edwin

 

[DesertBrother]

I have never argued that Christians can or should take over Zen wholesale, but that aspects of it may be compatible with Christianity.
Edwin

This is where the real danger lies because we lack discernment outside of what the Church provides us. If we travel outside the Church’s borders, we’ll only be deciding things based on our own personal judgement and experience, which is constantly prone to deception and delusion. Sometimes people end up with their own “designer religion” (a little bit of Buddhism, a little, Taoism, a little John of the Cross, etc), all based on how certain teachings make them feel. Before they know it, everything becomes relative. :hypno:

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<Do you believe in reincarnation? I don’t. >.

I never said I did. I was merely pointing out the fallacy of saying that Christ’s words, “For those who will receive it, John was Elias” proves reincarnation.

Your point about the glorification of the body in the World to Come is very well made.

However, remember that the Holy Virgin did die. How could she not be conformed to her Son in this regard? Her soul was separated from her body, howsoever briefly. Elijah and Enoch have not yet died.

 

[DebChris]

Resurrection is hardly the same idea as reincarnation–it involves a glorified version of the old body, and it is not something that happens over and over again in a cyclical fashion.

An argument for reincarnation in the NT would need to rest on the concept of Elijah having returned in John the Baptist (which John the Baptist denies in John 1–Jesus does appear to affirm it in Matt. 17 and parallel passages, and in Matt. 11–but given John’s denial, a theologically harmonizing interpretation would point toward Jesus speaking non-literally in Matthew, a view supported by Luke 1:17), and on the question posed by the disciples to Jesus concerning the blind man in John 9 (since Jesus says that the man did not sin before birth, this again is not conclusive evidence, though Jesus doesn’t repudiate or explain the idea of sinning before birth).

Edwin

CCC1013…“When ‘the single course of our earthly lif is’ completed, we shall not return to other earthly lives.’ It is appointed for men to die once.’ There is no ‘reincarnation’ after death.” See Heb. 9:27.
God is a God of the living and not the dead.

 

[Contarini]

I never said I did.

I know. My point is that the people who believe in it are best placed to define it. It’s unfair to define a term so as to set up a refutation, if the people whom you are trying to refute don’t accept the definition in the first place. It accomplishes nothing.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

CCC1013…“When ‘the single course of our earthly lif is’ completed, we shall not return to other earthly lives.’ It is appointed for men to die once.’ There is no ‘reincarnation’ after death.” See Heb. 9:27.
God is a God of the living and not the dead.

I do think that Heb. 9.27, and the Biblical attitude toward death generally, is hard if not impossible to reconcile with reincarnation. I was not arguing for it but acknowledging the grounds on which one might do so.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

This is where the real danger lies because we lack discernment outside of what the Church provides us. If we travel outside the Church’s borders, we’ll only be deciding things based on our own personal judgement and experience, which is constantly prone to deception and delusion. Sometimes people end up with their own “designer religion” (a little bit of Buddhism, a little, Taoism, a little John of the Cross, etc), all based on how certain teachings make them feel. Before they know it, everything becomes relative. :hypno:

This is a “slippery slope” argument, which I find illegitimate. It is particularly odd coming from a Catholic, because you have plenty of explicit teaching from your church telling you where the boundaries are. You are also told explicitly by your Magisterium that there are elements of truth and goodness in other religions. You are therefore ideally placed to explore those elements without any fear of straying into error.

We Protestants have far more reason to be nervous about this.

Edwin