Zen Meditation: Theory and Practice

[TheAtheist]

And I also take the Church’s attitude towards what the Church is (a little bit broader than that of St. Augustine): We know where the Church is; we don’t know where it isn’t. The Church is a spiritual reality, not just a sociological one. Is someone performing a miracle from God? Then he is, however unconsciously or imperfectly, incorporated within the Church, regardless of what religion he practices.

Back up a second. Isn’t this Transcendental Thomism, ie: “Secret Christian” et al. from Karl Rahner’s view of thing? I thought he was considered theologicaly heterodox by mainstream Catholics.

Oh and as a general aside to the whole Zen Meditation thing… I am unsure if thi has been mentioned before but…are we all aware of Kennedy Roshi:

Robert Edward Kennedy is a Jesuit priest, professor, psychoanalyst and Zen Roshi in the White Plum lineage

kennedyzen.tripod.com/

Assuming the man isn’t a heretic or hasn’t been excommunicated (I find no evidence of this so far), coudn’t he serve as a QED to this whole argument.

He’s a Jesuit and a Zen Buddhist master. yet the Curia hasn’t thrown him out, neither have the Jesuits.

Isn’t that essentially an implict “this is ok”?

 

[Cecilianus]

Back up a second. Isn’t this Transcendental Thomism, ie: “Secret Christian” et al. from Karl Rahner’s view of thing? I thought he was considered theologicaly heterodox by mainstream Catholics.

Transcendental Thomism is the attempt to re-interpret Thomas in light of Kantian philosophy - interesting to me since I’m more open to Kant than to pure Aristotelianism (I’m actually a Heideggerian, although sometimes I wonder exactly how possible it is to interpret what Heidegger meant and not just what you read into him…). Pure Thomists consider it heretical which is also their opinion of everything but pure Thomism. The Church hasn’t declared it heretical and the Church does actually permit schools of thought other than pure Thomism (Scotism, Augustinianism, Molinism, and of course all the schools of theology proper to the Byzantine and Oriental rites), with all due respect to your local Thomist theologian.

Some particular conclusions Rahner comes to may be heterodox, such as his analysis of the Virgin Birth, and you’ll certainly see articles in journals like The Thomist arguing such. The Church has never condemned him, so far as I know. I personally don’t care for Rahner because he tries to express doctrines in Scholastic terminology that would be better phrased in other language.

The “anonymous Christian” doctrine is indeed found in Rahner, but I don’t think it follows from his “Transcendental Thomism” - it’s just a doctrine that this particular transcendental Thomist happened to teach.

Oh and as a general aside to the whole Zen Meditation thing… I am unsure if thi has been mentioned before but…are we all aware of Kennedy Roshi:

kennedyzen.tripod.com/

Assuming the man isn’t a heretic or hasn’t been excommunicated (I find no evidence of this so far), coudn’t he serve as a QED to this whole argument.

He’s a Jesuit and a Zen Buddhist master. yet the Curia hasn’t thrown him out, neither have the Jesuits.

Isn’t that essentially an implict “this is ok”?

No, it’s not an implicit “this is ok”. The Church doesn’t condemn everyone who is heterodox any more - partly because it’s unpopular to do so, partly because there are too many of them, and partly because it takes a long time to digest someone’s teachings and figure out how orthodox they actually are. The theologians upon which the entire theologies of the Western and Eastern Churches are based - St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Gregory Palamas, respectively - were both condemned by their local bishops or synods of local bishops during their lifetimes or shortly after their deaths, only to have their formulas accepted as official teaching by the whole rite of the Church after more time had passed for the meaning of their theology to sink in. Lots of controversial theologians of the 19th and 20th centuries are being reinterpreted today - Blessed Antonio Rosmini, for example; I would also take a more lenient interpretation of Abbe Bremond and the earlier writings of Teilhard de Chardin. And people are still debating and re-examining the usually murkily phrased theologies of ancient controversialists like Theodore of Mopsuestia (long thought to have been Nestorian); St. Gregory Palamas’ rehabilitation among Eastern Catholics was the result of such a re-examining after centuries of misinterpretation by Jesuit polemicists.

The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has censured a number of theologians who were very influential and who were clearly teaching heresy. But I can name dozens who passed by unnoticed, but strayed as far from Christian orthodoxy as one can get. Swami Abhishiktananda is a good example. I’m not sure, but I don’t think Mary Daly was ever censured by Rome either.

So whether Roshi Kennedy is orthodox or not is a matter that we have to examine for ourselves. The Church does clearly teach what is Catholic dogma, so it’s not that hard to do (just get a copy of the Catechism - a pretty thorough manual!). I do think it’s probably a bit inappropriate for a Catholic priest to become a Roshi, because it makes him look like a priest in two different religions. (Given his function as a priest in our religion, it could look like he also became a priest in a different one.) It probably doesn’t help him minister to his congregation or witness to the Faith, which would make it counterproductive. But that’s more a matter of how things appear than of the reality of what he is or should be doing. I’ll pass judgment on his case; I’m not the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and as I am not thinking of becoming a Jesuit Roshi I don’t need to make that call if I don’t know the answer of the propriety of his case.

So I don’t think he’s a very cogent debating point. The Jesuits are a bit notorious for their heterodoxy today, and the Church today sometimes finds it prudent to be a bit less proactive in rooting out heresy (a tendency I find annoying). In the future when the Church understands Oriental religions a bit better - the contact between Christianity and Buddhism is really recent, after all - she may pronounce this sort of thing heretical, or perhaps perfectly fine. We don’t know yet. It’s still a bit borderline - which is why we get to have the pleasure of hashing it out here.

 

[Cecilianus]

kennedyzen.tripod.com/

Assuming the man isn’t a heretic or hasn’t been excommunicated (I find no evidence of this so far), coudn’t he serve as a QED to this whole argument.

He’s a Jesuit and a Zen Buddhist master. yet the Curia hasn’t thrown him out, neither have the Jesuits.

Isn’t that essentially an implict “this is ok”?

I am going to have to read some of Kennedy Roshi’s books. The link piqued my interest.

I might also recommend the book Zen Catholicism, by Dom Aelred Graham OSB (a Benedictine priest). His book was granted a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (affirmations that the book is free from doctrinal errors) from Cardinal Spellman; on the other hand, while it’s been three years since I’ve read it I do remember him being somewhat cautious as to the scope to which he though Zen could be used. I could not see anything remotely smelling of heresy in the book, and obviously neither did Cardinal Spellman. It would probably be a good theological starting-point for an orthodox Catholic seeking to practice Zen.

 

[rossum]

ANd you can bet, I will deal with you on Monday! You want to talk commandments OH Yes we will.

We will start with Number ONE!!:

Buddhism only has five moral rules for laypeople, four of which are found in the Christian Ten:* to avoid injuring living things.

• to avoid taking what is not given.
• to avoid sensual misconduct.
• to avoid false and malicious speech.
• to avoid intoxicants.

The various gods are not relevant in Buddhism. Hence the Christian Commandments relating directly to God and to His holy day are not present in Buddhism.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Oh…geez… where is Rossum. He can probably do this better than I can.

You’re doing very well.

The search for “original pure Buddhism” is a chimaera. Buddhism split into different schools and different approaches very early. There is a record of a monk at the First Council, just after the Buddha died, who said, “I disagree with the rest of you. I know what I heard from the Buddha himself and I will follow that instead of what you are saying.” The traditional number of Eighteen different schools goes back to before the Second Council.

Per all Mahayana schools (with some reservations on the Zen schools since they are weird) - Siddartha Gautama was just an emanation of this Cosmic Buddha who sits beyond time/space in eternal concentration (i think Mary mentioned this as Samadhi). In order to benefit all beings “he” emanates the lesser buddhas to go and teach the various worlds the truth of Buddhism, ergo free sentient beings from their suffering.

I don’t know about you… but “Cosmo-Buddha” pretty much sounds like a God to me, minus the fact that it didn’t create the universe.

I am not very interested in the Cosmic Buddhas (Trikaya theory is the technical name). Trikaya is “Three Bodies”. The highest of the three, the Dharmakaya, is the closest to the Christian God, but is not personal and is not a creator. Many aspects of the Dharmakaya mirror nirvana.

Others may find the Dharmakaya useful. I don’t so I don’t bother with it much. Zen accepts the Trikaya theory but tend not to emphasise it much. Other schools, like Shingon, put more emphasis on Trikaya.

Just as Christianity has had to work out the relationship between Jesus as man and Christ as God, so Buddhism has had to work out the relationship between Siddhartha the man and the Buddha as a recurring element in time. The Trikaya is one of the more common resolutions of the problem.

rossum

 

[rossum]

For the Theravada - Nibbana is an inexpressible state - neither nihilistic or eternal. But it is a state of being outside of the world of samsara, our changeable world (resonances with Aristotle’s Sub-Lunary sphere anyone?)

For the Mahayana - Samsara = Nirvana. The difference between the two is a self-constructed illusion. There is no place “to go” really.

In achieving some sort of gnosis i guess you can say, conventional reality gives way to a true understanding of the manner in which reality is structured…at the heart of which lays the Dharmakaya…

When thinking of nirvana it is a great mistake to think of it as something like the Christian heaven. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35. He died at age 80. For 45 years he was living a human life in the world while at the same time he was in nirvana. You don’t have to wait until after you die; nirvana is possible here and now.

“For a nominal service charge, we can reach nirvana tonight.” - Frank Zappa.

rossum

 

[Mary_Jessica]

Now this i find incredibly strange. When encountering what your describing, many Christians reach for Augustine and his explanations regarding miraculous events that occur outside the confines of your Church (ie: Its demons!).

For me this is where things get really confusing in trying to view this from the perspective of the Church in comparison with my own ideas, the accounts I have studied, and science.

1. what is a deamon?
2. if everything is created by God then what is not?
3. Typically people regardless of Religion who have these experiences that prove to be authentic are very humble good people.
4. the fear of being possessed causes these people, Christians in particular an extreme level of anxiety and uncertainty.
5. are “daemons” and suffering the creation of man because of original sin?
   6)the church also gives the idea that suffering can be from God as well
   Read pope John Pauls encyclical on suffering.
6. so then what suffering is from say deamons, man, or God
   There seems to be so many paradoxes with all of these elements to evaluate.

 

[Mary_Jessica]

In my own very limited mind I seem to have made some sense of all of this. I fear my perceptions may be in conflict with Church to a small extent.

 

[Cecilianus]

For me this is where things get really confusing in trying to view this from the perspective of the Church in comparison with my own ideas, the accounts I have studied, and science.

1. what is a deamon?

A real spiritual being whose existence is separate from ours and who desires our damnation.

1. if everything is created by God then what is not?

Sin - how we have taken what God has created and perverted it.

1. Typically people regardless of Religion who have these experiences that prove to be authentic are very humble good people.
2. the fear of being possessed causes these people, Christians in particular an extreme level of anxiety and uncertainty.
3. are “daemons” and suffering the creation of man because of original sin?

The term “daemons” is sometimes used in a very analogous sense (which I like to avoid) to mean personal struggles or recurring temptations, but its primary sense refers to spiritual beings higher on the “great chain of being” than we are. Satan is not “the creation of man”.

6)the church also gives the idea that suffering can be from God as well
Read pope John Pauls encyclical on suffering.
7) so then what suffering is from say deamons, man, or God
There seems to be so many paradoxes with all of these elements to evaluate.

 

[Mary_Jessica]

Yes, I agree with you for the most part. Definately on what you said about sin. One thing you reminded of that eliminates one paradox is that Satan was created as lucifer by God before the creation of man. And the creation of lucifer by challenging Gods authority, or the attempt to separate from Him was sin. And man did the same thing in the garden of Eden story. They all wanted to do the impossible, sperate from the soure from which they came something that can be done by illusion only. But the Illusion that created sin continues to build on itself creating a thicker veil of illusions to have to look through. Just as Jesus said " know the truth and truth shall set you free" and Satan is called the" Father of Lies". Granted this is just my perception. I am very thankful for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[SedesDomi]

A small fact here-------

The Dalai Lama has actually basically admitted that buddhism is atheistic. When a interviewer (I forget who) asked him if buddhism was atheistic, he smiled and nodded. This was some years ago.

I would hesitate to claim that this event happened as stated, especially if one can’t remember the parties involved. And if it did happen, a nod is hardly a sufficient response, especially given the historical baggage that “atheism” as a label has in the West.

Remember, the ultimate aim of original (and “pure”) buddhism was the cessation of all desire and craving------

Cessation of dukkha remains the ultimate aim of all forms of Buddhism, by the way.

and since there is no actual personal “self,”

Edit: There is no part of your body, feelings, or thoughts that is unchanging, uncaused, and totally under one’s complete control at all times and places.

when one is able achieve total, complete enlightenment and achieve “Nirvana,” the “Nirvana” one achieves i the extinction of whatever is left of one’s “self”

Edit: the extinction of the belief that there is a part of your body, feelings, or thoughts that is unchanging, uncaused, and totally under one’s complete control at all times and places

-----one is literally snuffed out like a candle.

Edit: Ignorance of the changing, caused, and non-totally-controllable nature of one’s person is snuffed out like a candle.

The rituals and mythologies and beings within buddhism may speak of an “afterlife,” but its aim (at least in the common knowledge) is atheistic.

Yes, they speak of not just one afterlife, but potentially many, many more, because the Buddha’s 4th Noble Truth is that the Noble Eightfold Path leads to the end of dukkha. If mere physical death led to the end of dukkha (because death led to the total “extinction” of the person), then I’m sure the Buddha would have taught that.

 

[Mary_Jessica]

The buddhist idea of the journey of the soul after death is very interesting. When I read the T.B.D it reminded me very much of the journey of the soul in life as well.

 

[Mary_Jessica]

Why are we all so interested in this post. For a Buddhist I would assume they get the pont. Why are we Christians so interested, so lacking.
Because we forgot some very simple points, mostly surrender. Meditation is a form of surrender much like the mother of our savior surrendered herself to the holy spirit. We can find a philosophy, a way of making sense of things. We are not up to the task. Our thoughts in general suck if we give them up then we can let something greater come in. Our imperfections beforehand need to be seen, reckonized, and understood. Could we be attacked by something scary, maybe so. But have we any reason to think it has any power over us, after an Easter celebration who would think so. We are challenged to overcome it.
Of course getting closer to Christ would pose a threat. It would maybe invalidate the existence of the evil. How many people want to just make others feel bad because they do. Put this on a bigger scale over the course of human history and evil gets backup and a greater fall. if Jesus conquered hell then maybe we should too and conquer the sins
that create suffering and allow it to exist. Often these actions could bruise our egos and make us feel weak. But look at our example, he took humiliation with faith, not argument or name calling to the point of experiancing Hell. But the hell and surrender led to eternal life.

 

[Cecilianus]

Why are we all so interested in this post. For a Buddhist I would assume they get the pont. Why are we Christians so interested, so lacking.
Because we forgot some very simple points, mostly surrender. Meditation is a form of surrender much like the mother of our savior surrendered herself to the holy spirit. We can find a philosophy, a way of making sense of things. We are not up to the task. Our thoughts in general suck if we give them up then we can let something greater come in. Our imperfections beforehand need to be seen, reckonized, and understood. Could we be attacked by something scary, maybe so. But have we any reason to think it has any power over us, after an Easter celebration who would think so. We are challenged to overcome it.
Of course getting closer to Christ would pose a threat. It would maybe invalidate the existence of the evil. How many people want to just make others feel bad because they do. Put this on a bigger scale over the course of human history and evil gets backup and a greater fall. if Jesus conquered hell then maybe we should too and conquer the sins
that create suffering and allow it to exist. Often these actions could bruise our egos and make us feel weak. But look at our example, he took humiliation with faith, not argument or name calling to the point of experiancing Hell. But the hell and surrender led to eternal life.

Careful, though; surrender can be dangerous if you are surrendering a blank check to whoever wants it instead of surrendering yourself solely to God. Except in Amidism, I don’t think “surrender” is so much the point of Buddhism as the active practice of kenosis, and Zen is on the end of the spectrum that most emphasized working out salvation through personal effort rather than through any sort of faith or “surrender”.

 

[rinnie]

All right, some points for Rinnie :

(1) You have asked what Zen can do that prayer cannot. The answer is very simple, and threefold (I’m adding one from my answer earlier): (1) perceptual clarity about the world (useful tool for philosophy), (2) Calmness of mind, and (3) Satori (an instantaneous insight about something that cannot be expressed in words).

Prayer can give (2), but that is not the purpose of prayer. And while you may end up doing good philosophy while praying, that is not the purpose of prayer either, and it would mean you are being distracted at prayer.

(2) You complained I was “arguing with myself” for making a distinction between “meditation” as the first stage of mental prayer and “meditation” as a form of relaxation. This really isn’t a tough distinction to make. St. Thomas Aquinas answered most of his objections by making a distinction. If you’re going to refuse to make simple distinctions then continuing to debate the point is going to be pretty useless. Making distinctions is necessary for clarity of thought - and it’s not hard.

Zen isn’t a spiritual practice; we don’t need it for salvation. It’s like physics, or exercise. We do it because we enjoy it, and it may be good for us, and it may even (hypothetically) be necessary for something, but not (directly) necessary for salvation. No need or reason for the Church to teach it.

We have it taught to us by human sources, just as everything is taught to us by human sources. Your prayer is taught to you by your priest, or by your family if you are a cradle Catholic - not by Christ.

Zen is a school of Buddhism. Buddhism is not equivalent to the New Age Movement, a loose term that usually refers to Theosophy (which has no connection with authentic Buddhism whatsoever) or Wicca (no relation whatsoever) or groups and practices inspired by those two. Yoga is a Hindu (not Buddhist) practice.

Following Henri de Lubac, I do not regard something as automatically “non-Catholic” if it is “Buddhist” or something from any other religion. As Lubac pointed out, Christianity is sui generis, not just one religion among others - and so “religion” cannot be predicated univocally of Christianity and Buddhism. Upon further reflection, I also note that an entire religion with a well-developed creed and set of rituals and moral code - Neo-Platonism (yes, they did have their own priests and form worship) - was completely subsumed by Christianity, to the point where we think of it as simply an intellectual plank in Christian philosophy. Why not do the same with Buddhism?

Christian prayer is not lacking anything. That isn’t going to stop me from reading novels, or doing physics, or practicing Zen. They all fill different needs.

Jesus and Buddha are different and make radically different claims. Recognizing that fact is a bit more tactful (and much more insightful) than ridiculing Buddhism.

I was going to wish you a blessed Great and Holy Friday, but the clock turned midnight. It’s Holy Saturday now. Have a blessed remainder to your Triduum!

Hope you had a wondeful Easter. About ever 3 years I get that something Extra out o lent that I can never explain. This was the year. Then on Friday night here, we had the strangest thing happen. We had a thunder and lightning. which was not strange BUt what was strange before either happened the Earth Shook. It was like we were put back in time with the night that our Dear Lord was really cruficied. Oh Well, enough of that.

Thank-you for answering me. Okay now while I agree with you about reading a book can relax us and can have a calming effect you must remember it is to put our mind in other places. LIke when I read a good book that book puts me completely in another place I feel as I am there. But and here is big difference God is still the center of my being. I do not have to erase my thoughts to be engaged completely in that book.

Okay the if you see Budda kill him, thanks for explaining it, I always hear it, never understood what it meant.

Now please understand I am not here to ridicule, if that seems to be the case, let me be clear here and now. That was never my intentions. I do not make fun of any faith, I only show where I find them in disagreement with the word of God is all. And as we both agree we do not have the power of the HS to teach, but we can discuss with the gift that God does give us. Which to me is usually common sense. Now with that said.

I agree that as you stated zen is used to relax and like exercise there is no need for the Church to teach it because it is not needed for salvation. Now here is a big question for you. The Church teaches against it, do you not agree with me there. We are advised to stay away from it because it can harm us also. What are your thoughts on that?

Now you also said Prayer is taught to us by human sources. Yes it is, but is it not imitating Christ. Was Christian prayer not taught to us by a Human source but also a Divine source? Christian prayer was first taught to us by a Priest alright the HIGH PRIEST CHRIST himself. Do you see the difference here. So it was here to turn us towards God not away from God.

DO you agree that Zen can turn us away from Christ?

Another question if you can see where this is possible, do you feel to continue in this practice if there is 1/10 of a possiblility it could turn you away from Christ that is could be considered a sin?

 

[rinnie]

Buddhism only has five moral rules for laypeople, four of which are found in the Christian Ten:* to avoid injuring living things.

• to avoid taking what is not given.
• to avoid sensual misconduct.
• to avoid false and malicious speech.
• to avoid intoxicants.

The various gods are not relevant in Buddhism. Hence the Christian Commandments relating directly to God and to His holy day are not present in Buddhism.

rossum

I can agree with you on what you have said. And while I agree that there is some good in Buddhism do not get me wrong. I think you can agree that the One God is relevant in Christian faith and prayer.

Maybe it is my misunderstanding of this whole Post. I was under the impression this was not to say anthing wrong with Christian Prayer but to incorporate Zen with Christian prayer itself.

Now if again I am wrong please correct me. Zen is the practice of meditation wihout image or Concept. Is this not the meditation that is taught.

IF this is not the comcept of Zen meditation could you tell me what is? Because is would be my misunderstanding all the way.

But if I am correct and as I keep hearing no one is saying practice zen but meditation. Then why is Zen Meditation the title of this thread.

Zen Meditation is the absolute without image or concept.

This is again where I personally am seeing it impossible to fuse Christian Meditation with Zen Meditation.

As far as meditation itlsef with the CC that has always been taught. BY Jesus himself. He always taught us when we fast we fast in silence, when we pray we go into our room alone. Meditation is one on one in theory no matter how you want to see it.

Because even if you deny the existance of Christ you are reaching out for something. Even if it is your inner self it is still a type of relationship thatis being sought do you not agree? You are looking for something that is lacking. If not there would be no need for it.

Because myself I know my inner self, I do not need to take quiet time to seek my inner truth as they say. My inner truth is always revealed on the outer truth that I live. That would be the result of my soul at the moment. We call it our conscience. We know when it is clear and when it is not. I know at this moment I am being true and honest with you in my response. And I also know in my heart when I am being mean or spiteful.

And I also know that we all have inner truth in us, rather we choose to accept it or not is our call.

 

[rinnie]

All right, some points for Rinnie :

(1) You have asked what Zen can do that prayer cannot. The answer is very simple, and threefold (I’m adding one from my answer earlier): (1) perceptual clarity about the world (useful tool for philosophy), (2) Calmness of mind, and (3) Satori (an instantaneous insight about something that cannot be expressed in words).

Prayer can give (2), but that is not the purpose of prayer. And while you may end up doing good philosophy while praying, that is not the purpose of prayer either, and it would mean you are being distracted at prayer.

(2) You complained I was “arguing with myself” for making a distinction between “meditation” as the first stage of mental prayer and “meditation” as a form of relaxation. This really isn’t a tough distinction to make. St. Thomas Aquinas answered most of his objections by making a distinction. If you’re going to refuse to make simple distinctions then continuing to debate the point is going to be pretty useless. Making distinctions is necessary for clarity of thought - and it’s not hard.

Zen isn’t a spiritual practice; we don’t need it for salvation. It’s like physics, or exercise. We do it because we enjoy it, and it may be good for us, and it may even (hypothetically) be necessary for something, but not (directly) necessary for salvation. No need or reason for the Church to teach it.

If you sincerely hold exactly what you said than you are committing a heresy. As Catholics we believe in both faith and reason, that God wrote two books for us - nature and Scripture. We do NOT have natural knowledge about the world revealed to us - we have to go out and discover it. Best example of this is science. Science wasn’t revealed to us in prayer. And it tells us everything we know about the natural world - so much, in fact, that it would take many lifetimes for any individual to learn and grasp it all (why we have to have specialization - mine is astroparticle theory, the intersection between theoretical astrophysics and high-energy physics).

We have it taught to us by human sources, just as everything is taught to us by human sources. Your prayer is taught to you by your priest, or by your family if you are a cradle Catholic - not by Christ.

Zen is a school of Buddhism. Buddhism is not equivalent to the New Age Movement, a loose term that usually refers to Theosophy (which has no connection with authentic Buddhism whatsoever) or Wicca (no relation whatsoever) or groups and practices inspired by those two. Yoga is a Hindu (not Buddhist) practice.

Following Henri de Lubac, I do not regard something as automatically “non-Catholic” if it is “Buddhist” or something from any other religion. As Lubac pointed out, Christianity is sui generis, not just one religion among others - and so “religion” cannot be predicated univocally of Christianity and Buddhism. Upon further reflection, I also note that an entire religion with a well-developed creed and set of rituals and moral code - Neo-Platonism (yes, they did have their own priests and form worship) - was completely subsumed by Christianity, to the point where we think of it as simply an intellectual plank in Christian philosophy. Why not do the same with Buddhism?

Christian prayer is not lacking anything. That isn’t going to stop me from reading novels, or doing physics, or practicing Zen. They all fill different needs.

Jesus and Buddha are different and make radically different claims. Recognizing that fact is a bit more tactful (and much more insightful) than ridiculing Buddhism.

I was going to wish you a blessed Great and Holy Friday, but the clock turned midnight. It’s Holy Saturday now. Have a blessed remainder to your Triduum!

Got another quetion how could anything be enjoyed but also for the good of us if God is not the center though.

SIn is quite enjoyable also do you not agree. Until you have so much fun you let it destroy your soul.

 

[TheAtheist]

Because even if you deny the existance of Christ you are reaching out for something. Even if it is your inner self it is still a type of relationship thatis being sought do you not agree? You are looking for something that is lacking. If not there would be no need for it.

Rinnie, I believe your dragging your conceptual lens of Christianity over Buddhism - your taking concepts and ideas that grew up within a specific time period/culture and deciding to universalize them with a warrant for such an action.

Case in point - the whole crux of your religion is about a relationship with something that is wholely other correct? If i follow the Orthodox’s Via negativa viewpoint - God is unlike anything else - the exception in a world of rules.

But in some versions of Buddhism,** there is nothing there to have a relationship with**. There isn’t even a “search for an inner self” because there is “no-Self” - the fundamental doctrine of every Buddhist school. There is no enduring unchangeless entity. There is no true “inner self” to go hunt for.

There is however, a flow of perceptions, a continual stream of thought that constantly changes. The metaphor often given to be my Buddhists is a “mindstream” - which resonates with Heraclitus’ dictum about “You cannot enter the same river twice.” This thing isn’t a soul as conceived by those coming from the Western tradition - its not an unchangeable Platonic Ideal. Its a thing in constant flux, ergo there is no “true self” within that flux.

Pushing out the Amida, Tendai, an Nichiren Buddhists for a second (since they are in fact seeking a relationship with an Other) - the point isn’t about having a relationship - its about clearing cognitive blockages.

If i may create an awkward dichotomy to illustrate this:

1.) In the Abrahamic Religions and some variations of Hinduism - You are a Thing.

2.) In Buddhism, Daoism, and some variations of Hinduism - You aren’t a Thing, you are a Process.

Because myself I know my inner self, I do not need to take quiet time to seek my inner truth as they say.

Hmm. Its your POV vs. Augustine and the Eastern Church Fathers (on one of the few occasions they actually agree ).

Take heart Rinnie - i’ve heard other Christians say the same thing too.

They all just happen to be Protestant.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie, I believe your dragging your conceptual lens of Christianity over Buddhism - your taking concepts and ideas that grew up within a specific time period/culture and deciding to universalize them with a warrant for such an action.

Case in point - the whole crux of your religion is about a relationship with something that is wholely other correct? If i follow the Orthodox’s Via negativa viewpoint - God is unlike anything else - the exception in a world of rules.

But in some versions of Buddhism,** there is nothing there to have a relationship with**. There isn’t even a “search for an inner self” because there is “no-Self” - the fundamental doctrine of every Buddhist school. There is no enduring unchangeless entity. There is no true “inner self” to go hunt for.

There is however, a flow of perceptions, a continual stream of thought that constantly changes. The metaphor often given to be my Buddhists is a “mindstream” - which resonates with Heraclitus’ dictum about “You cannot enter the same river twice.” This thing isn’t a soul as conceived by those coming from the Western tradition - its not an unchangeable Platonic Ideal. Its a thing in constant flux, ergo there is no “true self” within that flux.

Pushing out the Amida, Tendai, an Nichiren Buddhists for a second (since they are in fact seeking a relationship with an Other) - the point isn’t about having a relationship - its about clearing cognitive blockages.

If i may create an awkward dichotomy to illustrate this:

1.) In the Abrahamic Religions and some variations of Hinduism - You are a Thing.

2.) In Buddhism, Daoism, and some variations of Hinduism - You aren’t a Thing, you are a Process.

Hmm. Its your POV vs. Augustine and the Eastern Church Fathers (on one of the few occasions they actually agree ).

Take heart Rinnie - i’ve heard other Christians say the same thing too.

They all just happen to be Protestant.

No You are missing my point. My Point is I know when I am being honest and when I am not being honest. I can fool you! I can fool the world! But I cannot ever fool God. I know this, God knows this.

But to the point, are you seeing why I am saying we cannot mix the 2. Thats all I am asking you. But you see when Zen Med is an impossiblility for Christian Prayer on if no other reason then no having the Presence of Christ. Thats all I am asking?

Its like the whole CORE of Zen Med is that you do not meditate on something. I am just asking do you see why I am saying this does not mix? Don’t get me wrong I am not asking if you agree with what I am saying. But can you agree with what I am saying I see from a Christian point of view? That it can’t mix.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie, I believe your dragging your conceptual lens of Christianity over Buddhism - your taking concepts and ideas that grew up within a specific time period/culture and deciding to universalize them with a warrant for such an action.

Case in point - the whole crux of your religion is about a relationship with something that is wholely other correct? If i follow the Orthodox’s Via negativa viewpoint - God is unlike anything else - the exception in a world of rules.

But in some versions of Buddhism,** there is nothing there to have a relationship with**. There isn’t even a “search for an inner self” because there is “no-Self” - the fundamental doctrine of every Buddhist school. There is no enduring unchangeless entity. There is no true “inner self” to go hunt for.

There is however, a flow of perceptions, a continual stream of thought that constantly changes. The metaphor often given to be my Buddhists is a “mindstream” - which resonates with Heraclitus’ dictum about “You cannot enter the same river twice.” This thing isn’t a soul as conceived by those coming from the Western tradition - its not an unchangeable Platonic Ideal. Its a thing in constant flux, ergo there is no “true self” within that flux.

Pushing out the Amida, Tendai, an Nichiren Buddhists for a second (since they are in fact seeking a relationship with an Other) - the point isn’t about having a relationship - its about clearing cognitive blockages.

If i may create an awkward dichotomy to illustrate this:

1.) In the Abrahamic Religions and some variations of Hinduism - You are a Thing.

2.) In Buddhism, Daoism, and some variations of Hinduism - You aren’t a Thing, you are a Process.

Hmm. Its your POV vs. Augustine and the Eastern Church Fathers (on one of the few occasions they actually agree ).

Take heart Rinnie - i’ve heard other Christians say the same thing too.

They all just happen to be Protestant.

Also please be more direct on ZEN Meditation. Explain exactly what the process is and what it is to achieve. (the short and sweet process please)