tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241684761340467690.post7422849410670896305..comments2022-12-11T04:55:14.695-07:00Comments on Zen Naturalism: Reading TextsPoep Sa Frank Judehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13609272991412471770noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241684761340467690.post-49210377879161300222013-04-17T15:41:33.009-07:002013-04-17T15:41:33.009-07:00Matthias,
Yes, I love the audacity of Buddhadasa...Matthias, <br /><br />Yes, I love the audacity of Buddhadasa when he says, "Make no mistake, you come from the womb once and you are placed in the ground once." His take on 'rebirth' as the arising of self-contraction on a momentary basis rings true to what neuro-science seems to be saying as well!Poep Sa Frank Judehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13609272991412471770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241684761340467690.post-27601688270162789752013-04-17T15:39:08.330-07:002013-04-17T15:39:08.330-07:00Jason:
"Have you ever read "The Da Vinc...Jason:<br /><br />"Have you ever read "The Da Vinci Code" to your students?"<br /><br />No, because I think it a suck-ass book! I HAVE read to them from other fiction (Thomas Ligotti, Paul Auster, Dashiell Hammett among others) as I see the potential for teachings in many places -- not just buddhist texts. I've read from non-fiction as well, including Antonio Damasio and Bruce Hood.<br /><br />It is generally understood that the awakening of the buddha is not/was not what is meant in theology as "revelation," no matter how 'sacred' the texts might be seen by some followers. It was in this context I was speaking when I spoke of the buddha's insight as not understood as 'revelation' as -- for instance -- the Koran is understood to be 'revealed' knowledge or the Vedas 'revealed' to the rishis.<br /><br />I see plenty of useful psychological and existential information even in the suttas without feeling the need to exempt them from critical thinking. I find some of the stories funny, intriguing and psychologically sophisticated and thus 'relevant' to my practice. So, I read them. <br /><br />I still see much in the buddhist tradition amenable to a naturalistic worldview, so buddhist texts are valuable for study, inquiry and application. They are not privileged in being exempt from criticism, reinterpretation and sometimes rejection.Poep Sa Frank Judehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13609272991412471770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241684761340467690.post-85449088234370869622013-04-16T09:12:49.382-07:002013-04-16T09:12:49.382-07:00Frank Jude,
I very much like your criteria of (1)...Frank Jude, <br />I very much like your criteria of (1) practical usefulness, (2) extraction and re-interpretation as well as (3) love of practice and imagery. I find it very helpful and will model myself on you concerning this. Recently I reread the only critical book on Zen existing on the German book market where I found a wonderful psychological interpretation of Zen practice without the exaggerated ontological claims that are often made like being one with the universe and so on. Here one finds a nice application of criteria (1) and (2) with much useful things that survive.<br />Your extracts from Steve Hagen’s book are very nice examples also demonstrating the usefulness of your criteria. The back-peddling concerning the teaching of anatman is something that seems distinctive for Zen Buddhism. Big Mind or the Self (be aware of the capital S) say hello. Among others, it seems to be the anxiety felt because of one’s own mortality that revived the atman idea in Zen Buddhism. As naturalists, we simply cannot accept this regarding the currently available knowledge. All things are contingent and impermanent. I think the idea of anatman is utterly naturalistic. As Tom Clark puts it in his wonderful article on meditation: “The first-person meditative experience of the dropping away of ego, should it occur, is to experience what third-person science shows to be the dependent arising, and non-arising, of the phenomenal self. In this way, the scientific-physicalist and meditative-experiential perspectives, both empirical in different senses, end up with the same conclusion: the very core of self – the experienced locus of all our concern and striving – is a mutable, perishable, dependent phenomenon, just as the Buddha taught (http://www.naturalism.org/buddhism.htm)”. Some Theravadans, for example Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, were intellectually honest as well as naturalistic on this matter as am I: “We can conclude by saying that if you understand anatta correctly and truly, then you will discover for yourself that there is no rebirth and no reincarnation. The matter is finished.” I couldn’t have said it any better.<br />Best<br />MatthiasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241684761340467690.post-56817123134426611112013-04-11T15:01:43.429-07:002013-04-11T15:01:43.429-07:00I see that your post focused on modern zen books a...I see that your post focused on modern zen books and Steve Hagen's book in particular, but it seemed to me that the original question and your response was relevant for any zen text that might be used in relation to contemporary practice. I.e. Ancient sutras and modern Zen paperbacks often contain supernatural speculation, so how do we as modern practitioners deal with that?<br /><br />"Who says I am "looking" for anything in particular in reading ANY book (zen or otherwise)? Don't you read for enjoyment? Also, if you note what I wrote, I find it helpful to engage with texts to help me in my own thinking"<br /><br />I agree that reading to engage is useful (whether we agree or not with what we are reading); however, we're not talking about novels that are simply for enjoyment. We're talking about books that purport to "instruct". Have you ever read the Da Vinci Code to your students? <br /><br />"As for the "ancient sutras," even the buddhist tradition does not see that buddha's insight as "revelation" as does the Hindu tradition regarding the Vedas, the Torah..."<br /><br />Notions of enlightenment and sacred texts in Buddhism are very close to notions of revelation in the religious traditions that you mentioned. The Pali canon certainly has a quasi-sacred status to many as do the Mahayana sutras. Books by modern Zen masters can also be treated this way.<br /><br />My overall point was simply to question the need to engage with books/sutras at all in relation to practice.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17426420304262976642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241684761340467690.post-39507746273237927072013-04-10T22:46:23.900-07:002013-04-10T22:46:23.900-07:00Jason,
Thanks for commenting, but I can't say ...Jason,<br />Thanks for commenting, but I can't say I am sure I understand your point or question!<br /><br />Who says I am "looking" for anything in particular in reading ANY book (zen or otherwise)? Don't you read for enjoyment? Also, if you note what I wrote, I find it helpful to engage with texts to help me in my own thinking: if I find myself agreeing with a passage, I question what it is I'm really agreeing with. And conversely, if I find myself disagreeing, I check to see what I'm in disagreement with and sometimes find it is more a projection than what is actually written. I read with an open mind and as if in dialogue with the text.<br /><br />As well, where did I ever say <i>anything</i> about "sacred texts?" My post is about a contemporary zen teacher/author and one of his books on meditation practice. <br /><br />As for the "ancient sutras," even the buddhist tradition does not see that buddha's insight as "revelation" as does the Hindu tradition regarding the Vedas, the Torah, the Bible or the Koran as do Judaism, Christianity and Islam respectively. In fact, the buddhist traditions rejected the very idea of "revelation."<br /><br />Finally, even if the buddhist sutras <i>were</i> considered "revelation," that doesn't mean I have to accept it as such. I can read any of those texts as text with critical faculties working. <br /><br />As I'm not sure of your point, I don't know if my response actually is relevant to what you write, but it is what I'm thinking as I read your comment.Poep Sa Frank Judehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13609272991412471770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241684761340467690.post-83226677231327574082013-04-10T12:44:59.540-07:002013-04-10T12:44:59.540-07:00If we already know what we are looking for, why re...If we already know what we are looking for, why read books on Zen at all? In other words, if reading zen texts is a matter of simply picking and rejecting, why pick up a book to find it? I mean this somewhat facetiously but also very seriously. The idea of sacred texts is prominent in many religions and is usually tied to the idea that the text has some kind of divine/spiritual authority. One might argue that keeping ancient sutras, etc central to practice only encourages the notion of exclusive spiritual authority and revelation (which I think run counter to most naturalist approaches).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17426420304262976642noreply@blogger.com