tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241684761340467690.post7173764861667919816..comments2022-12-11T04:55:14.695-07:00Comments on Zen Naturalism: What I Hate About ZenPoep Sa Frank Judehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13609272991412471770noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241684761340467690.post-4673774565826059402011-08-14T09:10:29.012-07:002011-08-14T09:10:29.012-07:00You point out the problems I had with Zen also, an...You point out the problems I had with Zen also, and even more so, Tibetan Buddhism. Hence, I've turned to secular Buddhism as a practice, meaning the focus is on our humanness as material, natural animals, sharing this planet with many other animals and ecosystems in this world, in this lifetime.<br /><br />There are, of course, practices in zen that are really helpful, but I can do without the mystical treatment, with the lineage trappings, without the required rituals as sanghas.<br /><br />I don't have a physical secular sangha to go too, so I'm content with the Secular/Skeptical Buddhist communities in Second Life, sharing on the web, and maintaining my practice as I breathe through life.Dana Nouriehttp://thesecularbuddhist.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241684761340467690.post-70034353954381770272011-08-13T22:29:19.416-07:002011-08-13T22:29:19.416-07:00Glen, I know you're probably quite busy with y...Glen, I know you're probably quite busy with your own blog now that you're back from the mountains, however, I'd appreciate you explaining what you mean by "apprenticeship" as well as what you mean by "the next step."<br /><br />I don't experience my life/practice as 'on hold' or in some state of "preparation." There's just 'this' and it is this to which I adjust, and direct my steps. I feel there is certainly no pre-determined 'next step,' and from what I've read at your blog, I don't think this is what you mean either, so I'd appreciate more clarification.<br /><br />Thanks!Poep Sa Frank Judehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13609272991412471770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241684761340467690.post-22000860855266518242011-08-13T19:39:30.802-07:002011-08-13T19:39:30.802-07:00Ouch....must be going for the jugular...
I suppos...Ouch....must be going for the jugular...<br /><br />I suppose all titles are outcomes of hallucinations - we make up stuff all the time and hang our hat/head on it. Sometimes it resonates with others, sometimes it doesn't. Run it up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes (or fires a shot through it).<br /><br />Not for the meek...Dharma Sanctuaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18090181646147336683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241684761340467690.post-68239767917237097122011-08-13T15:37:40.073-07:002011-08-13T15:37:40.073-07:00Oh, I agree with your post, and really appreciate ...Oh, I agree with your post, and really appreciate it. <br /><br />What makes something "Buddhism" rather than "just so" (everyday life) is just this business of naming. To me, empty reality is to shunyata, etc., what Joe Jones is to Joe Jikyo Jones Roshi; namely a rhetorical dressing up that serves to occlude what it purports to name precisely because it overwrites what it names (with its grandiosity, cultural-historical complexity, etc.). Some terms try to prevent pulling the heartstrings of the soul's vibrato. Spiritualized like, like "Zen," does just the opposite. The role of language in all of this interests me greatly. In fact, I devote an entire blog to it, called Ovenbird (glennwallis.com/blog).<br /><br />Empty reality, by the way, is not unmediated. It's right there always, as long as we have bodies.<br /><br />The irony of Buddhism is that it encodes its own undoing. But no Buddhist is able to undo it. That would be impossible. (Hence: non-Buddhism.)<br /><br />I think time served in apprenticeship does matter. Not that it ever produces uniformity of view. But in this age (enhanced by the internet), it seems, everyone's an expert. <br /><br />Again, a great post. I would just like to see people like you--people who have served a long, productive, healthy apprenticeship--take the next step.Glenn Wallishttp://www.glennwallis.com/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241684761340467690.post-16862017445027103542011-08-13T14:05:20.040-07:002011-08-13T14:05:20.040-07:00I generally do not publish any comments not direct...I generally do not publish any comments not directly related to my post. And yours certainly doesn’t seem to respond to anything I write about above. BUT, considering that it’s you, Glen, I figured it deserving a response.<br /><br />First, I must admit I’m not sure I agree or disagree with you as your statement seems meant merely to be provocative, and doesn’t really seem to clearly define what you mean.<br /><br />For instance, I’m not sure how “zen naturalism” is any more (or less) “a particular form of human hallucination” than “speculative non-buddhism.” How do you mean the terms you use? <br /><br />I just read your response to “Robert” at your blog. I’m unclear how the term “empty reality” is any less a “second-order naming game” than <i>shunyata</i> (or the term I prefer, <i>shunya</i>). To my mind, “emptiness” (when not reified as some Mahayana schools most clearly did) is a straight-forward description of how reality is experienced. “Empty reality” doesn’t seem to me to point to anything truly experienced, but then you’ve not truly defined the term, so I may likely be misunderstanding you. <br /><br />The whole point of “zen naturalism” is that as neural beings, we can only experience the world through the body. “Empty reality” sounds to me like some kind of ‘unmediated’ experience of some absolute that I do not believe possible. But I can’t be sure that’s what you mean by the term. All sorts of Buddhists say things about “seeing things as they are.” What could that even mean when we experience pheonmena though the body? <br /><br />All “zen naturalism” asserts is that all the various experiences meditators throughout time and space have had are somatically based. It's how things appear to the "human ape." There is no need to take the further step from the experience and say that there are “transcendent realms” that ontologically exist independently of the mind/body. If this is a hallucination, from what stance would you be able to know that?<br /><br />One final observation, you often refer, as you do in your comment to Robert, to your decades of experience having led you to your present project/position/perspective or whatever you wish to call your “view.” I come to my position after decades of experience as well. But what kind of relevance does that actually have? What exactly are you asserting about your view by saying that? Are you saying it makes what you say “true?” And what would that mean?Poep Sa Frank Judehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13609272991412471770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241684761340467690.post-65855670667737644352011-08-13T12:22:48.201-07:002011-08-13T12:22:48.201-07:00"Zen naturalism" is nothing real or natu..."Zen naturalism" is nothing real or natural. It's a particular form of human hallucination, namely, "Zen naturalism."Glenn Wallishttp://speculativenonbuddhism.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241684761340467690.post-70958053031244834322011-08-11T01:03:08.192-07:002011-08-11T01:03:08.192-07:00Thanks for your insights Frank, and your pointng t...Thanks for your insights Frank, and your pointng to David Brazier's writings. I just finished New Buddhism and before that The Feeling Buddha. There is a lot of good material there. <br /><br />My last two blog posts have drawn inspiration from him, and from you as well, and I give/gave you credit.<br /><br />Here's my post before last: http://www.dharmasanctuary.org/2011/07/26/the-four-noble-truths-new-insights/<br /><br />Your discussion of lineage and its claim for authenticity is a good one to question. Coming from the Tibetan tradition, I used to think this unbroken lineage aspect was a sign of specialness and never considered that it might be unnecessary. It's easy to get sucked into the belief of the need for continuity to establish legitimacy. But really - Buddha's teachings don't need to be handed down only through such a line. The teachings are the teachings, and they are available from many sources. On the other hand, it is a fine goal to keep these teachings alive by passing them down from committed holders of the tradition to their students. Nothing wrong with that approach. However, traditions get ossified and then become a crutch. It seems everywhere I turn, this is the nature of the problem - what once worked in an early context, later became a problem of rigidity. At that point the edifice needs to be brought down and the light of day shown to clear away the cobwebs. Then we start over.<br /><br />It seems we are in a major phase of bringing things to the light of day. Later we will have reconstitution - until eventually in the future the same problems will arise. It's all ebb and flow. The main job is to point out this entire cycle and have people see where we are on this wheel. That's the only way to keep it fresh, and to hopefully keep it that way longer before the invetiable ossification begins.<br /><br />AndrewDharma Sanctuaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18090181646147336683noreply@blogger.com