Re: Christianity and zen
Tang Huyen
digi wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'd like to propose the following question(s) to this
> newsgroup. Is it possible and/or probable for a
> christian to start practising zen?
>
> Does buddhist practise, and enlightenment as result
> from this, eliminate the need for the christian idea
> of solving original sin, the fall from eden?
>
> peace,
>
> digi
Buddhism and Chan (I am not talking of Japanese
Zen, which is neither Buddhism nor Chan) are based
on the relinquishment of all attachment, and
attachment comes in the form of fixations and
certainties. Buddhism and Chan are therefore into
the relinquishment of fixities and certainties of any
kind, including any dogma. The more certain you
are of something, the more Buddhism and Chan
want you to relinquish it. This extends to everything,
including any dogma that happens to be preached in
Buddhism and Chan. The Buddha says that the Law
(Dharma) that he teaches is like a raft, to be used to
ferry oneself from this shore (of delusion) to the
other shore (of awakening), but to be relinquished
after it has done its job. Therefore in Buddhism and
Chan, one learns to take everything in levity and
flexibility, not in rigidity and closedmindedness.
I do not mean to imply that the explaining scheme in
Buddhism and Chan is worthless, but only that its
value to their proponents is relative. It is only a
means to an end, not the end in and of itself (in
contradistinction to theistic religions, where the
history of salvation is real and true, and real and true
forever, even after the end of the world).
Thus whether the teaching in Budhism and Chan
Dependent Arisal is merely a construction of the
Buddha and of Chan masters or something that exists
independently of them is of no importance, if it does
its job of helping one cross over from this shore of
suffering to the other shore of the ending of suffering,
because it is then to be forsaken once it has done its
job and not to be held on to forever. Its ontological
status is moot. It is merely a tool, a temporary tool,
a provisional prop, and is not anything ultimate.
This instrumentalist view in Buddhism contrasts
sharply with the common view of the history of
salvation in the theistic religions, where God laid
his Law down in Word, and in order to be
redeemed his creatures have to believe in his Word,
that is, in the doctrinal content of his Revelation, at
face value. Even then they still have to practice that
content in real life, however they may interpret it.
But practice is in addition to content, on top of
content, and content is valid always and forever on
its own side, even after the fullness of time, when
the saved are already saved forever and the damned
are already damned forever.
In the theistic views, the world, all of creation, is
forever dependent on the Word of God which
created it. The Word of God is true and permanent,
from its own side, in and of itself, and never "goes
out of usefulness and actuality", never �outlives its
usefulness and actuality�. It created the world, will
survive the world and will remain true forever and
ever more, even when there are no living beings
around to be witnesses to it (as before creation). It
is quite literally the Last Word. The world (including
living beings in it) is not ultimate, but the Word that
created is.
This radical difference in the valuing of words between
Buddhism and theistic religions comes down to a
difference in the investment of words with truth and
reality, or not. Buddhism takes words to be useful only
when used within their scope, which is limited, but not
to have truth and reality inherent in themselves.
Theistic religions take words to be God's creations, and
therefore to be invested with truth and reality from God's
side, not just for now, but also forever. Of utmost
importance is the very word "God", which only belongs
to the God of theistic religions. The investment of truth
and reality in that word is total and absolute. Those who
are attached to such theistic religions but who pretend to
revolt against them and to reject them still abide with
such an investment, even if their feeling toward the
word goes from positive to negative. The attachment is
however intact. They still cower in fear in front of the
word, even if they reject any objective reality to its
referent. The word still holds them in utter slavery. That
is what unicity and jealousy entail.
There are basic options, decisions that pull a whole
cortege of consequences after them. Once one is
made, it fosters a slew of subsidiary decisions in its
wake and blocks other options as impossible.
Such primitive decisions are like: are words and their
meaning instituted once and forever, by some agency
like God, in dead finality and fixity, so that we merely
use them but may not mess with them (like redefining
them to the way we like, or dropping them altogether
and going without them, at least for some of the time)?
Or are they conventional and relative, so that we can
change them in whatever way we like, so long as we
still make ourselves understood, and that we can even
step out of them altogether, at least some of the time?
The former view is essentialist, and entails that words
and their meanings are fixed forever, immutable, and
that some special words and their meaning are wholly
beyond messing around, for example �God� and �the
soul�. The word �God� has a referent (not that it has
no referent, which would be atheism), not many
referents (which would be polytheism), and only one
referent, namely the Bookist God. That word is
exclusively reserved for him, and nothing and nobody
else may lay claim to it, and nobody may use it with
reference to anything or anybody else. It is a *perfect
box*, in that it has one referent (not none, not many),
and it and its referent are in one-to-one mapping with
each other. There is no ambiguity or flexibility possible,
no fuzziness, no margin of error. You may not fudge or
play with it. It is as clean-cut as anything imaginable.
The latter view is conventionalist and relativist, in that
words and their meaning are up to us, and do not exist in
and of themselves, from their own side. We may mess
with them any way we see fit, so long as we still make
ourselves understood. They can never be pinned down to
perfect precision, but always are tinged with indelible
ambiguity and uncertainty, not just at the margin, but
right in their core, which can never be arrived at, can
never be got at. In addition the whole realm of words
and their meaning is dispensible, in that we can go out of
it and leave it alone, at least some of the time, and its
absence can be desirable and even salutary.
Another pair of options is: whether something exists out
there that makes things and events (including us) true, or
our inner attitude that makes everything true. The former
is objectivist, the latter subjectivist.
According to the former, there is something that exists on
its own side, independently from us, and if we perceive it
or intuit it, it makes things and events (including us) true,
and things and events (including us) are true to the extent
that they partake truth from it. This external something
can be personal, like the Bookist God, or impersonal, like
the Platonic Form Truth. It owns truth from its own side,
exclusively, and lends truth to what is outside of it, like
things and events (including us). Physicalism is one
version of this view, as in it, things (including us) are true
by being physical, and we perceive them (including us) as
true by perceiving them in their physicality.
The latter view takes truth as an inner attitude of us, and
if we are true, we make everything true, from our side.
The true seeing makes everything true. Our own openness
and transparence make everything come to their truth and
shine forth in truth, whatever they were before and from
wherever they were before. It does not matter whether
they were mind or matter, happy or unhappy, vile or
exalted, our being true makes them true.
Another pair of options is to think in terms of things (de
re) or in terms of mind (de mente). If things are the last
redoubt, we have to go by them, but if mind is the last
redoubt, we handle thing by handling ourselves.
Objectivists of all kinds think about things, surely, and this
includes theists, who base everything on God, their
ultimate reference, and physicalists, who base everything
on matter, their ultimate reference. In Buddhism the
Abhidharmists (including the Abhidhammists of the
Theravada) fall into this class.
So, in summary, are you willing to give up on all
certainties and fixities, like God and the story that he
presumably tells (his history of salvation)? If not, then
don't bother with Buddhism and Chan.
That said, if you want to explore some teachings right
in Christianity that are very close to those of Buddhism
and Chan, you can try Eckhart, John of the Cross and
F�nelon, keeping in mind that the second is a Saint
whereas the other two are condemned. The teachings
of them is very similar to each other and very similar to
those of Buddhism and Chan. Actually they are Stoics
who disguise their teachings as Christian. Generally they
give short shrift to Christian dogmas, and why John is
made a Saint whilst the other two are condemned is
quite mysterious. On the side of Eastern Orthodoxy,
Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor offer
teachings that are also very close to those of Buddhism
and Chan. To the present day, the school of hesuchia
(which means peace or tranquillity) in Eastern
Orthodoxy still offers teachings that are also very close
to those of Buddhism and Chan, and this is so because
it is a Stoic school that disguises itself as Christian.
Stoicism is a close approximation to Buddhism and
Chan in Europe. If you know and can practice
Stoicism, you don't need Buddhism and Chan.
However, whether you want to believe in Buddhism or
Chan and undertake training in them or not, you can
always relax and be serene. That would render all
stories, including all histories of salvation, moot.
Tang Huyen
Nobody in Particular
>
>
> digi wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I'd like to propose the following question(s) to this
>> newsgroup. Is it possible and/or probable for a
>> christian to start practising zen?
>>
>> Does buddhist practise, and enlightenment as result
>> from this, eliminate the need for the christian idea
>> of solving original sin, the fall from eden?
>>
>> peace,
>>
>> digi
>
> Buddhism and Chan (I am not talking of Japanese
> Zen, which is neither Buddhism nor Chan) are based
> on the relinquishment of all attachment, and
> attachment comes in the form of fixations and
> certainties. Buddhism and Chan are therefore into
> the relinquishment of fixities and certainties of any
> kind, including any dogma. The more certain you
> are of something, the more Buddhism and Chan
> want you to relinquish it.
... including the personal belief that Zen "is neither
Buddhism nor Chan"
> Fénelon, keeping in mind that the second is a Saint
> whereas the other two are condemned. The teachings
> of them is very similar to each other and very similar to
> those of Buddhism and Chan. Actually they are Stoics
> who disguise their teachings as Christian. Generally they
> give short shrift to Christian dogmas, and why John is
> made a Saint whilst the other two are condemned is
> quite mysterious. On the side of Eastern Orthodoxy,
> Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor offer
> teachings that are also very close to those of Buddhism
> and Chan. To the present day, the school of hesuchia
> (which means peace or tranquillity) in Eastern
> Orthodoxy still offers teachings that are also very close
> to those of Buddhism and Chan, and this is so because
> it is a Stoic school that disguises itself as Christian.
> Stoicism is a close approximation to Buddhism and
> Chan in Europe. If you know and can practice
> Stoicism, you don't need Buddhism and Chan.
>
> However, whether you want to believe in Buddhism or
> Chan and undertake training in them or not, you can
> always relax and be serene. That would render all
> stories, including all histories of salvation, moot.
That's pretty much as I learned from my Zen teacher.
Lee Rudolph
>The Buddha says that the Law
>(Dharma) that he teaches is like a raft, to be used to
>ferry oneself from this shore (of delusion) to the
>other shore (of awakening), but to be relinquished
>after it has done its job.
I've been rereading Robert Graves's idiosyncratic (not to
say eisegetical) redaction of The Greek Myths (in the
2-volume paperback of that title), led there to find out
the *true* myth of Odysseus and Circe (as I suspected,
my recent proposal that the Sirens sang sweet nothings--
sweet, in fact, Fanny Adams--is entirely ungrounded: and
what more evidence could I desire of its deep truthiness?).
This time around, I've paid particular attention to Graves's
account of the penultimate trial of Odysseus--that he must
placate wrathful Poseidon by setting out (no doubt, with
a single step) "on foot, as Teiresias had instructed, across
the mountains of Epirus, carrying an oar on his shoulder"
to journey until he should find a people so unfamiliar
with the sea that they could not recognize it as an oar,
but would mistake it for a winnowing-bat. ... Yet,
to paraphrase a paraphrase recently made on these very
boards, nothing is either oar nor bat but thinking makes
it so. "Is that a raft on your shoulder, or are you just
glad to have the shade of a parasol?" As they say in
snowy East Virginia, you can paddle a birch, but you
can't Roanoke--yet they may be wrong!
As ever,
Br'er Rudolph
Kitty P
"Nobody in Particular" <nob...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:hgjo1g$g7$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> whereas the other two are condemned. The teachings
>> of them is very similar to each other and very similar to
>> those of Buddhism and Chan. Actually they are Stoics
>> who disguise their teachings as Christian. Generally they
>> give short shrift to Christian dogmas, and why John is
>> made a Saint whilst the other two are condemned is
>> quite mysterious. On the side of Eastern Orthodoxy,
>> Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor offer
>> teachings that are also very close to those of Buddhism
>> and Chan. To the present day, the school of hesuchia
>> (which means peace or tranquillity) in Eastern
>> Orthodoxy still offers teachings that are also very close
>> to those of Buddhism and Chan, and this is so because
>> it is a Stoic school that disguises itself as Christian.
>> Stoicism is a close approximation to Buddhism and
>> Chan in Europe. If you know and can practice
>> Stoicism, you don't need Buddhism and Chan.
>>
>> However, whether you want to believe in Buddhism or
>> Chan and undertake training in them or not, you can
>> always relax and be serene. That would render all
>> stories, including all histories of salvation, moot.
>
> That's pretty much as I learned from my Zen teacher.
>
My training has been a blend of Soto and Rinzai Zen. This of course is like
saying I have studied with the Christian equivalent of the anti-christ to
many Theravadins - even though the basic principles are very much the same
and share the Four Noble Truths, Middle Way and Eightfold Path. It is based
on a spiritual realization of bodhicitta or an intention to achieve
enlightenment not for oneself, but for all beings. What I have been taught
is that for the beginner, it does not matter whether a person finds a sense
of peace or belonging within a religion like Christianity. If original sin
floats a person's boat - it doesn't really matter at first. To begin can
start by simply making an intention to live the precepts and to practice
compassion with the intention to broaden the expression of wisdom in
everyday life. Meditation practice helps with emptying and experiencing the
moment. What I now often wonder about is why we humans even bother to
choose belief systems that are shaming and leave us feeling unworthy. But
I'm not a religious scholar - just an extremely happy bumpkin.
Kitty
Nobody in Particular
<snip>
>>
>
> My training has been a blend of Soto and Rinzai Zen. This of course
> is like saying I have studied with the Christian equivalent of the
> anti-christ to
> many Theravadins - even though the basic principles are very much
> the same
> and share the Four Noble Truths, Middle Way and Eightfold Path. It
> is based on a spiritual realization of bodhicitta or an intention to
> achieve enlightenment not for oneself, but for all beings. What I
> have been taught is that for the beginner, it does not matter
> whether a person finds a sense of peace or belonging within a
> religion like Christianity. If original sin floats a person's boat -
> it doesn't really matter at first. To begin can start by simply
> making an intention to live the precepts and to practice compassion
> with the intention to broaden the expression of wisdom in everyday
> life. Meditation practice helps with emptying and experiencing the
> moment. What I now often wonder about is why we humans even bother
> to choose belief systems that are shaming and leave us feeling
> unworthy. But I'm not a religious scholar - just an extremely happy
> bumpkin.
I think the feeling unworthy comes first, perhaps from ones parents.
Once the ego is convinced of something, especially something negative,
it's looking for validation of that conviction. Shaming belief
systems will do just fine.
It's also a known fact that people (especially women) with a very deep
feeling of unworthiness will often repeatedly seek out partners that
will abuse them.
Stay an extremely happy bumpkin.
Charles E Hardwidge
And knock it off with the cross-posting. This topic doesn't need a crushing
propaganda reply and has got fuck all to do with *any* of the groups you
posted to.
FU trimmed to alt.zen
--
Charles E Hardwidge