Criticisms of Zen

[Magic Primate]

I practice Zazen and post on a zen discussion board, but I don't regard myself as a Buddhist, more of a 'seeker' although I dislike the term.

I was originally drawn to Zen as I found many of the metaphysical ideas of Buddhism completely unconvincing (eg. reincarnation, karma etc.). There are 'apologetic' versions of these ideas - 'rebirth', and karma as 'cause and effect', but I find them either unpersuasive or meaningless.

Having said that, I really like the warmth and compassion of 'mainstream' Buddhism.

Zen seemed to offer a way of expressing spirituality without the dogma, by offering a way of being which was free from belief systems and conceptual thought itself. I've found though that even if this is supposed to be the ultimate goal, most zenists seem to use this to sneak a belief system through the back door.

- Rationality and philosophical thought is 'bad' (except Zen beliefs apparently) and scientific evidence is not seen as important: these are our best tools for distinguishing fact from fiction (especially science) - with proven track records.

- The self is an illusion: At one time I did believe this. And clearly there is no permanent, unchanging self, separate from the rest of nature, and sometimes people have false views about their self in this respect. But this does not mean that the self is an illusion. Current scientific evidence suggests that the self is a construct. In meditation, we can enter a selfless state, but that's probably because the area that is responsible for the self has been suppressed, not because we have seen through the illusion of the self. Anyway, if the self is an illusion, who is there to experience this illusion?

- Thought is an illusion: Thought is informational structure. Information is very real. A thought can (indirectly) create a cathedral or found a religion. Thought and other tyes of information is an organisational property of physical things. Just because it is not identical to physical matter itself does not mean it is an illusion.

- Enlightenment allows you to see things as they really are: A finite brain and finite mind always have a finite understanding of reality. We are always 'at one' with reality, in that we are an expression of it, but our perception of it is always limited. Becoming free from a sense of any separation between phenomenal, apparent reality and reality as it is in itself (which is a tension we must sometimes confront in life) is not the same as seeing reality as it is. Rather, i would suggest that it was an acceptance of appearances (illusions and all) as reality.

- Life is suffering:
Escape from the self might mean there is no 'self' to experience suffering, but I've never received a good response to the suggestion that this would apply to happiness or enlightenment equally - there is no one there to experience enlightenment. In short, why is enlightenment 'a good thing'? Why is neutral calmness better than the rollercoaster ride of highs and lows? Actually, the latter seems more aesthetically interesting. The answer to this may be that if we are not bound to desires we become free to be happy, but I don't know this to be true. There is some scientific evidence that Buddhists are happier (they were not Zen Buddhist btw), but it is not clear why.

I also have some problems with these ideas:
Imagination is 'bad'
Desire and emotion is 'bad'

Also, some zen people on discussion boards are deliberately cryptic (seemingly to protect their beliefs and to seem profound) and some of them are smug, as if they possessed superior knowledge and wisdom. Some of these people had been practicing for up to 20 years, yet they didn't seem to have qualities that I particulary wished to emulate. I always thought that if I met a supposedly enlightened person, I would know if he or she had qualities I sought. To my knowledge I never have, but I have corresponded with two Zen masters over the Internet. Both of them were likeable guys, but I didn't recognise a halo of serenity, compassion or liberation in either of them.

I'm also inclined to see evidence of being nothing more than a social-conformity-enforcing giant meme complex in all religions. Its not really what I want. Zen does seem to have some qualities that fit this pattern - promise of reward, encourages social conformity, is against rational and scientific thought.

My quest continues.

I still practice meditation, including metta meditation. I may practice a modified form of Buddhism without the beliefs, but its hard on your own. I will probably also continue my symbolic exploration of my psyche through imagery and imagination - writing, painting and dreaming.

[andy_d]

Mate, I doubt that the Buddha himself would blame you for being critical and striving for the best, even if doing so led you away from Buddhism :)

Of course, some people would just say "Keep meditating, and all your doubts and confusion will dissappear". Worlds most unhelpful advice, IMO.

I suppose the big question is: has your contact with Zen improved you, do you think?

[Magic Primate]

I suppose the big question is: has your contact with Zen improved you, do you think?

Yes, of course. I am indeed a wiser man. I have a deeper understanding of what Zen is - including its shortcomings.

One of the key principles of Zen is that language and logic are limited. I believe that abiding in an unconceptualised existence can be valuable. I also believe that zazen and metta meditation can be life-enhancing.

I don't feel I have gained any insights into the mind-body problem, which was a secondary benefit I was looking for.

And I know myself a little better... oh sorry, I forgot - myself is an illusion... so, my illusion knows itself a bit better. ;)

[Ramen]

I've felt some of the things you've felt while I've studied Buddhism on my own. But I now understand that Buddhism isn't about clinging to beliefs or labeling things good or bad. I probably would've abandoned it if it wasn't for the books written by Pema Chodron (http://www.shambhala.com/pc/index.cfm/)

Check out the following link...

excerpt from The Wisdom of No Escape by Pema Chodron (http://www.shambhala.com/pc/html/winoes-ex.cfm/)

[fgorin]

Magic Primate writes :

"My quest continues.

I still practice meditation, including metta meditation. I may practice a modified form of Buddhism without the beliefs, but its hard on your own. "

---------------------------

Hi. This is a first-time posting. Thanks for sharing your thoughts about the Zen path. I agree with some of your reservations about re-birth, karma, etc. Also the matter of doubt concerning formal doctrines. I'm wondering, are you familiar with the writings of Stephen Batchelor? I'm thinking particularly of "The Faith To Doubt//Glimpses of Buddhist Uncertainty" and the more controversial "Buddhism Without Beliefs." These are very interesting and ground-breaking works

I've been on the Buddhist path myself for quite a while and think of myself as a Buddhist but not in any "party" sense or dogmatically. I'm a member of a Zen sangha here in New Mexico and practice zazen regularly, and have also done some practic in the Theravada path and (briefly and experimentally) the Tibetan.

I feel that it's true there are some fundamental teachings in Buddhism - such as the truths of impermanence, suffering and the emptiness of self - but these are only pointers along the way - meant to help in breaking through to awakening. So, "believing" in one thing or another isn't nearly as important as actual meditation practice and cultivating virtues.

Do you belong to a Zen group now? How do you feel about group practice?

Good talking with you.

With Metta,

- Frank


.

[Magic Primate]

Frank,

I practice with a Zen sangha about once a week. It's helpful, as I otherwise wouldn't practice zazen for that length of time. As think I mentioned though, I miss Metta meditation and wish there was a bit more Metta in the group - not that there is anything wrong with the mood there. It's neutral but I'd prefer that it was more warm.

I have read Stephen Bachelor's 'Buddhism without Beliefs', in fact it was partly that which drew me back to Buddhism. Perhaps I should read it again to keep his perspective fresh in my mind.

Gassho,

Justin

[premjan]

I think one of the central weaknesses of Buddhism (due to its monastic roots) may be that it encourages weak family ties (i.e. husbands being more indifferent or uncaring wrt their wives or children) in an attempt to gain an objective viewpoint.

Is this observed in practice?

[andy_d]

Nope :)

There are several married couples in my sangha, and they're all very loving.

[fgorin]

Justin writes:

"I practice with a Zen sangha about once a week. It's helpful, as I otherwise wouldn't practice zazen for that length of time. As think I mentioned though, I miss Metta meditation and wish there was a bit more Metta in the group - not that there is anything wrong with the mood there. "

===========================

Hello, Justin. I've found that some vipassana practice, along with Zen, is a neat combination. Metta meditation is pretty standard work in vipassana -- also in the Vajrayana (Tibetan) path, with its use of imagination and symbolism in connection with compassion and metta. I guess being an eclectic Westerner (smile) helps in choosing from these different traditions. Anyway, it's been no problem for me. In fact, being in contact with the Theravadin and Tibetan ways has made my Zen richer.

Are there an Insight meditation group in your town, or any Vajrayana practitioners?

Be well,

- Frank


.

[Ramen]

Magic Primate,

I'd like to add re: your opening post that it seems that you want to conceptualize reality. Here's a quote that relates to this...

"The world of concepts is not the world of reality. Conceptual knowledge is not the perfect instrument for studying truth. Words are inadequate to express the truth of ultimate reality...But if conceptual knowledge is fallible, what other instruments should we use to grasp reality? According to Buddhism, we can only reach reality through direct experience. Study and speculation are based on concepts. In conceptualization we cut reality into smaller pieces that seem to be independent of one another. This manner of conceiving things is called imaginative and discriminative knowledge (Vikalpa) according to Vijnanavadin School of Buddhism. The faculty that directly experiences reality without passing through concepts is called non-discriminative and non-imaginative wisdom (nirvikalpjnana). This wisdom is the fruit of meditation. It is a direct and perfect knowledge of reality. Buddhism is a form of understanding in which one does not distinguish between subject and object. It cannot be conceived by the intellect or expressed by language." - Thich Nhat Hanh

quote from this link (http://www.philosophos.com/philosophy_article_53.html)

[Magic Primate]

Yes, that is the Zen way to think.

Conceptualed reality is not reality, just as a word is not what it refers to. This is important to realise and something that some Western philosophers would do well to pay more attention to. However, I'd like to make two points:

1. Conceptualising reality can be very useful, both pragmatically and for finding truth. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Is it really more helpful or true to dwell in the vague world of Zen emptiness?

2. The 'direct experience' of Zen is not and cannot be contact with direct reality, for reality is mediated by human senses and the human central nervous system, through the bias and arbitrariness of biological evolution and individual subliminal prejudice. The only reality that Zen can touch directly is phenomenological reality, and to take that for actual reality seems naive.
Whether or not there is awareness of subject and object, the experierences of this state are still dependent on the subjective. The Buddhist is experincing a reality that is constructed in his own brain and seemingly doing away with the ability to discriminate between aspects that originate in his brain and aspects that originate externally. He may think he is experiencing a red rose or a beautiful sound directly, yet the redness of the rose and the beauty of the sound are products of his own mind, whereas their source (the light and sound) lies outside the mind.

[Magic Primate]

Originally posted by fgorin
I've found that some vipassana practice, along with Zen, is a neat combination. Metta meditation is pretty standard work in vipassana -- also in the Vajrayana (Tibetan) path, with its use of imagination and symbolism in connection with compassion and metta. I guess being an eclectic Westerner (smile) helps in choosing from these different traditions. Anyway, it's been no problem for me. In fact, being in contact with the Theravadin and Tibetan ways has made my Zen richer.

Are there an Insight meditation group in your town, or any Vajrayana practitioners?

I've not found one in North London at a time when I'm around. I'll keep trying.

Thanks for your help,

Justin

[monkey mind]

Hi magic primate. I also practice zazen (albeit sporadically) and enjoy it, but have many similar criticisms as you. Although I think those are more criticisms of how zen is practiced by large numbers of people, rather than of zen itself. One zen site I really enjoy and check out ona regular basis is http://www2.gol.com/users/doubtboy/ . If you haven't seen it before, you should check it out, I thinkyou might like this guys take on things.

[Magic Primate]

Monkey Mind,

Brad Warner's site is my favourite zen site. I've just bought his book.

Oddly enough, your pseudonym is the same as the one I use on the Zen discussion board I use.

You're giving me the creeps.

;)

All the best,

Magic Monkey Mind

[Ramen]

posted by Magic Primate:

1. Conceptualising reality can be very useful, both pragmatically and for finding truth. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Is it really more helpful or true to dwell in the vague world of Zen emptiness?

OK, conceptualizing does satisfy your intellectual thirst for knowledge but I'm assuming that you’re practicing Zen for spiritual reasons. IMO, spiritual growth is more dependent on what we can experience. We can read and conceptualize what it is to have compassion, but will this make us more compassionate?

Groundlessness (emptiness) can be helpful in letting go of the things that cause you to suffer.


posted by Magic Primate:

2. The 'direct experience' of Zen is not and cannot be contact with direct reality, for reality is mediated by human senses and the human central nervous system, through the bias and arbitrariness of biological evolution and individual subliminal prejudice. The only reality that Zen can touch directly is phenomenological reality, and to take that for actual reality seems naive.
Whether or not there is awareness of subject and object, the experierences of this state are still dependent on the subjective. The Buddhist is experincing a reality that is constructed in his own brain and seemingly doing away with the ability to discriminate between aspects that originate in his brain and aspects that originate externally. He may think he is experiencing a red rose or a beautiful sound directly, yet the redness of the rose and the beauty of the sound are products of his own mind, whereas their source (the light and sound) lies outside the mind.


Yes, neurologist/Zennist James H. Austin said his “direct experience” could only prove the existence of the brain. So the question is – what value is there in such an experience? My guess is that you might gain a new and perhaps a deeper understanding of Zen teachings.

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/person/smilejap.gif

[Magic Primate]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. And I like the little bowing Oriental smiley.

Originally posted by Notorious PIG
OK, conceptualizing does satisfy your intellectual thirst for knowledge but I'm assuming that you’re practicing Zen for spiritual reasons. IMO, spiritual growth is more dependent on what we can experience. We can read and conceptualize what it is to have compassion, but will this make us more compassionate?

Groundlessness (emptiness) can be helpful in letting go of the things that cause you to suffer.



That's fine. It just bothers me when people talk about Zen truth and experiencing reality directly through Zen.

[premjan]

I think high-level thinking is category-driven. While low-level thinking is more instinctual and motor/perception driven. Zen and other forms of spirituality are trying to create a smooth join between the two. This helps to make thinking a more effortless and less biased process.

[Magic Primate]

Well, that sounds like a pretty groovy idea, but it seems to me, that most Zen-ists idea of Zen it to eliminate conceptual thought and imagination as well as detach from desire.

[andy_d]

Originally posted by Magic Primate
I've not found one in North London at a time when I'm around. I'll keep trying.


This (http://www.buddhismlondon.demon.co.uk) group have a centre in central london and practice Vajrayana.

[Magic Primate]

Thanks mate!

[goodthink]

the idea of zen or buddhism in general is to destroy the notions and ideas we have about the world and to experience it directly without attachments or pre-conceptions.

rationality is to be avoided because it attempts to lay down a foundation on top of what is. This isnt a metaphysical concept its a pragmatic one and works.

But more to the point, it is one path amongsrt many that work and is not for everyone. the truth of zen cannot be experienced by reading about it, thinking about it or weighing its notions rationally. It can only be known by experience and pratice. If that sounds hookey then i guess the entire concept of co-operative education is hookey and doctors and laqyers shouldnt pratice their proffesions before going to work on the general public.


regards,

goodthink

[goodthink]

the idea of zen or buddhism in general is to destroy the notions and ideas we have about the world and to experience it directly without attachments or pre-conceptions.

rationality is to be avoided because it attempts to lay down a foundation on top of what is. This isnt a metaphysical concept its a pragmatic one and works.

But more to the point, it is one path amongsrt many that work and is not for everyone. the truth of zen cannot be experienced by reading about it, thinking about it or weighing its notions rationally. It can only be known by experience and pratice. If that sounds hookey then i guess the entire concept of co-operative education is hookey and doctors and laqyers shouldnt pratice their proffesions before going to work on the general public.


regards,

goodthink

[DropOut]

All,

I like Zen's emphasis on direct experiential knowing. Experience ,in my view, has always been the most effective teacher.
I had the pleasure of working with an illiterate genious at my former job. I believe his intellect was strongly built by experience instead of books.This guy couldn't read or write,but I'd feel alot more comfortable if he were in the white house than I do at the present.

Also,I think Zen assigns a value to the dividing point between dualities. I strive to reside in that realm.Thus, I am not good nor bad, but both, and neither.
As illogical as this sounds, no logician would deny the existance of the divider between positive and negative 1.
When the divider itself is recognized, we can try to keep our balance on the point of the divider, even as the winds of either side try to blow us one way or the other.

[Vajradhara]

Originally posted by premjan
I think one of the central weaknesses of Buddhism (due to its monastic roots) may be that it encourages weak family ties (i.e. husbands being more indifferent or uncaring wrt their wives or children) in an attempt to gain an objective viewpoint.

Is this observed in practice?

Namaste premjan,

it really depends on the school.

in my tradition, for instance, after a monk has spent a considerable amount of time in the monastic setting (or a nun for that matter) they are encouraged to start a family take a wife and so forth to bring the Dharma from the monastic setting to the laypeople in a very direct way.

eh.. i think often these things are due to the culture in which Buddhism arose rather than anything to do with the teachings themselves.

[Magic Primate]

Which school is that?

[premjan]

vajradhara,

no, culture of original buddhism has nothing to do with it. culture of monasticism has everything to do with it. just like the pope who is a christian monk, buddha was an indian monk.

anyone who practices monasticism becomes a little detached from the life of worldly commitment and may be less committed to his own children. ask a woman her opinion about this.

the problem of the pope is one of the reasons for protestant reformation where there are hardly any monks. islam is same, since everyone gets married there too.

Prem

[premjan]

another example is the traditional disregard of Japanese men for their families. I believe that this may have possibly Buddhist roots.

[andy_d]

Bear in mind that few Buddhists are monks, in the same way that very few Christians are monks, for example. The monastic rules aren't really relevant to Buddhists in general. They're a special case.

Secondly, i've never heard any advice from a Buddhist source which advises people to treat the people in their life coldly.

In contrast, i've heard a great deal of sources recommending compassion and loving kindness. The 5 Precepts that lay Buddhists are encourged to keep require it.

To me, the idea of being cold with people is the exact opposite to the objective of Buddhist practice. I think there may be a perception amongst some people in the west that Buddhists are aiming to become some kind of emotionless mystic living alone in a cave with no connection to normal human society :)

[Vajradhara]

Originally posted by Magic Primate
Which school is that?

Namaste Magic Primate,

i practice the Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism.

here's a link that you can check out for more information of a general nature:

http://www.kagyuoffice.org/buddhism.nyingma.html

[Vajradhara]

Originally posted by premjan
vajradhara,

no, culture of original buddhism has nothing to do with it. culture of monasticism has everything to do with it. just like the pope who is a christian monk, buddha was an indian monk.

anyone who practices monasticism becomes a little detached from the life of worldly commitment and may be less committed to his own children. ask a woman her opinion about this.

the problem of the pope is one of the reasons for protestant reformation where there are hardly any monks. islam is same, since everyone gets married there too.

Prem

Namaste Prem,

i disagree. that's ok though... we don't have to agree on everything.

i think that a critical reading of the Sutras is very suggestive that the original transmission was oriented towards the monastic, almost exclusively.

the pope, to my knowledge, has never been a monk. christian monastic orders, like the Benedictines and so forth, seem quite different to me than the Papal institute in Rome.

[premjan]

perhaps monasticism is the wrong word: however the pope's celibacy does have something to do with the philosopher's traditional disregard for family life (some of the Greek philosophers were like this too). Typically the process of achieving ethical objectivity destroys some of the subectivity inherent to more aggregated existence.

I am sure monasticism was more of an early feature of Buddhism that helped it to spread. Probably at this point in time, it is less important or in evidence. However the roots don't vanish. The highest aim for a Buddhist is nirvana of which the prime example is the Buddha, who, for most of his life, lived like a monk separated partially from society (not as an extreme ascetic) but not entirely part anf parcel of it.

[andy_d]

True, but there is also (within Mahayana) the ideal of the Boddhisattva, a being who works tirelessly for the benefit of all beings. In practical terms this necessitates a large degree of engagement with society.

[premjan]

this concept of "working tirelessly for society" may have been meaningful at one point in time, but today, I think it smacks of elitism: it is something that a royal or an idle rich person might do. To "work for society" appears to cause one to not be part of society. In modern times, the best way for one to "benefit society" is to be a healthy functioning member of it.

I think the primary lure of Buddhism appears to be the promise of being an elite being, somehow unusual or separate from all others. It is an illusion, as zen does strive to point out. Yet, like Nietzsche's "superman" it is an unspoken ideal for all these philosophical types. Not usually being the movers and shakers of society, they nevertheless wish to transcend it and be better than it.

[Magic Primate]

Interesting post. And to wish "to transcend it and be better than" the world is the ultimate delusion, since we are fundamentally inseperable from it and that is the the point of Zen in many ways.

[premjan]

Another point: IMO, Buddhism is just an attempt to formalize the process of becoming a philosopher. In other words, if you understand what it takes to generate a comprehensive philosophy representing your own personal take of all things large and small, then you don't need to study Buddhism separately.

That, plus meditation of course, which is an actual technique.

So people of all religions, since they usually follow one prophet or philosopher or another, are all Buddhists in the larger sense.

[Vajradhara]

Originally posted by premjan
perhaps monasticism is the wrong word: however the pope's celibacy does have something to do with the philosopher's traditional disregard for family life (some of the Greek philosophers were like this too). Typically the process of achieving ethical objectivity destroys some of the subectivity inherent to more aggregated existence.

I am sure monasticism was more of an early feature of Buddhism that helped it to spread. Probably at this point in time, it is less important or in evidence. However the roots don't vanish. The highest aim for a Buddhist is nirvana of which the prime example is the Buddha, who, for most of his life, lived like a monk separated partially from society (not as an extreme ascetic) but not entirely part anf parcel of it.

Namaste,

actually... Nirvana is not the highest aim for a Buddhist. The Buddha taught Nirvana as an expiedent means, a "resting point" if you will, on the journey.. it is not, the end of the journey, however.

it really depends on where one is a Buddhist. in the Asian countries the monastic tradition is still quite strong, whereas in the Western countries, the laiety is where the majority of the practiconers are gathered.

[Vajradhara]

Originally posted by premjan
this concept of "working tirelessly for society" may have been meaningful at one point in time, but today, I think it smacks of elitism: it is something that a royal or an idle rich person might do. To "work for society" appears to cause one to not be part of society. In modern times, the best way for one to "benefit society" is to be a healthy functioning member of it.

I think the primary lure of Buddhism appears to be the promise of being an elite being, somehow unusual or separate from all others. It is an illusion, as zen does strive to point out. Yet, like Nietzsche's "superman" it is an unspoken ideal for all these philosophical types. Not usually being the movers and shakers of society, they nevertheless wish to transcend it and be better than it.

how is working to benefit society an elitist attitude? we see prime examples of this type of thing with folks like Mother Teresa, surely you'd consider her to be part of the society in which she was working to improve, would you not?

what is a "healthy, functioning member of society"? is it the person that is constantly requiring medication to function in said society? is it one that tirelessly works to improve individual members of said society? what does it mean to be "functioning" within a society in an acceptable manner?

futhermore, the Bodhisattva works for the benefit of all sentient beings, not just the human society, so the narrowness of the argument should be abandonded.

Buddhism posits that all beings are essentially the same, not just all humans... all sentient beings. it would be a misunderstanding to posit that Buddhists think that they are seperate or unique amongst humanity.

[andy_d]

Originally posted by premjan
To "work for society" appears to cause one to not be part of society.

How so? I don't follow your logic. Can you explain why you think this?


In modern times, the best way for one to "benefit society" is to be a healthy functioning member of it.


I think that has been true of all times.

As for the "primary lure of Buddhism", I can't speak for anyone except myslef, but for me the lure was that it appeared to be a system which refected and confirmed what I had independantly found to be true about the world, and which offered practical methods for dealing with life. I don't believe I aspire to become some kind of super-being. To ask that of Buddhist practice would be to have completely missed the most fundamental principle of it, IMHO :)

[premjan]

Mother Teresa has been criticized of helping only people on the point of death. Not a big deal, even saints have their predilections.

She's somewhat a part of society, yet somewhat apart too, as are all monks and nuns.