Zen Buddhism

A version of Buddhism arrived in Canton, China, from India, around 520 C.E.. It was called Ch'an Buddhism, and this translated into Zen Buddhism in Japan.

As it developed in China, it gained many elements of Taoism.

During the Sung dynasty in China (960-1279) overseas trade increased. Much of Chinese culture, especially philosophy and the arts, spread to other countries. This may be the reason for the arrival of Zen Buddhism in Japan in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

Two Zen masters who succeeded in bringing Zen to Japan were Eisai 1215 and Dogen in 1253. Eisai began his religious life in the monastery on Mount Hiei but made two trips to China to complete his studies and returned to Japan in 1191 as a Zen Master of the Rinzai school. His version of Zen was a method of attaining sudden enlightenment by the use of the koan, which involved cryptic questions and blows, intended to shock the student into enlightenment. A Zen master might ask a puzzling question or make a deliberately illogical statement, such as "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" It could also be a slap, kick, or hit with a stick, in response to a question by a student.

The disciple is supposed to be brought to the edge of sudden insight by the substitution of nonsense for sense, thus putting a strain on his mind. Enlightenment is understood as the instantaneous impact of a flash of feeling by means of which reality reveals itself in ordinary experiences. A subject is shocked into grasping the immediate and total independence of the object, an empathetic feeling of how it is in itself, as a fair sample of how all things are.

Dogen, Eisai's successor, also trained at first on Mount Hiei but did not find the pure religious spirit that he craved. Shortly before Eisai died, Dogen visited him and then followed his footsteps to China, where he sought the perfect Zen master in vain for years, but just when he was about to give up the search, he met Ju-ching, from whom he obtained enlightenment.

Dogen thought that he was returning to the sources of pure Buddhism and that he himself was simply carrying on the Buddhism of the Buddha, and went back again and again to the Hinayana texts. He took issue with the suddenness of enlightenment advocated by Eisai and rejected the use of the koan to achieve it because he thought that method was directed too much toward obtaining something and was far too self-assertive.

The method preferred by Dogen was called zazen, or "sitting in meditation," without any thought of a particular goal or special problem, a discipline embracing the entire organizatism, both body and mind, including the moral as well as the intellectual, with no thought of an end apart from the means and looking toward gradual enlightenment.

The Zen enlightenment, called by the Japanese scholars satori, the tranquilility to be acheived through the absense of thought, consisting in the serenity of the awareness of nothingness. When the mind has no content, it is believed by Zen Buddhists, it is the pure mind itself that is the subject of contemplation, and a direct experience of the essence of mind occurs. But unlike Eisai's version, which ended with enlightenment, Dogen believed it should issue in a fullness of living through productive labors.

The idea of satori came from Buddha's original claim of sudden insight into the truth which came to him while he was sitting under the Bo-tree. But he announced quite clearly what that was. The Zen Buddhists have more trouble with it. Whether come at suddenly as Eisai insisted or more slowly as Dogen claimed, it is an insight.

Most Americans know about Zen Buddhism and other forms of Asian thought through D.T. Suzuki and Alan Watts. There are many translations of the Oriental documents, documents such as the I Ching and Tao Te Ching, but they are so diverse as to be suspect. There are still many barriers between eastern and western thought. I recommend researching many different sources and synthesizing one's own understanding of concepts such as Zen. Don't think it can be explained completely in just a paragraphs, or even a concise post like this one.

Also Sprach,

Nick

Post 1

Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 8:07am

Rather than belabor this site with redundant material, I transferred my post to this book review:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Spirit/Books/168.shtml

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/15, 8:16am)

Post 2

Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 9:14am

Nick,

I am not really sure what your purpose is in posting information about Zen here on this site as you simply posted info that anyone could find with Googling and added no additional personal thought on it.

Luke made a comment along one line in his thoughts on "The Power of Now" which I agree with, and would add two other thing which I personally derived from Zen. One is the ability to slow my mind down by slowing my breathing down,( but this is not an exclusive property of Zen). The second is to take the last words it was reported that The Buddha said, literally, and that was: "be a light unto yourself".

L W

Post 3

Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 10:35am

I am not really sure what your purpose is in posting information about Zen here on this site as you simply posted info that anyone could find with Googling and added no additional personal thought on it.

Many of my other posts deal with Objectivism and Existentialism, and the references always come up of how Rand joined Existentialism and Zen Buddhism as philosophies for barefoot savages. I am trying to show a difference. I don't think Rand or Peikoff really seperated Existentialism from Asian philosophes and wouldn't know Zen Buddhism from traditional Buddhism, not to mention the two different types of Zen Buddhism, yet it does seem that other Objectivists find value in Zen Buddhism and think it may even be compatible with Objectivism.

My essay on Zen Buddhism is very basic, but it is orginal. I did research both on and off the internet and wrote my own summary, for my own education. My sharing it with others indicates my illusion, perhaps, that it offers something more than what people here can find for themselves. But it is my own understanding of Zen Buddhism, and I hoped that it and a few of my other posts on Asian philosophies, Existentialism, Objectivism, and my own form of Neo-Objectivism and would be a basis for discussion. That's all.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 4

Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 1:37pm

Nick

I believe you are going to find it tough going with trying to reconcile much of Zen and Budhism with Objectivism. The following is J Krishnamurti's take on "be a light unto yourself". This is by no means outside of the mainstream Zen views on these matters, and you may start noticing some serious problems within the first paragraph.

To be aware is to watch your bodily activity, the way you walk, the way you sit, the movements of your hands: it is to hear the words you use, to observe all your thoughts, all your emotions, all your reactions. It includes awareness of the unconscious, with its traditions, its instinctual knowledge, and the immense sorrow it has accumulated�not only personal sorrow, but the sorrow of man. You have to be aware of all that; and you cannot be aware of it if you are merely judging, evaluating, saying, "This is good and that is bad, this I will keep and that I will reject," all of which only makes the mind dull, insensitive.
From awareness comes attention. Attention flows from awareness when in that awareness there is no choice, no personal choosing, no experiencing... but merely observing. And, to observe, you must have in the mind a great deal of space. A mind that is caught in ambition, greed, envy, in the pursuit of pleasure and self-fulfillment, with its inevitable sorrow, pain, despair, anguish�such a mind has no space in which to observe, to attend. It is crowded with its own desires, going round and round in its own backwaters of reaction. You cannot attend if your mind is not highly sensitive, sharp, reasonable, logical, sane, healthy, without the slightest shadow of neuroticism. The mind has to explore every corner of itself, leaving no spot uncovered, because if there is a single dark corner of one's mind which one is afraid to explore, from that springs illusion...
It is only in the state of attention that you can be a light unto yourself, and then every action of your daily life springs from that light�every action�whether you are doing your job, cooking, going for a walk, mending clothes, or what you will. This whole process is meditation...

J. Krishnamurti

L W

Post 5

Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 5:04pm

I've read one article about how Zen awareness may be a right hemisphere kind of awareness while Objectivism is left hemisphere. I do think there is something to the kind of awareness that comes from calmness, like the surface of the pond which reflects its surroundings. Too much reflective thinking can distract, like the pebble which, when tossed into the pond, causes ripples on the smooth surface and distorts the refected images.

Bruce Lee said, "It is like a finger pointing away at the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you'll miss all that heavenly glory."

bis bald,

Nick

Post 6

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 3:28pm

Nick, you might be interested in Mindfulness & Individualism. It's the website of a guy who has integrated aspects of meditation with Oism.

Post 7

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 4:00pm

Thanks, Jenna.

It was an interesting article.

Yes, I think some people over-react to way people describe Zen as "unfocusing the mind." It doesn't mean "not being rational." It is just a way of getting into a zone where awareness and body are one, like a martial artist or any athlete who responds reflexively to stimuli. Thinking reflectively on every move hampers one's efficency. Being overly analytical can stiffle actions. Of course, one's mind must still be in the moment. Michael Jordan didn't play basketball well when he was distracted, when his head wasn't in the game.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 8

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 5:07pm

Neal:

I haven't read anything about Zen since high school, so my memory is spotty at best. I've read more about Tibetan Buddhism than other types; I extract what I think is good for me to use, which is a secularized, grounded "conscious awareness". It is kind of like high-level introspection, but I don't meditate.

Much of the Eastern ways of thought becomes clearer when the frame of mind is shifted from a literal leaning to a metaphorical; from a linear way of thinking to a cyclical, or systematic. It's one of the most frustrating things for me, yet fascinating because it's so conceptual and poetic at times.

As for what others think or do-- it is up to them to decide for their own lives, on their own, and whatever you decide to learn, understand, integrate, etc. is ultimately for you. An individual's life experience is unique; others may not abstractly think what you think.

I actually do know what you are talking about, from my own martial arts experience. I call it body-brain-mind "flow"; a unified, integrated direction of self-power. These moments were a "living in the moment"; however this isn't accurate-- a more apt description would be "acting as a unified, aware being, with an intentional direction". I've also lived through it when I lifted weights, went running, danced, or did kickboxing. That type of awareness is very hard to describe.

Post 9

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 1:14pm

I believe that there are many people who somehow just don't have the capability of meditating and think that the act of meditating messes with your mind or it's just a waste of time. Also there is a popular misconception that you meditate "on something" although the Rinzai Zen koan practice is intense concentration on solving an irresolvable conundrum. This justifiably freaks Objectivists out because it is a refutation of every tenet of Objectivism.

Sam

Post 10

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 3:18pm

You talk in third person about Objectivists, Sam. Is this because you step outsde the model sometimes?

bis bald,

Nick

Post 11

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 4:01pm

Judge for yourself from my posts if I'm an Objectivist.

Post 12

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 9:47pm

Judge for yourself from my posts if I'm an Objectivist.

Oh, it's not really that important to me. I just thought you were a little more sympathetic to Zen Buddhism than some other Objectivists.

If you don't want to talk with me, it's okay. I understand why you don't want to be friendly with the Neo-Objectivist, in front of rabid Objectivists who hate him.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 13

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 7:17am

Nick,

You sure do get offended easily. People not agreeing with you does not equate to them hating you.

L W

Post 14

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 9:42am

I read a fair amount about Mahayana Buddhism, less on Zen, but one of my thoughts was how it fit well for the society that existed at the time. There was no evidence of progress, and one's daily grind was, except for the privileged elite, nothing less than stultifying. Even the elite, as Buddhism points out, could easily end up out of power or dead or diseased from some terrible illness. I don't blame people for turning to spiritual values such as this under those times and conditions. However, I do think that today's world and today's knowledge offer so much more that such ancient ideas should, for the most part, be cast aside in favor of more rational pursuits.

Post 15

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 10:23am

You sure do get offended easily. People not agreeing with you does not equate to them hating you.

No. It's okay to disagree with me. It's okay also not to be friendly with me. I do feel some hate, but that's okay too. I just look for substantive posts which make me think, not short put-downs and assumptions about my character and education, which I do not think I initiate against others.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 16

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 10:54am

I read a fair amount about Mahayana Buddhism, less on Zen, but one of my thoughts was how it fit well for the society that existed at the time. There was no evidence of progress, and one's daily grind was, except for the privileged elite, nothing less than stultifying. Even the elite, as Buddhism points out, could easily end up out of power or dead or diseased from some terrible illness. I don't blame people for turning to spiritual values such as this under those times and conditions. However, I do think that today's world and today's knowledge offer so much more that such ancient ideas should, for the most part, be cast aside in favor of more rational pursuits.

Post 17

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 12:09pm

*meditates* Aummmm.....Meditation is dumb....Aummmmm....Because all you need to do is learn how to focus instead of being an idiot by getting your best jammies dirty on the floor....Aummmmm....

-- Bridget

Post 18

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 1:50pm

Notice that Bridget did not respond to any of the questions in my post.

Nick

Post 19

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 1:51pm