Using the force of God as an excuse to have sex your son's wife?

[Joseph Maynor]

16 minutes ago, tsuki said:

@Joseph Maynor @ajasatya Alan Watts' description of Zen in his book "The way of Zen" fits both of your posts pretty closely.

@Joseph Maynor Have you read it? He even reference's Suzuki's book several times.

Suzuki is more of an authority on Zen that Watts is.  Watts gets it close but is still too bought into the idea of finding Truth as me in reality.  That doesn't have anything to do with Zen and sometimes Watts superimposes that onto Zen.  Suzuki though is fantastic.  I'm reading everything I can that Suzuki wrote.  Suzuki is da man for "explaining" Zen without also screwing it up.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Joseph Maynor

[tsuki]

14 minutes ago, ajasatya said:

but if you ever get really close to a serious zen lineage, you will notice that there are teachings about how to behave and (thank god) they are very rigorous.

@ajasatya These practices have been added to the core teaching of Zen to make it manageable as a vehicle of growth for the general public.
Zen became very popular very rapidly at one point and it became unmanageable.

Not saying that the core teaching is better though. Things evolve for right reasons.

Edited March 27, 2019 by tsuki

[ajasatya]

7 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Zen is best thought of as just Zen, not as Buddhism at all.  I'm pointing these out to be helpful not to be a smartass.  I've actually researched a lot about Zen and studied a lot about Zen in the last few months.  Zen is a very special animal, best thought of as only itself.  What Zen is pointing to has nothing to do with teachings.  Zen is pointing to transcendence of the Mind, a transcendence of the believing brain.  That doesn't have anything to do with ideology -- that's a transcendence of ideology.  Zen pops you out of the Mind-Matrix, but that doesn't mean that anything changes, if that makes sense.  Whatever you had going into Zen is what you'll have coming out of it.  That's the whole point.  Zen is not about paradigms at all.

that's what i thought as i was doing my "research", but that's not what i found when i got closer and closer to experienced zen teachers from zen lineages. zen training is a copy+paste of the traditional training proposed by sidhartha gautama and his silent method has been passed on by dozens of generations of super responsible people (thank god again).

what you see on the current picture of "buddhism" is very distorted from what it really was.

[Joseph Maynor]

2 minutes ago, ajasatya said:

that's what i thought as i was doing my "research", but that's not what i found when i got closer and closer to experienced zen teachers from zen lineages. zen training is a copy+paste of the traditional training proposed by sidhartha gautama and his silent method has been passed on by dozens of generations of super responsible people (thank god again).

what you see on the current picture of "buddhism" is very distorted from what it really was.

Read that Suzuki book I posted.  That will clear up a lot of things for you.  I know it did for me.  i actually read it twice.  It's the first book in a long time that I read once and then immediately read it again.  And it's beautifully written too.  Suzuki is an amazing writer.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Joseph Maynor

[tsuki]

9 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Suzuki is da man for "explaining" Zen without screwing it up.

I think that Watts would respectfully disagree. He puts Zen in a context that is more appropriate for the Western audience.
Traditions can't be copy-pasted across cultures. The history of Zen is the story of how Buddhism evolved when it changed locations.
I haven't read Suzuki's book myself, so I'm just parroting what Watts said. Even if I resonate with it.

Also, do you use Suzuki's authority to justify your choice of source? Asking, because I don't understand its relationship with your point.

Edited March 27, 2019 by tsuki

[mandyjw]

52 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@tsuki The Zen approach suffers from the problem that it undersells God. It plays coy.

Virtually no one who practices Zen understands how deep consciousness goes or what God is. Only a few of the highest Zen masters do.

For example, Shinzen Young does not understand why reality exists. He's not fully woke and he does not know it. That's with 40 years of professional Zen practice.

BTW, nothing at all against his teachings. I'm just saying there are levels which virtually no one has accessed. I am just using this example to point out how tricky this work is. No one is safe. Proceed with extreme care.

How can you have any true approach that doesn't undersell God? You can't paint a grand picture of something that someone can only attain in the future if they do the right things. That's religion, not non-duality. That's seeking a conceptual future instead of understanding that you're already divine in this moment. 

[Joseph Maynor]

4 minutes ago, tsuki said:

I think that Watts would respectfully disagree. He puts Zen in a context that is more appropriate for the Western audience.
Traditions can't be copy-pasted across cultures. The history of Zen is the story of how Buddhism evolved when it changed locations.
I haven't read Suzuki's book myself, so I'm just parroting what Watts said. Even if I resonate with it.

Tsuki, read that Suzuki book.  You will thank me later.  You of anyone on here will appreciate it.  

Edited March 27, 2019 by Joseph Maynor

[ajasatya]

1 minute ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Read that Suzuki book I posted.  That will clear up a lot of things for you.

engage in a real zen sangha, go to retreats and live with zen masters/practitioners for a while. it will show you way more than the perspective of a single advanced practitioner.

[ajasatya]

2 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

you're already divine in this moment

and so is the guy who got laid with his son's wife 

[tsuki]

4 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Tsuki, read that Suzuki book.  You will thank me later.  You of anyone on here will appreciate it.  

Yes sir! 

[Leo Gura]

57 minutes ago, tsuki said:

@Leo Gura Do you believe that the 'point' is to get as many people as enlightened as possible?

The point is EVERYTHING.

[Leo Gura]

There is nothing wrong with Zen teachings per se, I was just saying that they are minimalist. Minimalism does not make people aware of what they are missing.

How many Zen students really understand the depth of Zen? Virtually none. It requires super-human levels of consciousness.

The Buddha said: no one will understand. And so it is. It's too much.

[Joseph Maynor]

For example, this is good, but Watts still screws it up in some minor but still very significant ways.  I still recommend watching this, but the Suzuki book I posted should still be read so no misunderstandings are taken away from this video about Zen:

 

Edited March 27, 2019 by Joseph Maynor

[tsuki]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The point is EVERYTHING.

That's a spiritual cop-out .
Still loving you though .

[Joseph Maynor]

29 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There is nothing wrong with Zen teachings per se, I was just saying that they are minimalist. Minimalism does not make people aware of what they are missing.

How many Zen students really understand the depth of Zen? Virtually none. It requires super-human levels of consciousness.

The Buddha said: no one will understand. And so it is. It's too much.

Zen is best as an advanced teaching after someone has studied all the other teachings.  Then Zen can be fully appreciated.  That's my impression anyway.  To study Zen first is like trying to be 40 years old when you're still 20.  You must consume and taste your fill before you can transcend all of it.  That's why all these teachings have their place, even religion.  It depends on where you are on the Path as to what teaching your Ego-Mind is gonna wanna consume and then incorporate and then hopefully eventually transcend.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Joseph Maynor

[tsuki]

11 minutes ago, ajasatya said:

engage in a real zen sangha, go to retreats and live with zen masters/practitioners for a while. it will show you way more than the perspective of a single advanced practitioner.

@ajasatya This is why Watts' book shines. It's about broad historical context of Zen and its origins.
It's impossible to learn that from sangha and interacting with Zen masters.

Still, it doesn't teach what God is, but it shines through if you know how to read.

Enough of my fanboyism!

[Joseph Maynor]

29 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

How can you have any true approach that doesn't undersell God? You can't paint a grand picture of something that someone can only attain in the future if they do the right things. That's religion, not non-duality. That's seeking a conceptual future instead of understanding that you're already divine in this moment. 

Mandy, you're making me have faith that there are still other very smart people around.  

Edited March 27, 2019 by Joseph Maynor

[ajasatya]

20 minutes ago, tsuki said:

It's impossible to learn that from sangha and interacting with Zen masters.

is this true? how many sanghas have you been part of and how many zen masters have you talked to?

[lmfao]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

For example, Shinzen Young does not understand why reality exists. He's not fully woke and he does not know it. That's with 40 years of professional Zen practice.

How could there be some sort of "why" reason. Things are just what they are. 

Edited March 27, 2019 by lmfao

[tsuki]

10 minutes ago, ajasatya said:

is this true? how many sanghas have you been part of and how many zen masters have you talked to?

0 and 0. Have you read the book so that you can say that it's really possible to learn what the book has to offer from Zen masters?

Edited March 27, 2019 by tsuki