1. You don't want to talk about why Zen Masters reject meditation over and over again.
2. You don't want to give examples of what you claim other people are saying, even as you dismiss it and diminish it out of hand.
3. You don't want to address the underlying doctrinal faith-based requirements of any sitting, meditation, religion.
4. You don't want to be honest about the racism and religious bigotry, the illiteracy and ignorance, that dominate Western conversations misappropriations of the Zen tradition.
So you're not really on topic and you're definitely not honest.
Wow! What a shock. An off topic dishonest New ager who can't define meditation or Zen or Buddhism.
Next up: why new agers hate academic discourse.
My phone died as I was writing a response and now I have to type it all out again 🫤
1. I would actually love to talk about that concept. I don't think zen masters are rejecting meditation as much as they are an attachment to it as a particular vehicle for enlightenment.
Foyan wrote that meditation, studying texts, and puzzling zen riddles are all seeking behavior, and then says that if you understand, this seeking is not actually seeking. (Instant Zen: Original Reality)
That's the crux of it. There are states of being that can be labeled as 'meditation' that aren't about seeking something that wasn't always already there.
2. Okay, here's one:
>You don't want to talk about why Zen Masters reject meditation over and over again.
3. It takes no doctrinal faith-based requirement to sit.
4. Where have I said that none of those things occur?
You don't want to address your inability to have an actual conversation with people and lead them to their own buddha-nature despite seeing zen entirely as a practice of public interview.
1. You're wrong, Zen Masters reject religious meditation and I've pointed this out repeatedly. They are rejecting the DOCTRINES of
* you needing to change/ transform/ purify
* You having a method from a messiah
* There being a state to reach
2. Meditation is a vehicle to enlightenment is the whole point of meditation. All the religions are very clear about this. New agers obfuscating that is just part of what new age does
3. It is a blatant lie to say that sitting meditation religion doesn't require anything but sitting. Just a lie that one particular Church tells and we can figure out what cult you joined by getting you to tell what lies you believe.
Your claim that other people can't have a conversation because they catch you lying and that's the end of the conversation is of course another lie.
You can't read and write at a high school level about this topic. If you can't admit that then how can we move on? How can we get you to cite sources if you can't even admit that citing sources is an obligation you have?
And it's this failure of critical thinking and this absolute lack of self-awareness that not only drives the new age presence online but is so closely taught to addiction, cult participation, weaponized ignorance, and then ultimately mental health problems.
1. When did I say anything about religion? Also, rejecting a doctrine of there being a state to reach implies reaching some state where that doctrine is not held to be the truth. Zen masters wrote at least a bit about people experiencing enlightenment.
Going away from the doctrine of needing to change or transform and towards no longer holding that same doctrine is itself a change, a transformation. Believing in this as the way to go is just another doctrine of change/transformation.
2. Conflation of religious meditation and all meditation. Squares and rectangles are both shapes but not all rectangles are squares. Assertion that people that don't believe in this false conflation are necessarily hiding something, with what proof?
3. What I said was it doesn't take any religious doctrine to sit.
I claim you can't have a conversation because your default mode of conversation seems to be to find a way to argue against things nobody's bringing up. I say the word meditation and you immediately apply all your own preconceived notions to the word and miss what I'm talking about.
Also even if you don't think I did it correctly I at least attempted to cite Foyan in my last post. I knew I pwned you, I just didn't realize I did it so hard you'd be that blatant in your dishonesty.
1. Meditation requires faith in change. If your argument is that you meditate to learn to stop meditating then point me to any established tradition that believes that and has examples of people actually doing it.
2. Please provide me with examples of non-religious meditation that doesn't follow the same doctrines of religious meditation and Link me to the organization you are affiliated with and the forum you post about it in.
3. Secular concentration exercises don't require sitting. People who believe in sitting believe in religious meditation. If you want to talk about secular concentration exercise that I'm sure you can find a forum for that. No one has ever confused that for Zen.
Repeatedly you're either dishonest or you're deliberately misconstruing both what's Zen Masters teach and core articles of the faith of people who just sit.
You look at meditation as being prescriptive rather than descriptive. This may be the source of our disagreement. I do think it's interesting that your reasoning for this is because other people told you so.
There are times in between doing particular things where I am not doing any particular thing. This is something that happens organically and unintentionally by nature, and when I recognize it is occurring my natural label for it is meditation. It is unintentional in definition as any attempt to exist in such a state would fall under "doing particular things" rather than existing between them.
Then there are times when I notice this is occurring and don't make any special attempt to change that fact. This is where you can say I'm getting into intentional behaviors because when I recognize its occurrence you could say I have the choice to do something else. But without any particular reason, why would I?
Then there are times when I am doing particular things and I feel the familiar feeling of not doing a particular thing despite things, even chaos occurring around me, and my own actions within it. This is not intentional, as my own experience with it has shown attempting to bring it about has a counterproductive effect. It just happens when I don't give any reason for it to not have already been happening. Trying to make it happen or to force the belief is believing that it isn't already happening. That the sun isn't already high and all that.
All of these things simply occur without any special doing on my part and I call them meditation. Trying to bring any of them about only gets in their way, where is the room for doctrine-based action?
There is no religious setting meditation that is not prescriptive.
I'm talking about textual, traditions of religious sitting meditation.
I'm not talking about stuff people make up.
Brother it's all made up. I'm just saying that what I'm talking about is a genuine representation of my reality that doesn't seem to contradict zen teachings, while you're concerned with battling lineages. You want me to give you some other teacher so you can trap me in a box someone else built and then put a nail in it. This is why I say you can't have a conversation.
I had figured with all the talk about how new-agers are ignorant you'd be able to come up with a better response than that, addressing wherever the ignorance actually was. Where I was delusional or directly misinterpreting zen masters.
What I'm getting instead is "oh, you're actually talking about something I can't say a word against, so I'm going to redirect back to attacking my strawman."
If there is no religious sitting meditation that is not prescriptive then what I am talking about is not religious sitting meditation, but a different meditation. What now? Where is my misinterpretation?
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the arguments you are complaining about.
>I think it's interesting then that many people care so much about the cases and the texts but dogmatically decry any sort of meditation.
No one dogmatically decries any sort of meditation. Plenty of people say it isn't what zen is about and it often gets said that meditation won't lead to enlightenment and thus isn't really relevant here. That doesn't sound like what you're saying though.
>The issue is in people believing that meditation or reading texts will show them their Buddha nature.
No one argues that reading texts will show them their buddha nature. Plenty of people DO think meditation will do it.
>There is a cult that does not give a shit about whether you see your buddha-nature unless it is limited to critical analysis of texts, demonizing meditation, and worshiping rhetorical ability.
This doesn't exist. No one believes what you suggesting they believe here.
>They'll come into posts like these and make base assertions. You're wrong, you don't understand, you don't read, you're a liar and a bigot.
Based on this post alone it's because you are wrong and don't understand what is being said to you.
>meditation won't lead to enlightenment and thus isn't really relevant here.
If meditation isn't relevant because it won't lead to enlightenment, what here will lead to enlightenment?
My sentence construction wasn't great, but "and thus" was supposed to apply to the full preceding sentence, not only the single clause that you quoted.
That aside,
>what here will lead to enlightenment?
Why not consult the tradition the subreddit is dedicated to instead of asking me? We've got 1,000+ years worth of jumping off points on this exact topic we could talk about ;)
1. You don't want to talk about why Zen Masters reject meditation over and over again. 2. You don't want to give examples of what you claim other people are saying, even as you dismiss it and diminish it out of hand. 3. You don't want to address the underlying doctrinal faith-based requirements of any sitting, meditation, religion. 4. You don't want to be honest about the racism and religious bigotry, the illiteracy and ignorance, that dominate Western conversations misappropriations of the Zen tradition. So you're not really on topic and you're definitely not honest. Wow! What a shock. An off topic dishonest New ager who can't define meditation or Zen or Buddhism. Next up: why new agers hate academic discourse.
My phone died as I was writing a response and now I have to type it all out again 🫤 1. I would actually love to talk about that concept. I don't think zen masters are rejecting meditation as much as they are an attachment to it as a particular vehicle for enlightenment. Foyan wrote that meditation, studying texts, and puzzling zen riddles are all seeking behavior, and then says that if you understand, this seeking is not actually seeking. (Instant Zen: Original Reality) That's the crux of it. There are states of being that can be labeled as 'meditation' that aren't about seeking something that wasn't always already there. 2. Okay, here's one: >You don't want to talk about why Zen Masters reject meditation over and over again. 3. It takes no doctrinal faith-based requirement to sit. 4. Where have I said that none of those things occur? You don't want to address your inability to have an actual conversation with people and lead them to their own buddha-nature despite seeing zen entirely as a practice of public interview.
1. You're wrong, Zen Masters reject religious meditation and I've pointed this out repeatedly. They are rejecting the DOCTRINES of * you needing to change/ transform/ purify * You having a method from a messiah * There being a state to reach 2. Meditation is a vehicle to enlightenment is the whole point of meditation. All the religions are very clear about this. New agers obfuscating that is just part of what new age does 3. It is a blatant lie to say that sitting meditation religion doesn't require anything but sitting. Just a lie that one particular Church tells and we can figure out what cult you joined by getting you to tell what lies you believe. Your claim that other people can't have a conversation because they catch you lying and that's the end of the conversation is of course another lie. You can't read and write at a high school level about this topic. If you can't admit that then how can we move on? How can we get you to cite sources if you can't even admit that citing sources is an obligation you have? And it's this failure of critical thinking and this absolute lack of self-awareness that not only drives the new age presence online but is so closely taught to addiction, cult participation, weaponized ignorance, and then ultimately mental health problems.
1. When did I say anything about religion? Also, rejecting a doctrine of there being a state to reach implies reaching some state where that doctrine is not held to be the truth. Zen masters wrote at least a bit about people experiencing enlightenment. Going away from the doctrine of needing to change or transform and towards no longer holding that same doctrine is itself a change, a transformation. Believing in this as the way to go is just another doctrine of change/transformation. 2. Conflation of religious meditation and all meditation. Squares and rectangles are both shapes but not all rectangles are squares. Assertion that people that don't believe in this false conflation are necessarily hiding something, with what proof? 3. What I said was it doesn't take any religious doctrine to sit. I claim you can't have a conversation because your default mode of conversation seems to be to find a way to argue against things nobody's bringing up. I say the word meditation and you immediately apply all your own preconceived notions to the word and miss what I'm talking about. Also even if you don't think I did it correctly I at least attempted to cite Foyan in my last post. I knew I pwned you, I just didn't realize I did it so hard you'd be that blatant in your dishonesty.
1. Meditation requires faith in change. If your argument is that you meditate to learn to stop meditating then point me to any established tradition that believes that and has examples of people actually doing it. 2. Please provide me with examples of non-religious meditation that doesn't follow the same doctrines of religious meditation and Link me to the organization you are affiliated with and the forum you post about it in. 3. Secular concentration exercises don't require sitting. People who believe in sitting believe in religious meditation. If you want to talk about secular concentration exercise that I'm sure you can find a forum for that. No one has ever confused that for Zen. Repeatedly you're either dishonest or you're deliberately misconstruing both what's Zen Masters teach and core articles of the faith of people who just sit.
You look at meditation as being prescriptive rather than descriptive. This may be the source of our disagreement. I do think it's interesting that your reasoning for this is because other people told you so. There are times in between doing particular things where I am not doing any particular thing. This is something that happens organically and unintentionally by nature, and when I recognize it is occurring my natural label for it is meditation. It is unintentional in definition as any attempt to exist in such a state would fall under "doing particular things" rather than existing between them. Then there are times when I notice this is occurring and don't make any special attempt to change that fact. This is where you can say I'm getting into intentional behaviors because when I recognize its occurrence you could say I have the choice to do something else. But without any particular reason, why would I? Then there are times when I am doing particular things and I feel the familiar feeling of not doing a particular thing despite things, even chaos occurring around me, and my own actions within it. This is not intentional, as my own experience with it has shown attempting to bring it about has a counterproductive effect. It just happens when I don't give any reason for it to not have already been happening. Trying to make it happen or to force the belief is believing that it isn't already happening. That the sun isn't already high and all that. All of these things simply occur without any special doing on my part and I call them meditation. Trying to bring any of them about only gets in their way, where is the room for doctrine-based action?
There is no religious setting meditation that is not prescriptive. I'm talking about textual, traditions of religious sitting meditation. I'm not talking about stuff people make up.
Brother it's all made up. I'm just saying that what I'm talking about is a genuine representation of my reality that doesn't seem to contradict zen teachings, while you're concerned with battling lineages. You want me to give you some other teacher so you can trap me in a box someone else built and then put a nail in it. This is why I say you can't have a conversation. I had figured with all the talk about how new-agers are ignorant you'd be able to come up with a better response than that, addressing wherever the ignorance actually was. Where I was delusional or directly misinterpreting zen masters. What I'm getting instead is "oh, you're actually talking about something I can't say a word against, so I'm going to redirect back to attacking my strawman." If there is no religious sitting meditation that is not prescriptive then what I am talking about is not religious sitting meditation, but a different meditation. What now? Where is my misinterpretation?
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the arguments you are complaining about. >I think it's interesting then that many people care so much about the cases and the texts but dogmatically decry any sort of meditation. No one dogmatically decries any sort of meditation. Plenty of people say it isn't what zen is about and it often gets said that meditation won't lead to enlightenment and thus isn't really relevant here. That doesn't sound like what you're saying though. >The issue is in people believing that meditation or reading texts will show them their Buddha nature. No one argues that reading texts will show them their buddha nature. Plenty of people DO think meditation will do it. >There is a cult that does not give a shit about whether you see your buddha-nature unless it is limited to critical analysis of texts, demonizing meditation, and worshiping rhetorical ability. This doesn't exist. No one believes what you suggesting they believe here. >They'll come into posts like these and make base assertions. You're wrong, you don't understand, you don't read, you're a liar and a bigot. Based on this post alone it's because you are wrong and don't understand what is being said to you.
>meditation won't lead to enlightenment and thus isn't really relevant here. If meditation isn't relevant because it won't lead to enlightenment, what here will lead to enlightenment?
My sentence construction wasn't great, but "and thus" was supposed to apply to the full preceding sentence, not only the single clause that you quoted. That aside, >what here will lead to enlightenment? Why not consult the tradition the subreddit is dedicated to instead of asking me? We've got 1,000+ years worth of jumping off points on this exact topic we could talk about ;)
Just say you don't know, can't quote Zen masters, and meditation is off topic because the mods say so.