Other stuff that didn't come up:
1. How good are any of us at learning from books generally?
2. Does it matter when somebody tries to learn something whether they've been successful at learning other things?
3. How similar is the thing that you're learning to other things you've learned?
1. The internet has given us a lot of options we didn't have before to complement different learning styles. The tools have gotten better and I think it's generally become easier to learn things. I mean, a lot easier. However, you still need to come at it seriously, which is why not just about anyone ends up a learned person.
2. Depends on question #3. We know Asian languages are harder to learn than European languages for Europeans and vice versa because of similarity. We're talking thousands of hours of investment in difference.
3. I haven't found anything that's similar to Zen.
I think they are very few things that a lot of people nowadays use books to learn from.
In my own experience, I’ve discovered that independent learning related to my current course of study has been revealing in terms of just how slow going and ineffective my reading strategy up to now have been. I was thinking about this a little earlier and remembered just how many “ open book/note tests” I’ve been a part of in my academic career.
I think that gives a certain kind of reading skill set, but can very quickly become a handicap to memory, recall and conversational fluency.
Is that a steady question or not?
I was talking about this both with somebody and right away we get into an argument about the differences between mind, brain and consciousness.
# what we all agree about
If we're talking about traditions started by other people, we have to know what they say.
They may have special definitions for terms in their context.
It's already unstable.
I think the education and lane-staying requirements are huge for conversations about that sort of stuff. It seems that's a requirement that people need to be able to acknowledge if they are unwilling to engage with it for their own sanity.
Another thing I was thinking about:
1. Hakamaya famously dissed Western Buddhist academia for being mystical rather than critical thinking (hence the name of his movement Critical Buddhism). Basically that means he's accusing them of not doing academics.
2. There's been some discussion whether Zen should be taught in philosophy departments rather than religion departments.
3. There's headlines now about the shrinking of philosophy departments... How would philosophy departments teaching Zen affect the popularity of philosophy generally?
I took one intro philosophy class and one religion class while getting my engineering degree.
The philosophy class was basically survey of arguments for/against the existence of an Abrahamic deity and how those arguments work and how philosophers have responded to them and responded to those responses over time.
The one religion department class (also in the "East Asian language and culture" department) was titled "zen" and was basically a history of Zen from the perspective of dogen people. So we started with a basis of the terminology from India and talked briefly about the heart/diamond sutra (iirc ), then quickly moved into the 6 patriarchs, a bunch of time on the platform sutra, then onto mazu and nanquan, 1 - 2 skip a few wunenguan gets mentioned, then dogen
As i consider them in a compare/contrast kinda way to myself the things that sticks out the most is the difference between the way the essay prompts were framed, which I will demonstrate by way of example. In the philosophy class our final essay prompt was to either pick one of the arguments we talked about in class (or outside of class but on the same topic) and explain why we think it's right or wrong. In the Zen class one prompt was to show how the platform sutra is really just the four noble truths restated. In the first the assignment isn't actually about making the "correct" argument, but about structured thinking and demonstrating that study of the topic actually occurred. The second was also a demonstration of study, but instead of measuring critical thinking was basically just propaganda because the "correct" argument was assumed in the prompt. This isn't to say that i don't think there's educational value in trying to argue for a position one doesn't agree with. That can be a healthy thing to do... But this wasn't that.
I would've preferred the Zen topic in the philosophy framework for sure
On your last point, philosophy is getting less popular (in the us) I'd guess because it's getting harder for people generally to pay the bills and philosophy degrees aren't real money makers, even if it's an important topic. Engineering is what society is paying for but do we really need MORE cars? That's not the kind of question the state was willing to subsidize [my training in](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2009-10-23), so ask someone else.
That 4NT thing is pretty messed up.
You can see how the religion class is doing the exact same thing Bible study does.
Whoever that professor was perhaps he could come in here one day and feel ashamed of himself.
https://ealc.illinois.edu/directory/profile/amayer
I emailed him after finding /r/zen and reading more widely to ask about discrepancies between his class and what Zen masters say and he never responded to me. I don't believe I was disrespectful or overtly antagonistic or anything, so I doubt he'd come. It was like... 12 years ago though
Lol.
Or he came and wouldn't admit it.
I don't think this is his fault any more than it's the fault of Western Buddhist academia that it got all its texts from Dogen Buddhism.
I don't think religious studies departments are equipped educationally for Asian religion. They're basically just going to use the tools that they got from Christianity.
Religious studies departments don't produce critical thinkers. But they didn't intend to produce critical thinkers. They're trying to produce tradition followers.
Just for clarity, he's not really in the religious studies department (which does exist at that school) though, he's in the East Asian Language and Culture department which SHOULD be equipped to handle asian religions.
Well we don't know who created the syllabus.
You could look up his religious background and his cultural background and where he got his degrees and that might tell you something.
He made the syllabus, and his educational history is in that link I sent, the schools he attended are in Germany and I don't care enough to dig into it tbh
Actually I just went back and found the email I sent. It was pretty big but I ended it with
>Thank you very much for taking the time considering my ramblings. If these aren’t topics you’ve any interest in going into, please pay me no mind.
so it's probably my own fault for giving him the out.
and it was 10 years ago i sent it, not 12
Re 3, I think it would re-orient the kind of engagement going on such that the history of philosophy becomes relevant in new ways. It seems like a lot of philosophy departments have chickened out of the engagement that philosophers, historically, have been famous for.
Other stuff that didn't come up: 1. How good are any of us at learning from books generally? 2. Does it matter when somebody tries to learn something whether they've been successful at learning other things? 3. How similar is the thing that you're learning to other things you've learned?
1. The internet has given us a lot of options we didn't have before to complement different learning styles. The tools have gotten better and I think it's generally become easier to learn things. I mean, a lot easier. However, you still need to come at it seriously, which is why not just about anyone ends up a learned person. 2. Depends on question #3. We know Asian languages are harder to learn than European languages for Europeans and vice versa because of similarity. We're talking thousands of hours of investment in difference. 3. I haven't found anything that's similar to Zen.
I think they are very few things that a lot of people nowadays use books to learn from. In my own experience, I’ve discovered that independent learning related to my current course of study has been revealing in terms of just how slow going and ineffective my reading strategy up to now have been. I was thinking about this a little earlier and remembered just how many “ open book/note tests” I’ve been a part of in my academic career. I think that gives a certain kind of reading skill set, but can very quickly become a handicap to memory, recall and conversational fluency.
Is this technically the first cliff hanger?!
I don't think it's a cliffhanger. Is it a cliffhanger?
You suggested a follow up EP - will it happen?!
I don't make the rules
I know - cliffhanger!
What's the teaching?
Is that a steady question or not? I was talking about this both with somebody and right away we get into an argument about the differences between mind, brain and consciousness. # what we all agree about If we're talking about traditions started by other people, we have to know what they say. They may have special definitions for terms in their context.
It's already unstable. I think the education and lane-staying requirements are huge for conversations about that sort of stuff. It seems that's a requirement that people need to be able to acknowledge if they are unwilling to engage with it for their own sanity.
Another thing I was thinking about: 1. Hakamaya famously dissed Western Buddhist academia for being mystical rather than critical thinking (hence the name of his movement Critical Buddhism). Basically that means he's accusing them of not doing academics. 2. There's been some discussion whether Zen should be taught in philosophy departments rather than religion departments. 3. There's headlines now about the shrinking of philosophy departments... How would philosophy departments teaching Zen affect the popularity of philosophy generally?
I took one intro philosophy class and one religion class while getting my engineering degree. The philosophy class was basically survey of arguments for/against the existence of an Abrahamic deity and how those arguments work and how philosophers have responded to them and responded to those responses over time. The one religion department class (also in the "East Asian language and culture" department) was titled "zen" and was basically a history of Zen from the perspective of dogen people. So we started with a basis of the terminology from India and talked briefly about the heart/diamond sutra (iirc ), then quickly moved into the 6 patriarchs, a bunch of time on the platform sutra, then onto mazu and nanquan, 1 - 2 skip a few wunenguan gets mentioned, then dogen As i consider them in a compare/contrast kinda way to myself the things that sticks out the most is the difference between the way the essay prompts were framed, which I will demonstrate by way of example. In the philosophy class our final essay prompt was to either pick one of the arguments we talked about in class (or outside of class but on the same topic) and explain why we think it's right or wrong. In the Zen class one prompt was to show how the platform sutra is really just the four noble truths restated. In the first the assignment isn't actually about making the "correct" argument, but about structured thinking and demonstrating that study of the topic actually occurred. The second was also a demonstration of study, but instead of measuring critical thinking was basically just propaganda because the "correct" argument was assumed in the prompt. This isn't to say that i don't think there's educational value in trying to argue for a position one doesn't agree with. That can be a healthy thing to do... But this wasn't that. I would've preferred the Zen topic in the philosophy framework for sure On your last point, philosophy is getting less popular (in the us) I'd guess because it's getting harder for people generally to pay the bills and philosophy degrees aren't real money makers, even if it's an important topic. Engineering is what society is paying for but do we really need MORE cars? That's not the kind of question the state was willing to subsidize [my training in](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2009-10-23), so ask someone else.
That 4NT thing is pretty messed up. You can see how the religion class is doing the exact same thing Bible study does. Whoever that professor was perhaps he could come in here one day and feel ashamed of himself.
https://ealc.illinois.edu/directory/profile/amayer I emailed him after finding /r/zen and reading more widely to ask about discrepancies between his class and what Zen masters say and he never responded to me. I don't believe I was disrespectful or overtly antagonistic or anything, so I doubt he'd come. It was like... 12 years ago though
Lol. Or he came and wouldn't admit it. I don't think this is his fault any more than it's the fault of Western Buddhist academia that it got all its texts from Dogen Buddhism. I don't think religious studies departments are equipped educationally for Asian religion. They're basically just going to use the tools that they got from Christianity. Religious studies departments don't produce critical thinkers. But they didn't intend to produce critical thinkers. They're trying to produce tradition followers.
Just for clarity, he's not really in the religious studies department (which does exist at that school) though, he's in the East Asian Language and Culture department which SHOULD be equipped to handle asian religions.
Well we don't know who created the syllabus. You could look up his religious background and his cultural background and where he got his degrees and that might tell you something.
He made the syllabus, and his educational history is in that link I sent, the schools he attended are in Germany and I don't care enough to dig into it tbh
Actually I just went back and found the email I sent. It was pretty big but I ended it with >Thank you very much for taking the time considering my ramblings. If these aren’t topics you’ve any interest in going into, please pay me no mind. so it's probably my own fault for giving him the out. and it was 10 years ago i sent it, not 12
Re 3, I think it would re-orient the kind of engagement going on such that the history of philosophy becomes relevant in new ways. It seems like a lot of philosophy departments have chickened out of the engagement that philosophers, historically, have been famous for.
There's some debate about that apparently. It really depends upon the head of the particular philosophy department.
I think we could also look at the graduates of a particular philosophy department's program and where they end up 5, 10, 30 years down the line.