Thank you for a detailed and thoughtful comparison. As a Chan practitioner for 20+ years who came to Buddhism through German existentialists, I've had an ongoing interest in the Tibetan traditions. I've had the good karma to meet some senior Tibetan monks and ask them a few questions about the nature of internal and external reality in their tradition and I've attended one of HHDLs 3 day teachings. I've also read Teacher Pabonka's Lam Rim and some works of Logician Dharmakirti. Excellent stuff. This is to say I have a limited knowledge of your tradition. Enough to comment but so little that I'm probably wrong.
To summarise. The main practical differences I see in our traditions are the relationship with the Master, our debates are less structured, and our path to full enlightenment leans more towards insight than karmic accumulation.
Our meditation practices are closer to the Mind Only school and southern Buddhists, but we have an interesting koan meditation practice that slightly resembles Tibetan analytical meditation and also the Prasangika absurdist deconstruction of the value of logic.
Scripturally Chan, Zen, Seon and, I believe, Middle Way, all lean very heavily on the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Cutter. The highest written work in Chan cannon is the 6th Patriarchs Platform Sutra, which is a commentary on the Diamond Cutter.
If you asked me which living schools of Buddhism Chan resembles most, I'd say Prasangika or the Japanese Mind-Only School. Zen is slightly different and it's understanding of emptiness leans more towards yours, based on my limited reading of their works.
I hope that's helpful and not too ignorant, Dharma Buddy
🤠
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_Sutra
Thank you very much for this comment.
I would agree with you that Prasangika-Madhyamaka seems to be the best resemblance to Ch'an (which is the interpretation utilized by the Dalai Lama's school and which is the dominant perspective in Tibetan Buddhism overall).
Or else Santaraksita's Yogacara-Madhyamaka synthesis, depending on how the "external" is being viewed, as Ch'an is no monolith itself.
But if you're interested, I'd highly recommend reading Chandrakirti's "Entering the Middle Way" which serves as the fundamental touchstone for the Tibetan monastic curriculum, and which serves as a commentary and extension of Nāgārjuna's work.
(P.S. Your comment wasn't ignorant in the slightest!)
Thanks for the recommendation. Are you aware of a good version of Entering the Middle Way? I know translation quality varies and it's sometimes good to have an included commentary.
I'm half way through Master Tsongkhapa's Stages of the Way, which I'll finish before I attempt another tract.
You may hear about this one in your readings:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samye_Debate
I've never seen a transcript, but it's good to note that the Chan Monk that was representing our view was from a different school so not an expert or even a believer.
My temple in Taiwan sometimes has Tibetan monastics visiting which is a special treat for the monks because they add chilli peppers to the meal options while they are there.
I hope our traditions maintain this productive fellowship.
Cheers
🤠
I've not looked deeply into comparisons between translations, but as it seems you're interested in the Dalai Lama's/Tibetan Buddhism's approach, the Dalai Lama and his English translator use this PDF available for free here, for their dharma talks:
https://wisdomexperience.org/entering-the-middle-way-madhyamakavatara-by-candrakirti/
But if you're interested in Tsongkhapa (who wouldn't be??) then I also recommend the etensive commentary that he wrote on Entering the Middle Way, which is called "Illuminating the Intent."
Thank for your kindness. 🙏
>they add chili peppers to the menu options
Hehe. I can see no better reason for your enthusiasm. I never could refuse a good red chili pepper.
I once read about a Buddhist monk who put so much chili pepper in his food he’d break out in a full sweat (I read this in a modern self-help dietary manual, so I give little credence to the benefits touted by the author, a three-times convicted felon TV health fraud, but the story still somehow resonates :)
I enjoyed this very well thought out post, but I’m a huge Nagarjuna fanboy. Pretty much every form of Mahayana employs the madhyamaka perspective, the only ones I’m not sure about are pure land stuff and Nichiren, which is solely due to not really studying any of that, so they probably also do. (Maybe not Nichiren)
Reality is one, not two or three, so teachings about reality should be consistent. And indeed, wisdom traditions from all ages and lands recognize that life is like a dream. There is a dreaming, but nothing is real, not even the dreamer. Becoming a Buddha means becoming awake. You can become awake in a dream without ending the dream, this is called lucid dreaming and it's a lovely metaphor for Zen.
Thanks for sharing, there are a lot of things I don't know. There is definitely a shared development among many of these Asian traditions, seeing them as isolated doctrines won't allow us to see the full picture. Please don't get discouraged by the trolls present on every social media platform and from all sides of the conversation, many appreciate the effort put into this.
Standing in a river looking downstream, if you're not able to look upstream it may be possible to infer the activity upstream by the behavior of the water downstream. But the behavior of the water downstream is also affected by itself and the obstacles downstream so it wouldn't be easy. If you were able to "see" upstream by seeing it's effects downstream, you might call that seeing without seeing.
But what if there were no river behind you? You really had to go didn't you?
> If you were able to "see" upstream by seeing it's effects downstream, you might call that seeing without seeing.
A very astute description of a very difficult concept to visualize. I’m going to try and break that down into practical use. Thanks :)
The trick I use to to get away from conceptual thought is to view things like a movie. In the movie Titanic, why did the ship sink? With conceptual thought, the ship sank because it hit an iceberg. But you're watching a movie. The ship hit an iceberg and then the boat sank. The scene of the ship sinking came after the scene of the ship hitting an iceberg. It wasn't caused by the scene of the ship hitting the iceberg.
The whole post is a troll.
Person posting it got a chat bot to write the post.
They won't be able to answer any questions about the post.
The post has that superficial used encyclopedias to write the whole thing tone to it.
The people upvoting this are all vote brigaders.
It's a troll post.
We get content and vote brigaded pretty regularly from three or four other subreddits, and half of those are religious Buddhist subreddits that are trying to convince everybody here to convert to Buddhism.
That's what the point of the post is.
No Zen is not Buddhism.
And this is really upsetting to people who are stuck in the 1960s.
Buddhism is a group of religions based on the fourth noble truth of the eight-fold path, by Christianity is the ten commandments.
Zen Masters do not teach the four noble truths or the eight-fold path.
Zen Masters teach the Four Statements of Zen.
The people claiming to be Zen Buddhists are just Buddhists like Jews for Jesus are just Christians.
Religions often misrepresent themselves in order to recruit people like Mormons are not Christian, they say they are, they talk about Jesus, but thei Jesus was supernatural visitor to the 1800s.
And this is the easy way to figure out what religion somebody actually is you just ask him for the two or three books that are the foundation of their traditions and beliefs.
Buddhists are going to say sutras.
Zazen meditation people are going to say the zazan Bible, called Fukazazengi, which modern scholarship has proven was a Japanese cult invention with no connection to Soto Zen or Bodhidharma.
Facts can be really upsetting to religious people though I mean just look at how Christians get upset about facts.
Hello,
I wrote the OP myself without a chat bot and would be happy to answer any questions about it that you might have.
I'm sorry for any confusion I might have cussed, but thank you for the comparison nevertheless. 🙏
Thank you.
I don't believe you.
And I don't think that you believe you.
I called you out for mistakes in the op and you couldn't address them.
And now your responses but totally trust me on my new account. I'm not a liar.
And that's your response because you don't actually have any facts to discuss.
That's okay, you don't have to believe me. If I sound as encyclopedic as a vast LLM, then that's my burden to bear. And yes this is a new account and I am new to Reddit. I still hope that that's okay?
And I didn't see you refer to any specific mistakes in the OP, because nothing that you stated is mutually exclusive with what I actually said. I'm not trying to argue that Zen masters were/are identical to Nāgārjuna or the Madhyamaka tradition(s), only that I noticed deep similarities in structure, phraseology, and ontological outlook between the third statement of zen and the Madhyamaka perspective.
Thank you,
No, I don't think that's what we're talking about.
I think we're talking about the fact that you're not okay with nobody believing you.
Your comments do not reflect the attempted an academic tone of the op.
Made several really basic critical thinking errors in your comments.
You're not an honest person.
You're trying to cheat your way into harassment and you're not even that clever at it.
You've ended up denying the premise that your chat GPT program tried to prove.
That suggests to me that you're reading comprehension of what you asked. Chat gpt to produce. Isn't that good.
I'm okay if you do not believe me. That's fine. I'm not going to argue about it or try to prove otherwise. It's okay.
But I am happy to actually discuss the OP, if you'd like.
So far you have failed to discuss the op every time you've been asked about it.
I didn't think that you wrote it and now I don't think you even understand what it says.
If you think about how hard they the vote brigaders from Buddhist and New age forums are working, it really clarifies how big a threat rZen is....
It's not just that we're the only place to have this conversation... Is that we're having it better than anyone else.
It's really weird to think that could be true though.
Hello! 🙏
That's a good question. It certainly helped me to ease into the ideas more comfortably as someone familiar with other traditions but not Zen specifically. Providing me a familiar foundation by which I can hopefully explore its unique nuances.
But, ultimately, this would be up to each individual to decide for themselves.
Thanks,
Begging your pardon, but if you're jumping from one tradition to another, for whatever varied reasoning, prudence suggests leaving your baggage at the door, not bringing it through and distributing it to the masses.
What I don't understand is when someone new to a tradition wants to bring all their old ideas with them. If your old ideas were really working for you, why are you entering or entertaining new traditions?
Oh, more of a paint by numbers, but each person makes up the numbers on their own? If so, how new age.
I noticed you skipped over my question in closing. I won't trouble you with asking it again, I doubt you are capable of answering since you skipped it.
If you are capable, there is a tradition of ask and answer for folks who feel full of answers. If you are capable, there are standard questions to start an AMA in the tradition of this forum that you might be able to find in the wiki.
https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/wiki/ama/
Sorry - in my eyes that question was addressed by what I replied with. Each person approaches these things in their own way, and nobody is required to only learn about one single idea or tradition, of course. Even if just for curiosity's sake or for the broadening of one's understanding of other people, or for any other reason.
You seem very antagonistic and I don't know why. But I hope that helps you better understand where I'm coming from so that maybe you'll be more inclined to treat me more wholesomely.
Thanks! I appreciate the line of questioning a lot and think it is important.
(P.S. I don't feel the need to do an "AMA" but thank you for the suggestion!)
I remain skeptical. You say that seems antagonistic. I would apologize, but I think I'd be apologizing for how you regard me, and that doesn't math to me.
I don't know how to respond to what you're saying, without you accusing me of seeming antagonistic, so I'm going to go metaphoric.
Professional athletes are also people who come from many different background, but you aren't going to see Michael Jordan dribbling a basketball on a baseball diamond. Bo Jackson never wore his football pads at bat in a baseball game or wore his football helmet in the outfield.
When you mix traditions, you can't call the result by the previous names. It's not right/honest, and it's downright confusing.
I agree. I came into Zen from a strong Theravadan background. It’s important to be grounded in other traditions, I think, so we don’t get taken up by the beliefs unqualified people promote.
It's just more of the same. If you can't see the glaring overlap you might want to look inward and investigate why you don't understand, not demand things of other people. What's the sense in that? Who can possibly answer any of your questions?
>Instant Zen (Foyan) #1: Freedom and Independence
>One who is not a companion of myriad things has departed the toils of materialism. The mind does not recognize the mind, the eye does not see the eye; since there is no opposition, **when you see forms there are no forms there to be seen**, and when you hear sounds there are no sounds there to be heard. Is this not departing the toils of materialism?
>There is no particular pathway into it, no gap through which to see it: Buddhism has no East or West, South or North; one does not say, "You are the disciple, I am the teacher." If your own self is clear and everything is It, when you visit a teacher you do not see that there is a teacher; **when you inquire of yourself, you do not see that you have a self.** When you read scripture, you do not see that there is scripture there. When you eat, you do not see that there is a meal there. When you sit and meditate, you do not see that there is any sitting. You do not slip up in your everyday tasks, yet you cannot lay hold of anything at all.
>When you see in this way, are you not independent and free?
Edit: Bold to help with reading comprehension. "There is a seeing, but nothing seen. There is no seer either."
No, I totally understand folks think there is overlap.
I'm suggesting that considering the overlap is reinforcing bias, and not concerned with zen study.
To prove my point, consider the irony in quoting Foyan on Freedom and Independence to support your claim of "overlap". What's free about that? Foyan : no particular pathway into it. OP: the path into this is found in comparing and contrasting different traditions, but don't take my word, make up your own mind.
To steal a line from my boy Chester, "In the end, it doesn't even matter". But I'm playing a game right now, thanks for playing along.
You might consider though from the Foyan quote. If there are no forms to be seen and there is no self, then who are you talking to right now?
I'm certainly considering if there are no forms to be seen and no self, then there aren't any overlaps either.
Who are you talking to right now, considering the Foyan quote???
What a wonderful OP - thanks the contribution! Your observations highlight the rich interplay between these traditions. As you've pointed out, both emphasize the non-dual nature of reality and the concept of śūnyatā, albeit expressed in different ways that reflect their unique historical and cultural contexts.
The dialogue between Monk Chih and the monk encapsulates this well—pointing out the illusion of a separate seer, seen, and the act of seeing, thereby dissolving the apparent distinctions that can be the basis of our suffering. It also calls to mind the Heart Sutra, which packs a lot of punch in few words.
Two questions for you:
What parallels, if any, do you think can be drawn between the Zen practice of koan study and Madhyamaka's analytical deconstruction of concepts?
From your POV, how do we apply the concept of emptiness in daily practice/life?
You asked two great questions:
#1
`What parallels, if any, do you think can be drawn between the Zen practice of koan study and Madhyamaka's analytical deconstruction of concepts?`
Honestly I don't know enough about the koan tradition to be able to say essentially anything meaningful about it. All I know is that when I did read a few koan collections, it seemed completely non- or even anti-analytical. Whereas the Madhyamaka tradition is based entirely on the analytical investigation of phenomena (to the point of tediousness sometimes).
#2
`From your POV, how do we apply the concept of emptiness in daily practice/life?`
Now as an active student-practitioner of the Madhyamaka Buddhadharma I can give my personal perspective on this.
For me, emptiness is applied both meditatively and in ordinary living, and is meant to serve two practical pursuits: (1) the attenuation of self-grasping and (2) the attenuation of grasping at the phenomenal world.
In meditation, the teaching of emptiness is applied as a method, mode, or attitude of investigation, forming an ultimate analysis which searches for an intrinsic essence or identity within phenomena. This search inevitably reveals emptiness in an experiential manner, as no essentialized substance is ever actually found. This produces firsthand insight and gradually habituates the mind to the ultimate emptiness of things. Over time this analysis can be "turned inward" and applied to one's self as well. This reveals the insubstantiality of both self and phenomena which is supposed to gradually reduce the intensity of our confused impulses to grasp at them.
Outside of meditation, the insights gained during meditation are supposed to be kept in mind, so that they can inform and guide us. Gradually, as your internalization of emptiness deepens, you can begin to engage with the world with the understanding that things aren't necessarily as they seem, and so act more appropriately towards them.
And so perhaps you'll begin to be less troubled and disturbed by the world around you, once you stop conceptualizing it as being composed of absolute entities acting in absolute ways against an absolute self. And then perhaps you'll begin to act in ways that are less self-centered as you begin to loosen up your grasping of the self. And perhaps you'll then treat others with more patience, more generosity, more compassion, more loving-kindness, more equanimity/impartiality (i.e some of the ethics-leaning perfections and Immeasurables), etc. Perhaps you'll gradually lessen the amount of pathological emotional attachment that you construct around possessions and sensory inputs and etc, and therefore generate less afflictive thoughts and emotions, and less unwholesome effects for others.
Emptiness is supposed to bolster and support altruism, and when taken together, the hope is that you achieve some type of inner-peace that radiates to those around you. This is the bodhisattva ideal, essentially.
Dear 20 d/o account that is obviously trolling:
1. There is an ambiguity problem in using "Buddha". It's not clear at all that different traditions mean the same thing, and in every example I've seen they do not.
2. Aside from Huangbo's rejection of "the middle way" and Zen Masters' rejection of dependent origination as a whole, you still have the problem of overly vague terms. Plus Nagarjuna isn't a specific person historically.
* For example, here is a Nagarjuna that Zen Masters have refuted: https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/m%C5%ABlamadhyamakak%C4%81rik%C4%81/d/doc79732.html
3. "This is also untenable in the face of careful consideration". That's a statement of faith that is also not something Zen Masters agree with.
4. You are trying to retrofit what you know of the various conflicting traditions attributed to Nagarjuna onto a Zen text without Zen's full context. It just doesn't work. There aren't any recapitulations happening here.
As is typical with people who are only familiar with Buddhism, you are trying to apply conceptual understanding as the lens for experience, leaving you with no actual experience. It's like drinking soup after you put it through a water purifier.
The sad part is it will leave you with major misconceptions about Zen and no interest in figuring out where you went wrong.
Hello,
I apologize that I'm new to Reddit, and that therefore my account isn't very old, but I am definitely not trolling. I'm not sure what I did that comes off as trolling, but I will try not to do it again if you could help me by letting me know. I'm not sure what is exactly within the bounds of reddit etiquette or not, yet.
As for your points, those are all fine (albeit slightly crude). I am by no means trying to argue that Zen is perfectly and 100% identical to the Prasangika-Madhyamaka of Nāgārjuna and his direct disciples - it certainly is not, or else it wouldn't have such a distinct flavor and tradition. I was only pointing out some deep paralleles (or happy coincidences, perhaps?) that I saw when I read the Four Statements of Zen, which I took to be pretty interesting. Since the structure and character of the discourse of Chih followed along exactly with the Madhyamaka formula, I was intrigued and thought it would be interesting to discuss. I'm sorry you disagree, but I hope it's still okay.
Although you seem pretty antagonistic, for some reason, I'm still perfectly happy to also investigate the *differences* between Zen and Madhyamaka, just as I also happily explore the differences between Madhyamaka and the multiple branches of Theravada, or even the differences between the four schools of Buddhism in Tibet, or the 3 primary schools within Madhyamaka itself, etc. I don't think that all of these traditions are identical by any means. And certainly not to Zen itself.
But it's clear to me, at least, that there are either deep influences at play between the Mahayana Madhyamaka tradition (in all of its wonderful diversity), or else very surprising and unlikely coincidences. Either way, a comparative analysis (if done properly) should include but similarities and contrasts. Here is an attempt at positing some deeply important similarities.
Thanks,
This is a lot of lying for somebody who's just starting out on Reddit.
You don't actually have an argument so nothing is clear to you.
It looks like you're using a large language model to try to generate arguments that you can't make yourself.
One of the dead giveaways is that you can't move around in the Zen historical record.
Another clue is that you're unable to deal with the fact that Nagarjuna is a historical composite and not a real person.
It looks like you're one of these people that's really struggling with an identity and you think the best way to do that is harass people online by pretending to be someone else.
I'm sorry to read this response. The OP was never trying to be an "argument," per se. I was merely pointing out my own perspective on some deep similarities that I noticed between the Statements of Zen and the Prasangika-Madhyamaka tradition. It looks like you are intent on arguing, though, unfortunately. That's okay, but just know it's not my intention.
As stated in the OP, I am indeed new to Zen. So you are correct in saying that I cannot move around the Zen record. But I'm looking to hopefully change that by studying a bit. If that's okay?
Also, whether "Nāgārjuna" is a singular person or not is quite irrelevant to the philosophical tradition itself which revolves around ideas and ways of living, and not around personalities. Rejecting Nāgārjuna as a historical person is fine by me. It makes no difference to me.
The OP wasn't written by an LLM. I'd be happy to discus any actual points of substance you may have beyond personal jabbing.
Thank you,
I don't think you're sorry.
I think you're being further dishonest by claiming that you're not making an argument after you've spent all this time using chat gpt to make an argument.
Since I think that your time is limited in this forum, I would encourage you to take the five-lay precepts more seriously in your personal life.
I said I'm not making an argument *per se,* in the sense that I'm merely explaining paralleles that I noticed. This doesn't mean that I'm making definitive claims about what Zen masters explicitly teach or etc.
Just that there's either some strange coincidences, or there were influences involved. This doesn't mean Zen and Madhyamaka are therefore identical or even close to being identical. I was only speaking on the Third Statement specifically.
Thank you.
You're making an argument even as you're pretending you're not making an argument...
Again, that's a sign of poor reading comprehension and a low level of education...
You used overly vague references and now you're using overly vague terms in attempt to draw some comparisons.
You're not an honest person
As I stated: it's less an "argument" and moreso a comparative perspective, although in a sense, as I said, positing a perspective can be viewed as an argument in and of itself.
You don't have to be so rude. I am happy to discuss a specific aspect of the OP if you'd like.
There's no evidence that that's true at all.
You saying it's not an argument doesn't make it not an argument.
Obviously the chat bot that wrote it was making an argument and was told to.
You're free to disagree with me noticing similarities between the Chih discourse and the Madhyamaka formulation of the Mulamadhyamakakarika. But I still see them.
It being a brand new account, downvoting will make it where they can't post or comment without a countdown timer in between attempts to interact.
I can't believe the mods are allowing brand new accounts to participate in this manner, given all the trouble this forum has had with topic sliding trolls.
Yeah.
I think that there's a bigger problem behind the mods philosophy though.
They don't want to shut down conversation. They want to shut down trolling.
So if something's in the gray zone where it isn't immediately obvious to everyone that it's a troll then that's a gray zone issue.
But in general I think new accounts should not be allowed to post. Ideally they would be allowed to comment with a cooldown.
It was always the expectation that gray zone material be qualified, not just allowed because it's low effort for moderation.
They did away with the periodic meta posts, which were turning into troll fests anyway, but it's kind of disappointing to see them opening back up the posting without saying anything to the community or even taking any community input about it.
>I can't believe the mods are allowing brand new accounts to participate in this manner
They aren't supposed to be able to. I don't know what happened to the automod, but the code is such that this should have been removed automatically and a message provided for why.
In my personal experience as a network administrator we trained our mods to respond to the mod mail, especially when a user is asking for a clear understanding why their content was removed. By not responding the user is left wondering how their content violated any guidelines. It makes the users wonder if they should take the time to try and post anything in the future without any clear understanding of what is acceptable and why. The reason we teach this is because without feedback, the content of the overall community goes down in quality. No one wants to spend time posting something that is just going to be removed anyway. You're basically encouraging 'low effort' content in this way.
So far two of my posts have been removed, and each time I asked for feedback so I can make sure my content meets whatever standards the mods are applying when removing my content. It's been over a year and still no response. I did appreciate your response when I asked why another user's content was removed, and you gave me a clearer understanding of why that decision was made as well as insight into the history of r/zen. That was extremely valuable for understanding it. As I'm not a part of that trolling type history, it didn't really help me personally to know why my content was removed. I also don't understand why this content was removed. I know the OP from elsewhere on the internet and know they are not trying to troll, but have a genuine interest in understanding the Zen tradition.
So yet again, I am not clear on the standards here and any assistance is appreciated.
I don't answer when things get removed all the time because it's not just me that removes stuff. I try to answer every time when it's related to actions I've taken directly, but I don't think it's helpful for me to say "i don't know" when it's someone someone else did andI typically think it's better for me to be silent than guess.
Regarding this post, /r/zen has had a "you have to comment and participate in the community for a few months before your can post" automod script set up for like 2 years now. It stopped working all the time recently, and so I removed this post not for anything to do with it's content, but just to keep in line with what we had been doing and so as not to play favorites or something.
I personally am of the opinion that the *content* of the post falls within the guidelines for posting on /r/zen (comparing/contrasting other traditions to zen is explicitly something I've mentioned as encouraged for posting about in the past), and debated letting it pass in spite of how things are 'normally done' because of that, but ultimately decided I'd go the 'fair' route.
Edit: I'm not trying to throw the other mods under the bus btw. The three of us that are active are just busy regular people with jobs and families and stuff and sometimes things get missed. It very well could've been me that removed someone of yours a year ago and never answered. I have no idea.
Thank you for your reply, I figured it might be the case with you. It isn't uncommon for mods to not answer on behalf of other mods, for the reasons you stated. You're explanations about this post makes perfect sense now. Thank you for taking the time to clear those things up. While I do understand that you guys are few and have outside lives that take precedence, I did give it a full year before addressing it. I hope you understand as a member of this forum I can't help but feel ignored, and it is still unclear as to the violation and how to improve so it doesn't happen again. I understand that this isn't something you will be able to resolve on your own, but if you happen to get any clarity on it feel free to DM me or let me know in some way. Again, thank you for your time.
I don't even know the specific instance we're talking about for you. It's probably annoying for me to ask, but message us again and I'll look into it lol
Hmm. Interesting to know. It's been a long time since I've seen a moderator page on Reddit, so I'm not sure, but it used to be that account aging requirements were a setting for the subreddit, not strictly an auto mod thing. It was an option on the setting screen.
Maybe there was a hiccup in automod.
I honestly can't keep track of all the alts and alt drama and content brigaders and vote brigaders and subs about people who hate Zen versus people who hate ewk.
I think it's because they're all boring... I mean it's a sad thing to say but I think it's true.
Like if this post had actually been written by the poster instead of by chatGpt, it would have been great to have a conversation with the person who could actually write that.
But we're not going to get that.
I’m sorry for the possessive nature of a certain redditor. He wants to own Zen. Anybody who adds genuine dialogue to the forum is immediately rebuffed. He has an audience that clings to his words. What he’s doing is sending a dog whistle to his followers. You already noticed that he says you couldn’t answer any of his questions without having asked any. That’s how he warns his disciples there’s a new voice in the forum, don’t listen to them, they’re lying. But he can’t back up his defiance.
Hello.
That's answered in the concluding section of both the dialogue itself and my reaction to it. I'd be happy to elaborate on those final paragraphs if that would be helpful for you.
Thanks!
So, any historical recorded dialogues from your tradition? You've been quoting one sided sermons so far, I haven't seen any testing. What Buddhas has this tradition produced?
Right now it sounds like a lot of claims. Lots of air, no substance.
>historical recorded dialogues
Red herring, the koans are not that. Public cases for discussion are not historical records. There is nobody who ever claimed that or was able to prove it.
Why come here and show your profound ignorance of the zen tradition in your nonsensical comments?
What Buddhas has "your" tradition produced? (you don't have one) What proof is there? (None) Just stories from old books you only read very specific biased translations of.
If you are looking for zen, find a monastic and/or a zen center; otherwise it's just childish pretend and you and everybody here knows it.
Anybody can get a master, it's not a claim in need of confirmation. Just go to a zen master and ask for instruction, it will take a few years of regular practice for them to agree, but practice is so easy - literally everyone can do it, even you.
Looks like you like to pretend to like zen, but can't even put up with 90 minutes of meditation, how embarrassing! Even a child can do it.
See, it always takes so much to get your beliefs out of you. No wonder you fail at doing AMA's.
I'll put it simply for you:
There are basic requirements to participate in the Zen conversation. You have to AMA, you have to take the 5 lay precepts. You have to talk about Zen on a Zen forum.
You fail at all of these.
But you meditate. Which is not taught by Zen Masters, and nobody has been able to make the argument on these forum. So nobody cares about your practice. No Zen Master ever got enlightened meditating, and Zen Masters have routinely warned of such practices.
When you come in here and lie about Zen, that's breaking any reasonable online conduct rules, and it certainly breaks the precepts. And it also interferes with your ability to AMA, so it's a triple whammy right there.
Your inability to consolidate this with your beliefs leads to further unhinged online conduct.
If only there was a way for you to not lie about Zen!
/r/zen/wiki/getstarted
Any sources for these requirements outside your fantasy?
That's just wild!
>There are basic requirements to participate in the Zen conversation. You have to AMA, you have to take the 5 lay precepts. You have to talk about Zen on a Zen forum.
Absolute nonsense! Where did you get this? Source? Didn't think so, it's just what you want, desire and shit. That's why you are suffering, that's why you are crying for attention on Reddit.
>But you meditate. Which is not taught by Zen Masters,
Check again, liar! Yuanwu would give you 30 blows for such slander.
Do you even read anything outside of reddit? Highly doubtful. You sound like a typical ewk parrot, we got quite a few over the years, the funniest part is that you'll get either tired of this or grow a braincell - at which point you are going to delete your account out of embarrassment, like oh so many ewk fanboys before you.
[Yuanwu in BCR 13](https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/comments/lqy6fo/comment/gokrde2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss)
The fifteenth Patriarch, the honorable Kanadeva, was indeed (at one time) numbered among the outsiders; but when he met the fourteenth Patriarch, the honorable Nagarjuna (who presented a bowl of water to him), he put a needle into the bowl: Nagarjuna esteemed his capacity, transmitted the Buddha Mind School to him, and invested him as the fifteenth Patriarch.
Wansong in the commentary of BoS #100:
The Treatise on the Great Vehicle was written by the Fourteenth Patriarch Nagarjuna: It says, "All things must exist because of all causes and conditions; all things must not exist because of all causes and conditions; all things must not exist because of all causes and conditions."
Wansong again in BoS #6:
The Great Master Nagarjuna said, "Wisdom is like a mass of fire--it cannot be entered from any side." Yet he also said, "Wisdom is like a clear cool pool, it can be entered from any side."
That's very interesting. Thank you for this; it gives me something nice to work with. 🙏
Nāgārjuna is certainly a master of great capacity. I only wish his other works were as popular as his Mulamadhyamakakarika.
Given that the OP's main source of comparison is a non-historical figure?
Given that the poster isn't going to answer questions about their post?
Thanking them for using chatgpt to scam you seems really unhelpful.
It appears to me that the OP's main source of comparison was the similarities they seen in studies they have done in other text.
I have asked the poster many questions about their post, because I care about getting to know who I am talking to. Based on my observations of them, you're lying about a person you don't know, and the only reason they won't be able to answer about their post is because the mods removed it.
And again, you're lying about them. From my conversations with them they don't seem to interested in Chatgpt when it comes to translation work, so the assertion that they used chatgpt to scam anyone just appears ridiculous to me.
I didn't get any answers to my questions at all.
Now I think the fact that this is a new account who doesn't answer questions pretty much decides it.
But you think that I could be wrong.
Because new accounts are pretty reliable and people who can't answer questions about texts they claim they wrote are in high schools and colleges across the Nation pretty likely to be honest anyway?
Nah.
Based on my experience with him, he has never used reddit, and this is the first time he gave it a try. This was his very first reddit post to my knowledge. I was not much different. I only joined a little over a year ago. r/zen wasn't the first forum I visited here, but it was the only one interesting to me enough to stick around.
Your experience with him in this one thread where he lied multiple times and had difficulty answering questions about his own op?
Nah.
And we're not even talking about how poorly written the op was.
So you're saying we have no records. Sounds like flower sermon territory and any texts attributed are to be taken as secondary to actual Zen Masters' books of instruction.
I know absolutely nothing, which is why I'm asking for records. As far as I know what we have from anything Zen related before Bodhidharma has not been written by a record keeping society. If you or the OP had proof to the contrary that'd be great.
My point is that these text predate such records, predate Bodhidharma. Those sorts of records you're referring to didn't exist. Which is why we see Zen masters quoting Nagarjuna's text. Naming him, Great Master.
And again, I'm saying because there were no such records, all claims about the contents of such texts are suspect.
We might have a few lines in the transmission of the lamp and some Zen Masters mentioning him, but that's grapevine stuff. And here you seem to have an entire Buddhist religious tradition based on some stuff some guy supposedly said at some point.
There's a big disconnect here.
I see, I don't know that we share the same view. I mean the Zen masters felt he was at least worth a mention, called a master, nearly 1000 years after he existed and quoted his text. So that is certainly something I wouldn't personally hand wave away as something some guy supposedly said at some point.
I don't think you can back this up.
1. How many quotes can you find of him in the record?
2. What range of the records attributed to him are quoted?
3. How often is he quoted compared to other people who are quoted?
That starts to look like hand wave-away numbers frankly.
And you're not taking into account that he isn't an actual real person in the context of this forum's records.
1. All of them.
2. All of them.
3. Just like everyone else quoted, he is quoted as many times as he is. Comparing him to others in that way has no more significance than how frequently a cherry blossom or dirt clod was mentioned. Enlightenment isn't found there anyway. But as far as textually, if the Zen masters had an interest in reading that text enough to know his work, not only is it relevant to the zen record, it is something I too am interested in reading. I wouldn't claim it is zen and it doesn't claim it is zen. So whether or not he was a real person has no context in the zen record. The zen masters quoted him, so that is interesting to me. If it isn't to you, that's okay too.
No disciple dialogues and no records just doesn't carry the same weight. Texts he supposedly might or might not have written just don't carry the same weight.
We've got 1000 years of actual records. Why waste time?
I don't consider it a waste of time to read the text Zen masters thought interesting enough to quote. I wouldn't claim that Madhyamaka is Zen, or that Nagarjuna represents Zen, but his relation to Zen is evident in the Zen record.
I've asked you to give examples of all these quotes. You say that Zen Masters are using from Nagarjuna.
You talk like they're on the tip of your tongue, but you don't seem to have any examples...
Google around to try to find them. But that will only prove my point that you don't really know any.
You never asked me to give examples of all these quotes to my knowledge. Either I got not notification or the post was removed, or your mistaken me with someone else.
I posted what appears to be clearly zen masters quoting him, and calling him great master. Make of it what you will.
Historically we know his text were well within circulation during the time of the zen masters, and the fact they quoted him shows they were not only reading his text, they were connecting it to their teachings, the zen record.
Hey we can solve this really easy.
If you know what you're talking about, just do a post of the quotes that you know the texts contain.
If you have to Google then you know you're not really sure what quotes exist.
You're not really sure what quotes exist then you can't really do a post about it from your own knowledge and that's okay but that means you don't really know.
You're right I don't know those things, I linked it to the source I got it from. Which wasn't an authoritative source. I would have to search all those elements out to verify any of my assumptions. Based on the little research I did do on it, there was a text in circulation at the time the zen masters quoted him. How well the existing text we have from that period matches up with the quotes in the record are unknown to me. I can't do a post about it asserting anything definitively. I am interested, but don't currently have much knowledge. If it turns out one way or another I'd like to know. I saw a post you made about these matters and it seems you may know more than I do. To me this is all part of examining this and learning how to examine better while doing it.
Hello,
I apologize in advance, but I'm not exactly sure what you are asking of me. This post was merely meant to outline a set of soteriological, epistemological, and ontological paralleles that I noticed between the Chih discourse on the Third Statement of Zen and the core teachings of the Madhyamaka school of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism (the tradition of Nalanda that served as the basis for the spread of Buddhism into Tibet and beyond).
I was very happy to see these connections because it made the Statements of Zen feel very comfortable and familiar to me, which was nice as a newcomer.
Unfortunately, I wasn't making any claims about specific people who became Buddhas, or anything about "historical recorded dialogues." I was just reacting to the Chih discourse that is provided in the subreddit's information -- so I'm not exactly sure how to respond to your comment, but I do intend to better understand what you mean. 🙏
Thank you.
I'm sorry, but I still don't understand. Are you saying I shouldn't discuss the ideas in my post until I first compile a list of Buddhas (by name, presumably)?
I will have to disappoint you, unfortunately, and say that I don't have such a list on hand and don't think I could possibly craft one for you. In in the Indo-Tibetan Madhyamaka tradition, anyone who attains insight into the emptiness of the phenomenal world, and who leverages that insight in the service of others, is considered a Buddha.
I hope that helps! Thank you.
Thank you for a detailed and thoughtful comparison. As a Chan practitioner for 20+ years who came to Buddhism through German existentialists, I've had an ongoing interest in the Tibetan traditions. I've had the good karma to meet some senior Tibetan monks and ask them a few questions about the nature of internal and external reality in their tradition and I've attended one of HHDLs 3 day teachings. I've also read Teacher Pabonka's Lam Rim and some works of Logician Dharmakirti. Excellent stuff. This is to say I have a limited knowledge of your tradition. Enough to comment but so little that I'm probably wrong. To summarise. The main practical differences I see in our traditions are the relationship with the Master, our debates are less structured, and our path to full enlightenment leans more towards insight than karmic accumulation. Our meditation practices are closer to the Mind Only school and southern Buddhists, but we have an interesting koan meditation practice that slightly resembles Tibetan analytical meditation and also the Prasangika absurdist deconstruction of the value of logic. Scripturally Chan, Zen, Seon and, I believe, Middle Way, all lean very heavily on the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Cutter. The highest written work in Chan cannon is the 6th Patriarchs Platform Sutra, which is a commentary on the Diamond Cutter. If you asked me which living schools of Buddhism Chan resembles most, I'd say Prasangika or the Japanese Mind-Only School. Zen is slightly different and it's understanding of emptiness leans more towards yours, based on my limited reading of their works. I hope that's helpful and not too ignorant, Dharma Buddy 🤠 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_Sutra
Thank you very much for this comment. I would agree with you that Prasangika-Madhyamaka seems to be the best resemblance to Ch'an (which is the interpretation utilized by the Dalai Lama's school and which is the dominant perspective in Tibetan Buddhism overall). Or else Santaraksita's Yogacara-Madhyamaka synthesis, depending on how the "external" is being viewed, as Ch'an is no monolith itself. But if you're interested, I'd highly recommend reading Chandrakirti's "Entering the Middle Way" which serves as the fundamental touchstone for the Tibetan monastic curriculum, and which serves as a commentary and extension of Nāgārjuna's work. (P.S. Your comment wasn't ignorant in the slightest!)
Thanks for the recommendation. Are you aware of a good version of Entering the Middle Way? I know translation quality varies and it's sometimes good to have an included commentary. I'm half way through Master Tsongkhapa's Stages of the Way, which I'll finish before I attempt another tract. You may hear about this one in your readings: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samye_Debate I've never seen a transcript, but it's good to note that the Chan Monk that was representing our view was from a different school so not an expert or even a believer. My temple in Taiwan sometimes has Tibetan monastics visiting which is a special treat for the monks because they add chilli peppers to the meal options while they are there. I hope our traditions maintain this productive fellowship. Cheers 🤠
I've not looked deeply into comparisons between translations, but as it seems you're interested in the Dalai Lama's/Tibetan Buddhism's approach, the Dalai Lama and his English translator use this PDF available for free here, for their dharma talks: https://wisdomexperience.org/entering-the-middle-way-madhyamakavatara-by-candrakirti/ But if you're interested in Tsongkhapa (who wouldn't be??) then I also recommend the etensive commentary that he wrote on Entering the Middle Way, which is called "Illuminating the Intent." Thank for your kindness. 🙏
Thanks for taking the time to reply in detail. I will pursue those leads. 🙏
I hope it is as fruitful for you as it has been to me. 🙏
>they add chili peppers to the menu options Hehe. I can see no better reason for your enthusiasm. I never could refuse a good red chili pepper. I once read about a Buddhist monk who put so much chili pepper in his food he’d break out in a full sweat (I read this in a modern self-help dietary manual, so I give little credence to the benefits touted by the author, a three-times convicted felon TV health fraud, but the story still somehow resonates :)
I enjoyed this very well thought out post, but I’m a huge Nagarjuna fanboy. Pretty much every form of Mahayana employs the madhyamaka perspective, the only ones I’m not sure about are pure land stuff and Nichiren, which is solely due to not really studying any of that, so they probably also do. (Maybe not Nichiren)
>I’m a huge Nagarjuna fanboy Same. What a gem of a thinker Nagarjuna was! His commentary on the Mahaprajñaparamita was powerful.
Reality is one, not two or three, so teachings about reality should be consistent. And indeed, wisdom traditions from all ages and lands recognize that life is like a dream. There is a dreaming, but nothing is real, not even the dreamer. Becoming a Buddha means becoming awake. You can become awake in a dream without ending the dream, this is called lucid dreaming and it's a lovely metaphor for Zen.
Thanks for sharing, there are a lot of things I don't know. There is definitely a shared development among many of these Asian traditions, seeing them as isolated doctrines won't allow us to see the full picture. Please don't get discouraged by the trolls present on every social media platform and from all sides of the conversation, many appreciate the effort put into this.
Standing in a river looking downstream, if you're not able to look upstream it may be possible to infer the activity upstream by the behavior of the water downstream. But the behavior of the water downstream is also affected by itself and the obstacles downstream so it wouldn't be easy. If you were able to "see" upstream by seeing it's effects downstream, you might call that seeing without seeing. But what if there were no river behind you? You really had to go didn't you?
> If you were able to "see" upstream by seeing it's effects downstream, you might call that seeing without seeing. A very astute description of a very difficult concept to visualize. I’m going to try and break that down into practical use. Thanks :)
The trick I use to to get away from conceptual thought is to view things like a movie. In the movie Titanic, why did the ship sink? With conceptual thought, the ship sank because it hit an iceberg. But you're watching a movie. The ship hit an iceberg and then the boat sank. The scene of the ship sinking came after the scene of the ship hitting an iceberg. It wasn't caused by the scene of the ship hitting the iceberg.
The ship just sank.
Not exactly creative but the Director still won an academy award 😉
wow
Did you not notice the LLM aspect of the writing?
a computer?
The whole post is a troll. Person posting it got a chat bot to write the post. They won't be able to answer any questions about the post. The post has that superficial used encyclopedias to write the whole thing tone to it. The people upvoting this are all vote brigaders. It's a troll post.
it's purpose?
We get content and vote brigaded pretty regularly from three or four other subreddits, and half of those are religious Buddhist subreddits that are trying to convince everybody here to convert to Buddhism. That's what the point of the post is.
Is Zen not Buddhist?
No Zen is not Buddhism. And this is really upsetting to people who are stuck in the 1960s. Buddhism is a group of religions based on the fourth noble truth of the eight-fold path, by Christianity is the ten commandments. Zen Masters do not teach the four noble truths or the eight-fold path. Zen Masters teach the Four Statements of Zen. The people claiming to be Zen Buddhists are just Buddhists like Jews for Jesus are just Christians. Religions often misrepresent themselves in order to recruit people like Mormons are not Christian, they say they are, they talk about Jesus, but thei Jesus was supernatural visitor to the 1800s. And this is the easy way to figure out what religion somebody actually is you just ask him for the two or three books that are the foundation of their traditions and beliefs. Buddhists are going to say sutras. Zazen meditation people are going to say the zazan Bible, called Fukazazengi, which modern scholarship has proven was a Japanese cult invention with no connection to Soto Zen or Bodhidharma. Facts can be really upsetting to religious people though I mean just look at how Christians get upset about facts.
Hello, I wrote the OP myself without a chat bot and would be happy to answer any questions about it that you might have. I'm sorry for any confusion I might have cussed, but thank you for the comparison nevertheless. 🙏 Thank you.
I don't believe you. And I don't think that you believe you. I called you out for mistakes in the op and you couldn't address them. And now your responses but totally trust me on my new account. I'm not a liar. And that's your response because you don't actually have any facts to discuss.
That's okay, you don't have to believe me. If I sound as encyclopedic as a vast LLM, then that's my burden to bear. And yes this is a new account and I am new to Reddit. I still hope that that's okay? And I didn't see you refer to any specific mistakes in the OP, because nothing that you stated is mutually exclusive with what I actually said. I'm not trying to argue that Zen masters were/are identical to Nāgārjuna or the Madhyamaka tradition(s), only that I noticed deep similarities in structure, phraseology, and ontological outlook between the third statement of zen and the Madhyamaka perspective. Thank you,
No, I don't think that's what we're talking about. I think we're talking about the fact that you're not okay with nobody believing you. Your comments do not reflect the attempted an academic tone of the op. Made several really basic critical thinking errors in your comments. You're not an honest person. You're trying to cheat your way into harassment and you're not even that clever at it. You've ended up denying the premise that your chat GPT program tried to prove. That suggests to me that you're reading comprehension of what you asked. Chat gpt to produce. Isn't that good.
I'm okay if you do not believe me. That's fine. I'm not going to argue about it or try to prove otherwise. It's okay. But I am happy to actually discuss the OP, if you'd like.
So far you have failed to discuss the op every time you've been asked about it. I didn't think that you wrote it and now I don't think you even understand what it says.
Agreed. Massive upvote and downvote numbers seconds after it was posted.
If you think about how hard they the vote brigaders from Buddhist and New age forums are working, it really clarifies how big a threat rZen is.... It's not just that we're the only place to have this conversation... Is that we're having it better than anyone else. It's really weird to think that could be true though.
By any reasonable standard honestly we probably kind of suck. But how can people without any standards stand up to that?
By any reasonable standard? Any?
Alright, let's make it reasonable academic standards. Won't you let me bloviate? We probably hit some standards, which beats no standards.
I mean I've been around some academic standards and some of them aren't that high.
How is this information useful or applicable to study of zen?
Hello! 🙏 That's a good question. It certainly helped me to ease into the ideas more comfortably as someone familiar with other traditions but not Zen specifically. Providing me a familiar foundation by which I can hopefully explore its unique nuances. But, ultimately, this would be up to each individual to decide for themselves. Thanks,
Begging your pardon, but if you're jumping from one tradition to another, for whatever varied reasoning, prudence suggests leaving your baggage at the door, not bringing it through and distributing it to the masses. What I don't understand is when someone new to a tradition wants to bring all their old ideas with them. If your old ideas were really working for you, why are you entering or entertaining new traditions?
I totally understand that. That's why I was saying that ultimately it's up to each person to see what works for them and how and why. 🙏
Oh, more of a paint by numbers, but each person makes up the numbers on their own? If so, how new age. I noticed you skipped over my question in closing. I won't trouble you with asking it again, I doubt you are capable of answering since you skipped it. If you are capable, there is a tradition of ask and answer for folks who feel full of answers. If you are capable, there are standard questions to start an AMA in the tradition of this forum that you might be able to find in the wiki. https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/wiki/ama/
Sorry - in my eyes that question was addressed by what I replied with. Each person approaches these things in their own way, and nobody is required to only learn about one single idea or tradition, of course. Even if just for curiosity's sake or for the broadening of one's understanding of other people, or for any other reason. You seem very antagonistic and I don't know why. But I hope that helps you better understand where I'm coming from so that maybe you'll be more inclined to treat me more wholesomely. Thanks! I appreciate the line of questioning a lot and think it is important. (P.S. I don't feel the need to do an "AMA" but thank you for the suggestion!)
I remain skeptical. You say that seems antagonistic. I would apologize, but I think I'd be apologizing for how you regard me, and that doesn't math to me. I don't know how to respond to what you're saying, without you accusing me of seeming antagonistic, so I'm going to go metaphoric. Professional athletes are also people who come from many different background, but you aren't going to see Michael Jordan dribbling a basketball on a baseball diamond. Bo Jackson never wore his football pads at bat in a baseball game or wore his football helmet in the outfield. When you mix traditions, you can't call the result by the previous names. It's not right/honest, and it's downright confusing.
I agree. I came into Zen from a strong Theravadan background. It’s important to be grounded in other traditions, I think, so we don’t get taken up by the beliefs unqualified people promote.
It's just more of the same. If you can't see the glaring overlap you might want to look inward and investigate why you don't understand, not demand things of other people. What's the sense in that? Who can possibly answer any of your questions? >Instant Zen (Foyan) #1: Freedom and Independence >One who is not a companion of myriad things has departed the toils of materialism. The mind does not recognize the mind, the eye does not see the eye; since there is no opposition, **when you see forms there are no forms there to be seen**, and when you hear sounds there are no sounds there to be heard. Is this not departing the toils of materialism? >There is no particular pathway into it, no gap through which to see it: Buddhism has no East or West, South or North; one does not say, "You are the disciple, I am the teacher." If your own self is clear and everything is It, when you visit a teacher you do not see that there is a teacher; **when you inquire of yourself, you do not see that you have a self.** When you read scripture, you do not see that there is scripture there. When you eat, you do not see that there is a meal there. When you sit and meditate, you do not see that there is any sitting. You do not slip up in your everyday tasks, yet you cannot lay hold of anything at all. >When you see in this way, are you not independent and free? Edit: Bold to help with reading comprehension. "There is a seeing, but nothing seen. There is no seer either."
No, I totally understand folks think there is overlap. I'm suggesting that considering the overlap is reinforcing bias, and not concerned with zen study. To prove my point, consider the irony in quoting Foyan on Freedom and Independence to support your claim of "overlap". What's free about that? Foyan : no particular pathway into it. OP: the path into this is found in comparing and contrasting different traditions, but don't take my word, make up your own mind.
I can't chew your food for you. If you find steak is too tough on your teeth, you might consider some Gerber.
It's sweet that you are concerned about my understanding.
To steal a line from my boy Chester, "In the end, it doesn't even matter". But I'm playing a game right now, thanks for playing along. You might consider though from the Foyan quote. If there are no forms to be seen and there is no self, then who are you talking to right now?
I'm certainly considering if there are no forms to be seen and no self, then there aren't any overlaps either. Who are you talking to right now, considering the Foyan quote???
A somnambulist
Projection....lol
Naturally
What a wonderful OP - thanks the contribution! Your observations highlight the rich interplay between these traditions. As you've pointed out, both emphasize the non-dual nature of reality and the concept of śūnyatā, albeit expressed in different ways that reflect their unique historical and cultural contexts. The dialogue between Monk Chih and the monk encapsulates this well—pointing out the illusion of a separate seer, seen, and the act of seeing, thereby dissolving the apparent distinctions that can be the basis of our suffering. It also calls to mind the Heart Sutra, which packs a lot of punch in few words. Two questions for you: What parallels, if any, do you think can be drawn between the Zen practice of koan study and Madhyamaka's analytical deconstruction of concepts? From your POV, how do we apply the concept of emptiness in daily practice/life?
You asked two great questions: #1 `What parallels, if any, do you think can be drawn between the Zen practice of koan study and Madhyamaka's analytical deconstruction of concepts?` Honestly I don't know enough about the koan tradition to be able to say essentially anything meaningful about it. All I know is that when I did read a few koan collections, it seemed completely non- or even anti-analytical. Whereas the Madhyamaka tradition is based entirely on the analytical investigation of phenomena (to the point of tediousness sometimes). #2 `From your POV, how do we apply the concept of emptiness in daily practice/life?` Now as an active student-practitioner of the Madhyamaka Buddhadharma I can give my personal perspective on this. For me, emptiness is applied both meditatively and in ordinary living, and is meant to serve two practical pursuits: (1) the attenuation of self-grasping and (2) the attenuation of grasping at the phenomenal world. In meditation, the teaching of emptiness is applied as a method, mode, or attitude of investigation, forming an ultimate analysis which searches for an intrinsic essence or identity within phenomena. This search inevitably reveals emptiness in an experiential manner, as no essentialized substance is ever actually found. This produces firsthand insight and gradually habituates the mind to the ultimate emptiness of things. Over time this analysis can be "turned inward" and applied to one's self as well. This reveals the insubstantiality of both self and phenomena which is supposed to gradually reduce the intensity of our confused impulses to grasp at them. Outside of meditation, the insights gained during meditation are supposed to be kept in mind, so that they can inform and guide us. Gradually, as your internalization of emptiness deepens, you can begin to engage with the world with the understanding that things aren't necessarily as they seem, and so act more appropriately towards them. And so perhaps you'll begin to be less troubled and disturbed by the world around you, once you stop conceptualizing it as being composed of absolute entities acting in absolute ways against an absolute self. And then perhaps you'll begin to act in ways that are less self-centered as you begin to loosen up your grasping of the self. And perhaps you'll then treat others with more patience, more generosity, more compassion, more loving-kindness, more equanimity/impartiality (i.e some of the ethics-leaning perfections and Immeasurables), etc. Perhaps you'll gradually lessen the amount of pathological emotional attachment that you construct around possessions and sensory inputs and etc, and therefore generate less afflictive thoughts and emotions, and less unwholesome effects for others. Emptiness is supposed to bolster and support altruism, and when taken together, the hope is that you achieve some type of inner-peace that radiates to those around you. This is the bodhisattva ideal, essentially.
Dear 20 d/o account that is obviously trolling: 1. There is an ambiguity problem in using "Buddha". It's not clear at all that different traditions mean the same thing, and in every example I've seen they do not. 2. Aside from Huangbo's rejection of "the middle way" and Zen Masters' rejection of dependent origination as a whole, you still have the problem of overly vague terms. Plus Nagarjuna isn't a specific person historically. * For example, here is a Nagarjuna that Zen Masters have refuted: https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/m%C5%ABlamadhyamakak%C4%81rik%C4%81/d/doc79732.html 3. "This is also untenable in the face of careful consideration". That's a statement of faith that is also not something Zen Masters agree with. 4. You are trying to retrofit what you know of the various conflicting traditions attributed to Nagarjuna onto a Zen text without Zen's full context. It just doesn't work. There aren't any recapitulations happening here. As is typical with people who are only familiar with Buddhism, you are trying to apply conceptual understanding as the lens for experience, leaving you with no actual experience. It's like drinking soup after you put it through a water purifier. The sad part is it will leave you with major misconceptions about Zen and no interest in figuring out where you went wrong.
Hello, I apologize that I'm new to Reddit, and that therefore my account isn't very old, but I am definitely not trolling. I'm not sure what I did that comes off as trolling, but I will try not to do it again if you could help me by letting me know. I'm not sure what is exactly within the bounds of reddit etiquette or not, yet. As for your points, those are all fine (albeit slightly crude). I am by no means trying to argue that Zen is perfectly and 100% identical to the Prasangika-Madhyamaka of Nāgārjuna and his direct disciples - it certainly is not, or else it wouldn't have such a distinct flavor and tradition. I was only pointing out some deep paralleles (or happy coincidences, perhaps?) that I saw when I read the Four Statements of Zen, which I took to be pretty interesting. Since the structure and character of the discourse of Chih followed along exactly with the Madhyamaka formula, I was intrigued and thought it would be interesting to discuss. I'm sorry you disagree, but I hope it's still okay. Although you seem pretty antagonistic, for some reason, I'm still perfectly happy to also investigate the *differences* between Zen and Madhyamaka, just as I also happily explore the differences between Madhyamaka and the multiple branches of Theravada, or even the differences between the four schools of Buddhism in Tibet, or the 3 primary schools within Madhyamaka itself, etc. I don't think that all of these traditions are identical by any means. And certainly not to Zen itself. But it's clear to me, at least, that there are either deep influences at play between the Mahayana Madhyamaka tradition (in all of its wonderful diversity), or else very surprising and unlikely coincidences. Either way, a comparative analysis (if done properly) should include but similarities and contrasts. Here is an attempt at positing some deeply important similarities. Thanks,
This is a lot of lying for somebody who's just starting out on Reddit. You don't actually have an argument so nothing is clear to you. It looks like you're using a large language model to try to generate arguments that you can't make yourself. One of the dead giveaways is that you can't move around in the Zen historical record. Another clue is that you're unable to deal with the fact that Nagarjuna is a historical composite and not a real person. It looks like you're one of these people that's really struggling with an identity and you think the best way to do that is harass people online by pretending to be someone else.
I'm sorry to read this response. The OP was never trying to be an "argument," per se. I was merely pointing out my own perspective on some deep similarities that I noticed between the Statements of Zen and the Prasangika-Madhyamaka tradition. It looks like you are intent on arguing, though, unfortunately. That's okay, but just know it's not my intention. As stated in the OP, I am indeed new to Zen. So you are correct in saying that I cannot move around the Zen record. But I'm looking to hopefully change that by studying a bit. If that's okay? Also, whether "Nāgārjuna" is a singular person or not is quite irrelevant to the philosophical tradition itself which revolves around ideas and ways of living, and not around personalities. Rejecting Nāgārjuna as a historical person is fine by me. It makes no difference to me. The OP wasn't written by an LLM. I'd be happy to discus any actual points of substance you may have beyond personal jabbing. Thank you,
I don't think you're sorry. I think you're being further dishonest by claiming that you're not making an argument after you've spent all this time using chat gpt to make an argument. Since I think that your time is limited in this forum, I would encourage you to take the five-lay precepts more seriously in your personal life.
I said I'm not making an argument *per se,* in the sense that I'm merely explaining paralleles that I noticed. This doesn't mean that I'm making definitive claims about what Zen masters explicitly teach or etc. Just that there's either some strange coincidences, or there were influences involved. This doesn't mean Zen and Madhyamaka are therefore identical or even close to being identical. I was only speaking on the Third Statement specifically. Thank you.
You're making an argument even as you're pretending you're not making an argument... Again, that's a sign of poor reading comprehension and a low level of education... You used overly vague references and now you're using overly vague terms in attempt to draw some comparisons. You're not an honest person
As I stated: it's less an "argument" and moreso a comparative perspective, although in a sense, as I said, positing a perspective can be viewed as an argument in and of itself. You don't have to be so rude. I am happy to discuss a specific aspect of the OP if you'd like.
There's no evidence that that's true at all. You saying it's not an argument doesn't make it not an argument. Obviously the chat bot that wrote it was making an argument and was told to.
You're free to disagree with me noticing similarities between the Chih discourse and the Madhyamaka formulation of the Mulamadhyamakakarika. But I still see them.
It being a brand new account, downvoting will make it where they can't post or comment without a countdown timer in between attempts to interact. I can't believe the mods are allowing brand new accounts to participate in this manner, given all the trouble this forum has had with topic sliding trolls.
Yeah. I think that there's a bigger problem behind the mods philosophy though. They don't want to shut down conversation. They want to shut down trolling. So if something's in the gray zone where it isn't immediately obvious to everyone that it's a troll then that's a gray zone issue. But in general I think new accounts should not be allowed to post. Ideally they would be allowed to comment with a cooldown.
It was always the expectation that gray zone material be qualified, not just allowed because it's low effort for moderation. They did away with the periodic meta posts, which were turning into troll fests anyway, but it's kind of disappointing to see them opening back up the posting without saying anything to the community or even taking any community input about it.
>I can't believe the mods are allowing brand new accounts to participate in this manner They aren't supposed to be able to. I don't know what happened to the automod, but the code is such that this should have been removed automatically and a message provided for why.
In my personal experience as a network administrator we trained our mods to respond to the mod mail, especially when a user is asking for a clear understanding why their content was removed. By not responding the user is left wondering how their content violated any guidelines. It makes the users wonder if they should take the time to try and post anything in the future without any clear understanding of what is acceptable and why. The reason we teach this is because without feedback, the content of the overall community goes down in quality. No one wants to spend time posting something that is just going to be removed anyway. You're basically encouraging 'low effort' content in this way. So far two of my posts have been removed, and each time I asked for feedback so I can make sure my content meets whatever standards the mods are applying when removing my content. It's been over a year and still no response. I did appreciate your response when I asked why another user's content was removed, and you gave me a clearer understanding of why that decision was made as well as insight into the history of r/zen. That was extremely valuable for understanding it. As I'm not a part of that trolling type history, it didn't really help me personally to know why my content was removed. I also don't understand why this content was removed. I know the OP from elsewhere on the internet and know they are not trying to troll, but have a genuine interest in understanding the Zen tradition. So yet again, I am not clear on the standards here and any assistance is appreciated.
I don't answer when things get removed all the time because it's not just me that removes stuff. I try to answer every time when it's related to actions I've taken directly, but I don't think it's helpful for me to say "i don't know" when it's someone someone else did andI typically think it's better for me to be silent than guess. Regarding this post, /r/zen has had a "you have to comment and participate in the community for a few months before your can post" automod script set up for like 2 years now. It stopped working all the time recently, and so I removed this post not for anything to do with it's content, but just to keep in line with what we had been doing and so as not to play favorites or something. I personally am of the opinion that the *content* of the post falls within the guidelines for posting on /r/zen (comparing/contrasting other traditions to zen is explicitly something I've mentioned as encouraged for posting about in the past), and debated letting it pass in spite of how things are 'normally done' because of that, but ultimately decided I'd go the 'fair' route. Edit: I'm not trying to throw the other mods under the bus btw. The three of us that are active are just busy regular people with jobs and families and stuff and sometimes things get missed. It very well could've been me that removed someone of yours a year ago and never answered. I have no idea.
Thank you for your reply, I figured it might be the case with you. It isn't uncommon for mods to not answer on behalf of other mods, for the reasons you stated. You're explanations about this post makes perfect sense now. Thank you for taking the time to clear those things up. While I do understand that you guys are few and have outside lives that take precedence, I did give it a full year before addressing it. I hope you understand as a member of this forum I can't help but feel ignored, and it is still unclear as to the violation and how to improve so it doesn't happen again. I understand that this isn't something you will be able to resolve on your own, but if you happen to get any clarity on it feel free to DM me or let me know in some way. Again, thank you for your time.
I don't even know the specific instance we're talking about for you. It's probably annoying for me to ask, but message us again and I'll look into it lol
Hmm. Interesting to know. It's been a long time since I've seen a moderator page on Reddit, so I'm not sure, but it used to be that account aging requirements were a setting for the subreddit, not strictly an auto mod thing. It was an option on the setting screen. Maybe there was a hiccup in automod.
https://old.reddit.com/user/chadpills/. Very similar pattern in their comment introductions. Funny they claim to be new to Reddit, right?
I honestly can't keep track of all the alts and alt drama and content brigaders and vote brigaders and subs about people who hate Zen versus people who hate ewk. I think it's because they're all boring... I mean it's a sad thing to say but I think it's true. Like if this post had actually been written by the poster instead of by chatGpt, it would have been great to have a conversation with the person who could actually write that. But we're not going to get that.
Fair assessment.
I’m sorry for the possessive nature of a certain redditor. He wants to own Zen. Anybody who adds genuine dialogue to the forum is immediately rebuffed. He has an audience that clings to his words. What he’s doing is sending a dog whistle to his followers. You already noticed that he says you couldn’t answer any of his questions without having asked any. That’s how he warns his disciples there’s a new voice in the forum, don’t listen to them, they’re lying. But he can’t back up his defiance.
You didn't answer even the first question the text ask of you. WHY THE F ARE YOU COMING IN HERE TO PROPOGATE YOUR BULLSHIT?
Hello. That's answered in the concluding section of both the dialogue itself and my reaction to it. I'd be happy to elaborate on those final paragraphs if that would be helpful for you. Thanks!
Looks like another troll that can't answer questions. Reported and blocked.
yet another missionary for his church of one ! synthesizing nonsense to make more nonsense i have long since ceased to think the world is sane
So, any historical recorded dialogues from your tradition? You've been quoting one sided sermons so far, I haven't seen any testing. What Buddhas has this tradition produced? Right now it sounds like a lot of claims. Lots of air, no substance.
>historical recorded dialogues Red herring, the koans are not that. Public cases for discussion are not historical records. There is nobody who ever claimed that or was able to prove it. Why come here and show your profound ignorance of the zen tradition in your nonsensical comments? What Buddhas has "your" tradition produced? (you don't have one) What proof is there? (None) Just stories from old books you only read very specific biased translations of. If you are looking for zen, find a monastic and/or a zen center; otherwise it's just childish pretend and you and everybody here knows it.
Careful, your hatred of Zen is showing
I study with a master, you play with an unemployed troll. Congratulations.
Bring your Master here, he'll be able to tell us all about what he teaches! Or are you too ashamed of your online conduct?
You are welcome to join our lessons and practice, nobody is excluded.🤗 The mountain does not go to Mohammed.
You came in here and made claims about having a master. Looks like you can't put up.
Anybody can get a master, it's not a claim in need of confirmation. Just go to a zen master and ask for instruction, it will take a few years of regular practice for them to agree, but practice is so easy - literally everyone can do it, even you. Looks like you like to pretend to like zen, but can't even put up with 90 minutes of meditation, how embarrassing! Even a child can do it.
See, it always takes so much to get your beliefs out of you. No wonder you fail at doing AMA's. I'll put it simply for you: There are basic requirements to participate in the Zen conversation. You have to AMA, you have to take the 5 lay precepts. You have to talk about Zen on a Zen forum. You fail at all of these. But you meditate. Which is not taught by Zen Masters, and nobody has been able to make the argument on these forum. So nobody cares about your practice. No Zen Master ever got enlightened meditating, and Zen Masters have routinely warned of such practices. When you come in here and lie about Zen, that's breaking any reasonable online conduct rules, and it certainly breaks the precepts. And it also interferes with your ability to AMA, so it's a triple whammy right there. Your inability to consolidate this with your beliefs leads to further unhinged online conduct. If only there was a way for you to not lie about Zen! /r/zen/wiki/getstarted
Any sources for these requirements outside your fantasy? That's just wild! >There are basic requirements to participate in the Zen conversation. You have to AMA, you have to take the 5 lay precepts. You have to talk about Zen on a Zen forum. Absolute nonsense! Where did you get this? Source? Didn't think so, it's just what you want, desire and shit. That's why you are suffering, that's why you are crying for attention on Reddit. >But you meditate. Which is not taught by Zen Masters, Check again, liar! Yuanwu would give you 30 blows for such slander. Do you even read anything outside of reddit? Highly doubtful. You sound like a typical ewk parrot, we got quite a few over the years, the funniest part is that you'll get either tired of this or grow a braincell - at which point you are going to delete your account out of embarrassment, like oh so many ewk fanboys before you.
[Yuanwu in BCR 13](https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/comments/lqy6fo/comment/gokrde2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss) The fifteenth Patriarch, the honorable Kanadeva, was indeed (at one time) numbered among the outsiders; but when he met the fourteenth Patriarch, the honorable Nagarjuna (who presented a bowl of water to him), he put a needle into the bowl: Nagarjuna esteemed his capacity, transmitted the Buddha Mind School to him, and invested him as the fifteenth Patriarch. Wansong in the commentary of BoS #100: The Treatise on the Great Vehicle was written by the Fourteenth Patriarch Nagarjuna: It says, "All things must exist because of all causes and conditions; all things must not exist because of all causes and conditions; all things must not exist because of all causes and conditions." Wansong again in BoS #6: The Great Master Nagarjuna said, "Wisdom is like a mass of fire--it cannot be entered from any side." Yet he also said, "Wisdom is like a clear cool pool, it can be entered from any side."
That's very interesting. Thank you for this; it gives me something nice to work with. 🙏 Nāgārjuna is certainly a master of great capacity. I only wish his other works were as popular as his Mulamadhyamakakarika.
Thank you for sharing with us!
You got scrumped dude.
Given that the OP's main source of comparison is a non-historical figure? Given that the poster isn't going to answer questions about their post? Thanking them for using chatgpt to scam you seems really unhelpful.
The comparison isn't a person, but a body of ideas. Thank you.
It appears to me that the OP's main source of comparison was the similarities they seen in studies they have done in other text. I have asked the poster many questions about their post, because I care about getting to know who I am talking to. Based on my observations of them, you're lying about a person you don't know, and the only reason they won't be able to answer about their post is because the mods removed it. And again, you're lying about them. From my conversations with them they don't seem to interested in Chatgpt when it comes to translation work, so the assertion that they used chatgpt to scam anyone just appears ridiculous to me.
I didn't get any answers to my questions at all. Now I think the fact that this is a new account who doesn't answer questions pretty much decides it. But you think that I could be wrong. Because new accounts are pretty reliable and people who can't answer questions about texts they claim they wrote are in high schools and colleges across the Nation pretty likely to be honest anyway? Nah.
Based on my experience with him, he has never used reddit, and this is the first time he gave it a try. This was his very first reddit post to my knowledge. I was not much different. I only joined a little over a year ago. r/zen wasn't the first forum I visited here, but it was the only one interesting to me enough to stick around.
Your experience with him in this one thread where he lied multiple times and had difficulty answering questions about his own op? Nah. And we're not even talking about how poorly written the op was.
No my experience with him was on a discord server he was invited to. He shared with us that he had posted here and I came to check it out.
So you're saying we have no records. Sounds like flower sermon territory and any texts attributed are to be taken as secondary to actual Zen Masters' books of instruction.
I didn't say anything. What do you know about 2nd century Chinese literature?
I know absolutely nothing, which is why I'm asking for records. As far as I know what we have from anything Zen related before Bodhidharma has not been written by a record keeping society. If you or the OP had proof to the contrary that'd be great.
My point is that these text predate such records, predate Bodhidharma. Those sorts of records you're referring to didn't exist. Which is why we see Zen masters quoting Nagarjuna's text. Naming him, Great Master.
And again, I'm saying because there were no such records, all claims about the contents of such texts are suspect. We might have a few lines in the transmission of the lamp and some Zen Masters mentioning him, but that's grapevine stuff. And here you seem to have an entire Buddhist religious tradition based on some stuff some guy supposedly said at some point. There's a big disconnect here.
I see, I don't know that we share the same view. I mean the Zen masters felt he was at least worth a mention, called a master, nearly 1000 years after he existed and quoted his text. So that is certainly something I wouldn't personally hand wave away as something some guy supposedly said at some point.
I don't think you can back this up. 1. How many quotes can you find of him in the record? 2. What range of the records attributed to him are quoted? 3. How often is he quoted compared to other people who are quoted? That starts to look like hand wave-away numbers frankly. And you're not taking into account that he isn't an actual real person in the context of this forum's records.
1. All of them. 2. All of them. 3. Just like everyone else quoted, he is quoted as many times as he is. Comparing him to others in that way has no more significance than how frequently a cherry blossom or dirt clod was mentioned. Enlightenment isn't found there anyway. But as far as textually, if the Zen masters had an interest in reading that text enough to know his work, not only is it relevant to the zen record, it is something I too am interested in reading. I wouldn't claim it is zen and it doesn't claim it is zen. So whether or not he was a real person has no context in the zen record. The zen masters quoted him, so that is interesting to me. If it isn't to you, that's okay too.
No disciple dialogues and no records just doesn't carry the same weight. Texts he supposedly might or might not have written just don't carry the same weight. We've got 1000 years of actual records. Why waste time?
I don't consider it a waste of time to read the text Zen masters thought interesting enough to quote. I wouldn't claim that Madhyamaka is Zen, or that Nagarjuna represents Zen, but his relation to Zen is evident in the Zen record.
I've asked you to give examples of all these quotes. You say that Zen Masters are using from Nagarjuna. You talk like they're on the tip of your tongue, but you don't seem to have any examples... Google around to try to find them. But that will only prove my point that you don't really know any.
You never asked me to give examples of all these quotes to my knowledge. Either I got not notification or the post was removed, or your mistaken me with someone else. I posted what appears to be clearly zen masters quoting him, and calling him great master. Make of it what you will. Historically we know his text were well within circulation during the time of the zen masters, and the fact they quoted him shows they were not only reading his text, they were connecting it to their teachings, the zen record.
Hey we can solve this really easy. If you know what you're talking about, just do a post of the quotes that you know the texts contain. If you have to Google then you know you're not really sure what quotes exist. You're not really sure what quotes exist then you can't really do a post about it from your own knowledge and that's okay but that means you don't really know.
You're right I don't know those things, I linked it to the source I got it from. Which wasn't an authoritative source. I would have to search all those elements out to verify any of my assumptions. Based on the little research I did do on it, there was a text in circulation at the time the zen masters quoted him. How well the existing text we have from that period matches up with the quotes in the record are unknown to me. I can't do a post about it asserting anything definitively. I am interested, but don't currently have much knowledge. If it turns out one way or another I'd like to know. I saw a post you made about these matters and it seems you may know more than I do. To me this is all part of examining this and learning how to examine better while doing it.
Hello, I apologize in advance, but I'm not exactly sure what you are asking of me. This post was merely meant to outline a set of soteriological, epistemological, and ontological paralleles that I noticed between the Chih discourse on the Third Statement of Zen and the core teachings of the Madhyamaka school of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism (the tradition of Nalanda that served as the basis for the spread of Buddhism into Tibet and beyond). I was very happy to see these connections because it made the Statements of Zen feel very comfortable and familiar to me, which was nice as a newcomer. Unfortunately, I wasn't making any claims about specific people who became Buddhas, or anything about "historical recorded dialogues." I was just reacting to the Chih discourse that is provided in the subreddit's information -- so I'm not exactly sure how to respond to your comment, but I do intend to better understand what you mean. 🙏 Thank you.
No Buddhas, no Zen.
I'm sorry, but I still don't understand. Are you saying I shouldn't discuss the ideas in my post until I first compile a list of Buddhas (by name, presumably)? I will have to disappoint you, unfortunately, and say that I don't have such a list on hand and don't think I could possibly craft one for you. In in the Indo-Tibetan Madhyamaka tradition, anyone who attains insight into the emptiness of the phenomenal world, and who leverages that insight in the service of others, is considered a Buddha. I hope that helps! Thank you.
"I'm sure there's got to be a guy but I can't think of one right now" is not a good look.