Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2010 01:06 am
I should like to talk about correlation between Buddhism and Zen. The last one is usually considered as a part of Buddhism, yet I think that they are very different.
Buddhism teaches impermanence. This implies existence of causality and existence of time. Buddhism builds its whole system on the basis of this concept: life will end, flowers fade, stones crumble... Hence we can understand the sympathies of materialists to this religion. Actually, their views coincide in many aspects. (Some say that the difference lies in the negation of morality by materialists, but this is very dubious point). Nearly in all. Like in materialism, according to Buddhism, there are also five or four elements which create associations and everything including our "self" -- atman is the product of that. Some, however, assert that Buddhism points at something that is beyond the existence of those elements, but that's not important now. The main point is that Buddhism acknowledges changes.
Now, what's the Zen view, as I understand it? Zen teaches that mind should not try to put the reality into its frame. The reality, according to Zen, is what appears to our sense, not more, not less. Reality is not memory and memory is not reality. Reality is the elusive present moment, the Now, whereof one can never say anything because everything we can talk about is our memory. And all our theories are built solely upon it. It seems obviously to me that such a view totally undermines nearly all Buddhist teachings concerning psychology and metaphysics. This also destroys the importance of any so-called mystical experiences because they belong to the past. In a word, Zen sets one free from all conceptions and from the past, it allows an individual to trust himself, lifts up the endless analysis of feelings according to a certain theory or dogma.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 4,170 • Replies: 30
No top replies

 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2011 06:34 am
@Eudaimon,
Buddhism is a religion/philosophy that has grown up in the wake of a famous man. The religious aspect of it is a contradiction to the very purpose of it. Just as christianity has little to do with what Jesus actually taught, buddhism has little to do with what Siddharta Guatama was doing. Both Jesus and the buddha told their followers not to take their words on blind faith, which is often what the followers of the respective religions are doing. A buddhist that progresses in his quest for enlightenment will sooner or later abandon the "rules".
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 04:36 pm
@Eudaimon,
Buddhism and Zen are both similar and divergent. The latter grew out of the former and both derive from Hinduism. Both emphasize impermanence (as did Heraclitus). Zen gives more emphasis to the falsity of ego, self and agency (as did Nietzsche). But most of important of all, to me, zen is a practice far more than a set of theories. I like what you say about reality as the "elusive present moment", and reality as what appears to us, just as it is, "no more, not less." Your rejection of memory is similar to Krishnamurti.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 07:52 pm
@JLNobody,
elusive and present moment don´t combine...do u get it ??? don´t think so...
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2011 03:56 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I think you could do better if you thought about that for a second, Fil.
blakjackson
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2011 04:31 am
@Cyracuz,
The religion Zen and Bodh depend on mostly two various person Gautam Budh and Mahavir Zen. both are religion grow according to their thought, many Human follow their thought and grow both religion, but Every religion give Message follow your GOD. Who is All in All.
http://drugmega.com/drugs-65841272/bystolic-drug-review-bystolic-side-effects-and-dosage.html
Cyracuz
 
  0  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2011 06:00 am
@blakjackson,
I think you have been mis-informed about that. There are no gods in these traditions. They are not religions either, in the western traditional sense of the word.

And that link is totally irrelevant... Did you perhaps paste the wrong one?
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2011 06:16 am
@Cyracuz,
You know no matter how much we disagree I have a good impression on you Cyr...nevertheless I was expecting just something like that regarding my last remarks...I know what you mean but look what takes precedence here ? There´s no present moment whatsoever without any kind of actual state of affairs...the issue is that simple. Actually you are the one who can do even better if you think enough on the very meaning of present itself...there´s no more actual then there to where I stand...
Just look to this very final sentence of me ..."Where I stand"
(Space and Time in this present moment they support what I operatively am being now, my precise function that is...)
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2011 06:23 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil, you said:

Quote:
elusive and present moment don´t combine


Now think about that for a moment. What is the present moment? It is right now... but wait... it's now... but when I wrote that, that's not now, but now is the present moment... It's both present and elusive, because the moment you think about it, it's gone, carried off into the next... into the next... Do you see the underlying implications of this?
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2011 12:20 pm
@blakjackson,
Why are you spamming the BP drug Bystoic? My wife had very bad side-effects from it.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2011 12:27 pm
@Cyracuz,
Thanks, Cyracuz. I couldn't bother.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2011 03:19 pm
@Cyracuz,
Whatever was gone was there in the first place, and I just don´t find that in any way elusive or against the possibility of truth...present is about the core of something being true !
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2011 04:45 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil, I see you now, and I am just not interested in what you have to say.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 07:44 am
@Cyracuz,
you don´t see ****...you don´t even understand what a function is or means...
...of course all you have is a word salad wrapped in a very proper decent English what an irony... Laughing
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 12:25 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
What I object to is your fierce reluctance to consider the possibility that there may be no absolute truths. The key to unlocking this mystery doesn't lie in some obscure insight only mystics and maniacs can access. It lies in the way human language functions. It lies in how we categorize and define our perceptions. Language is no help in this. It is a proverbial monkey on our backs.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 12:34 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cryacuz, you are a saint.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 12:36 pm
@JLNobody,
No, I am a devil in disguise, and sometimes the cracks let the devilry out. I'm just mopping up. Smile
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 01:48 pm
@Cyracuz,
Can´t you simply address the contradiction that the truth is that there are no truths ??? Is that to much to ask ? How can you say that there is no Truth compared to what ? You are the one believing you can transcend the set of functions in which and by which you operate not me...I in turn accept what I have with my experience and account of it...that´s normal not pseudo reasoning...

...and yes I did consider that possibility it along long time ago...I even was, in my teens a fierce defender of that idea, as relativism is typical in that age, but of course, then I evolve and grew up, imagine that...

...you think I have any pleasure in contradicting you or Fresco or even JL ??? I do believe strongly that I have a case and it is not by not knowing or understanding the other side arguments...

...if I had to chose descriptions are incomplete not Truth...in the act of observing they attain the "object", the specific function they are serving, not the "thing" in its full potential...
( a "thing"as a stick can do and be many "objects" but we only come to know it when we need it and investigate what it can do regarding what must be accomplished...that, is the function by which we are challenged)

...objects are functions not things...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 02:06 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
..."things" are ! true "objects" are debatable...(in the sense that they are incomplete descriptions of things although not incorrect ones...)
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 02:34 pm
@Cyracuz,
"there is a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in"
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Zen and Buddhism
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 06/15/2021 at 01:56:08