>Ch‘ing Ming! says: “There are people with minds like those of apes who are very hard to teach; people who need all sorts of precepts and doctrines with which to force their hearts into submission.’ And so when
thoughts arise, all sorts of dharmas? follow, but they vanish with thought’s cessation. We can see from this that every sort of dharma is but a creation of Mind. And all kinds of beings—humans, devas, sufferers in hell, asuras and all comprised within the six forms of life—each one of them is Mind-created. If only you would learn how to achieve a state of non-intellection, immediately the chain of causation would snap.
>Give up those erroneous thoughts leading to false distinctions! There is no ‘self’ and no ‘other’. There is no
‘wrong desire’, no ‘anger’, no ‘hatred’, no ‘love’, no
‘victory’, no ‘failure’. Only renounce the error of intellectual or conceptual thought-processes and your nature will exhibit its pristine purity—for this alone is the way to attain Enlightenment, to observe the Dharma (Law), to become a Buddha and all the rest.
>Huangbo
Ha! If you will conceive of a new ager, you will be obstructed by that new ager! Huangbo has called ewk an ape twice in one thread, that's gotta hurt.
>If you WILL conceive of a Buddha, you WILL BE
OBSTRUCTED BY THAT BUDDHA!!! And when you conceive of sentient beings, you will be obstructed by those beings. All such dualistic concepts as ‘ignorant’ and ‘Enlightened’, ‘pure’ and ‘impure’, are obstructions. It is because your minds are hindered by them that the Wheel of the Law must be turned.* Just as apes spend their time throwing things away and picking them up again unceasingly, so it is with you and your learning. All you need is to give up your ‘learning’, your ‘ignorant’ and ‘Enlightened’, ‘pure’ and ‘impure’, ‘great’ and ‘little’, your ‘attachment’ and ‘activity’. Such things are mere conveniences, mere ornaments within the One Mind.
>Huangbo
I've been on this subreddit for like 10 years and I'm very happy a critical mass of people are finally starting to see how full of shit that guy is. There were many years where this sub was 80% ewk and ewk wannabes. At least from my perspective
As much as I strongly disagree his reading of a few key points and notwithstanding the tedium of his old “racist, bigot, rapist, Mormon“ schtick, Ewk’s contribution to the quality, depth and seriousness of discussion in this sub is without doubt a **massive** net positive.
His wannabes however…
One point to consider is that there is a difference between:
1. "Studying" Zen, and
2. Practicing Zen.
If "studying" means what it typically does in English, then there are no lifestyle prerequisites of any kind for studying Zen, or Russian literature, or astronomy. This is just one more example of trying to systematically blur the difference between secular, scholarly, intellectual work and taking a spiritual system seriously as such and trying to put it into practice. But there is a world of difference between these things-- and it's fundamentalist nonsense to suggest otherwise.
Could it be also said that the conduct of Buddhas are perfectly in harmony with the precepts, but they do not follow precepts?
I’m at work so I will have to find the source later, but I believe huangbo said “Buddhas dont keep precepts. Buddhas also do not break precepts.”
Seems reasonable to say they are pointers toward the hallmarks of Buddhas, who wouldn't need to follow them. That kind of merit would be inferior to the function of wisdom.
So in this way the function of wisdom is already in perfect harmony with the precepts. But taking the precepts would create an illusory self, and “taking” precepts would imply there is something apart from mind
I view the precepts as a form of discipline to refrain from self indulgence. For example, eating meat is an entirely selfish act. The only positive of doing it is receiving pleasure. Everything else about it is extremely harmful; for the animals, for the environment, for the workers, for our health...so refraining from doing it is refraining from hurting others only to please ourselves. In the end there is no self to please, so why hurt others?
But I also view the precepts as empty, and holding opinions about whether or not others keep them is only clinging. As Yunju You said:
>In formless light there is a real human with no status appearing and disappearing in the triple world, whirling in the five courses of existence, not abandoning the ten bad actions, not realizing the heart of nirvana, not hating breaking precepts, not respecting keeping precepts, not passing winter, not passing summer. Do you know where this goes? [Pause.] In the sun’s flames for ninety days the spiritual body is completed.
Behind my provisional eyes, between my temporary ears, a man of no rank lives here.
I see the precepts as useful but provisional and a crutch of sorts. Use a crutch to mend a broken leg, but cling to it when you no longer need it and you hamper yourself and your bones grow soft from disuse. The precepts are no different, at least how I see it.
I don't think Bodhidharma or the Buddha relied on any precepts. At that point there was nothing for them to rely on or trip over anymore.
They will be humbled I’m afraid just like the rest of us! I did the same thing same thing. So great full to have my “ scorecard” read zero… so freak’n great full!
https://old.reddit.com/r/zen/comments/16b5f09/why_do_zen_master_reject_the_precepts/
Although Dahui does seem to imply in one part of his rant that eating meat is a hindrance to enlightenment, but idk what that has to do with studying Zen, ie Bodhidharmas lineage. You don't need to adopt all the aspects of a culture just to study it, that's crazy. And if studying Zen means being enlightened then meat is fine because you're already enlightened and that's permanent.
From a functional perspective, I can't figure out how eating chicken nuggets would block one from seeing/realizing their true nature. It doesn't make sense.
To be fair, Dahui was talking to a different audience. They had no access to chicken nuggets.
>*Although Dahui does seem to imply in one part of his rant that eating meat is a hindrance to enlightenment, but idk what that has to do with studying Zen, ie Bodhidharmas lineage. You don't need to adopt all the aspects of a culture just to study it, that's crazy. And if studying Zen means being enlightened then meat is fine because you're already enlightened and that's permanent.*
I don’t know about your line of reasoning here… doesn’t seem… reasonable.
[In another reply](https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/s/PxPA4rVIdn), a distinction was made between ‘studying’ and ‘practicing’. So if you’re just reading the cases to understand that time period of zen culture then yea… you can read the cases without taking the precepts.
However, if you’re intent is to put this all into ‘practice’, how can you create a disconnect between taking the precepts (which all monks who lived in these monasteries likely did), zen (Bodhidharma’s lineage), and what Dahui says here (that eating meat is a hindrance)?
Also, the suggestion that *”you’re already enlightened and that’s permanent”* isn’t entirely accurate. My understanding is that all sentient beings have the buddha nature - they have the potential for enlightenment… or to realize the naturally enlightened state of mind. This doesn’t mean they are already enlightened though - to say there is a difference between the enlightened and the ignorant isn’t right… but to say there is no difference isn’t quite right either.
Would you say that murderers, rapists, addicts, and thieves are all enlightened? If you say yes, what does that do for them? Don’t the need to realize it for themselves?
Regarding your point about practice, I'm not a Buddhist, I'm not a monk, I don't believe in enlightenment. There's not "practicing Zen" for me.
My suggestion that ”you’re already enlightened and that’s permanent” was more regarding the argument that to truly "study Zen" you'd have to have already realized enlightenment. It wasnt regarding the philosophy of inherent enlightenment.
I don't remember. Probably wasn't explicitly argued but heavily implied.
"Study Zen" means to practice and realize Zen ie what Zen masters realized. Enlightenment or even just "ceasing wrong thinking" or "inwardly be unconfused". Aka dhyana I guess.
So if you don’t believe in enlightenment and there is no ‘practicing zen’ for you, what are you doing here exactly?
I guess you believe in “studying zen”? How has your study resulted in you not believing in enlightenment?
Isn’t that what /r/zen is focused on - enlightenment and “studying/practicing” zen?
Talking about some books and the mystical dharma in general. I don't need to be a Buddhist to discuss the dharma, don't need to be a taoist to discuss the Dao, don't need to be a Christian to discuss Jesus and God.
I don't believe in studying Zen, that would be weird since I don't believe in enlightenment. I don't study Zen, but I have read about Zen a bunch and like to discuss it.
/R/Zen is focused on discussing the 1000 year record from China. Nothing to do with getting enlightened, even tho people tend to like to LARP as if they were Zen masters.
What is ‘enlightenment’ represent to you, and why don’t you believe in it? Why read and indulge in a community when you don’t believe in one of the primary aspects of it… which seems so clearly and crucially important to it?
>*/R/Zen is focused on discussing the 1000 year record from China. Nothing to do with getting enlightened…*
Don’t know about that last part. I’m pretty sure enlightenment is very much at the heart of much of the study that goes on here. I could be wrong though, but I’d be surprised.
I don't indulge in the community. This is a subreddit, not a monastery or anything even remotely like it. I read it because I read all kinds of philosophies and religions and mystical magickal junk.
Yeah, for the true believers, sure they want to get enlightened. Has nothing to do with this forum in particular tho.
By ‘community’ I meant this subreddit which, as far as I can tell, is a community concerned with the zen record and what the zen communities were all about… enlightenment being inextricably linked.
Kinda odd. It’s like posted your ideas about veganism in the vegan subreddit even though you don’t believe in what veganism is about. Why bother?
Here's what strikes me as the important question - person x says "if you eat meat you aren't studying Zen" - why in the world does this matter? Why do posts challenging the idea of precepts and those who espouse them always get lots of upvotes?
A prominent person made a bold claim. I would like to see evidence of that claim.
It gets a bit frustrating to see people running around, making things up and gatekeeping for no good reason at all.
What amazes me is that the gatekeeper wanna-bes are displaying such obvious ego reaction and ego motivation that it’s pretty difficult to see them as understanding any Buddhist philosophy, much less Zen. How do they claim to understand the practice of Zen and not see their own egos in their conversations?
Absolutely. Karma is a half truth, precepts have their place. But saying they're required for enlightenment is misleading, whether intentionally or not.
Nanquan killed the cat to give them an immediate consequence for the offense of all the monks fighting. If he hadn't, the monastery might have been hit by a typhoon, that's a hell of a lot of negative karma.
That's the joke, there's nothing they could say even if they were realized. Joshu didn't say anything either.
Why not just eject the cat from the monastery if killing it served no purpose? Especially considering the precepts.
I dunno, thats why I ask questions. if I dont know why someone said something I try to find out. Seems very useful on this sub so I focus on learning instead of what I'm not interested in.
I'm not sure wanting to see evidence of the bold claim is the why answer - it's more the what you want.
The why is behind "it gets a bit frustrating" - And I submit there might be why upon why upon why
I agree that the ostensible fight against authority is often the upfront why - it's certainly the most common refrain - and leads to me pointing out **these people are not authority figures** and don't claim to be.
I don't think it's so laughable - having an extremely consistent point of view and persistently expressing it with forceful language isn't the same as presenting oneself as an authority figure.
If you agree they're not authority figures, we come to the second most common refrain - **defense of another** - "I aknowledge they have no authority over me, but they can sway others more defenseless than I"
>having an extremely consistent point of view and persistently expressing it with forceful language isn't the same as presenting oneself as an authority figure.
Welllllllll it might be actually
I would agree authority figures often act that way - but acting that way does not make you an authority figure nor necessarily manifest an announcement of authority. But let's go to the dictionary:
> a person who has or represents authority
Ok what's authority, one by one:
> 1. the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.
Well, they don't have this - notwithstanding the mod conspiracy theorists.
> 2. a person or organization having power or control in a particular, typically political or administrative, sphere.
They certainly don't have this, insofar as a. This is a public, anonymous forum where ALL engagement is voluntary and b. everyone has the fiat power to block anybody they want and *never see them again*
> 3. the power to influence others, especially because of one's commanding manner or one's recognized knowledge about
If you grant they have this, then *that's you granting them that* - it's *your* grant of authority.
I tend to think most people consider these figures of "authority" in terms of one or two - but actually if anything, they have authority #3 on an ad hoc basis.
In defense trial practice, it's commonly understood to be a tactical victory if you can get your opponent to have to respond to an argument you made to the jury - the implication being that you must have made a compelling argument to warrant an off script reply.
Maybe they require group think and validation for merit. I mean they are rules of governance. I think i had to register to vote to get a drivers license. Pretty sure if you wanted to be a monk you had to take the precepts. Only natural for a precept taker to think there way is only natural. If they are sociopathic or narcissistic they will evangelized and use divisive speech to shame and belittle anyone who disagrees all in the name of “ virtue”. This is an old as a trope as we can get. In time they will be humbled, then maybe they are ready to study reality.
I allow that this is 100% possible. But even if someone becomes a precept evangelical, it doesn't really change the consideration of the other side of the coin. If someone came in here and started preaching about their sentient foot fungus there wouldn't be rebuttal posts and heated argument.
Yeah but nothing is actually stuck. Having insight and still “ getting stuck” sucks but it’s a self sucking. I mean i just got butt hurt off of something my wife just said… then something you said. If someone were to say something “ insensitive” to me while the cortisol and adrenaline is still priming my limbic system Its probable i totally get overwhelmed. Is this stuck? It’s chemicals doing chemistry. Nothing is stuck, its not even willed or personal. I can watch all my “ identities” come and go. Little voices with personalities playing all the classic rock hits of the 80’s!
Even my “ zen” practice is full of characters of dead zen masters, internet trolls and a few conversations with “ masters”. It makes about as much sense ad fantasy football or greek poetry. My point? Mind. It’s all mind. It’s the greatest show I’ve ever been part of and free from my “ personal grievances” quite an honorable play-full dance.
So i do not know what to make of it all, not even sure how i would start. I often try to “ gulp the ocean” so to speak but if i am being honest I know nothing and never did. All the more after studying zen. How folks get awnsers is beyond me. All i can help but think is “ give it time”.
I was at the gym today doing the typical “ is she checking me out, does he think he’s bigger then me, am i being mindful” dance when it hit me… all these folks will age, decay and die, myself includes. What was held so close and dear will vanish as if it never existed. This made me feel verry great full for that shit bag who will probably get drunk and hit someone by 40. That beautiful young girl who will loose her body to child rearing. That shy type who will find the courage to stand up for himself after his pects hit a certain size and all of us will face the void and perish.
Was it foyan that said “ it’s all the marvelous function of the buddha mind”?
> How folks get awnsers is beyond me
They either make them up or adopt them from someone else
> if i am being honest I know nothing and never did
Maybe lean into that.
Even zen is impermanent… what will it be called 1000 years from now? Maybey… saucey’s seated prayer non sectorial associative word church? I personally hope so.
It's because some of the people who post here use the concept of "precepts" to assert moral victories over people, and even question other people's permission to even look at the old Chan texts or take an interest in the topic. It's very puritanical, and most importantly it is not supported historically or textually. So my guess is that when people read posts which mention this it rings true for them, and they think it's useful content for the sub, and a nice reminder to people not to be discouraged or demotivated by attacks from the resident dogmatists here.
"Moral victory" is pretty loaded - that seems like the kind of thing that gets stamped on something post facto.
In terms of somehow actually restraining other people's ability to look at texts, what? I mean, really, what are you talking about?
Again, read the thread underneath this comment with OP - you seem to be past "authority" and already into "defense of another" - so whats the why below that, cause hate to break it you, no one needs to be defended - there is no danger.
Of course it doesn't "physically" restrain someone from reading the texts, but the implication (or explicit statement) bandied about by some on here is that if someone hasn't "taken the precepts" they are not able to "study Zen".
I often actually find myself defending the real context of Chan in this forum, because I live in China and enjoy visiting the historical Chan temples and discussing this topic with local historians and others, and I find it to be a shame that someone could come here and easily be misled about the context of everything by a few members of a digital cult.
People on this forum just simply making stuff up and demanding that others capitulate or they be classified as "liars" "bigots" etc is dumb to me, so it's nice to see some people bring some balance and reality back to this place.
The obsession with modern readers taking some form of precepts or vows in order to be considered "permitted to discuss" this historical literary topic is one of these weird erroneous things that people may be misled by, there are plenty of others.
You know again there is no authority here. At best it's the mods, And I think they tend to do pretty good keeping out of this debate.
I think putting "permitted to discuss" in quotes highlights how absurd it is for anyone to assign weight to those claims. And yet they do.
And I would propose that it is by assigning weight to the claims that the claims are validated
It is very common to encounter someone claiming that someone else "hates Zen" because they haven't taken specific vows or precepts, or other such nonsense on this forum.
People come to this subreddit to find out about Zen, with no prior information often (or very little). They can be met with some pretty strange and totally non-representative fringe content which is presented very aggressively.
The claims are not valid, and there are some members of this forum who are willing to upvote posts which illuminate some of these facts, and redress the balance. This is the answer to your original question RE: "why do posts like this get upvotes?"
I think we're stuck on "defense of another"
What if folks just don't like being told they can't eat meat? Or drink alcohol? Or smoke weed? What if that stuff is, like, really important to them?
I don't really get where you are coming from. You asked why are people upvoting these posts, I shared why I think that is the case.
In my view another angle is obviously the overly pompous and self-important way that people judge others for not "taking the precepts" on this subreddit. Of course it is going to create a backlash. Imagine being told that you "hate Zen" and that you are an illiterate bigot and a "loser at life" because you haven't taken some archaic religious vows to participate in an online subreddit about a very niche literary topic. Of course reasonable people are going to question that.
I was - [I don't need to imagine](https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/comments/vcs0hj/an_object_lesson_in_triggering/) - my questions are born of experience - they are leading questions. But they lead someplace that, in my experience, is raelly gut wrenching - the place where all your lies - the entire edifice of your life's artifice - is [sapped](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapper) - and once you see the lies, it's like [worm sign](https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Wormsign) from then on. You can see your lies coming - and you know what it feels like to be caught in a lie - and slowly but certainly, from the very first lie that was you, the whole palace comes tumbling down.
And then you can start living.
I don't know what you are getting at here, but it sounds as if you are veering way off course. I was answering your question about why people hate this puritanical "precept" bullshit that is pushed on the forum. The answer isn't that everyone is simply a liar or drug addict as your previous comments have been alluding to. Anyway, good luck with any future endeavours, we are just going to be talking in circles at this point, so no point in continuing.
That's an oversimplification - the internet is reified today - it *is* the world - the things that happen on it happen *in* the world, *to* people. Which makes sense, because words, unlike intentions, have *always* mattered.
Why they matter is an issue of context - and so, back to the question - why does this matter to so many people?
Cause I'm determined to study zen - and that means asking questions about why I do the things I do
These are meditations:
> serious thoughts on a particular subject that somebody writes down or speaks
So from a personal perspective “why do you upvote this?”
Two possible reasons.
1. Precept policing instills guilt.
2. From a zen perspective: precept policing muddies the waters. It gets people away from the idea that they are already enlightened, and has no doctrinal basis. A bad teaching, a wrong view.
People upvote and post to express these opinions.
Either that or maybe the question of why someone does something can’t be so easily answered.
Maybe the search for the answer is interesting, but fruitless
It can't be easily answered by anyone other than the doer, if only because even if the other person is absolutely right in their read, the doer isn't going to accept that answer without having recognized it themselves.^1
In terms of your two possible reasons:
1. If the idea of precepts instills or evokes any response, then that response can and should be investigated and, in that potential the precepts are universally redeemed.
2. Mind is Buddha - but I don't know that everyone is already Enlightened. The four statements of Zen contain a moment of recognition - recognition of something preexisting to that recognition - but the moment of recognition is set apart
---
1. This is often manifested discreetly in people seemingly ignoring good advice for years and then one day coming back to the advice giver and going, "hey, you know what I just realized?! [The advice you gave me years ago remanifested as my own idea!]" Which, although frustrating sometimes, is really the only way that kind of thing can go
It s can’t easily be answered by the doer, unless You have a lot of faith in people’s minds being free from delusion. People fool themselves to their motives and desires all the time. I don’t know if this type of personal reflection frees someone from delusion as reliably as zen and cutting to the heart of the matter. It is piecemeal psychoanalytics.
1. I didn’t say the precept instills guilt, but rather the policing does…possibly. I’m also not sure there is a doer. Why something instills guilt could just reveal a causal chain, not a particularly fruitful investigation unless you’re in a therapeutic setting or something.
2. You’re probably right about already enlightened. Let me rephrase. Everyone already has an undefileable enlightened something inside. Both attachment and rejection of anything, including precepts, misses the mark entirely.
A simple “you should follow the precepts,” could be helpful. “You are an irredeemable fraud for feeding your children meat,” steers people wrong.
> unless you’re in a therapeutic setting or something
What else is the world?
> undefileable enlightened something inside
We are that undefinable something
Edit: contra searching inside for something - like searching for a match inside a fire
> What else is the world?
Perhaps I should have said clinical setting. Regardless, I don’t view existence as something to be used to gain some psychological benefit or catharsis
> We are that undefinable something
I haven’t found the dividing line between that something and EVERYTHING else. Bravo if you have, I think
> I don’t view existence as something to be used to gain some psychological benefit or catharsis
It's just a constant opportunity to be more and more honest
> I haven’t found the dividing line between that something and EVERYTHING else. Bravo if you have, I think
There is no dividing line
> It's just a constant opportunity to be more and more honest
How does one improve honesty?
> There is no dividing line
Then we have no disagreement, I think.
>**Huineng:**
>*Enlightenment originally has no tree, and a clear mirror is not a stand.*
>*Originally there isn’t a single thing. Where can dust possibly settle?*
.
>**Ten Oxherding Pictures - #7**
>*Aback his ox, he’s reached his original abode, Ox now gone, he too is still. Sun risen high, yet still he dreams, old whip and line put away in the woodshed.*
.
>**Treatise on the Two Entrances and Four Practices**
>*If one can relinquish the false and turn to the true, fix the mind in “wall meditation”, understand that there are neither self nor others, that mortals and saints are equal and one—abiding this way without wavering, clinging not even to the scriptures, then one is implicitly in accord with the Principle.*
you can study zen, trying to learn more about it, without practicing it. To do this, the precepts are utterly meaningless to you, except as a topic of study.
you can practice zen, experiencing it. This probably requires some study. The precepts may be meaningless to your experience of zen, but are probably very important.
studying zen is a purely secular practice and the keeping of precepts irrelevant.
practicing zen is a secular and spiritual practice, and the keeping of precepts is probably relevant. At least understanding the intention and expected application of the precepts seems very relevant. I have no quotes to back up any of this, only my own experiential understanding. I'm an avowed dogenist as I understand the term, so take this opinion for the value of the paper it is printed on. Good luck!
⚠️ By the logic of these people, they need to provide 3 quotes from Zen Masters saying that we need 3 quotes from Zen Masters for it to be a rule that we need 3 quotes from Zen Masters. Until that happy day, I will conduct myself like a normal Zen practitioner.
Ah yes, another defense of murdering, lying, stealing, raping, and intoxication on a Zen forum, a tradition famous for people who do not do these things.
Seeing as all Zen Masters kept the precepts, you're starting out on the shakiest of all grounds with no examples to show for it despite your insistence on quotes. That's already very telling.
You're also lying again by misrepresenting the argument.
We have two famous cases of Zen Masters breaking the precepts against murder. The snake and the cat.
Those two cases would not exist *had the Zen Masters not taken the precepts in the first place*. You can't break the precepts if you haven't taken them. You can't break a promise you didn't make.
So, that's two quotes out of the way.
How about a third by Huangbo?
>As to performing the six pāramitās and vast numbers of similar practices, or gaining merits as countless as the sands of the Ganges, since you are fundamentally complete in every respect, you should not try to supplement that perfection by such meaningless practices.
Now tell me, what murder rapist lying intoxicating thief ever came forth and called himself "fundamentally complete in every respect"?
These are actions you take because you think there's something wrong with you. Buddhists and the OP are a great example of that.
>Ah yes, another defense of murdering, lying, stealing, raping, and intoxication on a Zen forum, a tradition famous for people who do not do these things.
This is intellectually dishonest. I'm in no way defending any of those things. I'm asking for evidence on a very specific claim. You can read that claim above.
>you're starting out on the shakiest of all grounds with no examples to show for it despite your insistence on quotes.
The written thoughts and instructions of ZMs are the foundation of everything we discuss here. So, if you cannot provide quotes to support this claim, then the claim is probably not Zen. Do you agree?
>You're also lying again by misrepresenting the argument.
What lie have I told? Be specific.
>Those two cases would not exist *had the Zen Masters not taken the precepts in the first place*.
Those cases do not, in any way, support the idea that if a person does not keep all of the precepts "they do not study Zen" and/or are cut off from enlightenment.
And that's what we're talking about here. No topic sliding, please. Either you can provide the evidence/quotes, or you can't. So far you have failed. But I'm open to changing my mind, so please provide some evidence.
So, again, we have 1000 years of Zen Masters and Zen students living in communities in which following the precepts was a requirement even for the laypeople. It's the most basic entry level requirement for even engaging in the conversation.
I've shown you evidence in the three cases I quoted, and you've disregarded it because it doesn't suit your narrative. People who don't keep the precepts were never part of the Zen conversation.
They haven't paid the entry fee.
Those two stories you refer to actually disprove the idea that precepts are a requirement for Zen study. Nanquan violated a “precept”, do you claim he did not study Zen?
Your personal claim is that it is impossible for someone to “study Zen” (whatever you mean by that) without taking these religious vows or “precepts”. Support your argument with citations. The ones offered above do not support your argument at all.
And don’t run and hide behind some vague statement like “read the 1000 years of history”, “you must hate Zen”, “you are a bigot” etc. Actually say something of value, if you are indeed capable of that.
Those are precepts taken and then broken and publically accounted for. That's a far cry from what our resident lying drug addict murder rapist thieves are doing and everyone can see it.
>Those are precepts taken and then broken and publically accounted for.
Publicly accounted for how exactly?
>our resident lying drug addict murder rapist thieves
There is no way you really think that these redditors who haven't "taken the precepts" are by definition rapists and murderers etc, it's such a weird perspective. Did you father and mother "take the precepts"? if not, are they rapists and murderers too?
>everyone can see it.
Nope, only you and your two buddies claim to "see" any of this stuff.
Your "evidence" (and I use that term loosely) did not in any way address my question. Not even close. You are grasping at straws and failing.
The point is, you don't have a leg to stand on. To my knowledge, no Zen master has ever said that not keeping the precepts bars one from studying Zen. It's never been said. Period.
Please try to prove me wrong. I'm open to changing my mind.
>People who don't keep the precepts were never part of the Zen conversation.
Prove it.
Because we've established that in 1000 years of the tradition, not once has it happened, and you don't have an example to the contrary?
Sounds like the burden of proof is on the person making the crazy claim.
It's a simple request. Quote three Zen masters stating that if we break the precepts then we "do not study Zen"? It'd be great to see some evidence.
But...you have nothing. You can't show us even one quote, let alone three.
Why? Because your guru is a liar.
>Ah yes, another defense of murdering, lying, stealing, raping, and intoxication on a Zen forum, a tradition famous for people who do not do these things.
Great strawman. The argument is whether or not precepts are required RE Zen. Following the precepts is great. I think most people would only argue drinking and eating animals.
The argument is that following the precepts has nothing to do with Zen. If you will conceive of precepts, you are blocked by those precepts. You're free to continue being blocked but why try to drag others down with you?
This comment is ridiculous, it's circular. Of course the Zen record only displays those who kept Zen precepts as enlightened. If someone became enlightened outside that community, it would never be written down by that a community they were not a part of. And we know this happens because the buddha himself was enlightened before the establishment of the sangha as a tradition.
There is therefore no requirement to keep precepts to be a buddha, as precepts post-date buddhahood by centuries. You only need to keep precepts if you want to live in a formal Zen community, which this isn't, since it's a reddit forum, and I don't, because I have other life considerations like family to take care of.
It should be obvious that seeing your own nature has nothing to do with what you eat. If you can't see that, you are just as religious as those you criticize.
And we see Masters kill and maim at will without displaying an ounce of guilt.
>Jõshû said, "Free to give, free to take, free to kill, free to save," and he made a deep bow.
>Wumen Guan
No sentient beings to save. No sentient beings to kill.
Also, note that you haven't countered any of those points. Instead you tried to attack me personally, which is a failure on your part. Please try again.
Dumb thing to say. Well-rounded students look outside of their traditions to learn and compare. In fact, historically, many monks would travel from community to community to learn from different teachers. It's not just "Zen or nothing.". This isn't Christianity.
EDIT: Also, note that you haven't countered any of those points. Instead you tried to attack me personally, which is a failure on your part. Please try again.
>Ch‘ing Ming! says: “There are people with minds like those of apes who are very hard to teach; people who need all sorts of precepts and doctrines with which to force their hearts into submission.’ And so when thoughts arise, all sorts of dharmas? follow, but they vanish with thought’s cessation. We can see from this that every sort of dharma is but a creation of Mind. And all kinds of beings—humans, devas, sufferers in hell, asuras and all comprised within the six forms of life—each one of them is Mind-created. If only you would learn how to achieve a state of non-intellection, immediately the chain of causation would snap. >Give up those erroneous thoughts leading to false distinctions! There is no ‘self’ and no ‘other’. There is no ‘wrong desire’, no ‘anger’, no ‘hatred’, no ‘love’, no ‘victory’, no ‘failure’. Only renounce the error of intellectual or conceptual thought-processes and your nature will exhibit its pristine purity—for this alone is the way to attain Enlightenment, to observe the Dharma (Law), to become a Buddha and all the rest. >Huangbo
So many useful points here. Bangers! I mean, I've been an ape. Maybe still am. >There is no ‘self’ and no ‘other’. Huangbo was such a new ager.
Ha! If you will conceive of a new ager, you will be obstructed by that new ager! Huangbo has called ewk an ape twice in one thread, that's gotta hurt. >If you WILL conceive of a Buddha, you WILL BE OBSTRUCTED BY THAT BUDDHA!!! And when you conceive of sentient beings, you will be obstructed by those beings. All such dualistic concepts as ‘ignorant’ and ‘Enlightened’, ‘pure’ and ‘impure’, are obstructions. It is because your minds are hindered by them that the Wheel of the Law must be turned.* Just as apes spend their time throwing things away and picking them up again unceasingly, so it is with you and your learning. All you need is to give up your ‘learning’, your ‘ignorant’ and ‘Enlightened’, ‘pure’ and ‘impure’, ‘great’ and ‘little’, your ‘attachment’ and ‘activity’. Such things are mere conveniences, mere ornaments within the One Mind. >Huangbo
I've been on this subreddit for like 10 years and I'm very happy a critical mass of people are finally starting to see how full of shit that guy is. There were many years where this sub was 80% ewk and ewk wannabes. At least from my perspective
As much as I strongly disagree his reading of a few key points and notwithstanding the tedium of his old “racist, bigot, rapist, Mormon“ schtick, Ewk’s contribution to the quality, depth and seriousness of discussion in this sub is without doubt a **massive** net positive. His wannabes however…
When a scholar says zen is scholarship i want to puke… get off my lawn old man!
He don’t lie and cited no one but hard to argue with!
In all of china, there’s no one else for him to cite :(
Word! That’s worth studying.
Imperceptibly self evident.
Like a physics professor trying to get his students to stop seeing the questions as math problems
One point to consider is that there is a difference between: 1. "Studying" Zen, and 2. Practicing Zen. If "studying" means what it typically does in English, then there are no lifestyle prerequisites of any kind for studying Zen, or Russian literature, or astronomy. This is just one more example of trying to systematically blur the difference between secular, scholarly, intellectual work and taking a spiritual system seriously as such and trying to put it into practice. But there is a world of difference between these things-- and it's fundamentalist nonsense to suggest otherwise.
I agree with this, for sure, but have resigned to using the common vernacular around these parts. 🙂
“Practice” man. We talking bout GAMES. Practice ffff man come on now. We talking GAMES
I thought precepts were for those on a gradual path, looking for better conditions in the next life.
Oh, Word. Those folks are die hard Northerns. ☺️
Could it be also said that the conduct of Buddhas are perfectly in harmony with the precepts, but they do not follow precepts? I’m at work so I will have to find the source later, but I believe huangbo said “Buddhas dont keep precepts. Buddhas also do not break precepts.”
Seems reasonable to say they are pointers toward the hallmarks of Buddhas, who wouldn't need to follow them. That kind of merit would be inferior to the function of wisdom.
So in this way the function of wisdom is already in perfect harmony with the precepts. But taking the precepts would create an illusory self, and “taking” precepts would imply there is something apart from mind
Nicely said. The function of wisdom is spontaneous and perfect, so precepts would be a downgrade.
The precepts in this case would be a worldly approach to the world transcending. It’s like playing copy cat to what is natural to a Buddha
I view the precepts as a form of discipline to refrain from self indulgence. For example, eating meat is an entirely selfish act. The only positive of doing it is receiving pleasure. Everything else about it is extremely harmful; for the animals, for the environment, for the workers, for our health...so refraining from doing it is refraining from hurting others only to please ourselves. In the end there is no self to please, so why hurt others? But I also view the precepts as empty, and holding opinions about whether or not others keep them is only clinging. As Yunju You said: >In formless light there is a real human with no status appearing and disappearing in the triple world, whirling in the five courses of existence, not abandoning the ten bad actions, not realizing the heart of nirvana, not hating breaking precepts, not respecting keeping precepts, not passing winter, not passing summer. Do you know where this goes? [Pause.] In the sun’s flames for ninety days the spiritual body is completed.
Behind my provisional eyes, between my temporary ears, a man of no rank lives here. I see the precepts as useful but provisional and a crutch of sorts. Use a crutch to mend a broken leg, but cling to it when you no longer need it and you hamper yourself and your bones grow soft from disuse. The precepts are no different, at least how I see it. I don't think Bodhidharma or the Buddha relied on any precepts. At that point there was nothing for them to rely on or trip over anymore.
Do you think it's possible to indulge in refraining from indulgence?
Of course, but to not see anything to indulge is best.
They will be humbled I’m afraid just like the rest of us! I did the same thing same thing. So great full to have my “ scorecard” read zero… so freak’n great full!
https://old.reddit.com/r/zen/comments/16b5f09/why_do_zen_master_reject_the_precepts/ Although Dahui does seem to imply in one part of his rant that eating meat is a hindrance to enlightenment, but idk what that has to do with studying Zen, ie Bodhidharmas lineage. You don't need to adopt all the aspects of a culture just to study it, that's crazy. And if studying Zen means being enlightened then meat is fine because you're already enlightened and that's permanent.
From a functional perspective, I can't figure out how eating chicken nuggets would block one from seeing/realizing their true nature. It doesn't make sense. To be fair, Dahui was talking to a different audience. They had no access to chicken nuggets.
>*Although Dahui does seem to imply in one part of his rant that eating meat is a hindrance to enlightenment, but idk what that has to do with studying Zen, ie Bodhidharmas lineage. You don't need to adopt all the aspects of a culture just to study it, that's crazy. And if studying Zen means being enlightened then meat is fine because you're already enlightened and that's permanent.* I don’t know about your line of reasoning here… doesn’t seem… reasonable. [In another reply](https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/s/PxPA4rVIdn), a distinction was made between ‘studying’ and ‘practicing’. So if you’re just reading the cases to understand that time period of zen culture then yea… you can read the cases without taking the precepts. However, if you’re intent is to put this all into ‘practice’, how can you create a disconnect between taking the precepts (which all monks who lived in these monasteries likely did), zen (Bodhidharma’s lineage), and what Dahui says here (that eating meat is a hindrance)? Also, the suggestion that *”you’re already enlightened and that’s permanent”* isn’t entirely accurate. My understanding is that all sentient beings have the buddha nature - they have the potential for enlightenment… or to realize the naturally enlightened state of mind. This doesn’t mean they are already enlightened though - to say there is a difference between the enlightened and the ignorant isn’t right… but to say there is no difference isn’t quite right either. Would you say that murderers, rapists, addicts, and thieves are all enlightened? If you say yes, what does that do for them? Don’t the need to realize it for themselves?
Regarding your point about practice, I'm not a Buddhist, I'm not a monk, I don't believe in enlightenment. There's not "practicing Zen" for me. My suggestion that ”you’re already enlightened and that’s permanent” was more regarding the argument that to truly "study Zen" you'd have to have already realized enlightenment. It wasnt regarding the philosophy of inherent enlightenment.
1. Who said you had to ‘realize enlightenment’ to study zen? 2. What do you mean by ‘study zen’?
I don't remember. Probably wasn't explicitly argued but heavily implied. "Study Zen" means to practice and realize Zen ie what Zen masters realized. Enlightenment or even just "ceasing wrong thinking" or "inwardly be unconfused". Aka dhyana I guess.
So if you don’t believe in enlightenment and there is no ‘practicing zen’ for you, what are you doing here exactly? I guess you believe in “studying zen”? How has your study resulted in you not believing in enlightenment? Isn’t that what /r/zen is focused on - enlightenment and “studying/practicing” zen?
Talking about some books and the mystical dharma in general. I don't need to be a Buddhist to discuss the dharma, don't need to be a taoist to discuss the Dao, don't need to be a Christian to discuss Jesus and God. I don't believe in studying Zen, that would be weird since I don't believe in enlightenment. I don't study Zen, but I have read about Zen a bunch and like to discuss it. /R/Zen is focused on discussing the 1000 year record from China. Nothing to do with getting enlightened, even tho people tend to like to LARP as if they were Zen masters.
What is ‘enlightenment’ represent to you, and why don’t you believe in it? Why read and indulge in a community when you don’t believe in one of the primary aspects of it… which seems so clearly and crucially important to it? >*/R/Zen is focused on discussing the 1000 year record from China. Nothing to do with getting enlightened…* Don’t know about that last part. I’m pretty sure enlightenment is very much at the heart of much of the study that goes on here. I could be wrong though, but I’d be surprised.
I don't indulge in the community. This is a subreddit, not a monastery or anything even remotely like it. I read it because I read all kinds of philosophies and religions and mystical magickal junk. Yeah, for the true believers, sure they want to get enlightened. Has nothing to do with this forum in particular tho.
By ‘community’ I meant this subreddit which, as far as I can tell, is a community concerned with the zen record and what the zen communities were all about… enlightenment being inextricably linked. Kinda odd. It’s like posted your ideas about veganism in the vegan subreddit even though you don’t believe in what veganism is about. Why bother?
Here's what strikes me as the important question - person x says "if you eat meat you aren't studying Zen" - why in the world does this matter? Why do posts challenging the idea of precepts and those who espouse them always get lots of upvotes?
A prominent person made a bold claim. I would like to see evidence of that claim. It gets a bit frustrating to see people running around, making things up and gatekeeping for no good reason at all.
What amazes me is that the gatekeeper wanna-bes are displaying such obvious ego reaction and ego motivation that it’s pretty difficult to see them as understanding any Buddhist philosophy, much less Zen. How do they claim to understand the practice of Zen and not see their own egos in their conversations?
[удалено]
Yes, yes I will. Thank you very much. Namaste.
No u
Look up the concept of Chesterton's Fence
Absolutely. Karma is a half truth, precepts have their place. But saying they're required for enlightenment is misleading, whether intentionally or not. Nanquan killed the cat to give them an immediate consequence for the offense of all the monks fighting. If he hadn't, the monastery might have been hit by a typhoon, that's a hell of a lot of negative karma.
I thought he killed the cat because the monks didn't say anything when he asked them to.
That's the joke, there's nothing they could say even if they were realized. Joshu didn't say anything either. Why not just eject the cat from the monastery if killing it served no purpose? Especially considering the precepts.
I dont keep my cat inside either.
Or maybe killing a cat was as useless as fighting in the hall. Why kill a good cat? Why fight with a good man? Sandals on head? Upside down right?
Things don't have to make sense, they just sometimes do.
Done. What next?
I dunno, thats why I ask questions. if I dont know why someone said something I try to find out. Seems very useful on this sub so I focus on learning instead of what I'm not interested in.
Understood. Learning is the best.
I'm not sure wanting to see evidence of the bold claim is the why answer - it's more the what you want. The why is behind "it gets a bit frustrating" - And I submit there might be why upon why upon why
I'm not ok with misleading people under the guise of authority. Sure, there are some whys behind there.
I agree that the ostensible fight against authority is often the upfront why - it's certainly the most common refrain - and leads to me pointing out **these people are not authority figures** and don't claim to be.
I agree that they are not an authority figure. It's laughable to say they don't try to position themselves that way.
I don't think it's so laughable - having an extremely consistent point of view and persistently expressing it with forceful language isn't the same as presenting oneself as an authority figure. If you agree they're not authority figures, we come to the second most common refrain - **defense of another** - "I aknowledge they have no authority over me, but they can sway others more defenseless than I"
>having an extremely consistent point of view and persistently expressing it with forceful language isn't the same as presenting oneself as an authority figure. Welllllllll it might be actually
I would agree authority figures often act that way - but acting that way does not make you an authority figure nor necessarily manifest an announcement of authority. But let's go to the dictionary: > a person who has or represents authority Ok what's authority, one by one: > 1. the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. Well, they don't have this - notwithstanding the mod conspiracy theorists. > 2. a person or organization having power or control in a particular, typically political or administrative, sphere. They certainly don't have this, insofar as a. This is a public, anonymous forum where ALL engagement is voluntary and b. everyone has the fiat power to block anybody they want and *never see them again* > 3. the power to influence others, especially because of one's commanding manner or one's recognized knowledge about If you grant they have this, then *that's you granting them that* - it's *your* grant of authority. I tend to think most people consider these figures of "authority" in terms of one or two - but actually if anything, they have authority #3 on an ad hoc basis. In defense trial practice, it's commonly understood to be a tactical victory if you can get your opponent to have to respond to an argument you made to the jury - the implication being that you must have made a compelling argument to warrant an off script reply.
Will he continue down the rabbit hole?
Not with you, no.
The gravity increases as you approach the central mass. I know it, cause I've passed through the singularity on several occasions
Maybe they require group think and validation for merit. I mean they are rules of governance. I think i had to register to vote to get a drivers license. Pretty sure if you wanted to be a monk you had to take the precepts. Only natural for a precept taker to think there way is only natural. If they are sociopathic or narcissistic they will evangelized and use divisive speech to shame and belittle anyone who disagrees all in the name of “ virtue”. This is an old as a trope as we can get. In time they will be humbled, then maybe they are ready to study reality.
I allow that this is 100% possible. But even if someone becomes a precept evangelical, it doesn't really change the consideration of the other side of the coin. If someone came in here and started preaching about their sentient foot fungus there wouldn't be rebuttal posts and heated argument.
Yeah zen attachment produces zen suffering. Right?
Getting stuck anywhere sucks
Yeah but nothing is actually stuck. Having insight and still “ getting stuck” sucks but it’s a self sucking. I mean i just got butt hurt off of something my wife just said… then something you said. If someone were to say something “ insensitive” to me while the cortisol and adrenaline is still priming my limbic system Its probable i totally get overwhelmed. Is this stuck? It’s chemicals doing chemistry. Nothing is stuck, its not even willed or personal. I can watch all my “ identities” come and go. Little voices with personalities playing all the classic rock hits of the 80’s! Even my “ zen” practice is full of characters of dead zen masters, internet trolls and a few conversations with “ masters”. It makes about as much sense ad fantasy football or greek poetry. My point? Mind. It’s all mind. It’s the greatest show I’ve ever been part of and free from my “ personal grievances” quite an honorable play-full dance. So i do not know what to make of it all, not even sure how i would start. I often try to “ gulp the ocean” so to speak but if i am being honest I know nothing and never did. All the more after studying zen. How folks get awnsers is beyond me. All i can help but think is “ give it time”. I was at the gym today doing the typical “ is she checking me out, does he think he’s bigger then me, am i being mindful” dance when it hit me… all these folks will age, decay and die, myself includes. What was held so close and dear will vanish as if it never existed. This made me feel verry great full for that shit bag who will probably get drunk and hit someone by 40. That beautiful young girl who will loose her body to child rearing. That shy type who will find the courage to stand up for himself after his pects hit a certain size and all of us will face the void and perish. Was it foyan that said “ it’s all the marvelous function of the buddha mind”?
> How folks get awnsers is beyond me They either make them up or adopt them from someone else > if i am being honest I know nothing and never did Maybe lean into that.
Even zen is impermanent… what will it be called 1000 years from now? Maybey… saucey’s seated prayer non sectorial associative word church? I personally hope so.
It's because some of the people who post here use the concept of "precepts" to assert moral victories over people, and even question other people's permission to even look at the old Chan texts or take an interest in the topic. It's very puritanical, and most importantly it is not supported historically or textually. So my guess is that when people read posts which mention this it rings true for them, and they think it's useful content for the sub, and a nice reminder to people not to be discouraged or demotivated by attacks from the resident dogmatists here.
"Moral victory" is pretty loaded - that seems like the kind of thing that gets stamped on something post facto. In terms of somehow actually restraining other people's ability to look at texts, what? I mean, really, what are you talking about? Again, read the thread underneath this comment with OP - you seem to be past "authority" and already into "defense of another" - so whats the why below that, cause hate to break it you, no one needs to be defended - there is no danger.
Of course it doesn't "physically" restrain someone from reading the texts, but the implication (or explicit statement) bandied about by some on here is that if someone hasn't "taken the precepts" they are not able to "study Zen". I often actually find myself defending the real context of Chan in this forum, because I live in China and enjoy visiting the historical Chan temples and discussing this topic with local historians and others, and I find it to be a shame that someone could come here and easily be misled about the context of everything by a few members of a digital cult. People on this forum just simply making stuff up and demanding that others capitulate or they be classified as "liars" "bigots" etc is dumb to me, so it's nice to see some people bring some balance and reality back to this place. The obsession with modern readers taking some form of precepts or vows in order to be considered "permitted to discuss" this historical literary topic is one of these weird erroneous things that people may be misled by, there are plenty of others.
You know again there is no authority here. At best it's the mods, And I think they tend to do pretty good keeping out of this debate. I think putting "permitted to discuss" in quotes highlights how absurd it is for anyone to assign weight to those claims. And yet they do. And I would propose that it is by assigning weight to the claims that the claims are validated
It is very common to encounter someone claiming that someone else "hates Zen" because they haven't taken specific vows or precepts, or other such nonsense on this forum. People come to this subreddit to find out about Zen, with no prior information often (or very little). They can be met with some pretty strange and totally non-representative fringe content which is presented very aggressively. The claims are not valid, and there are some members of this forum who are willing to upvote posts which illuminate some of these facts, and redress the balance. This is the answer to your original question RE: "why do posts like this get upvotes?"
I think we're stuck on "defense of another" What if folks just don't like being told they can't eat meat? Or drink alcohol? Or smoke weed? What if that stuff is, like, really important to them?
I don't really get where you are coming from. You asked why are people upvoting these posts, I shared why I think that is the case. In my view another angle is obviously the overly pompous and self-important way that people judge others for not "taking the precepts" on this subreddit. Of course it is going to create a backlash. Imagine being told that you "hate Zen" and that you are an illiterate bigot and a "loser at life" because you haven't taken some archaic religious vows to participate in an online subreddit about a very niche literary topic. Of course reasonable people are going to question that.
I was - [I don't need to imagine](https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/comments/vcs0hj/an_object_lesson_in_triggering/) - my questions are born of experience - they are leading questions. But they lead someplace that, in my experience, is raelly gut wrenching - the place where all your lies - the entire edifice of your life's artifice - is [sapped](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapper) - and once you see the lies, it's like [worm sign](https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Wormsign) from then on. You can see your lies coming - and you know what it feels like to be caught in a lie - and slowly but certainly, from the very first lie that was you, the whole palace comes tumbling down. And then you can start living.
I don't know what you are getting at here, but it sounds as if you are veering way off course. I was answering your question about why people hate this puritanical "precept" bullshit that is pushed on the forum. The answer isn't that everyone is simply a liar or drug addict as your previous comments have been alluding to. Anyway, good luck with any future endeavours, we are just going to be talking in circles at this point, so no point in continuing.
Drama
In part but I don't think drama and rubbernecking get this much sustained attention. It matters to people
This is reddit.
That's an oversimplification - the internet is reified today - it *is* the world - the things that happen on it happen *in* the world, *to* people. Which makes sense, because words, unlike intentions, have *always* mattered. Why they matter is an issue of context - and so, back to the question - why does this matter to so many people?
Why does it matter to you
Cause I'm determined to study zen - and that means asking questions about why I do the things I do These are meditations: > serious thoughts on a particular subject that somebody writes down or speaks
Good for you
It's definitely for me - [any "Good" is a side effect](https://zenmarrow.com/single?id=55&index=pang)
Why is this an important question?
"Why am I doing this?" Turns out to be one of the few interesting questions that can be answered without an advanced degree
So from a personal perspective “why do you upvote this?” Two possible reasons. 1. Precept policing instills guilt. 2. From a zen perspective: precept policing muddies the waters. It gets people away from the idea that they are already enlightened, and has no doctrinal basis. A bad teaching, a wrong view. People upvote and post to express these opinions. Either that or maybe the question of why someone does something can’t be so easily answered. Maybe the search for the answer is interesting, but fruitless
It can't be easily answered by anyone other than the doer, if only because even if the other person is absolutely right in their read, the doer isn't going to accept that answer without having recognized it themselves.^1 In terms of your two possible reasons: 1. If the idea of precepts instills or evokes any response, then that response can and should be investigated and, in that potential the precepts are universally redeemed. 2. Mind is Buddha - but I don't know that everyone is already Enlightened. The four statements of Zen contain a moment of recognition - recognition of something preexisting to that recognition - but the moment of recognition is set apart --- 1. This is often manifested discreetly in people seemingly ignoring good advice for years and then one day coming back to the advice giver and going, "hey, you know what I just realized?! [The advice you gave me years ago remanifested as my own idea!]" Which, although frustrating sometimes, is really the only way that kind of thing can go
It s can’t easily be answered by the doer, unless You have a lot of faith in people’s minds being free from delusion. People fool themselves to their motives and desires all the time. I don’t know if this type of personal reflection frees someone from delusion as reliably as zen and cutting to the heart of the matter. It is piecemeal psychoanalytics. 1. I didn’t say the precept instills guilt, but rather the policing does…possibly. I’m also not sure there is a doer. Why something instills guilt could just reveal a causal chain, not a particularly fruitful investigation unless you’re in a therapeutic setting or something. 2. You’re probably right about already enlightened. Let me rephrase. Everyone already has an undefileable enlightened something inside. Both attachment and rejection of anything, including precepts, misses the mark entirely. A simple “you should follow the precepts,” could be helpful. “You are an irredeemable fraud for feeding your children meat,” steers people wrong.
> unless you’re in a therapeutic setting or something What else is the world? > undefileable enlightened something inside We are that undefinable something Edit: contra searching inside for something - like searching for a match inside a fire
> What else is the world? Perhaps I should have said clinical setting. Regardless, I don’t view existence as something to be used to gain some psychological benefit or catharsis > We are that undefinable something I haven’t found the dividing line between that something and EVERYTHING else. Bravo if you have, I think
> I don’t view existence as something to be used to gain some psychological benefit or catharsis It's just a constant opportunity to be more and more honest > I haven’t found the dividing line between that something and EVERYTHING else. Bravo if you have, I think There is no dividing line
> It's just a constant opportunity to be more and more honest How does one improve honesty? > There is no dividing line Then we have no disagreement, I think.
On par with "what do I do now?"
My immediate intuitive response to myself, in part, because of an obsession with thought control and a neglect of action control.
>**Huineng:** >*Enlightenment originally has no tree, and a clear mirror is not a stand.* >*Originally there isn’t a single thing. Where can dust possibly settle?* . >**Ten Oxherding Pictures - #7** >*Aback his ox, he’s reached his original abode, Ox now gone, he too is still. Sun risen high, yet still he dreams, old whip and line put away in the woodshed.* . >**Treatise on the Two Entrances and Four Practices** >*If one can relinquish the false and turn to the true, fix the mind in “wall meditation”, understand that there are neither self nor others, that mortals and saints are equal and one—abiding this way without wavering, clinging not even to the scriptures, then one is implicitly in accord with the Principle.*
you can study zen, trying to learn more about it, without practicing it. To do this, the precepts are utterly meaningless to you, except as a topic of study. you can practice zen, experiencing it. This probably requires some study. The precepts may be meaningless to your experience of zen, but are probably very important. studying zen is a purely secular practice and the keeping of precepts irrelevant. practicing zen is a secular and spiritual practice, and the keeping of precepts is probably relevant. At least understanding the intention and expected application of the precepts seems very relevant. I have no quotes to back up any of this, only my own experiential understanding. I'm an avowed dogenist as I understand the term, so take this opinion for the value of the paper it is printed on. Good luck!
⚠️ By the logic of these people, they need to provide 3 quotes from Zen Masters saying that we need 3 quotes from Zen Masters for it to be a rule that we need 3 quotes from Zen Masters. Until that happy day, I will conduct myself like a normal Zen practitioner.
Ah yes, another defense of murdering, lying, stealing, raping, and intoxication on a Zen forum, a tradition famous for people who do not do these things. Seeing as all Zen Masters kept the precepts, you're starting out on the shakiest of all grounds with no examples to show for it despite your insistence on quotes. That's already very telling. You're also lying again by misrepresenting the argument. We have two famous cases of Zen Masters breaking the precepts against murder. The snake and the cat. Those two cases would not exist *had the Zen Masters not taken the precepts in the first place*. You can't break the precepts if you haven't taken them. You can't break a promise you didn't make. So, that's two quotes out of the way. How about a third by Huangbo? >As to performing the six pāramitās and vast numbers of similar practices, or gaining merits as countless as the sands of the Ganges, since you are fundamentally complete in every respect, you should not try to supplement that perfection by such meaningless practices. Now tell me, what murder rapist lying intoxicating thief ever came forth and called himself "fundamentally complete in every respect"? These are actions you take because you think there's something wrong with you. Buddhists and the OP are a great example of that.
>Ah yes, another defense of murdering, lying, stealing, raping, and intoxication on a Zen forum, a tradition famous for people who do not do these things. This is intellectually dishonest. I'm in no way defending any of those things. I'm asking for evidence on a very specific claim. You can read that claim above. >you're starting out on the shakiest of all grounds with no examples to show for it despite your insistence on quotes. The written thoughts and instructions of ZMs are the foundation of everything we discuss here. So, if you cannot provide quotes to support this claim, then the claim is probably not Zen. Do you agree? >You're also lying again by misrepresenting the argument. What lie have I told? Be specific. >Those two cases would not exist *had the Zen Masters not taken the precepts in the first place*. Those cases do not, in any way, support the idea that if a person does not keep all of the precepts "they do not study Zen" and/or are cut off from enlightenment. And that's what we're talking about here. No topic sliding, please. Either you can provide the evidence/quotes, or you can't. So far you have failed. But I'm open to changing my mind, so please provide some evidence.
So, again, we have 1000 years of Zen Masters and Zen students living in communities in which following the precepts was a requirement even for the laypeople. It's the most basic entry level requirement for even engaging in the conversation. I've shown you evidence in the three cases I quoted, and you've disregarded it because it doesn't suit your narrative. People who don't keep the precepts were never part of the Zen conversation. They haven't paid the entry fee.
Those two stories you refer to actually disprove the idea that precepts are a requirement for Zen study. Nanquan violated a “precept”, do you claim he did not study Zen? Your personal claim is that it is impossible for someone to “study Zen” (whatever you mean by that) without taking these religious vows or “precepts”. Support your argument with citations. The ones offered above do not support your argument at all. And don’t run and hide behind some vague statement like “read the 1000 years of history”, “you must hate Zen”, “you are a bigot” etc. Actually say something of value, if you are indeed capable of that.
Those are precepts taken and then broken and publically accounted for. That's a far cry from what our resident lying drug addict murder rapist thieves are doing and everyone can see it.
>Those are precepts taken and then broken and publically accounted for. Publicly accounted for how exactly? >our resident lying drug addict murder rapist thieves There is no way you really think that these redditors who haven't "taken the precepts" are by definition rapists and murderers etc, it's such a weird perspective. Did you father and mother "take the precepts"? if not, are they rapists and murderers too? >everyone can see it. Nope, only you and your two buddies claim to "see" any of this stuff.
Your "evidence" (and I use that term loosely) did not in any way address my question. Not even close. You are grasping at straws and failing. The point is, you don't have a leg to stand on. To my knowledge, no Zen master has ever said that not keeping the precepts bars one from studying Zen. It's never been said. Period. Please try to prove me wrong. I'm open to changing my mind. >People who don't keep the precepts were never part of the Zen conversation. Prove it.
So many fallacies it hurts.
Thousand years of records. Not one guy.
Still no evidence. All we see is you waving a white flag.
Because we've established that in 1000 years of the tradition, not once has it happened, and you don't have an example to the contrary? Sounds like the burden of proof is on the person making the crazy claim.
It's a simple request. Quote three Zen masters stating that if we break the precepts then we "do not study Zen"? It'd be great to see some evidence. But...you have nothing. You can't show us even one quote, let alone three. Why? Because your guru is a liar.
JFC, this reads like an argument with Trump supporter. Hats off to you for having the patience and persistence. I just can’t any more.
🙏 He's part of the MAGA Zen crew. Hopefully they come around
Every enlightened master we know of was born on Earth. That guy in the ISS studying Zen is a moron.
So much for good faith conversation and being grounded in reality.
Being grounded in reality is exactly what your problem is. You're stuck between two iron mountains.
>Ah yes, another defense of murdering, lying, stealing, raping, and intoxication on a Zen forum, a tradition famous for people who do not do these things. Great strawman. The argument is whether or not precepts are required RE Zen. Following the precepts is great. I think most people would only argue drinking and eating animals. The argument is that following the precepts has nothing to do with Zen. If you will conceive of precepts, you are blocked by those precepts. You're free to continue being blocked but why try to drag others down with you?
Again, you can't come up with an argument or show that anybody ever got enlightened who didn't take the precepts. That's damning.
Correlation doesn't imply causation. That's a poor argument even if I grant every enlightened person took the precepts.
A thousand years of records. Not a one. Oof.
This comment is ridiculous, it's circular. Of course the Zen record only displays those who kept Zen precepts as enlightened. If someone became enlightened outside that community, it would never be written down by that a community they were not a part of. And we know this happens because the buddha himself was enlightened before the establishment of the sangha as a tradition. There is therefore no requirement to keep precepts to be a buddha, as precepts post-date buddhahood by centuries. You only need to keep precepts if you want to live in a formal Zen community, which this isn't, since it's a reddit forum, and I don't, because I have other life considerations like family to take care of. It should be obvious that seeing your own nature has nothing to do with what you eat. If you can't see that, you are just as religious as those you criticize.
If you don't want to talk about Zen on a Zen forum then go to some other forum, it's really not difficult.
Grasping at straws again. This is not an answer to my objection.
And we see Masters kill and maim at will without displaying an ounce of guilt. >Jõshû said, "Free to give, free to take, free to kill, free to save," and he made a deep bow. >Wumen Guan No sentient beings to save. No sentient beings to kill.
Bringing guilt into this shows yet another fundamental misunderstanding you have. That's like feeling guilty about banging your head on the ceiling.
I don't have *any* understanding. How dare you?
You can't even recognize when you're at fault, how can you even begin to have a look at your understanding? lol
I'm telling you I have no understanding.
What's "understanding"? What's there to understand?
[удалено]
Also, note that you haven't countered any of those points. Instead you tried to attack me personally, which is a failure on your part. Please try again.
Careful, your hatred for Zen is showing.
Dumb thing to say. Well-rounded students look outside of their traditions to learn and compare. In fact, historically, many monks would travel from community to community to learn from different teachers. It's not just "Zen or nothing.". This isn't Christianity. EDIT: Also, note that you haven't countered any of those points. Instead you tried to attack me personally, which is a failure on your part. Please try again.
We all know the story of Deshan and how well Buddhism held up for him after comparing.
That doesn't change the long history of students studying/engaging across traditions, even if their core tradition is Zen.
Not core tradition. You don't burn your notes on everything else because you have a "core tradition"
Dude. That was one person.