Is Zen Really Buddhism? 

Zen is just Zen. Also, The Dalia Lama says something to the effect, "One teacher, many traditions."

My teacher had an interesting approach. He would take quotes from many different religions and work them into his Teishos. Because as far as he was concerned all the holy roller guys were speaking from the same place. To him all the teachings were like arrows, and they all pointed to the same truth. And it's all Buddhism.

Perhaps we sometimes read similar lines with Zen is a mixture of Buddhism and Taoism, and also Vajrayana is a mixture of Buddhism and tantra yoga from books and articles. These generalizations may be misleading. Mixtures are easily made in drinks. Let us say three types drinks - a tea, a milk tea, and a four seasons tea. Tea is a regular tea in hot brew, milk tea is a cold mixture of tea and milk, and four seasons tea is a cold mixture of tea and four seasons juice. Now, supposing we make some analogies with tea for Theravada, milk for Taoism, and four seasons juice for tantra yoga. We cannot just simply say that Zen is a mixture of Buddhism and Taoism. We cannot just simply say that Vajrayana is a mixture of Buddhism and tantra yoga. What then may be the nearest words for analogy to drinks? 😉 Perhaps we may say that Theravada is an original based Buddhism, Zen is Buddhism with an added flavor of Taoism, and Vajrayana is Buddhism with an added flavor of tantra yoga. However, such analogies are over simplified and just make sense in limited context.

Some time in the past I came across the two sentence phrase: "Zen is an attitude. Buddhism is a hobby." Semi-diligent searching has failed to find that quote again and I'm wondering if I dreamed it. But that quote seems to sum up the relationship, at least in my mind, between Zen and Buddhism.

I'm not going to argue with you; as usual, I find what you say very compelling. But once in a while I call to mind a favorite line from Thomas Merton: "Zen is consciousness unstructured by particular form or particular system, a transcultural, transreligous, transformed consciousness."

It doesn't help that the largest zen subreddit got hijacked years ago and is full of revisionists that claim zen has nothing to do with Buddhism or sitting meditation, and say the soto school is fraudulent. Whenever new people show up to ask questions about buddhism they're abrasive and shit on them. Kinda sad. Also, really interesting video essays on sufism from a scholarly view are done by "let's talk religion" and they are top tier.

The thing about the Pali Canon is that it is the oldest complete collection of the Buddha's teachings preserved in the original language. There was recently a discovery in Afghanistan of a nearly complete collection of the Sarvastivada suttas in Sanskrit and I think that almost all of it has long been available in Chinese translation in the Agamas but it's still not complete. And the Sarvastivada Canon was compiled pretty much contemporaneously with the Pali Canon though parts of the Pali Canon may have been composed in the pre-sectarian Buddhist era during the first council after the parinirbbana of he Buddha. There isn't anything actually older. I think that the Pali Canon is pretty important and I'm in the process of reading the whole thing. That said, I do like Zen and I do think it is Buddhism. I like the idea that it is the mystical school of Buddhism.

Question everything find your own light 🌞 thank you nameste 🙏💜🌟

I always thought a teaching was Buddhism if it conformed with the Four Pillars (anicca, anatta, dukkha, and nirvana). Brad, I disagree with you on two points. First, Tibetans and Theravadans practice meditation. Second, Zen (and Mahayana) include the Pali Sutras. We refer to the as the agamas. A couple Zen teachers have talked about including these in Zen practice by finding commonality with Insight Meditation. PS - As for Einstein, there are plenty of RU-vid commentators who proudly proclaim they know physics better than Albert after just watching a few videos.

That's what Shinzen says... "every religion has a mystical core!"

i read a writing from master hsuan hua. it was written when the city of ten thousand buddhas was new. master hsuan hua was willing to teach everyone according to their preference. does not matter if one wants to go through boddhisattva, shravaka, and/or pratyeka-buddha path, master hsuan hua would like to teach him/her according to the path he/she chose.

How could the Zen patriarchs' teaching be equivalent to the Tathagata's? Reading the patriarchs is not equivalent to reading the suttas. I left Zen because I looked for the foundational words of the Dhamma, but they were not to be found there. All fully enlightened beings are not equal in their abilities to teach and explain the Dhamma. Bodhidharma was not the Tathagata. I was attracted to Zen because I did not want to get involved with the rites, prayers, diverse gods, statues, regalia and rituals of what was popularly portrayed as Buddhism. Turns out, those are all later developments and have nothing to do with the original teachings. The original teachings, the Nikayas, are direct and clear and practical.

really informative, interesting perspective plus getting more insight on this discussion is illuminating

hey brad how about some update on the new book about ethics? looking foward to it

Whick one do ai pick?

very interstng and maybe the answer to my question to you, why i never heard the word " compassion" from u. or maybe i missed it? whats the compassion point in soto zen ?

What about McDowells with its arches of gold?

Just a thought... D'you think Ziggy may have an issue with the laptop? 🤔

Zen doesn't care if it is Buddhism.

Could we get a video on what makes Zen mystical? Newbie here

Maybe you should have addressed it the Buddhist way: _Depending on what_ is Zen really Buddhism?

zen says mind is Buddha.. some other Buddhist peeps wouldn't say that. Also i heard Zen is outside of words transmission, I'm not sure other Buddhists say that either.

No mention of Shingon or Tendai or Tibetan Vajrayana? Zen is pretty vanilla compared to actual esoteric sects. Odd to single that out. If we're talking about historicity then the early Nikayas are clearly the earliest written text, that isn't up for debate. We see them referenced as part of the canon in just about every tradition. But they were written long after Buddha died based on oral traditions, so it's possible that the Mahayana sutras were merely written down later but originate from the same time period. Some (most?) however were written millennia after the fact in China with no hint of connection to the historical Buddha or his first generation of followers. Also, Buddhism in China has always been a syncretic mix of Pure Land, Zen, and esoteric elements. It's only when this tradition came to Japan that sectarianism really took hold. The Japanese take on Buddhism is unique in it's sectarianism. In Korea you will not find Buddhist teachers like Nichiren denouncing other schools. In Vietnam they don't have a separate esoteric school like Shingon or Tendai. China has no competition with Pure Land against Zen. That's tragically unique to Japan. And Dogen's lineage is itself questionable. There are a great deal of Dogen's ideas that differ from both the Tendai teachings he started in and the unorthodox teachings of Rujing. Compare that to the Rinzai school that more accurately mirrors the popular Lianji school in China. The Shobogenzo, for instance, is not a text taught in any other sect of Zen, Mahayana, or Buddhism at large. So the question shouldn't be "is Zen buddhism", the question ought to be "is Dogenism even a form Zen"? Also, Pure Land is by far the most common and popular form of Buddhism in Japan. Thought Buddhism as a whole is beaten out by Shinto and Atheism. Zen is tied for second with Nichiren based schools like Jodo-Shu and Jodo Shinshu. Based on the Agency of Cultural Affairs yearbook for 2019.

Now I understand why Ziggy didn't want to go outside: his bed is just too comfortable. It looks even more comfortable than my bed.

Yes.

Im curious how the Dogen passage you quoted marries up with the Chan masters (Linji et al) rejecting seated meditation and zazen etc. I appreciate Dogen came many many years later by which time there was zazen again but I'm not sure how the earlier rejection can be ignored.

What if there's a bunch of em' and were still having an effed up day?

It's like electronics that only talk about diodes.

Is Soka Gakkai part of Buddhism? 😮

Many Buddhists say define a Buddha as one who is infallible with regards to Dharma. Sidhartha is so ancient that Im going to maintain skepticism about what is to be attributed to him. Unfortunately, Buddhism seems to want to INSIST that Sidhartha was such (infallible with Dharma) and that no one else since is, which puts us in a tough position so much later. So I personally take the dry philsophy of things like Hua-yen, Madhyamika, Yogacara, and in some ways Tien-Tai seriously, but am very skeptikal of much of the Pali cannon, and of how we relate to monasticism, lineage, anything that seems to be nihilistic (even while describing Buddhism as not so).

If I would argue that Zen wasn't Buddhism, my argument would have something to do with the Stages of Insight and the Stage of Awakening. In Theravada there are 4 stages of awakening (Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami, Arahant). From what I've read, these stages are supposed to be more or less clearly distinguishable in experience, i.e. a clearly distinguishable 'event' happens to the meditator after which his everyday experience of being in the world is clearly changed from what it was before. The 'events' that happen are described in the Stages of Insight. I have read about these stages in the Visuddhimagga. Mahasi also wrote about them. S.N. Goenka refers to them as well in his discussion of the Maha Satipathana sutta. There's probably more sources that I haven't heard of. In Zen, however, I have never heard of such stages. There is some mention of some mystical experiences in The Undying Lamp of Zen, but nothing like detailed stages. There is the Oxherding path, but this, like the Theravada Elephant path, is a map for concentration, not for insight. I have worked closely with a Zen teacher; he led me to what I suspect was a kensho experience (where I felt completely at home in the universe and I recognized myself in everything). However, this experience wasn't lasting and also in other respects it seems so completely different from what is advocated in Theravada. Thus I'm wondering if both forms of meditation, Zen and Vipassana, lead to the same end. I suspect that they don't. Any insight is much appreciated!

Zen Shu. Gesundheit.

It depends upon what you mean of zen.

I thought the mystical buddhism was vajrayana

It doesn't matter, since zen is zen.

Is Hardcore Really Punk?

Perhaps one of the tasks set before the Western sangha is to disabuse people of the notion that Zen is separate from the rest of Buddhism.

Frankly, I'm unconcerned about whether it is or is not. Call it a mattress for as much as it matters.

Wouldn’t sects like shingon etc be even MORE mystical. Zen seems pretty darn down to earth lol

I think Soto is the largest individual sect in Japan, but all the Pure Land sects put together are bigger than all the Zen sects put together.

first we lift some weights, zen we lift some more

Idk man i just look at the wall. The vajrayana guys seem like they have us beat for mysticism

Remember folks, if things get too confusing, just turn to Taoism. It lets you take your time and just chill out.

Celestial thong, lol

" Zen is just Zen. There is nothing comparable to it. It is unique - unique in the sense that it is the most ordinary and yet the most extraordinary phenomenon that has happened to human consciousness. It is the most ordinary because it does not believe in knowledge, it does not believe in mind. It is not a philosophy, not a religion either. It is the acceptance of the ordinary existence with a total heart, with one’s total being, not desiring some other world, supra-mundane, supra-mental. It has no interest in any esoteric nonsense, no interest in metaphysics at all. It does not hanker for the other shore; this shore is more than enough. Its acceptance of this shore is so tremendous that through that very acceptance it transforms this shore - and this very shore becomes the other shore: This very body the buddha; This very earth the lotus paradise. Hence it is ordinary. It does not want you to create a certain kind of spirituality, a certain kind of holiness. All that it asks is that you live your life with immediacy, spontaneity. And then the mundane becomes the sacred. The great miracle of Zen is in the transformation of the mundane into the sacred. And it is tremendously extraordinary because THIS way life has never been approached before, THIS way life has never been respected before. Zen goes beyond Buddha and beyond Lao Tzu. It is a culmination, a transcendence, both of the Indian genius and of the Chinese genius. The Indian genius reached its highest peak in Gautam the Buddha and the Chinese genius reached its highest peak in Lao Tzu. And the meeting…the essence of Buddha’s teaching and the essence of Lao Tzu’s teaching merged into one stream so deeply that no separation is possible now. Even to make a distinction between what belongs to Buddha and what to Lao Tzu is impossible, the merger has been so total. It is not only a synthesis, it is an integration. Out of this meeting Zen was born. Zen is neither Buddhist nor Taoist and yet both. To call Zen “Zen Buddhism” is not right because it is far more. Buddha is not so earthly as Zen is. Lao Tzu is tremendously earthly, but Zen is not only earthly: its vision transforms the earth into heaven. Lao Tzu is earthly, Buddha is unearthly, Zen is both - and in being both it has become the most extraordinary phenomenon. The future of humanity will go closer and closer to the approach of Zen, because the meeting of the East and West is possible only through something like Zen, which is earthly and yet unearthly. The West is very earthly, the East is very unearthly. Who is going to become the bridge? Buddha cannot be the bridge; he is so essentially Eastern, the very flavor of the East, the very fragrance of the East, uncompromising. Lao Tzu cannot be the bridge; he is too earthly. China has always been very earthly. China is more part of the Western psyche than of the Eastern psyche. It is not an accident that China is the first country in the East to turn communist, to become materialist, to believe in a godless philosophy, to believe that man is only matter and nothing else. This is not just accidental. China has been earthly for almost five thousand years; it is very Western. Hence Lao Tzu cannot become the bridge; he is more like Zorba the Greek. Buddha is so unearthly you cannot even catch hold of him - how can he become the bridge? When I look all around, Zen seems to be the only possibility, because in Zen, Buddha and Lao Tzu have become one. The meeting has already happened. The seed is there, the seed of that great bridge which can make East and West one. Zen is going to be the meeting-point. It has a great future - a great past and a great future. And the miracle is that Zen is neither interested in the past nor in the future. Its total interest is in the present. Maybe that’s why the miracle is possible, because the past and the future are bridged by the present. The present is not part of time. Have you ever thought about it? How long is the present? The past has a duration, the future has a duration. What is the duration of the present? How long does it last? Between the past and the future can you measure the present? It is immeasurable; it is almost not. It is not time at all: it is the penetration of eternity into time."

I don't care, I stood outside a Tibetan centre on a rainy day, there was a clap of thunder and I knew it wasn't for me this time. Went passed a Zen Centre on a bus and knew it was the place for me then went on open day, met sensei, felt like I'd known her for a thousand thousand years and settled to stare at the wall. It's like trusting your instincts without attaching anything to it.

I don't know enough about Zen to comment on the debate but I do know that many "zen practitioners" present it as a sort of tool to bolster their intellectual identity, strangely with an anti-intellectual manner. More interested in winning arguments than finding cessation to the conditions that cause them suffering. Then there are the secularization and consumer driven aspects as it Westernized, but that's not really fundamental to Zen.

In Zen experienced there is neither Buda nor Micky Mouse.

How Buddhism is defined in today's culture has a different problem than how it was defined 200 years ago. In the past, nobody had the benefit of historical research, primarily because of geographical distance and boundaries. This is what several Chinese monks tried to transcend by making the (usually fatal) journey to the west...to the origins in India. The most famous of them Xuanzang (602-664 CE) discovered that the principle of 'Buddha Nature' was largely unknown in India, and so he declared it to be outside the true Dharma. Monks in China and Japan literally believed that the Flower Garland Sutra was the first thing out of Buddha's mouth after enlightenment. Scholars now understand that this is impossible and absurd as it was written several hundred years later. However, today there is a different problem that has developed over the last decade. This is the idea that there is no truth about anything...and that everyone should have their own personal truth according to whatever makes them feel good. Watch and see how that turns out. There are now crowds of people who call themselves Buddhists and dont even care what the word means. Its like a funny hat they decide to wear until its not funny anymore. Same goes for gender pronouns.

Why are so few people actually interested in waking up ? People who I’ve met on the path just seem interested in being a Buddhist,

mu

seems to me that Zen is just saying something like: Every single flipping moment of every single flipping moment is IT. The Great Matter is right smack dab in the middle of everything. So...shut the F up and enjoy it! Seems to me I recall some Roshi saying: It is right in the middle of suffering...etc...No? I think he was the one somewhere up in Minnesota...in the 70's or 80's ...(if there ever was a better place to be right in the middle of suffering in...but enough of that)

Is Buddhism?

Wow religious people disagree on things. Lol, never woulda thunk it.

So what.

But isn't tibetan buddhism the more mystical form of Buddhism and Zen the more rational, philosophocal one?

My own personal view is: Are current zen schools a part of Buddhism? Very likely. Has zen always been a part of Buddhism? Probably not.

Well, I think all right-thinking Zen practitioners are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent-thinking Zen practitioners are fed up with being sick and tired! As I am told by the woke-inspired far-left-thinking Zen practitioners, that the ordinary, decent-thinking Zen practitioners are not right-thinking enough to be considered truly decent-thinking practitioners of empty-headed Zen... and I'm certainly sick and tired of being told that I am... or am not! Kapish?

Ziggy looks kinds sicky '(

No, Zen is Spiritualism while Buddhism is religion 2 different things.

Zen is a methodology of mind awakening wrapped in a religious metaphysical context. The student in the video seems to know this, but struggles with the language to speak of it in. I am sure that this student will one day be a great teacher.

Zen is a cosmic joke..once you "get it" you'll be laughing forever. And of course it's Buddhist. However..the tao may not be. That a completely different subject. You can't get an answer..no. not if you argue all day because zen is the question to that answer.

Zen isn’t even zen