simmonds@demon.siemens.com (Tom Simmonds) (03/15/90)
Perhaps the people who read this newsgroup will be interested the following articles, which I submitted to talk.philosophy.misc a few months ago, when there was a discussion about Zen Buddhism. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have done extensive reading on the topic of Zen. Here is a list of some of my favorite books on zen. All are/were available in paperback. 1. Zen Flesh, Zen Bones - compiled by Paul Reps A collection of zen koans, anecdotes, etc. from historic sources. May not make much sense to you without prior exposure to zen. 2. Original Teachings of Ch'an Buddhism - (a Chinese or Japanese author - sorry, I don't remember his name. Yuan - something, I think) A very good account of the historical evolution of Ch'an ( the Chinese word for Zen). This book will give you a good view of the changing approaches to zen and meditation, and the philosophical ideas behind them. 3. Manual of Zen Buddhism - D.T. Suzuki A collection of translated excerpts from Sanskrit sutras, and also Chinese and Japanese Zen Buddist sources. D.T. Suzuki wrote many essays on zen and translated many of the original texts into English. Dozens of volumes are available containing various selections of his works. He was a major figure in bringing zen to the west. 4. Be Here Now - Ram Dass - published by the Lama Society Not specifically zen, but Buddhist. This is a fun book, full of pen-and-ink drawings. It's somewhat dated in its 60's counterculture attitudes and language, but I find it amusing, having survived my teens during that period. In spite of its datedness, it manages to convey many of the basic ideas of Buddhism. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- There has been some discussion about whether zen is a philosophy or a religion. I think it is neither. Zen is a way of life. It is living fully in the present; being awake and aware in the here and now, and accepting it as it is, whether rational or irrational, pleasant or unpleasant, orderly or chaotic. This way of living can't be achieved by philosophizing or by believing in something, it can only be achieved by living and experiencing. Zen Buddhists traditionally discourage philosophizing and conceptual systems. When we are engaged in constructing rational systems or preoccupied with a context of beliefs through which we interpret our experience, we tend to shift our attention away from what is going on here and now. Rather than accepting it as it is, we view it through the "glasses" of our concepts and beliefs. As useful as that may be, for some purposes, it draws us away from Zen. Zen meditation techniques are exercises in focusing attention on the here and now and casting aside preconceived notions of what it is or should be. "If you want to enter the path beyond doubt, place yourself in the same freedom as sky." - Nanen (from Zen Flesh, Zen Bones) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Some thoughts regarding the Zen Buddhist assertion that there is no Self: While it is true that Buddhist literature repeatedly asserts the idea that there is no Self, I think that maybe the reason for that is not so much a commitment to the belief that the Self doesn't exist, but rather a more pragmatic consideration. Zen is concerned with experiencing freely in the here and now. As I have said in previous articles, if you have any ideas of what the experience is or should be, you come into it with a bias and can't have the attitude of unbiased acceptance that Zen places such emphasis on. If you are preoccupied with making rational sense of it, or if you are trying to match it to some conceptual model, you can't experience 'tathata', which is translated as 'suchness' or 'is-ness'; and, to a Zen Buddhist, tathata is reality. It is a reality that can't be found through conceptualization, it can only be experienced; and experiencing reality or 'tathata' is what Zen is all about. Any conceptual framework places biases or restrictions on it. The Lankavatara Sutra quotes Gautama Buddha as saying that philo- sophers cannot see reality because they are addicted to concepts. Whatever statements or arguments are made by Zen Buddhists are only made for the purpose of pointing people toward that experience. By contradicting ideas, such as the idea of a Self or the idea of an external universe or even the idea that there is a reality, they attempt to tear down conceptual structures of all kinds, which might interfere with a clear and unbiased experience of tathata. Zen Buddhists are fond of referring to any Buddhist text or statement or philosophical argument as 'a finger pointing at the moon', in the sense that the words are not a representation of reality, but rather a pointer toward it. If you say that something exists or is 'real' in some way, a Zen Buddhist will contradict you. Zen does not mind contradictions, in fact it thrives on them. In one context, they may think that a particular statement is the most appropriate 'pointer', in another context, they may use a completely contradictory statement as a 'pointer'. Logical consistency is not important to Zen. Historically, Buddhism began in an environment that was predominantly Hindu. The idea of Atman ( or 'Higher Self") is central to Hinduism. The Buddhists saw this as a concept which had to be transcended in order to experience 'tathata', so they contradicted it with a counter-concept of 'Anatman' or 'No-Self'. The purpose was tho eliminate an obstacle to Zen experience. It was intended to jolt people out of what was then the predominant conceptual model of reality. Of course, since conceptualization IS a part of conscious experience, it can't be ignored or denied by a pre-bias against it, and Zen Buddhists recognize that fact. For this reason they also reject 'quietistic' meditation, which seeks to stop the flow of thoughts. What they seek to do is to stop *judging* concepts, or any other type of experience, as 'true' or 'false', 'valid' or 'invalid'. To them, conscious experience is reality; and to set up a fixed conceptual model as a 'true' representation of reality is to exclude some part of experience, since any model imposes a set of bounds. A Zen Buddhist seeks to remain open to all experience, whether or not it fits into some rational scheme. Conceptual schemes come and go, but conscious experience rolls on. 'Tathata' is viewed as being unlimited and inexhaustible, hence there is no model which can accurately describe it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Simmonds (simmonds@demon.siemens.com)
meuer@poincare.geom.umn.edu (03/16/90)
simmonds@demon.siemens.com (Tom Simmonds) writes: <Many lines deleted> >Historically, Buddhism began in an environment that was predominantly >Hindu. The idea of Atman ( or 'Higher Self") is central to Hinduism. The >Buddhists saw this as a concept which had to be transcended in order to >experience 'tathata', so they contradicted it with a counter-concept of >'Anatman' or 'No-Self'. The purpose was tho eliminate an obstacle to >Zen experience. It was intended to jolt people out of what was then the >predominant conceptual model of reality. Tom (or anyone else), could you elborate on Anatman? What does it mean that there is "No-Self?" I have almost no exposure to Zen and this is new to me. Doesn't all of our conscious experience tell us we each have a "self?" If fact, isn't conscious experience itself an experience or even a definition of the self? If I experience consciousness, am I not a self? If not, what am I? >Of course, since conceptualization IS a part of conscious experience, it >can't be ignored or denied by a pre-bias against it, and Zen Buddhists >recognize that fact. For this reason they also reject 'quietistic' >meditation, which seeks to stop the flow of thoughts. What they seek >to do is to stop *judging* concepts, or any other type of experience, as >'true' or 'false', 'valid' or 'invalid'. To them, conscious experience >is reality; and to set up a fixed conceptual model as a 'true' representation >of reality is to exclude some part of experience, since any model imposes >a set of bounds. A Zen Buddhist seeks to remain open to all experience, >whether or not it fits into some rational scheme. Conceptual schemes come >and go, but conscious experience rolls on. 'Tathata' is viewed as being >unlimited and inexhaustible, hence there is no model which can accurately >describe it. >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tom Simmonds (simmonds@demon.siemens.com) Does Zen make a distinction between reality and a conceptual model that describes reality? It seems obvious that a conceptual model is not the same thing as reality and therefore can not be complete. But does Zen teach that the underlying reality does not exist at all, or only that our conceptualization of it will never be complete? -mark -- Mark Meuer Geometry Supercomputer Project meuer@geom.umn.edu 1200 Washington Ave. So. Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 624-1867
simmonds@demon.siemens.com (Tom Simmonds) (03/20/90)
> meuer@poincare.geom.umn.edu >> me >>Historically, Buddhism began in an environment that was predominantly >>Hindu. The idea of Atman ( or 'Higher Self") is central to Hinduism. The >>Buddhists saw this as a concept which had to be transcended in order to >>experience 'tathata', so they contradicted it with a counter-concept of >>'Anatman' or 'No-Self'. The purpose was tho eliminate an obstacle to >>Zen experience. It was intended to jolt people out of what was then the >>predominant conceptual model of reality. > >Tom (or anyone else), could you elborate on Anatman? What does it >mean that there is "No-Self?" I have almost no exposure to Zen and >this is new to me. Doesn't all of our conscious experience tell us we >each have a "self?" If fact, isn't conscious experience itself an >experience or even a definition of the self? If I experience >consciousness, am I not a self? If not, what am I? Well, I suppose a Zen Buddhist would say something like: 'There is no Anatman, either'. The Mahayana doctrine of Anatman is an abstruse topic. I'm not sure I can really do it justice, but I'll try. (By the way, D.T. Suzuki wrote an excellent book on the subject entitled "The Zen Doctrine of No-Mind") The 'reality' of Zen experience is what Suzuki called "the no-abiding mind" or "mind of no abode", which is a mind free of fixed concepts. That includes concepts of fixed identity, such as a 'self' or 'ego-substance'. It is a mind that does not cling to ideas, but rather flows through its transform- ations in an uninhibited and unlimited manner. It is supposed to be the ultimate freedom; the liberation from the wheel of karma; or the Buddha-Mind. (Note that this does not mean a mind which has ceased thinking and experiencing, but simply a mind free of *attachment* to concepts). There is a type of meditation in which the 'Self' is conceived as a pure, universal substance which is obscured, or polluted, by the senses and thoughts. The object of the meditation is to quiet the mind and to wipe away the 'dust' of thought, so that the 'Self' can be seen in it's pure, undefiled nature. According to Hui-Neng, the Sixth Patriarch of Ch'an, a mind in this state is "purity bound", it is attached to an idea of a fixed identity (one of purity) and to the dualistic concepts of purity and defilement. In order to attain the ultimate freedom, those concepts must be abandoned. When there is no clinging to an idea of a 'Self' of any kind, and also no clinging to the idea of 'No Self', that is the "mind of no abode". As long as you hold onto the cessation of thoughts and the attainment of some fixed state of 'purity' as a goal, and as long as you hold onto a concept of a 'Self'; as long as you think you know what IT is, you haven't attained IT. In fact, the harder you strive, the further away you get. Striving is not flowing freely. As I tried to say before, it is not that Zen insists that the 'Self' doesn't exist, it's just that the IDEA that it does exist is an obstacle to freedom. This is tied in with another Mahayana concept: that of "Sunyata", or 'emptiness'. It is based on several Buddhist sutras which state that there is no 'existence' and no 'non-existence'; that they are empty or meaningless concepts. The Buddha-Mind is beyond all such concepts and is not limited by them. ... >>a set of bounds. A Zen Buddhist seeks to remain open to all experience, >>whether or not it fits into some rational scheme. Conceptual schemes come >>and go, but conscious experience rolls on. 'Tathata' is viewed as being >>unlimited and inexhaustible, hence there is no model which can accurately >>describe it. >Does Zen make a distinction between reality and a conceptual model >that describes reality? It seems obvious that a conceptual model is >not the same thing as reality and therefore can not be complete. But >does Zen teach that the underlying reality does not exist at all, or >only that our conceptualization of it will never be complete? I think it does make that distinction, but it goes further than just saying that conceptual models are necessarily incomplete. Since Zen holds that reality can be experienced directly, or that it IS direct experience, and since no conceptual model is a true representation of it, it views conceptual models as obstacles which cause us to superimpose preconceived, fixed ideas, and hence false bounds, upon what is essentially free and unlimited. In short, they lead us in the wrong direction and distract us from reality. Of course, reality is what it is, free and unlimited, whether we hold onto concepts or not. The only difference is between having ideas that confuse the issue or tossing them away. The idea of an 'underlying reality' is one such concept. I guess one way to say it is that Zen urges us to let reality flow on freely and stop trying to 'fence it in' with our concepts. This is not an intellectual endeavor, it is a way of living, which has no need of concepts like 'reality'. Fa-Yung, one of the Chinese patriarchs of Ch'an Buddhism said: "The only way to achieve Buddhahood is to let the mind be free to be itself."
joshi@Alliant.COM ( Bhagirath Joshi) (03/21/90)
In article <14567@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> meuer@poincare.geom.umn.edu writes: >simmonds@demon.siemens.com (Tom Simmonds) writes: > > <Many lines deleted> > >>Historically, Buddhism began in an environment that was predominantly >>Hindu. The idea of Atman ( or 'Higher Self") is central to Hinduism. The >>Buddhists saw this as a concept which had to be transcended in order to >>experience 'tathata', so they contradicted it with a counter-concept of >>'Anatman' or 'No-Self'. The purpose was tho eliminate an obstacle to >>Zen experience. It was intended to jolt people out of what was then the >>predominant conceptual model of reality. > >Tom (or anyone else), could you elborate on Anatman? What does it >mean that there is "No-Self?" I have almost no exposure to Zen and >this is new to me. Doesn't all of our conscious experience tell us we >each have a "self?" If fact, isn't conscious experience itself an >experience or even a definition of the self? If I experience >consciousness, am I not a self? If not, what am I? > >>Of course, since conceptualization IS a part of conscious experience, it >>can't be ignored or denied by a pre-bias against it, and Zen Buddhists >>recognize that fact. For this reason they also reject 'quietistic' >>meditation, which seeks to stop the flow of thoughts. What they seek >>to do is to stop *judging* concepts, or any other type of experience, as >>'true' or 'false', 'valid' or 'invalid'. To them, conscious experience >>is reality; and to set up a fixed conceptual model as a 'true' representation >>of reality is to exclude some part of experience, since any model imposes >>a set of bounds. A Zen Buddhist seeks to remain open to all experience, >>whether or not it fits into some rational scheme. Conceptual schemes come >>and go, but conscious experience rolls on. 'Tathata' is viewed as being >>unlimited and inexhaustible, hence there is no model which can accurately >>describe it. >>----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Tom Simmonds (simmonds@demon.siemens.com) > >Does Zen make a distinction between reality and a conceptual model >that describes reality? It seems obvious that a conceptual model is >not the same thing as reality and therefore can not be complete. But >does Zen teach that the underlying reality does not exist at all, or >only that our conceptualization of it will never be complete? > >-mark > > > >-- > Mark Meuer > Geometry Supercomputer Project > meuer@geom.umn.edu > > 1200 Washington Ave. So. > Minneapolis, MN 55415 > > (612) 624-1867 The galactic great wall and Hindu Mythology. The galectic great wall, a most distant object found in the universe, some 20 billion light years away, puzzles the cosmologist. This object is unusual in nature. It is 200 light years long, 100 light years wide and 15 light years thick. It is like a slab. The important and puzzling aspect is that it is roughly 20 billion light years away. This is in conflict with the accepted time for the creation of the universe, which is estimated to be 15 billion light years. The existance of such an object in the universe says that there is some misunderstanding about the universe. It shows that there is a problem with the calculations done by scientists. This is not new to the scientific world. When- ever something new is discovered, old theories are revised. The science of astronomy is also young. The astronomical science, so far have failed to detect the true nature of the universe and the expanse. The age of universe, following the Hindu understanding of universe as stated, in the old books of Veda revealed that the universe exists since 154 trillion years. This is in cotrast to the popular theories of 15 billion years age of the universe. If we accept this 154 trillion years age than the speed with which the universe is expanding becomes more realistic. The very first calculation reveals that the rate of expansion of the universe some 20 billion years ago was roughly 24 miles per second. This velocity it is less than the escape velo- city. What it says that universe will start contracting once more. The detail theory is explained in the scientific treas- ure books Veda, namely Rug Ved, sham Ved, Yajurva Veda and Atharva Ved . Brahm in sanskrit means Universe. Brahma means the creator of universe. Brahma and Brahm is interchangeable. According to Rug Ved, the universe was nothing but a huge light and with the nad of aum, Brahma , Vishnu and Mahesh were created.. Here Brahma should be interpreted as Brahm. Age of the present Brahma is 50 Brahma years 7 Mahayuga and 11,500 Divya Years. One Brahma Year = 360 Brahma Days. One Brahma Day = 12 Brahma hours of Day light and March 19, 1990 - 2 - 12 Brahma Hours of night 12 Brahma hours of Day light = 71 Kingdoms of Lord Manu. 1 Kingdom of Manu = 14 Maha yug 1 Maha yug = 12000 Divya Years 1 Divya Year = 360 Earth Years. 1 Brahm Year = 360 x 12000 x 14 x 71 x 2 x 360 = 3,091,737,600,000 years. Using this to calculate the age of Brahma, the time of creation of Veda to the present time comes to 154.58 Trillion years. Therefore the time since the big Bang is = 154.58 Trillion Years. The veda also says the life of Brahma is 100 Brahma years. At that age Brahma will die. The universe will die. Again with nad of Aum New Brahma will be created. There- fore, 50 years of Brahma becomes very significant number. What it says the half life of the universe is over. In another 154 trillion years the universe once more will go back to its initial energy form. The time of last flooding on the earth 11,500 x 360 years = 4.14 Million years. The time since the last solar destruction in which the sun exploded and gulped all the planets, comes to 12000x14x71x360 + 12000x7x360 + 11500x360 = 4,328,460,000 Years The time before the sun runs out of its atomic fuel and explodes, comes to 4,259,700,000 Years. Can you see the striking resembleance. Roughly 4 bil- lion years is the remaining life time calculated by our scientists and the one which is agreed upon by the scien- tific community. March 19, 1990
sascmc@mcnc.org (Chris Conn) (11/20/90)
I'd like to ask these questions to those of you that are interested or involved in Zen Buddhism: Do you think a teacher is really necessary to practise Zen? Does a person have to be involved with a teacher or a group in order to consider themselves a Zen Buddhist? -- Chris Conn | Good times are comin', I hear it everywhere I go. sascmc@unx.sas.com | Good times are comin', I hear it everywhere I go. SAS Institute, Inc. | Good times are comin', But they sure are comin' slow... Austin, Texas | - Neil Young, 'Good Times Are Comin'
pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) (11/22/90)
In article <1990Nov20.033319.15098@nas.nasa.gov> unx.sas.com!sascmc@mcnc.org (Chris Conn) writes: > Do you think a teacher is really necessary to practise Zen? I don't know. Teachers can be useful, though, as long as the student doesn't fall into the trap of worshipping a teacher. > Does a person have to be involved with a teacher or a group in order > to consider themselves a Zen Buddhist? Yes, lest the local Zen Authority deposit rotting vegetables in one's mailbox. Seriously, don't worry about considering yourself anything. Whether with a group or without, just practice. -- Peter M. Yadlowsky | "You know - when I talk to people, I try to Academic Computing Center | look more intelligent than I actually am. University of Virginia | Seems to work." pmy@Virginia.EDU | - LA
esot@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) (11/22/90)
In article <1990Nov20.033319.15098@nas.nasa.gov> unx.sas.com!sascmc@mcnc.org (Chris Conn) writes: >I'd like to ask these questions to those of you that are >interested or involved in Zen Buddhism: > > Do you think a teacher is really necessary to practise Zen? > Does a person have to be involved with a teacher or a group in order > to consider themselves a Zen Buddhist? A teacher is not necessary to practice Zen, though a teacher may be necessary to teach you how to practice. Zen practice has no fixed manifestation. It has often been said by zen teachers in the past that no matter whether you are sitting, standing, lying down, ..., just remain mindful. This is zen practice. Or, as Ta Hui said, "Just realize right where you are." Many people consider themselves to be zen buddhists. Some are involved with teachers and groups, some are not. But whether or not one really is a zen buddhist depends upon more than what one considers oneself to be. A person whose "zen" never manifests itself in daily life is not a zen buddhist. Such a person merely studies about zen. Analogy: A person who attends a physics lecture and considers him/ herself a physicist is not a physicist unless he/she (a) really knows something about physics, (b) is able to apply that knowledge in at least some circumstances. Final point: What do you suppose a teacher of zen is?
david@star2.cm.utexas.edu (David Sigeti) (11/27/90)
In article <1990Nov20.033319.15098@nas.nasa.gov> unx.sas.com!sascmc@mcnc.org (Chris Conn) writes: I'd like to ask these questions to those of you that are interested or involved in Zen Buddhism: Do you think a teacher is really necessary to practise Zen? Does a person have to be involved with a teacher or a group in order to consider themselves a Zen Buddhist? As someone who practiced zazen (Zen meditation) for several years without a teacher, I would like to encourage you to take up the practice of Zen on your own if you feel drawn to it. One can certainly be a Zen Buddhist without a teacher or a group but I doubt very much that one can be a Zen Buddhist without doing some fairly serious zazen. If you *are* going to do it without a teacher, however, you need some good alternative sources for instruction. I thought that I would provide a few words of advice based on my own experience and then discuss some books that I have found to be helpful. I am posting my comments to the net (rather than sending you e-mail) because there may be others who would be interested in some of my suggestions for reading and because it gives anyone who spots a major omission or screw-up on my part a chance to save me from my own stupidity. Rather than starting out on a koan right away, I would strongly advise you to start by practicing mindfulness of the breathing---specifi- cally, by counting the breath. Virtually all schools of Buddhism that still practice meditation start out with mindfulness of the breathing. In fact, this practice and the way in which it is approached are one of the principal factors uniting the otherwise very disparate schools of Buddhism. I practiced various forms of mindfulness of the breathing for several years before I took up a koan and I think that I probably got more out of it than anything else in Zen. I know that it did a lot to make me a better listener. By giving me a better understanding of my own mind, it helped me toward greater understanding and sympathy for the actions and motivations of others. The way one encounters the activities and limitations of one's own mind in this practice can be a real eye-opener and it can do a lot to make the teachings of Buddhism and Zen more comprehensible. At the same time, the sustained practice of "bare attention" can be very helpful in dealing with all sorts of problems of everyday life, both large and small. Since this practice is the starting point in virtually all the Buddhist meditative traditions, one can find good written guides coming from a number of schools. At first, I used "The Three Pillars of Zen", by Phillip Kapleau. The relevant material here is Yasutani-roshi's introductory lectures on zazen. A similar set of lectures (inspired by and derived from Yasutani's) is found in "Taking the Path of Zen" by Robert Aitken. This is good beginners' stuff in the Zen tradition. Both books are very specific, with good advice on matters like posture, frequency and duration of sitting, physical pain, etc. In fact, in the case of Kapleau's book, it may even be a little too focused on the details of physical posture, breathing, and where in one's body one should place one's attention. Some of the books mentioned below should provide an antidote to this. Another problem that I find with both books is that they show a certain ignorance of basic Buddhist principles and philosophy that leads to some misinterpretation of various Zen and general Mahayana teachings. In light of this, I would recommend some books on practice coming from other traditions. From another school of Zen is "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind", by Shunryu Suzuki. Everyone loves this book, and for good reason. It really captures a lot of the spirit of mindfulness meditation in a very deep way. I would regard it as absolutely essential for a beginning student working on her own. The Theravadin (Hinayana) Buddhists have also produced some good introductions to meditation. I found "The Heart of Buddhist Meditation", by Nyanaponika Thera to be very helpful in relating meditative practice to Buddhist teachings generally. The book includes a translation of "The Setting-Up of Mindfulness". This is the central Buddhist text on meditation and almost certainly a genuine sutra of Shakyamuni. There are some creepy parts here (like the meditation on the corpse) but over all it is phenomenal how well this sermon speaks to modern meditators across a gap of ~2500 years. A book by an American trained in the Theravadin tradition is "The Experience of Insight" by Joseph Goldstein. This is a collection of lectures that Goldstein gave while leading a month-long meditation retreat so it is entirely practice oriented. This might be the best practical introduction to mindfulness meditation in the Theravadin tradition. Thich Nhat Hanh is a remarkable Vietnamese monk who was a leader of the Buddhist peace movement in Vietnam before the Communist victory in 1975 and is now a leader of the Vietnamese community in exile in Europe and the United States. He wrote a little book called "The Miracle of Mindfulness" for his friends in the peace movement in the United States because he felt that they suffered from a lack of the spiritual resources necessary for sustained political work for peace. You can read it in an hour and get all the basic ideas necessary for beginning Buddhist meditation. I don't want to imply that mindfulness of the breathing is the be-all and end-all of Buddhist meditation. Zen in general and koan practice in particular arose as reactions to problems experienced in earlier schools of Buddhism and specifically to problems that tend to show up at a particular stage of the practice. I don't want to get into this in detail (mostly because I don't have it well sorted out in my own mind) but you may find that, after a fair amount of practice with mindfulness of the breathing, you really feel a need to move to koan practice. For me, this happened after maybe three or four years of practice. Don't do it lightly. In general, it is not a good idea to bat around too much with the practice. Find a practice and stick with it for a while. Moreover, moving to koan practice is complicated by the fact that doing this kind of meditation without a teacher is a much more iffy proposition than practicing mindfulness of the breathing. In my case, I worked on a koan on my own for the better part of a year and then developed a very informal and occasional relationship with a teacher, Albert Low (a former student of Philip Kapleau's who now teaches at the Montreal Zen Center). In hindsight, I realize that this relationship, occasional and informal as it has been, has been vitally important for the koan work that I have done. I take sole responsibility for what I am about to say about working on a koan on one's own but you might want to know that some of it comes from my own experience and some from conversations with Albert. There are some koans that are fairly well suited to work without a teacher and some that probably are not. The most frequently assigned koan is Joshu's Mu, probably better translated as "No!". "No!" is probably not a good koan to work on without a teacher. Two better candidates are "Who am I?" and "What is it?" (or "What is this?"). In "The Three Pillars of Zen" there is a dharma talk and a collection of letters by Bassui, a medieval Japanese teacher who always taught with the koan "Who is the master?". This is just a more focused version of "Who am I?". I strongly recommend that you read this material if you are contemplating taking up this koan (or any other) on your own. The book that convinced me to take up a koan (by giving me a sense of how one actually goes about working on one) is "The Way of Korean Zen" by Kusan Sonsa. This contains some excellent basic advice on how to work on a koan that I have not seen anywhere else. The book emphasizes the koan "What is this?" but I recommend it as highly as Bassui's writings no matter what koan you might choose. Finally, I recommend Albert Low's book "The Iron Cow of Zen". This does not contain advice on how to work on a koan but I think that it is a good first attempt at explaining to modern people the *human* meaning of a number of the classic koans. Each one is an intense human drama pointing to a basic dilemma or contradiction in human existence. Really getting to the root of the contradiction (as opposed to just understanding it intellectually) is essential to "solving" the koan. That's about all that I can say about koan practice except to repeat that you should not take it up lightly and not, I think, without a solid body of experience with mindfulness of the breathing. You probably also need a good understanding of basic Buddhist principles if you are going to try koan practice on your own. Once again, I want to encourage you to take up zazen if you feel drawn to it. Tens of millions of women and men have started down this road over the last 2500 years and, although some may seem to have traveled farther than others, we are all really beginners in the practice. The Zen Buddhists say that even Shakyamuni Buddha is still practicing, and he is only half-way there. Gassho! -- David Sigeti david@star2.cm.utexas.edu cmhl265@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu
jimt@yeats.intel.com (Jim Travers) (11/28/90)
In article <1990Nov20.033319.15098@nas.nasa.gov>, unx.sas.com!sascmc@mcnc.org (Chris Conn) writes: > > I'd like to ask these questions to those of you that are > interested or involved in Zen Buddhism: > > Do you think a teacher is really necessary to practise Zen? > Does a person have to be involved with a teacher or a group in order > to consider themselves a Zen Buddhist? > > -- Chris, I'm sure you will get many responses to your questions; more than you probably need. Instead of telling you what I think you should do, I will only suggest you look at the following two books: "Everyday Zen: Love and Work," by Charlotte Joko Beck, Harper and Row, 1989. "The Work of this Moment," by Toni Packer, Shambhala Pub., 1990. Both authors speak from a position of knowledge about Zen Buddhism; both confront the issue of authority. Jim Travers jimt@yeats.intel.com
mva@mandrake.bellcore.com (Madhav Apte) (11/29/90)
In article <1990Nov28.010537.27869@nas.nasa.gov> jimt@yeats.intel.com (Jim Travers) writes: >unx.sas.com!sascmc@mcnc.org (Chris Conn) writes: >> Do you think a teacher is really necessary to practise Zen? >> Does a person have to be involved with a teacher or a group in order >> to consider themselves a Zen Buddhist? > > "Everyday Zen: Love and Work," by Charlotte Joko Beck, Harper and Row, > 1989. > I would like to second the vote for this book. It is by far my most favorite book (out of say, maybe 20 or so books) on zen. The other two books mentioned before, "the way of zen" and "three pillars of zen" are very good - no question about that. But Joko gets to the sorta questions that an everyday person comes up with, and attempts to answer them. And she doesn't beat around the bush; nor load you with theory. Buy it, borrow it, somehow get to a few pages of it - you will like it. -Madhav