Meaningful ideas and quotes

[Porcupine]

What Watts writes may be fascinating and inspiring, but I am not convinced that what he described is Zen Buddhism. I think it's his own synthesis. I'm not the only one to feel this way. He's a synthesist and a popularizer. 

But what something is or whether it's the 'real thing' is less important than whether it is true or works for you. He's certainly interpreting Zen Buddhism and he's also not interpreting it literally. Literal interpretations of religion are, of course, nonsense but when one goes into interpreting a religion allegorically then who is to say that it's wrong? What does it even mean to say that it's 'not really Zen Buddhism'. One offers an allegorical interpretation that either works for you or it doesn't. And either helps or it doesn't.

And Zen Buddhism is ultimately a form of Buddhism and for the Buddha following certain rules or believing certain things is not important. The sect is not important. Whether it's Zen or another form of Buddhism is not important. The important thing is to lose attachment and to reach enlighthment. Zen tries to get you there in a bizarre but more direct way. And Alan Watts does speak of how many Zen masters will say that his talking about it misses the whole point. And many do believe that it requires years of sitting meditation and training. But Zen Buddhism originated in China, not Japan, and Zen is mostly widespread in Japan today but that is not where it originated or its core. The original Zen is a lot more like Daoism.

But Watts makes it clear that he is just practicing Zen and he's not a teacher and he's an entertainer. He's quite aware of this. It doesn't matter how the insight is provided and if you can find it in a form of Christianity then that's fine. It's just unlikely to work for me. After all, it's not like I need it. I mean, that's kind of the point.

There is no wrong way to do Zen. There can't be. Because Zen is not a matter of doing. That's kind of the whole point. There is no doing.

In my view, there are two ways to learn real Zen: experiential or scholarly. The former would take total dedication -- living the life, not just meditating at home. It would also require obedience to a teacher, which Watts was never able to manage. The latter would require things like paleographic knowledge of Chinese and Japanese, and quite possibly Indian languages. I've met people who've done this -- it's not for amateurs.

For somebody who has lost their ego very quickly and effortlessly and accidentally without seeking it the idea that it should take a lifetime and a lot of work is very silly. The idea that you can eliminate craving by craving the elimination of craving is absurd.

Reading is a great pleasure, but I think that once you've reached a certain point you either have to plunge all the way in or accept that you're going to stay an amateur. I'm content to be an amateur on this subject.

No offense, but I think you portray yourself as a student but it is also your ego talking when you call me an amateur. It's like you're playing the "I'm more humble than you" game. It may seem like I am doing that now too. But I don't claim to be more humble than you. I am quite content remaining an amateur forever. It's not like I'm above or below any 'masters'. That's kind of the whole point. But the really crucial thing is to not only understand that but to also be able to see it and feel it and then all that's left is to see and feel it consistently.

Neither of us are doing anything wrong. But it's not as if we ought to agree on that because if you disagreed you still wouldn't be doing anything wrong and nor would I.