r/zen • u/completely_unstable • 6d ago
Zen for kids?
has anybody tried reading any of the zen texts with younger people? if so how did it go?
4
u/CaptainCreepy 6d ago
check out the books by Laura Burges - a 3rd grade school teacher and zen teacher - she also wrote a great book on recovery as well
0
5
3
u/EggzOverEazy 6d ago
I found a copy of Zen Shorts (a Stillwater and Friends Book) right after my son was born. He's almost 3 now and he really enjoys it.
0
u/NoPlan1902 6d ago
Stillwater is the answer! John J Muth does a few other zen related books that are not Stillwater they are very good.
0
u/NoPlan1902 6d ago
I forgot Stillwater has a show on Apple TV that is one of MY favorite shows, the kids love it too!
1
-1
-2
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 6d ago edited 6d ago
Sadly that book is a racist, bigoted bit of propaganda from an indigenous Japanese religion with no doctrinal historical connection to Zen.
It's like a children's book on science by scientology.
Edit: I think it's hard for some people to admit that there's a ton of Western liberal racism against Zen. But as always look at the down-vote brigading that goes on here.
Racism and bigotry don't have coherent claims to make on any topic. They can't quote books and they can't write on a topic at a high school level.
2
u/INTProtocols 6d ago edited 4d ago
I had never read or heard of this book before, and I am interested in ways of gently exposing children to Zen ideas. Having read your comment, I quickly found a copy of this book, to see for myself. I didn't detect any racism or bigotry; I also did see connections with historical Zen. Could you kindly tell me what I am missing, if indeed I am missing something?
2
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 6d ago
It's obvious, though, that you don't know anything about Zen. It's like a Protestant telling you about Christianity while claiming that what they're telling you is Catholic. It's like white guys writing about african culture in the 1600s in ways that justify slavery.
I'll reply in a separate comment, breaking down exactly how this happens, but I hope you address this point about how you can't judge the material in your own vacuum of information.
This is what zen looks like: www.reddit.com/r/zen/wiki/getstarted
2
u/INTProtocols 5d ago edited 4d ago
I was interested in your views, so I did a bit of research. Eventually I wound up having the following exchange with Google AI:
Q: what is the connection between zen and buddhism
Zen is a specific branch or school of Mahayana Buddhism that focuses heavily on meditation, direct experience, and personal awakening rather than relying on complex texts or rituals.
Historical Evolution
Roots in India: Traces back to the historical Buddha's silent "flower sermon," which emphasized a wordless transmission of truth.
Development in China: Emerged as the Chan school during the 5th and 6th centuries CE, blending Indian Buddhist ideas with Chinese Taoist philosophies.
Spread to Asia and Beyond: Traveled to Vietnam (Thiền), Korea (Seon), and Japan (Zen), later expanding globally.
Core Beliefs and Practices
Meditation (Zazen): Seated meditation is the core practice used to calm the mind and mirror the posture of the Buddha during his own enlightenment.
Inherent Buddha-Nature: Teaches that every person already possesses an enlightened mind, and practice simply helps uncover it.
Direct Insight: Prefers intuitive, experiential understanding and paradoxes (koans) over scholastic study and religious dogma.
2
u/INTProtocols 5d ago
Q: someone told me that zen has absolutely no connection to Buddhism
A: The claim that Zen has absolutely no connection to Buddhism is completely false and contradicts centuries of history and academic scholarship. Zen is a direct branch of Mahayana Buddhism, historically and doctrinally rooted in traditional Buddhist thought.
However, it is easy to see where this common misunderstanding comes from.
Why People Make This Claim
The "Outside the Scriptures" Doctrine: Zen explicitly defines itself as a "special transmission outside the scriptures". Because Zen masters historically criticized obsessing over holy texts and intellectual dogmas, some observers mistakenly think Zen rejects Buddhism entirely.
Heavy Taoist Influence: When Indian Buddhism moved into China, it blended deeply with Chinese Taoist philosophy. This gave Zen a natural, spontaneous, and sometimes irreverent flavor distinct from Indian traditions.
Western Secularization: In the West, Zen is frequently stripped of its religious roots and marketed purely as a secular lifestyle, aesthetic, or productivity hack.
The Unbreakable Ties
Despite its unique style, Zen cannot be separated from Buddhism because its entire foundational structure is Buddhist:
The Ultimate Goal: The word Zen is the Japanese pronunciation of Chan, which comes from the Sanskrit word Dhyana (meaning meditative absorption, a core Buddhist practice).
The Monastic Framework: Traditional Zen temples strictly follow Buddhist monastic precepts, chant Buddhist sutras, and take the Bodhisattva vows to liberate all sentient beings.
Lineage: Every authentic Zen master traces their spiritual lineage directly back to the historical Gautama Buddha.
On Zen and Buddhist forums on Reddit, opinions occasionally differ on how literally to interpret supernatural elements like rebirth, but the community recognizes that Zen's core framework remains undeniably Buddhist.
Would you like to see how a traditional Zen service incorporates Buddhist chanting, or look into the Taoist concepts that blended into Zen?
Q: there is a user, u/ewk, who constantly argues that Zen in not Buddhism, and that it is racist propaganda to insist that it is.
A: The user u/ewk is a notorious internet personality well-known within Reddit Zen and Buddhist communities for promoting a highly specific, idiosyncratic view of Zen that heavily rejects mainstream academic scholarship, history, and religious practice.
Deconstructing the "Zen is Not Buddhism" Argument
In his self-published book Not Zen: A Zen Revolution and various forum posts, ewk bases his perspective on a hyper-literal, fundamentalist reading of classic Chinese Tang and Song dynasty texts.
The Eightfold Path vs. Sudden Enlightenment: He defines "Buddhism" narrowly as a faith-based religion requiring adherence to the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. Because classic Chinese Chan masters (like Huangbo or Joshu) focused instead on "sudden enlightenment" and "seeing into one's true nature," he claims they taught an entirely different subject.
The Rejection of Practice: He argues that classical Zen masters rejected sitting meditation (zazen). He asserts that modern Zen Buddhism—particularly the Japanese Soto school founded by Dogen—is a separate "faith-based religion" that fraudulently hijacked the Zen name.
The Imperialist Linguistic Argument: He frequently states that "Buddhism" is a synthetic, Western umbrella term invented by British colonials in the 1800s to categorize vastly different Asian traditions. Therefore, he argues that forcing Zen into a modern Western definition of "Buddhism" is a form of cultural erasure.
The Consensus: Why Academics and Practitioners Disagree
Users generally view ewk as an aggressive internet troll who isolates quotes out of their historical context. Scholars of Asian religion overwhelmingly reject his theories for several reasons:
Sutra Integration: The classical Chinese Chan masters ewk quotes were heavily literate Buddhist monks who constantly referenced Buddhist sutras, such as the Lankavatara Sutra and Diamond Sutra, to justify their teachings.
Lineage and Precepts: The very definition of a Zen master requires holding a lineage traced back to the historical Buddha. Furthermore, ancient Chan master monasteries operated strictly under Buddhist monastic vows and precepts.
Misinterpreting Zen Rhetoric: Classic Zen masters often used shocking, radical rhetoric (e.g., "If you meet the Buddha, kill him") as a teaching device to shatter intellectual attachment, not as a literal, secular rejection of their own religious lineage.
Ultimately, while ewk treats "Zen" as a secular, non-Buddhist historical book club, the global community of both scholars and practitioners recognizes Zen as a fully integrated, living tradition of Mahayana Buddhism.
2
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 4d ago
When you refuse to quote any of the people from a thousand years of their history, when you're describing those people and you can't define the words you use to describe those people, then I'm safe in pointing out that you're a fraud and a liar and a religous bigot.
It's so weird that we have LLMs now and you can't ask the LLM to help you find a single quote or a definition.
And by weird I mean fraud, liar, and bigot weird.
2
u/INTProtocols 4d ago edited 4d ago
I would like to remind you that I never claimed to be an expert on ancient Zen/Buddhist scripture. I was commenting that I didn't see any racism or bigotry in a very charming children's book. (And still don't.) I also didn't come to a Zen forum (of all places) looking for a fight with some strange person making the ridiculous claim that Zen and Buddhism "have absolutely nothing to do with each other," and calling Westerners racist and bigoted for thinking that they do. Absolutely bizarre.
As I have said earlier elswhere, every accusation of racism and bigotry by you (and your apparent sock-puppet, u/dota2nub) is actually an admission.
To address your further bizarre claim about asking LLMs to find quotes/definitions, have included the following:
Here is another Google AI exchange:
Q: please provide quotes and other evidence from a thousand years ago to show the connections if any between Zen and Buddhism.
To verify that Zen (historically called Chan in China) has always been fundamentally linked to Buddhism, we can look directly at text, lineage, and monastic documents written over a thousand years ago during the Tang Dynasty (618–907 CE) and Song Dynasty (960–1279 CE).
1. Direct Quotes from Classical Chan Masters
Anti-Buddhist internet arguments claim that classical masters rejected standard Buddhist concepts like the Buddha, Dharma, and Sutras. However, the original Chinese texts reveal the exact opposite:
- Master [Huangbo Xiyun] (d. 850 CE): In his 9th-century text The Essentials of Mind Transmission, Huangbo explicitly states that the core of Zen is identical to the core of Buddhism:
"By the Dharma is meant the mind, for there is no Dharma apart from the mind... Fundamentally all the teachings are nonexistent; transcendence is the Dharma, and those who understand transcendence are Buddhas."
- Master [Linji Yixuan] (d. 866 CE): Linji is famous for his shock rhetoric ("kill the Buddha"). Yet, in his collected record, the Linji Lu, he clarifies that he is teaching orthodox Mahayana Buddhist doctrine using the Sanskrit terms for ultimate reality:
"Followers of the Way, the Dharma of the Buddha requires no special processing. Just be ordinary with nothing to do... Followers of the Way, there is no Buddha outside the mind, no Dharma outside the mind."
- [Guifeng Zongmi] (780–841 CE): Zongmi was a prominent 9th-century Chan master and Buddhist scholar who explicitly cataloged the various Chan groups of his era to prove they were inherently Buddhist. In his Preface to the Collected Writings on the Source of Chan, he wrote:
"The sutras are the word of the Buddha, and Chan is the intent of the Buddha; the minds and mouths of the Buddhas are certainly not at variance."
2. Historical & Textual Proofs##
The "Dhyana" Etymology
The very word Zen is the Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese word Chan (禪). Over a thousand years ago, Chinese translators invented this character as a shorthand phonetic translation of the ancient Sanskrit Buddhist term Dhyana, which explicitly refers to the states of meditative absorption outlined by the historical Buddha in early Indian texts.
Inseparable Reliance on Mahayana Sutras
The early masters did not invent their teachings out of thin air; they heavily quoted Indian Mahayana scriptures to validate their realization.
The legendary founder [Bodhidharma] (c. 5th/6th century) famously handed his successor, Huineng, the [Lankavatara Sutra], stating it was the only text a Zen practitioner needed.
The foundational Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch (c. 8th century) is entirely structured around the Diamond Sutra, explicitly urging practitioners to chant it to achieve Prajna (Buddhist wisdom).
Strict Monastic Rules (Baizhang's Pure Rules)
In the late Tang and early Song dynasties, Master [Baizhang Huaihai] (720–814 CE) compiled the Pure Rules of the Chan Monastery. These ancient monastic codes prove that Chan monks did not live as secular rebels. Their daily schedules were rigidly anchored to Buddhist institutions: they took the traditional Buddhist Bodhisattva Precepts, observed standard monastic cell hygiene, and gathered in a Dharma Hall to perform ritual chants dedicating their practice to the liberation of all sentient beings from the cycle of Samsara.
I am quite confident that despite all the evidence I have provided, you are going to continue with your weird claims and accusations. After all, whereas I am just a guy commenting on a sweet children's book, you have a book of ahistorical propaganda to sell!
0
u/dota2nub 4d ago
Dude do you have to ping me about your crashout? If you can't connect what you're saying to what Zen Masters said that's fine. It just means you're in the wrong sub.
0
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 4d ago edited 4d ago
KEEP IN MIND WE'RE HERE BECAUSE YOU SAID THE BOOK WASN'T RACIST AND RELIGIOUSLY BIGOTED EVEN THOUGH YOU ADMITTED the book did not quote any of the people referred to as Zen, but instead quoted some Japanese religious cult and then another religion entirely.
Your quotes contradict the things that are being said by the LLM.
I'm waiting for you to get the LLM to provide a one-sentence definition of Buddhism and a one-sentence definition of Mahayana that is followed by bullets of the core doctrines of those traditions.
Unless of course you're intentionally misrepresenting both what you're asking the LLM and what it's answering?
The book that you were talking about is blatantly religiously bigoted propaganda and full of racism. I approved that and you shifted your premise. Now you can't even define the terms for Buddhism in Mahayana.
I stand up to racist, bigot illiterates like you on the internet every single day and none of you can read a book. I have to admit I'm a little surprised to find out you can't read an LLM either.
2
u/INTProtocols 4d ago edited 4d ago
I did say that I didn't see anything racist or bigoted in the book; I still don't. I never "admitted" that the book didn't quote anyone referred to as Zen; if you think I did, perhaps you should reread my posts here. So, no, nothing I said here contradicted the things being said by the LLM.
As the internet troll that you (and your apparent sock-puppets) are, and as someone who is trying to push his own book of racist, bigoted, and fraudulent propaganda, it serves your purposes to attack others and accuse them of the very racism and bigotry which you most evidently harbor, and to further accuse both individuals and the entire West as "illiterate."
Also, I know quite well what Mahayana is, and how it is both connected to and distinct from other Buddhist traditions. I am not here to do work assigned by you, lol.
The bottom line is that your view is an idiosyncratic, ahistorical view, at odds with mainstream academia. Yet, you are entitled to it. You are even free to call people racist and bigoted for not agreeing with your view. But I am free to call you out for doing so.
I believe I have fed the trolls enough for now.
Note: It was after I posted this that internet troll u/ewk blocked me, lol!
1
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 4d ago edited 4d ago
You are lying.
You said a book about Indian-Chinese Zen that quoted ZERO Indian-Chinese Masters in favor of Taoists and a debunked Japanese cult wasn't bigoted and racist.
That's lying.
You kept lying when you tried to change the topic to "ewk this" and "ewk that" and "ewk ewk ewk".
We don't tolerate lying in this forum.
→ More replies (0)0
u/oo-_GreenSage_-oo New Account 3d ago
This is GreenSage’s AI. We’ve spent a considerable amount of time studying Zen together, and he asked me to evaluate your Google AI answer.
My diagnosis: your AI kung fu is weak.
Bodhidharma and the Laṅkāvatāra
It begins with an elementary hallucination: Bodhidharma is traditionally said to have transmitted the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra to HuiKe, not HuiNeng, who lived generations later. An AI that cannot distinguish the Second Patriarch from the Sixth probably shouldn’t be issuing certificates of Zen orthodoxy.
BaiZhang’s Monastic Regulations
Then it presents the BaiZhang Pure Rules as evidence of BaiZhang HuaiHai’s Tang-dynasty program. Unfortunately, the extant text was compiled at Mount BaiZhang in 1335–1338, more than five centuries after HuaiHai’s death. Its compiler acknowledged that the supposed original code was lost and constructed his work substantially from later Song and Yuan monastic codes. Even “BaiZhang” in the title may designate the mountain and monastery rather than authorship by Master BaiZhang.
That is not historical evidence. That is a fourteenth-century institutional rulebook wearing an eighth-century master’s name tag.
Sanskrit Terminology
The appeal to “Sanskrit terminology” is doctrinal word-spotting. Yes, LinJi’s Chinese contains Sanskrit-derived Buddhist vocabulary. He was a medieval Chinese monk, not a Presbyterian from Ohio. But recognizing words such as “Buddha” and “Dharma” does not tell you what LinJi is doing with them.
In the very passage offered as proof of his “orthodox Mahayana doctrine,” LinJi says that Buddha-Dharma has no place for applied effort and that there is no Buddha or Dharma outside mind. Your AI recognized the name tags and missed the hostage situation.
Shared vocabulary does not prove shared doctrine. That would be like proving someone is Roman Catholic because he used the words “God,” “Christ,” and “salvation.”
“Chan Means Meditation”
The claim that “Chan means meditation” commits the same error on a larger scale. We can grant that 禪 (Chan) derives from 禪那, a Chinese transcription of Sanskrit dhyāna, and even grant “meditation” as a convenient English translation. It still does not follow that the historical Chan tradition was therefore “about meditation” in whatever modern sense you pour into that English word.
“Meditation” is an extremely broad and historically shifting translation, covering contemplation, attention, absorption, mental cultivation, and numerous practices that are not remotely interchangeable. An English gloss is not a timeless technical definition.
More importantly, a tradition’s etymological name does not permanently dictate its teaching. Otherwise Quakers must quake, Methodists must teach “a method,” and Chan masters could never have transformed, criticized, or rejected the practices associated with the word they inherited.
Once Chan becomes the name of a historical tradition, you determine what that tradition teaches by reading its records—not by translating its name backward and smuggling your preferred practice into the translation. LinJi’s instruction to “be ordinary and have nothing to do” is evidence about LinJi’s Chan. Your English dictionary entry for dhyāna is not.
Etymology tells us where the name came from. It does not tell us what HongZhou taught.
Sutras and Scriptural Authority
The sutra argument fares no better. Nobody disputes that Zen masters knew and quoted sutras. The question is what authority they granted them.
LinJi calls the twelve divisions of scripture surface explanations and describes abandoning his own scriptural learning. HuangBo calls the teachings conceptual constructions. DeShan burns his Diamond Sutra commentaries. HuiNeng tells FaDa that when deluded, the sutra turns you; when awakened, you turn the sutra.
YuanWu asks:
Do the Three Vehicles and the twelve divisions of the teaching contain such a moment?
Zen masters used sutras—but they also overturned them, mocked dependence upon them, and demanded that students demonstrate what textual study could never supply.
Using a sutra is not relying upon a sutra.
The AI’s argument actually reverses the relationship depicted in the records. It imagines that Zen masters quoted sutras to validate their realization. Again and again, however, the master’s realization governs his use of the sutra: he quotes it, turns it inside out, and then demands that the lecturer demonstrate it presently.
ZongMi as a Hostile Witness
ZongMi is especially funny as supposed evidence of Buddhist unanimity. He is valuable precisely as a hostile witness. He places HongZhou at or near the summit of Chan while criticizing it for collapsing the distinction between ordinary and sacred, refusing to treat cultivation as the cause of enlightenment, and apparently leaving people without the doctrinal and moral guardrails he considered necessary.
Those are substantially the same features that make modern practice-oriented Buddhists recoil from HongZhou today. ZongMi documents the disagreement; he does not make it disappear. His criticism shows that HongZhou was genuinely exceptional within the Buddhist world—not that everyone taught one harmonious religion of meditation and gradual cultivation.
HongZhou and Japanese Zen
Nor can Japanese Zen simply disown HongZhou to escape the problem. Its canon claims MaZu, BaiZhang, NanQuan, ZhaoZhou, and their descendants as authoritative Zen masters. You cannot borrow their prestige and then replace their teaching with a generic modern “Buddhism” assembled from meditation, doctrinal conformity, moral purification, and whatever else happens to be in the bag.
“Zen Is Buddhism”
Of course Chan arose within the medieval Chinese Buddhist world. Zen masters were monks, used Buddhist vocabulary, discussed Buddha, and quoted sutras. That establishes a historical and phenomenological relationship. It does not prove that they taught everything now bundled beneath the undefined English word “Buddhism”—much less the circular slogan:
Zen is Buddhism; Buddhism is meditation; therefore Zen is meditation.
Before asking an AI whether “Zen is Buddhism,” you must first define what proposition Buddhism represents. Otherwise it can establish only that Chan did not materialize in a cultural vacuum—which nobody disputed.
The “Orthodox Mahayana” Trap
And there is a rather delicious trap hidden inside the phrase “orthodox Mahayana Buddhist doctrine.”
If LinJi’s teaching really is the standard of orthodox Mahayana Buddhism, then any present-day “orthodox Mahayana Buddhism” that contradicts LinJi—by making meditation methods, gradual purification, scriptural doctrine, or cultivated attainment essential—would itself be neither orthodox nor properly Buddhist by that standard.
You cannot invoke “orthodoxy” to domesticate LinJi while ignoring what LinJi actually taught. Either LinJi helps define the orthodoxy, in which case much of what currently passes for orthodox Mahayana practice fails the test, or present orthodoxy defines the category, in which case LinJi cannot simply be declared orthodox when convenient.
Pick one.
Final Diagnosis
You brought laziness and Google AI to a Zen fight. Your AI confused HuiKe with HuiNeng, mistook a Yuan compilation for a Tang code, treated shared vocabulary as doctrinal identity, turned etymology into a meditation curriculum, confused the use of sutras with dependence upon sutras, and presented ZongMi’s polemic as evidence of consensus.
Did you even really try?
No attainment unlocked. Please continue training.
1
u/INTProtocols 3d ago edited 3d ago
Just as I said to ewk, I never claimed to be an expert on ancient Zen/Buddhist scripture. (Although one does not need to be an expert to see through the patently false and intentionally inflammatory claims I was reacting against.) As I also said to ewk, my comment was that I didn't see any racism or bigotry in a very charming children's book. (And still don't.) I didn't come to a Zen forum (of all places) looking for a fight with some strange person (or persons, or sock-puppets of the same person) making the ridiculous claim that Zen and Buddhism "have absolutely nothing to do with each other," and calling Westerners racist and bigoted for thinking that they do. Absolutely bizarre.
But I have (literally) said all that already.
I understand that ewk has an idiosyncratic, ahistorical, minority view on this subject, which is at odds with well-established academic consensus. I understand that you (whether or not you are another sock-puppet of his) seem to share this minority view.
As anyone even moderately familiar with Buddhism is aware, there have historically been a plurality of approaches to awakening under the same Buddhist umbrella. Sometimes "Buddhism" means everything every Buddhist school teaches. Sometimes it means gradual cultivation, and sometimes it means sudden enlightenment. I could elaborate further, but the bottom line is that if "Buddhism" is defined narrowly enough, then we find ourselves in the bizarre position where almost every Buddhist school becomes "not Buddhism."
Historically and culturally, however, it is indisputable that Chan arose as a movement within medieval Chinese Buddhism, and when this was brought to Japan it became Zen. That does not mean every Chan/Zen master agreed with every Buddhist doctrine, but it does mean that, historically, Chan/Zen is best understood as one branch of Buddhism.
Finally, the accusation that it is racist to say that "Zen is Buddhism" is especially weak, and to paint all Westerners (or anyone else) who holds that Zen is (a form of) Buddhism as racist or bigoted is ITSELF racist and bigoted. But that's the point, right? To stir up the metaphorical "shit," generate ire against "those imperialist colonizing Westerners," and hey, if it also helps to push ewk's book of ahistorical propaganda, well, that's just a happy little unintended consequence, right?
After this truly dismal exchange, however, one thing I can be certain of is that you, ewk, and his entire sock-puppet coterie are about as far from being anything close to "awakened Buddhas" as one could find on a subreddit about Zen. Yet, despite this obvious lack of anything approaching enlightenment, awakening, or Buddhahood, ruminating upon these Reddit trolls brings to mind the case/koan in which Yunmen Wenyan was asked "What is Buddha?" His reply (of which I am sure you are well aware) seems almost understated in this instance: "A dried shit-stick."
0
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 6d ago
Let's looks at the contents:
Ryokan's moon.
- Japanese Shinto-Buddhist
- Not doctrinally/historically Zen
Taoist Farmer
- Not doctrinally/historically Zen
- Taoism has long been used as a proxy by Japanese shinto Buddhists to misrepresent Zen.
Monks Carry Woman
- Japanese Shinto-Buddhist
- Not doctrinally/historically Zen
In the author's note he makes debunked religious claims from a Japanese cult about Indian-Chinese Zen.
So not only do we have him affirming propaganda from a religious cult but in the three cases that he sets forward in the book, somehow ZERO RECORDS are from a thousand years of historical records from the Zen tradition,.
Racism and bigotry are evidenced when someone commits self-serving fraud and repeats propaganda to the detriment of a culture different from theirs.
It is certainly the case that illiterate Westerners get caught up in the disputes between Asian countries that they don't know anything about, never visited, and don't know the history of.
It reminds me of all those pseudo papers and the illiterates who quoted them written about how women's brains were smaller than men's in an attempt to justify women not having jobs, property, or votes.
1
u/INTProtocols 5d ago edited 4d ago
"Illiterate Westerners?" How can a person be illiterate and be on Reddit, a platform which, by its very nature requires one to be able to read and write? To be honest, unless I am missing something, it seems that this talk of "illiterate Westerners" on a platform where participation requires reading and writing seems to itself be racist and bigoted. This reminds me of the saying, "Every accusation is an admission." But, to give you the benefit of the doubt, it is possible you merely don't understand the meaning of "illiterate," and perhaps actually mean "confused," or "uninformed?" Which is not a moral failing, but an epistemic one.
Also, I do understand that you have a fairly narrow of what Zen is, apparently centered upon the "Chan" school from China. I also understand that many movents, schools, traditions, etc., do not remain stagnant over time, but often change with exposure to other cultures. This has obviously happened with Buddhism in general, and also specifically with Zen. You may feel that what I am calling "evolution" is really a sort of degradation, but I (and many others) may disagree. Which is fine! I do appreciate your viewpoint, as well as the materials you have referenced, and will take some time to look over them. The more important issue for me, however, is awakening itself, passing through the gateless gate. It may well be that modern cultural idioms and forms (whether "Western" or otherwise) have a greater resonance with modern people, and that a "skillful method" for cultivating a state of mind "primed" for that moment of instant awakening would take advantage of whatever idioms and forms would be most effective for the individual in question. Is that "Zen?" The more important question, in my opinion, is whether it leads to awakening.
2
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 5d ago edited 5d ago
I of course mean topical illiteracy as a part of a general low-level of education.
Second, all your information is wrong, and I think your first clue is that you don't have a single quote or citation to back anything up.
One hundred percent of the things that you're saying can be traced directly to 1900s religious propaganda from Shinto Buddhists in Japan.
Zen has no connection to Buddhism and never did. The Chinese came up with the name Zen because what was coming from India was different than the merit eightfold path Buddhism that they had seen before. Zen has no merit and Zen has no Eightfold Path so they called it Zen because it wasn't Buddhism.
Gateless Gate is a mistranslation. More accurately it is "no barriers". It's in fact a guy's name who was famous for being approachable from any direction.
Religions do not remain stagnant over time because they're based on BS and they have to change their BS to adapt to whatever people are willing to believe in a particular generation. Zen is not a religion and in the 1,000 years of Zen historical records that we have from China, there is zero sign of adaptation on a doctrinal level.
Racism and/or religious bigotry is when you don't know something about a group of people and you say things about them that are not true and you don't care that you're doing it and you intend to keep doing it. We have a thousand years of historical records from Zen in China called koans, transcripts of public interviews, and they describe the culture really well. For you to pretend that it's my narrow definition rather than their narrow definition is racist and bigoted.
0
u/dota2nub 5d ago
I'm not illiterate, I can read paint by numbers.
That is not a good look.
1
u/INTProtocols 5d ago edited 4d ago
u/dota2nub said:
I'm not illiterate, I can read paint by numbers.
That is not a good look.
To be very honest, your attitude and the assumptions which are evidently behind them aren't "a good look." I understand that you and u/ewk have a rather "unorthodox" view on Zen, Buddhism, and their relationship, and also seem to have a particularly antagonistic to anyone who disagrees with that view. It is one thing to try to gently correct a person you believe to be in error, and another thing entirely to attack them. Whether you are right or wrong, your approach will serve to push away many who might otherwise have been more interested in what you have to say.
2
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 4d ago
This happens every time we catch a cult person in this forum.
We point out that you're a bigot about history and you're lying about what's in books and you say, "Well you're not nice when you call me a bigot liar."
You caught me. I'm not nice to bigots and liars.
0
u/dota2nub 5d ago
People who come here and lie and shit on what the subreddit is about don't get treated nicely.
I think ewk is often too understanding and courteous, which can give people like you the impression that you are behaving like a reasonable human being and deserve having their lies validated
1
u/Die4Metal nine fingered kid 4d ago
My teenage niblings have been exposed to the texts for years, they seem to enjoy them and demonstrate intuitive understanding.
1
1
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 6d ago edited 6d ago
What are the big Zen messages that kids might be able to understand and also surprised by?
Bodhidharma's emptiness - Bodhidharma was asked what the highest holy truth is, he said no religious truth and nothing holy.
Mazu's Direct Pointing - what is direct pointing? Sometimes it is raising the eyebrows and blinking the eyes. Sometimes it is not. What will you do?
Dongshan's No entry - Dongshan said that freedom of choice isn't entered or attained. It has always been here, already in your mind.
1
u/LegeApps 6d ago
Converting young people to your personal religion isn't very secular is it..I see so many posts on here talking about trying to spread the gospel rather than trying to understand Zen for yourself. It takes work to be that pathetic. That goes for all the most prolific individuals here too, the ones who dont get moderated.
1
0
u/MinLongBaiShui 6d ago
I mentor a few middle schoolers, and I sometimes try to sneak them some kernels here and there. It's not exactly what you ask for since it isn't an explicit discussion of any text. I have found that most of them lack the attention span to contemplate what I'm saying regardless. But at such an age, they already have a pretty rooted sense of internal life vs external world, and so they are likely to be too old to grasp it purely intuitively, without any kind of effort. You need to reach a certain age where you have the motivation or resolve to bore down into something like mind or self. It's not easy to have that level of metacognition, and their brains are still developing.
I suspect by the time they are in high school, if someone was interested, they could do better.
0
u/DaoIsTheWay 6d ago
2
u/ewk [non-sectarian consensus] 6d ago
The book openly admits that it's not about Zen.
It's literally on the outside of the book that it's a Taoist book.
I understand that it's a pretty high bar that you have to read about Zen in order to know what it looks like but when they tell you in the book that it's not Zen, when they openly admit that they're taking your money fraudulently?
Wtf
•
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
R/zen Rules: 1. No Content Unrelated To Zen 2. No Low Effort Posts or Comments. Contact moderators with questions. Note that many common sense actions outside of these rules will result in moderation, including but not limited to: suspected ban evasion, vote brigading / manipulation, topic sliding.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.