It's hardly Buddhism or Zen

If I were young again, say about twenty, Zen and Buddhism would bore the hell out of me.  Buddhism and especially Zen have become over the  years—let’s face it—a self-help cult.  And that really bores the hell out of me.  

I thank the gods that I got turned onto Zen in the early 60s.  That was back before the psychologists got their hands on it, including the self-helpers.  Zen, especially, was still in the category of mysticism.  A person interested in Zen Buddhism went in search of enlightenment—not a psychologist in robes, aka, Mr. Roshi.

The present state of Buddhism in the West, including Zen, is hardly Buddhism or Zen.  And maybe this explains why it is so boring.  There isn’t a Buddhist blog or a nonacademic Buddhist publication in which I can’t find a number of factual errors—some of them quite bad the most egregious being that the Buddha categorically denied the self despite the fact that the entire Mahaparinirvana Sutra is dedicated to a Buddhist atman!

Westerners who decide to take up Buddhism are mainly responsible for both Buddhism and Zen going downhill at such a rapid rate.  The problem is, they have a kind of God complex.  They think they’re entitled to alter what the Buddha said or ignore as much of the Buddha’s teaching as they so desire and still call themselves Buddhists.  

It’s the God complex side of this matter that irks me the most.  It is fairly easy to correct wrong opinions, factual errors, and misstatements with actual citations from the Buddhist canon.  It ain’t so easy to correct personality disorders such as, for example, psychopathy which tends to be found in our prisons and in the top levels of corporations—and yes, even in Buddhism.  But this aside, why do Westerners think they are entitled to change Buddhism around—or Zen—to fit with their often crazy ideas of reality?

So far I have seen these changes in Buddhism which have nothing to do with Buddhism.  (Needless to say there are more, but this is all I could come up with for now.)

1.  Buddhism is agnostic. (No it ain’t.)

2.  Buddhism follows the main tenets of physicalism and the physical sciences. (Really? Boy that is news to me.  Let’s have some citations as proof.)

3.  Buddhism doesn’t believe in a self? (Then why did the Buddha in the Pali canon call the self the noble witness?)

4.  The world of samsara is really nirvana (Oh boy, here we go again.  In the Vishesacintabrahmapariprcca Sutra it says: “Samsara is Nirvana, because there is, when viewed from the ultimate nature of the Dharmakâya, nothing going out of, nor coming into, existence, [samsara being only apparent]: Nirvana is samsara, when it is coveted and adhered to.”)

5.  We already have the Buddha-nature (i.e., we are Buddhas). (According to the Mahaparinirvana Sutra sentient beings only have the Buddha-nature potentially in the example of cream that can be made into butter with the right process.) 

6.  We must sit in zazen because Shakyamuni sat in zazen for six years before he became awakened (No he didn’t.  For six years he practiced austerities (i.e., tapas) with five ascetics which didn’t work.)

7.  Practicing awareness is basically what Buddhism is about. (Sorry, not true.  Fundamentally it is about being aware of the luminous or pure Mind; of getting in phase with it instead of being always in phase with samsara.  This isn’t easy to do.)

Comments

[Capt.Knuckle&Flapjack]

Capt. Knuckle found a new book on amazon.com. Super-demon-trash at its finest!

Title: "No Self No Problem"

Product Description:
No Self No Problem is about how to realize the ultimate meaning of life in each moment by dissolving all notions of ego identity. Based on the Buddhist wisdom tradition, this easy-to-read book discusses in simple but profound and inspiring language how we can live a life full of love, satisfaction, and happiness.

http://www.amazon.com/No-Self-Problem-Anam-Thubten/dp/1559393262/ref=tag_gam_gamw_edpp_url

Hurray, more super-crap from super-'buddhism', a magnet for materialistic no-soul demons.

(insert vomit here)

[Huanshen]

In my humble opinion, agnosticism doesn't mean anything in the context of ancient India.

The words gnostic, gnosis, knowledge, prajna or jnana all come from the same common Indo-European root "jna", which means mystical or intuitive knowledge in Sanskrit.

Buddhism is based on prajna or gnosis and is therefore gnostic and not a-gnostic.

Plotinius respected the gods but considered that the "One" was beyond. Same for the Buddha's Nirvana.

Was Plotinus agnostic? I also doubt.

[jack]

Nice article. I enjoyed reading it. Not to sure I agree with the agnostic part. Buddhism always seemed purely agnostic when it came to higher or omnipresent powers. Not saying that what you wrote is incorrect but it seemed that much of what I have read in the sutras usually discounts "god" as being at best unimportant to buddhism or ignores the topic completely. That seems pretty much soft agnostism to me.

Number 2 baffles me. When and who states that buddhism follows physical sciences. I would also love to see some citations on that.

This is my first venture onto this blog, I am looking forward to reading more.

For the record buddhism has no place being mystic or self help.

no illusions,

[Capt.Knuckle&Flapjack]

Flapjack begrudgingly hands the zennist author a blueberry doughnut for producing a quality article. (sic)