Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zen Buddhism and Alan Watts

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 154 posts

Re: Zen Buddhism and Alan Watts

#41

Post by quonn »

ThomPete wrote: post #37
nemo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a practice more than an analysis, so to do it you practice Zen exercises. The central exercise is meditation. Thinking about meditation is like thinking about push-ups. A little analysis helps to refine the form, but it's not the point.

Practice leads to Zen. Practice isn't Zen. But yeah otherwise i agree.

You will be hard pressed to find a Zen teacher who would deny that practise is Zen. It does certainly not "lead to Zen". E.g. "Enlightenment and Practise are one" (Dogen), "There is no Zen master in great (Sung) China", the frequent warnings against step-ladder Zen, the idea that Zen is not useful and nothing is gained, "there is only the way, beginning, middle and end" etc.

Re: Zen Buddhism and Alan Watts

#42

Post by derefr »

jvagner wrote: post #39
ajani wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I re-read the article. Nowhere is it clear that there is even an attempt at invalidating science. He really does seem to be trying to use science to shore up his ideas. Another excerpt: "This is the basis of Zen itself — that all life and existence is based on a kind of dynamic emptiness (a view now supported by modern science, which sees phenomena at a subatomic level popping in and out of existence in a ‘quantum fr…

There are spiritual observations that precede science. Saying that there isn't scientific evidence for anything is simplying stating that there isn't scientific evidence for something YET. And, showing how science has met spiritual observations, down the road, lends credence to the validity of the earliest explorations of existence.

> Saying that there isn't scientific evidence for anything is simplying stating that there isn't scientific evidence for something YET.

It can also be a weasel-y way of avoiding mentioning that there is plenty of scientific evidence favouring the null hypothesis when tested against that something. E.g. mind-reading.

Re: Zen Buddhism and Alan Watts

#43

Post by devuo »

yoodenvranx wrote: post #17
nabla9 wrote: post #11

"Well, there is Sitting Zen (zazen, meditation), there is Walking Zen. Oh, and then, of course, especially in the West, there is Talking Zen. No good." Many Zen practitioners have received their first contact with zen trough Alan Watts. He was really good writer. But eventually you must realize that he was philosopher, alcoholic and religions scholar who looked Zen from the outside. Talking and thinking about Zen is…

So how else do I do Zen? (That is a serious question!)

Read D.T Suzuki "Essays in Zen Buddhism"

Re: Zen Buddhism and Alan Watts

#44

Post by pond_lilly »

As usual, typical article about Zen always shies away from discussing Zen and Nazism? Especially Suzuki and others roles? Zen has a very dark side, apart from of course monks getting gangrene from sitting meditation.

Re: Zen Buddhism and Alan Watts

#45

Post by charliefg »

alvare wrote: post #32

Another unexpected philosopher used the term "double bind", if not in a more scientific way, but later meaning it in a broader sense; Gregory Bateson the anthropologist. Watts, Huxley, McKenna and Bateson are to me the most important readings a live could have.

If you've mentioned Bateson in the list with those other names then I will certainly look him up - thank you for that. I would also add Jung to that list (he was an influence on McKenna, as well as Watts).

Re: Zen Buddhism and Alan Watts

#48

Post by nabla9 »

yoodenvranx wrote: post #17
nabla9 wrote: post #11

"Well, there is Sitting Zen (zazen, meditation), there is Walking Zen. Oh, and then, of course, especially in the West, there is Talking Zen. No good." Many Zen practitioners have received their first contact with zen trough Alan Watts. He was really good writer. But eventually you must realize that he was philosopher, alcoholic and religions scholar who looked Zen from the outside. Talking and thinking about Zen is…

So how else do I do Zen? (That is a serious question!)

Zen is meditation first school of Buddhism. You must learn to do zazen (zen meditation). In other words, sit down and shut up. If you want to become Buddha, do what Buddha did and don't just listen and think about what he said.

I'm myself a Zen Buddhist, I train with a teacher and have spend time zen training in a zen temple and attend sesshins regularly. I'm also very secular and atheist person who don't like organized religion. It's miracle that I can coexist with religious setting, but I do it because I see Buddhsit Zen teachers as experienced coaches and temple as training facility. I also know that he is not going to indoctrinate me for anything superstitions despite his own beliefs that are different from mine (there are number of rotten zen teachers though).

If I were to describe what zazen meditation[1] is using as scientific terms as possible, I would say that it's developing and directing your attention towards higher temporal resolution and developing the ability of keeping it there (always below 1s and it can go as low as ~40 Hz). You can put your poet hat on and call it "living in this moment", "looking at the reality", "awakening to reality", "seeing the world as it really is", "impermanence" or "looking into yourself/mind", but that's what it really is in my opinion. You can't have complex philosophical toughs in such a short time. You can only see 'thoughtlets' (small incomplete toughs) forming and fading away in fractions of second. It's like using low level debugger into the functioning of yor mind (debugger being directed attention).

---

[1] Same thing with most other awareness style Buddhist meditation traditions. You learn to see similarities with other traditions when you practice. Zazen is often more spartan and simplified and vital (not for everyone).

Nice description of the differences between Zen and Vipassana styles by Shinzen Young http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WiM-w5qqmE

Re: Zen Buddhism and Alan Watts

#49

Post by Lambdanaut »

If you're interested in understanding zen but don't know where to start, "The Book" by Alan Watts is a fantastic SHORT read that will give you a powerful framework from which to build your meditative practice, and hopefully structure a happier, more fulfilling lifestyle.

To appeal to the western mind, here are some tangible benefits I have achieved(And you can too) through meditation and zen:

* More appreciation for small things

* Less stressed over everything

* Lower blood pressure

* Far better ability to focus (A cure for my ADD)

* Better ability to express myself rather than just playing social games that we don't even realize we're playing

* Being more of a completionist and caring for the things I work on

To name a few.

Meditating daily also increases the grey matter in your brain[1]. That alone was good enough reason for me to start my practice.

[1] http://www.neurobiologyofaging.org/article/S0197-4580(07)002...

Re: Zen Buddhism and Alan Watts

#50

Post by ajani »

jvagner wrote: post #39
ajani wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I re-read the article. Nowhere is it clear that there is even an attempt at invalidating science. He really does seem to be trying to use science to shore up his ideas. Another excerpt: "This is the basis of Zen itself — that all life and existence is based on a kind of dynamic emptiness (a view now supported by modern science, which sees phenomena at a subatomic level popping in and out of existence in a ‘quantum fr…

There are spiritual observations that precede science. Saying that there isn't scientific evidence for anything is simplying stating that there isn't scientific evidence for something YET. And, showing how science has met spiritual observations, down the road, lends credence to the validity of the earliest explorations of existence.

What you are saying is:

A: If an observation has no evidence, then the evidence is yet to come.

B: If an observation now has evidence, it validates the observation.

It's circular.

Post reply on HN