Zen and Now
While the Western world was setting out to discover a new way of thinking and a new way of exploring the Universe, the marriage of Taoism and Buddhism that begat Zen was already centuries old. Like all religions, Zen freezes doctrine and sets it beyond debate, investigation or refutation. Centuries ago, the dogma of Zen has become the property of revered masters. In Zen as in all other religions, thinking is handed over to the professionals, to defer to the "masters". Those who are interested in Zen are called disciples of the masters, not students. Masters are not teachers -- their role is to get the disciple to dismiss all theories, all experience, all problem solving. The Zen literature consistently places the disciple in the role of the fool -- a dramatic contrast to Western philosophy, founded by Socrates, who had a much more respectful attitude toward his students.
Of course dismissal of all human knowledge and all conceivable worldly goals this is a huge project, which explains why the literature (yes, the "scriptures") of Zen is so voluminous. There are, after all, quite a few ideas that need to be dismissed -- the Zen masters are hard-pressed to cope with the exponentially growing list of ideas, so it's understandable that they take the generic approach and simply dismiss all ideas except of course their own.
But now it's 2013. Many of the core ideas of Zen are due for a hard look.
For example, one of the core ideas of Taoism that is endlessly repeated by Zen masters is the idea that reality and talking about reality are two different things. The word and the thing are not the same. Duh. To a peasant in 12th century China, this would seem like a profound idea. Modern philosophy discusses this issue in far more detail with far more depth. See for example, Wittgenstein. Taoism and Zen constantly return to this point to support their dismissal of all discussion, all ideas, all knowledge expressed in words (and presumably mathematics, which is absent from these ancient philosophies).
Zen is fundamentally anti-Scientific, anti-skeptical. Most obviously, this conclusion can be reached by reading the endless rants against "mere" knowledge but more fundamentally, it comes from the dogmatic rejection of "mere" knowledge. One might also level an even more serious charge of intolerance, since "mere" knowledge is exactly where the opposition to Zen comes from. Within Zen, the opponents of the Zen dogma are dismissed without discussion or refutation as fools and zombies.
Of course, the idea that Zen is anti-skeptical is paradoxical, since skepticism is the very core of Zen. The Zen master will laugh this off and point to Zen as "the way of paradox". Paradox is also at the core of Zen.
As a mathematician, I'm quite used to paradox. Paradox points to the need to change our thinking -- to discover the boundaries of thought and push them out. This is especially true of paradoxes that rely entirely on language. Paradoxes are amusing and challenging. They are not to be left alone as the foundation of a philosophy. For example, we don't leave Zeno's paradox unchallenged. We step around it to create Calculus, the most powerful and useful branch of mathematics -- indispensable to all of modern physics (By the way, Quantum mechanics deals with paradoxes that seem to be built into the real world, not just the way we talk about it).
Zen claims to be simply a practice -- something you do without theories. Yet, the "masters" provide us with a vast literature supporting a metaphysical theory of mind that goes all the way back to the Hindu roots. Frankly, this is bullshit from the same pile as the (barely) rejected Buddhist metaphysics. The idea that it is somehow possible to escape the "mind" and visit a new level of glorious nothingness is preposterous. The language that the masters use to describe this new experience -- "God consciousness" or "Oneness with the Universe" -- gives away the metaphysical roots which are not supposed to be there in Zen. Zen is not supposed to have theories about Zen experience. In fact, the "masters" rule out all theories except their own and specifically rule out the need to support their theories by any means other than mere repetition.
If we want theories about what goes on in "mindfulness", we can look to neuroscience and scrap the metaphysics. I'm willing to bet that the "mind" is still ticking over even when the greatest Zen master is in the most intimate contact with nothingness.
There is a subtle assumption behind the Zen writings about the importance of the Zen practice and theory. People who do not get with the Zen program are described as zombies. All religions attempt (usually without practical success) to push the priority of religious practice ahead of "worldly" things like finding something to eat, looking after security etc. Usually, some metaphysical justification is offered, which invariably dismisses conventional "reality" in favour of something that is somehow more real. For example, we may be promised a better break in the next reincarnation or bliss in Heaven (which is just a way of saying we only get reincarnated once). Zen offers us a chance to live one life with the default being no life at all. To access this "real" life, we must toss out all the concerns of ordinary life (as with all the other religions). Officially, Zen preempts all other concerns but offers no reason for it. In fact, practice of Zen for a purpose is specifically ruled out. This leaves us with the obvious question of why to fool with Zen at all? The Zen answer seems to be "why not" I think there may be a good reason, but it will put Zen on the level of healthy diet and exercise, very much like the marriage of yuppie Yoga and physiotherapy.
Zen (and it's ancestor Buddhism) does have something to say about a useful and healthy state of mind called "mindfulness". Zen does remove a lot of metaphysical clutter -- such ideas as the Biblical concept of God, Karma, Reincarnation are set aside (but still seem to be banging on the door wanting to be re-admitted). The Zen practitioner has permission to toss out metaphysics and just incorporate mindfulness in his life. Reading of the "literature", use of the terminology, recitation of the anti-thought rant is not compulsory. In fact, it seems that you could adopt the practice of mindfulness and plug in a totally different pack of metaphysical bullshit (such as the Christian one or Nazi theories of history for example) and still find mindfulness useful. In my own case, I plan to "plug in" the world view advocated in this blog, which specifically takes a skeptical view of all metaphysics but still identifies with the values of the Christian tradition. The word "Zen" is so commonly mis-used that its mis-used meaning is quite useful. Otherwise I'd use a term like "brain yoga".
Through the Taoist and Buddhist roots, mindfulness is connected to a scheme of ethics -- the branch philosophy the answers the question of virtue: "What sort of person should I be?". Of course, this question has survived the advent of Science and still remains an important concern. I've met a lot of people raised in the Western traditions that imagine that Taoism and/or Buddhism and/or Zen have the solution to this fundamental problem. I'm sure there are exceptions, but, to me, these people arrive at their respect for the ancient philosophies by tossing out or ignoring 99% of the ancient "wisdom". This is exactly what goes on with those who claim the Bible has the solution to all our problems. In fact, the Bible has a few exceptional ideas a lot of very, very bad ones. At first glance, Zen (as "brain yoga") does seem to directly imply a few changes to the way I behave on a daily basis. I'll let you know how this turns out.
Of course dismissal of all human knowledge and all conceivable worldly goals this is a huge project, which explains why the literature (yes, the "scriptures") of Zen is so voluminous. There are, after all, quite a few ideas that need to be dismissed -- the Zen masters are hard-pressed to cope with the exponentially growing list of ideas, so it's understandable that they take the generic approach and simply dismiss all ideas except of course their own.
But now it's 2013. Many of the core ideas of Zen are due for a hard look.
For example, one of the core ideas of Taoism that is endlessly repeated by Zen masters is the idea that reality and talking about reality are two different things. The word and the thing are not the same. Duh. To a peasant in 12th century China, this would seem like a profound idea. Modern philosophy discusses this issue in far more detail with far more depth. See for example, Wittgenstein. Taoism and Zen constantly return to this point to support their dismissal of all discussion, all ideas, all knowledge expressed in words (and presumably mathematics, which is absent from these ancient philosophies).
Zen is fundamentally anti-Scientific, anti-skeptical. Most obviously, this conclusion can be reached by reading the endless rants against "mere" knowledge but more fundamentally, it comes from the dogmatic rejection of "mere" knowledge. One might also level an even more serious charge of intolerance, since "mere" knowledge is exactly where the opposition to Zen comes from. Within Zen, the opponents of the Zen dogma are dismissed without discussion or refutation as fools and zombies.
Of course, the idea that Zen is anti-skeptical is paradoxical, since skepticism is the very core of Zen. The Zen master will laugh this off and point to Zen as "the way of paradox". Paradox is also at the core of Zen.
As a mathematician, I'm quite used to paradox. Paradox points to the need to change our thinking -- to discover the boundaries of thought and push them out. This is especially true of paradoxes that rely entirely on language. Paradoxes are amusing and challenging. They are not to be left alone as the foundation of a philosophy. For example, we don't leave Zeno's paradox unchallenged. We step around it to create Calculus, the most powerful and useful branch of mathematics -- indispensable to all of modern physics (By the way, Quantum mechanics deals with paradoxes that seem to be built into the real world, not just the way we talk about it).
Zen claims to be simply a practice -- something you do without theories. Yet, the "masters" provide us with a vast literature supporting a metaphysical theory of mind that goes all the way back to the Hindu roots. Frankly, this is bullshit from the same pile as the (barely) rejected Buddhist metaphysics. The idea that it is somehow possible to escape the "mind" and visit a new level of glorious nothingness is preposterous. The language that the masters use to describe this new experience -- "God consciousness" or "Oneness with the Universe" -- gives away the metaphysical roots which are not supposed to be there in Zen. Zen is not supposed to have theories about Zen experience. In fact, the "masters" rule out all theories except their own and specifically rule out the need to support their theories by any means other than mere repetition.
If we want theories about what goes on in "mindfulness", we can look to neuroscience and scrap the metaphysics. I'm willing to bet that the "mind" is still ticking over even when the greatest Zen master is in the most intimate contact with nothingness.
There is a subtle assumption behind the Zen writings about the importance of the Zen practice and theory. People who do not get with the Zen program are described as zombies. All religions attempt (usually without practical success) to push the priority of religious practice ahead of "worldly" things like finding something to eat, looking after security etc. Usually, some metaphysical justification is offered, which invariably dismisses conventional "reality" in favour of something that is somehow more real. For example, we may be promised a better break in the next reincarnation or bliss in Heaven (which is just a way of saying we only get reincarnated once). Zen offers us a chance to live one life with the default being no life at all. To access this "real" life, we must toss out all the concerns of ordinary life (as with all the other religions). Officially, Zen preempts all other concerns but offers no reason for it. In fact, practice of Zen for a purpose is specifically ruled out. This leaves us with the obvious question of why to fool with Zen at all? The Zen answer seems to be "why not" I think there may be a good reason, but it will put Zen on the level of healthy diet and exercise, very much like the marriage of yuppie Yoga and physiotherapy.
Zen (and it's ancestor Buddhism) does have something to say about a useful and healthy state of mind called "mindfulness". Zen does remove a lot of metaphysical clutter -- such ideas as the Biblical concept of God, Karma, Reincarnation are set aside (but still seem to be banging on the door wanting to be re-admitted). The Zen practitioner has permission to toss out metaphysics and just incorporate mindfulness in his life. Reading of the "literature", use of the terminology, recitation of the anti-thought rant is not compulsory. In fact, it seems that you could adopt the practice of mindfulness and plug in a totally different pack of metaphysical bullshit (such as the Christian one or Nazi theories of history for example) and still find mindfulness useful. In my own case, I plan to "plug in" the world view advocated in this blog, which specifically takes a skeptical view of all metaphysics but still identifies with the values of the Christian tradition. The word "Zen" is so commonly mis-used that its mis-used meaning is quite useful. Otherwise I'd use a term like "brain yoga".
Through the Taoist and Buddhist roots, mindfulness is connected to a scheme of ethics -- the branch philosophy the answers the question of virtue: "What sort of person should I be?". Of course, this question has survived the advent of Science and still remains an important concern. I've met a lot of people raised in the Western traditions that imagine that Taoism and/or Buddhism and/or Zen have the solution to this fundamental problem. I'm sure there are exceptions, but, to me, these people arrive at their respect for the ancient philosophies by tossing out or ignoring 99% of the ancient "wisdom". This is exactly what goes on with those who claim the Bible has the solution to all our problems. In fact, the Bible has a few exceptional ideas a lot of very, very bad ones. At first glance, Zen (as "brain yoga") does seem to directly imply a few changes to the way I behave on a daily basis. I'll let you know how this turns out.
Comments
Post a Comment