• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Zen without Buddhism?

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
Does Zen make any sense without Buddhism?

Some folks claim to practice Zen without being Buddhists. They may or may not call themselves "Zennists". Where do we draw the line between Zen and Buddhism such that we could distinguish?

Does it come down to ethical precepts? Some may say that if we maintain mindfulness then the precepts will maintain themselves. Personally, my practice becomes very uptight and idealistic whenever I fixate too much on the precepts, especially the Five Mindfulness Trainings. There's something about making certain things an absolute moral imperative that also makes them that much more tempting to break. For example, I was only able to stop binge drinking alcohol once I stopped treating it like a moral crusade. Now I can just let it go.

Does it come down to the practice of meditation without the fixation on Buddhist philosophy? Do Zennists not agree with particular Buddhist teachings? What's the deal?
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
Why do you think one requires or precludes the other? Can't each stand on their own, or be enhanced by the other?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Does Zen make any sense without Buddhism?

Some folks claim to practice Zen without being Buddhists. They may or may not call themselves "Zennists". Where do we draw the line between Zen and Buddhism such that we could distinguish?

Does it come down to ethical precepts? Some may say that if we maintain mindfulness then the precepts will maintain themselves. Personally, my practice becomes very uptight and idealistic whenever I fixate too much on the precepts, especially the Five Mindfulness Trainings. There's something about making certain things an absolute moral imperative that also makes them that much more tempting to break. For example, I was only able to stop binge drinking alcohol once I stopped treating it like a moral crusade. Now I can just let it go.

Does it come down to the practice of meditation without the fixation on Buddhist philosophy? Do Zennists not agree with particular Buddhist teachings? What's the deal?


Zen barely qualifies as Buddhism as I view it. Yet it's still enough to remain as being recognized as Buddhist dharma and as Mayahana.

So far the four noble truths and eightfold paths have not been compromised as far as I can determine, nor that of the many sutras by which my personal practice happens to focus upon the Heart Sutra as a result of realisation amongst the various teachings of Dogen as well as many others. I consider any philosophy or nuance that arises from Zen practices as the flowering of dharma, some of which reflects traditional paths and some of the contemporary which may not be as reflective.

Suzuki Roshi was noted as saying, "Formal practice, informal mind."

Because of that, I center through the experiential guidence brought about via Zazen, for which life in general remains undifferentiated from practice itself.

Oftentimes I just end up ignoring written scriptures as being representive of what Buddhism actually is, and ought to be, rather favoring more towards what others had themselves experienced and learned, reflecting and comparing from my own experiences through the common foundational ground of all Buddhist masters and teachers through the writings that they themselves put forth as Buddhist dharma and applying it as my own.

I think it's been that way for a fairly long time now.
 

Wu Wei

ursus senum severiorum and ex-Bisy Backson
Define Zen.

Zen/Chan is a sect of Buddhism so in that sense no, you cannot separate them.

But in the 20th and 21st century Zen has taken on a different and separate meaning, much of which, IMHO, is a misconception. However based on that misconception Zen is not Buddhism. There is an awful lot of "non-buddhist" mindfulness training out there.... but where did it come from in the first place....

But then if one listens to the Buddha..... what isn't Buddhism.
 

Banjankri

Active Member
If everything we do is Zen...
Zen what?
I will continue with what Bodhidharma said in his sermons:
"Buddha is Sanskrit for what you call aware, miraculously aware. Responding, arching your brows blinking your eyes, moving your hands and feet, its all your miraculously aware nature. And this nature is the mind. And the mind is the Buddha. And the Buddha is the path. And the path is Zen. But the word Zen is one that remains a puzzle to both mortals and sages. Seeing your nature is Zen. Unless you see your nature, it’s not Zen."
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
As far as I know Zen cannot be conceptualized, whatever we come up with isn't that which IS, so Buddhism or whatever belief system means nothing whatsoever, because again, that cannot ever be what IS.
 

Kartari

Active Member
Hi Straw Dog,

Does Zen make any sense without Buddhism?

Imo, no it does not. Though it is practical to refer to Zen as a Buddhist sect, Dogen actually deplored the notion of a separate Zen sect. He considered his teachings to be the Buddha Dharma, as originally passed down by Shakyamuni himself from master to disciple over the centuries. And Eisai was an eclectic Buddhist who never abandoned his esoteric Tendai Buddhist roots as he opened Zen centers in Japan. So, if the founders of Soto and Rinzai Zen did not distinguish Zen as separate from Buddhism, my opinion is to defer to their judgment.

Some folks claim to practice Zen without being Buddhists. They may or may not call themselves "Zennists". Where do we draw the line between Zen and Buddhism such that we could distinguish?

Historically, Zen is distinguished from other Buddhist schools by its emphasis on seated meditation practice, valuing experiential attainment over conceptual understanding. It's not that other elements (e.g. esoteric ritual) did not exist within Zen tradition (e.g. esoteric ritual was particularly prominent in early Rinzai, and also existed in Soto). But I think it simply comes down to this emphasis.

Does it come down to ethical precepts? Some may say that if we maintain mindfulness then the precepts will maintain themselves. Personally, my practice becomes very uptight and idealistic whenever I fixate too much on the precepts, especially the Five Mindfulness Trainings. There's something about making certain things an absolute moral imperative that also makes them that much more tempting to break. For example, I was only able to stop binge drinking alcohol once I stopped treating it like a moral crusade. Now I can just let it go.

I can understand where you're coming from, and I personally believe the same. However, Dogen and Eisai both avowed to adhere to the stricter Vinaya (Theravada) precepts as well as the more interpretive Boddhisattva (Mahayana) precepts, with Eisai particularly emphasizing the need to strictly adhere to said moral precepts. To put his push for strict adherence into fair context, however, Eisai faced a highly corrupt Buddhist institution in his time, where moral precepts were not often taken very seriously; his efforts to strengthen moral precepts were a means to reform the Buddhist institution.

Does it come down to the practice of meditation without the fixation on Buddhist philosophy? Do Zennists not agree with particular Buddhist teachings? What's the deal?

I can only speak for the first question, since I am neither a self-described "Zennist" nor am I entirely familiar with what that means, exactly.

In a word, the answer imo is... yes.

A few more words to clarify though. I do not think Zen's founders intended to do away with Buddhist philosophical concepts, especially since Dogen was particularly fond of lecturing and writing about them. Indeed, Dogen wrote at great length about koans, offering volumes on their analysis. Imo, they instead simply intended to make it clear that intellectual understanding is not at all enlightenment or a means to it, that enlightenment can only be attained experientially via a sincere and diligent meditation practice.
 

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
Hi psychoslice,

As far as I know Zen cannot be conceptualized, whatever we come up with isn't that which IS, so Buddhism or whatever belief system means nothing whatsoever, because again, that cannot ever be what IS.

Would you say that Being is originally undifferentiated? That it only becomes 'divided' through the process of conceptualization?
 

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
I will continue with what Bodhidharma said in his sermons:
"Buddha is Sanskrit for what you call aware, miraculously aware. Responding, arching your brows blinking your eyes, moving your hands and feet, its all your miraculously aware nature. And this nature is the mind. And the mind is the Buddha. And the Buddha is the path. And the path is Zen. But the word Zen is one that remains a puzzle to both mortals and sages. Seeing your nature is Zen. Unless you see your nature, it’s not Zen."

'Zen', like 'Tao', is a way of indicating without necessarily naming. Watching with one's entire being requires the realization of emptiness in all faculties. When all faculties are empty, one's heart fills with light.
 

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
Hi Kartari,

A few more words to clarify though. I do not think Zen's founders intended to do away with Buddhist philosophical concepts, especially since Dogen was particularly fond of lecturing and writing about them. Indeed, Dogen wrote at great length about koans, offering volumes on their analysis. Imo, they instead simply intended to make it clear that intellectual understanding is not at all enlightenment or a means to it, that enlightenment can only be attained experientially via a sincere and diligent meditation practice.

Thanks for sharing!

I probably have an irrational aversion to commitment and moral authority. There's no confusion during actual practice or whenever I'm simply playing. Things only get messy whenever I try to jam the vastness of experience into a particular filing cabinet. The intellect only seeks to satisfy its own fascination. It's kind of a deer-in-the-headlights scenario. Exploring the quality of experience directly and expressing our original nature goes beyond conceptual interpretation. To fixate too much upon the analysis of words and concepts is like examining a snakeskin from which the living truth has already overgrown and moved on. Intellectual understanding is not a very reliable guide. Zen is post-intellectual.
 

Banjankri

Active Member
'Zen', like 'Tao', is a way of indicating without necessarily naming. Watching with one's entire being requires the realization of emptiness in all faculties. When all faculties are empty, one's heart fills with light.
I think it's something simpler then this. I would go as far as removing all requirements. Responding, blinking, moving your feet, does not require anything. I mean, you can do it intentionally, but it's not required.
We can say "I am" to indicate our being, but when we look at it closer, we will see that everything, every experience indicates the same. That we are. Everything is presence before the mind, which itself is an empty mystery, the Buddha.
Ignorance starts when, lured by forms, thoughts create intention for becoming. This intention requires action, which is believed to be achieved through effort, which requires stress.That is Dukkha.
Nevertheless, everything is always manifestation of this miraculously aware nature. Sounds that I hear, feelings that I have, or thoughts in my head, they all are saying the same thing, that I am. It becomes obvious that the path doesn't need effort and stress, because it's perfect: "The Way is basically perfect. It doesn’t require perfecting." - Bodhidharma.

Zen is basically free from Buddhism, because Buddha is free from it. Buddhism is just another appearance, like music that one hears, but the difference is, it points to Buddha through meaning and practice. It's true for all sects, not only Zen.
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
Hi psychoslice,



Would you say that Being is originally undifferentiated? That it only becomes 'divided' through the process of conceptualization?

Yes the mind divides, and in some ways that is its job, so as to live our life as a so called human being, its only when we forget that we are truly One with the Source that we then suffer.
 
Top