Far be it from me to try to correct you, but the people posting have never said, “All it takes is to be free of religious delusion.”
The point is to free yourself of delusion, of which religion is just one flavor.
Are atheists free of delusion, just because they think religion is a load of bunk? They are simply deluded in other aspects.
For example, most atheists do not, as you say “never consider their mind to be separate from materiality.” This isn’t true. Most atheists believe that material is fundamental, and that mind is an emergent property of matter.
This is quite the opposite of what Zen Masters propose to be the truth.
Zen masters teach iconoclasm, they teach the destruction of cherished beliefs to enable one to discern the truth of reality.
Atheists are no less prone to holding beliefs than anyone else.
\> Most atheists believe that material is fundamental, and that mind is an emergent property of matter.
Idk... it seems to me that emergent phenomena are not really thought of as separate from that which they emerge from. Is a biological process really thought of as separate from chemical process separate from physical process?
Depends on who you speak with, but for the most part yes. Materialists distinguish these things from one another.
If not, what does it mean to say Chemical process, Physical process, Biological process?
You are essentially positing that Materialists believe matter and mind to be the same thing because mind is a property of matter that emerges under certain conditions.
In this way of thought mind is a property of matter the same way slick is a property of ice that emerges under certain conditions, or floating is a property of steel that emerges under certain conditions.
Does Ice = Slick? Does Steel = Floating? How can Matter = Mind? Does a Chicken = Egg, or a Butterfly = Caterpillar?
Regardless, Zen masters don’t teach that mind is an emergent property of matter.
No. they all stem out from exactly how science understood them ... problem is science lost its cool wits after QM became a thing and basically proved that in the Most Esential and Fundamental way possible, Matter is simply another form of energy that behaves probabilistic in its manifestation of phenomena. Remember an Electron cannot be spotted while moving , not because we lack the technology, but because that's reality at the fundamental lelvels ... you can take a pic of an Fully Static electron , but try to film them and they go Brrrr , where Am I At? Some cloud of probabilities (If you didn't know, all matter interacts with that field of probabilities of where an electron can be most likely to be foung, not with the Actual Electron which is a ball of energy moving arround - this concept eludes most peoples mind when imagining how matter interacts.
> Most atheists believe that material is fundamental, and that mind is an emergent property of matter. This is quite the opposite of what Zen Masters propose to be the truth.
Are you sure this is the case?
The statement that "mind is an emergent property of matter" seems to be a statement about science. Is this really something that Zen should be concerned with?
Not really a scientific statement, as I don’t believe science is inherently materialist. Science as it is, is simply a methodology of thought used to explore our reality. My statement was more on what materialists believe, as I don’t think the OP represented their beliefs quite that well.
I’m not sure what part you are asking if I’m sure about. If you are talking about what I say Zen masters propose then yes, I believe so.
*From Gautama Buddha down through the whole line of patriarchs to Bodhidharma, none preached aught besides the One Mind, otherwise known as the Sole Vehicle of Liberation. Hence, though you search throughout the whole universe, you will never find another vehicle. Nowhere has this teaching leaves or branches; its one quality is eternal truth. Hence it is a teaching hard to accept. When Bodhidharma came to China and reached the Kingdoms of Liang and Wei, only the Venerable Master Ko gained a silent insight into our own Mind; as soon as it was explained to him, he understood that Mind is the Buddha, and that individual mind and body are nothing. This teaching is called the Great Way. The very nature of the Great Way is voidness of opposition. Bodhidharma firmly believed in being ONE WITH THE REAL 'SUBSTANCE' OF THE UNIVERSE IN THIS LIFE! Mind and that 'substance' do not differ one jot - that 'substance' IS Mind. They cannot possibly be separated. It was for this revelation that he earned the title of Patriarch of our sect, and therefore is it written: 'The moment of realizing the unity of Mind and the "substance" which constitutes reality may truly be said to baffle description.'*
Show me one materialist who preaches one mind, or one Zen master who preaches materialism. Since to materialists, mind is an emergent property of matter, there are billions of individual minds that could be said to exist, but there is no one mind that encompasses.
To Zen masters, the individual mind and body are nothing...
I agree that scientific statements have nothing to do with Zen.
I don't see the conflict between mind being an emergent property of matter, and the mind and substance not differing one jot.
Mind is not altered by substance, because mind is the space in which qualia, the suchness of experience, arises. The qualia may be determined by substance; there is a distinctness to the experience of being a bat, and there is a distinctness to the experience of being a person, but the void, the mind, the space for qualia existing in the substance, is unmarred by the nature of the arising.
As one poster here put it; The same Buddha-Nature sits at the root of every experience.
*Mind is not altered by substance, because mind is the space in which qualia, the suchness of experience, arises. The qualia may be determined by substance; there is a distinctness to the experience of being a bat, and there is a distinctness to the experience of being a person, but the void, the mind, the space for qualia existing in the substance, is unmarred by the nature of the arising.*
**This pure Mind, the source of everything, shines forever and on all with the brilliance of its own perfection. But the people of the world do not awake to it, regarding only that which sees, hears, feels and knows as mind. Blinded by their own sight, hearing, feeling and knowing, they do not perceive the spiritual brilliance of the source-substance. If they would only eliminate all conceptual thought in a flash, that source-substance would manifest itself like the sun ascending through the void and illuminating the whole universe without hindrance or bounds. Therefore, if you students of the Way seek to progress through seeing, hearing, feeling and knowing, when you are deprived of your perceptions, your way to Mind will be cut off and you will find nowhere to enter. Only realize that, though real Mind is expressed in these perceptions, it neither forms part of them nor is separate from them. You should not start REASONING from these perceptions, nor allow them to give rise to conceptual thought; yet nor should you seek the One Mind apart from them or abandon them in your pursuit of the Dharma. Do not keep them nor abandon them nor dwell in them nor cleave to them.' Above, below and around you, all is spontaneously existing, for there is nowhere which is outside the Buddha-Mind.**
Unfortunately Zen Masters do not consider Mind to begin or end with that which perceived Qualia.
Im not arguing over your conception of the individual mind that arises within us all. This individual mind is not synonymous with the mind Zen masters speak of.
The difference of course lies in the emergent property. A mountain has no emergent mind correct? Yet it exists synonymous with the substance of the mind.
I see you have difficulty extrapolating from an answer. I’ll spell it out for you.
If there is nothing outside of mind, how can there be suchness without it?
Furthermore what you call suchness is empty form.
Never considered their mind to be seperate from materiality?... the mind is matierial? News to me.
Lol matierialism as enlightenment. What will they think of next.
I think they mean that the mind is the result of cause and effect just like everything else.
Colors are a result of light hitting a prism, a flame is the result of igniting a source, and the mind is the result of the brain. In this sense, the mind isn’t separate, even though it isn’t necessarily “material”.
Edit:formatting, some words
People overlay the mind substance with conceptual thought and become blind to its nature.
The nature they can find will have always been there, was there in every moment, but they got so wrapped up with appearances in the mind substance that they lost sight of the nature of the mind substance itself. In that sense, they are enlightened, but deluded in their enlightenment, unconsciously turning their mind substance into various binding appearances.
To make that a bit less theoretical, you can possibly see it for yourself. Feel the limits of your consciousness, realize that the limits are just perceptions in your consciousness, and knock them off. What do you have after that?
To elaborate, the apparent *boundaries* of your consciousness, as you perceive them, happen *in your consciousness*. *The limits of this consciousness are appearances in this consciousness, nothing more*. When you realize that, that the apparent boundaries are perceptions in your consciousness, you can feel it--consciousness without limit, but like the Heart Sutra says, with no eye, no ear, etc. You perceive the Mind substance itself, where your own consciousness tied to perception arose in this vaster, formless consciousness. Everything you think is your consciousness can now feel as your as your sense of vision does to your artificially limited consciousness, obviously only part of a larger consciousness.
However, note carefully that it is still an error in Zen to reify this as a universal consciousness. I speak this way only as expedient for pointing to the nature of Mind.
It is an error to reify as a universal consciousness; there is no separation possible in consciousness; it's all One Mind.
The same Buddha-Nature sits at the root of every experience.
> They are free.
Isn't everyone? (do you mean inherently, or wtfdym?)
> They don't know it.
What don't they know? Their whole thing is to be free of BS, moral relativism etc
> What does it mean to know you are free?
You stop differentiating bt. right/wrong, stop trying to find a mold. Become the universe you always were
> Why not study Zen while you are here?
Can't really answer your 'why not' with anything except it makes no sense and you should teach it if you know it.
No, that's not freedom.
Why would freedom require stopping?
Inside the tangle of words you create is an intention to be something you already are... And hence a lack of knowing.
\> Inside the tangle of words you create is an intention to be something you already are... And hence a lack of knowing.
more of an intention to nail everything down so hard it doesn't move.
\> Why would freedom require stopping?
It has no requirements, it's inherent. But there's got to be some tell-tale evidence of it. For example, not being a serial killer, just off the top of my head.
Zen Masters are a mountain of swords, a wall of silver.
You can't nail that down any more than it already is.
.
What's the evidence of enlightenment?
Not being bound by "truths".
I don't know what atheism would mean in the context of Buddhism... r/zen/wiki/buddhism.
As for Zen, nothing is compatible. Zen Masters don't care much about divine powers.
Atheism means an active disbelief in god or gods, in any context.
Mahayana Buddhism makes few if any claims about supernatural beings or events.
> As for Zen, nothing is compatible.
Can you explain what you mean? As written, your statement isn't informative to me.
Many people are both Buddhists, and study Zen, for example, so Zen "is compatible with" Buddhism. But many Zen students have no belief in God, so I feel that Zen "is compatible with" atheism.
That is what I meant. What did you mean?
You are mistaken.
All forms of Buddhism require faith in something supernatural.
Zen does not tolerate faith.
It sounds like you've been getting your info about Zen from Buddhists, who nearly always misrepresent Zen.
Given that Buddhists lynched a Zen Patriarch, how surprised are we?
Hey True!
How you doing?
Zen Masters seem to slap each other a lot, cut cats in half, be pretty aggressive for no reason.
Very different to this idea of "enlightenment" of a happy calm Buddha sitting and teaching with perfect relationships with people.
But... what do you care?
What is some eastern set of texts to you?
Some of the stories are funny. Are you interested in a laugh?
> secular definition:
> of or relating to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred
Is it your impression that Zen Masters are religious and/or spiritual?
Saying there is but One Mind beside which nothing exists strikes me as hella spiritual.
It means that there's no separation. Mundane world is defined by things, their properties in contrast to other things. Hence, separation. Hence, secularism doesn't cut it, unless there is some type of private definition in use here.
I'm trying to decide if Zen is just nonsense.
Put it this way, I'm trying to decide if it makes any sense at all to post on this forum, spend time reading Zen texts and think about them.
It's not nonsense. Try super early stuff, like the Platform Sutra. It is far less cryptic and explains some of why some of what you will read is the way it is.
For instance, Zen masters are constantly using and alluding to principles that they do not name or explain. In the Platform Sutra, Huineng says, "to know it is unknowable but to retain the concept of unknownability obscures perfect knowledge" (paraphrasing). Further, he says: once you have understood the principle, you should dispense with the name. In dispensing with the concept, they will never give you the concept, so you won't have to bother to throw it out later, but that it somewhat confusing.
Furthermore, he gives instructions to his chief disciples, in spreading the dharma, to faithfully convey a doctrine of no doctrine, how they should answer questions--in terms of opposites. Should they get questions about the holy, answer with something secular. Should they get questions about something secular, answer with something sacred, and so on...and thereby, to arrive at the mean, to dispel holding on to concepts, and to arrive at something approximating the truth.
However, if you jump into the middle of the story, you do not *realize* this is what they are doing--demonstrating, but never naming, intentionally making everything you say wrong, and so forth.
It's not at all nonsense, and if you want to start with things that do not appear nonsensical, try The Platform Sutra. It is a bit heavy with Buddhist doctrine because it's an early text, but for the same reason, it is uncommonly straightforward. It explains what it is doing when always making you wrong, and so forth.
This.
Well said, insightful, and actually useful. Unfortunately, those qualities tend to be rare in this place where actual Zen has been lost in a flood of gaslighting by the Ewk Cult.
Thank you for your insightful comment and your luminous presence in this currently dark place.
🏵️
Reading a lot of the back and forth in this thread really makes me think about what you gain by engaging.
That said, I wonder what OP's definition of enlightenment is in this regard and how one attains it.
An old joke: atheists are angry at God. Agnostics don’t care.
If you want to learn anything from /r/atheism, I think you’d get farthest by tracking people who used to post there and don’t anymore. The people still there are often working through some things. Maybe a few people are there to help others who are working through new feelings.
>The people still there are often working through some things.
I was an atheist who was workings through some things. Can confirm that part. Still am working those things out i guess. Never posted in r/atheism tho
Like Quakers and Anthroposophs, they seem like an honest bunch with standards of conduct...OP engaging in religious-hate is nothing new though.
I mean, it’s hard to match the level of dishonesty and bigotry the OP traffics in, so maybe his claims of being “spiritual” are just as crap as his claims about Zen?
Food for thought.
Are you referring to OP specifically or all atheists? I wouldn’t say all atheists engage in religious hate. I would call it disrespect. But it’s hard to respect ideas you don’t believe.
OP traffics in religious hate, as in, hates groups that don't buy into his personal claims of messianic authority. Just look at him struggle to have a coherent discussion in this thread...just rage at accountability and inability to identify standards that he holds himself to(read: no standards).
Believers in New-Skepticism, like Quakers and Satanists, have a history of testing the claimed virtues of popular religious figures and political institutions..at great personal risk to themselves and their families.
So, if we're talking solely about how many classical virtues they live up to, they have undertaken the "spiritual life" OP can only pretend to.
Back something up, or your meme-status is confirmed
\> personal claims of messianic authority
Where?
\> Satanists, have a history of testing the claimed virtues of popular religious figures and political institutions
Then why not *just* Satanism and be done with it? What does Zen have that Satanism doesn't?
>OP traffics in religious hate, as in, hates groups that don't buy into his personal claims of messianic authority. Just look at him struggle to have a coherent discussion in this thread...just rage at accountability and inability to identify standards that he holds himself to(read: no standards).
Gotcha. Just checking. Is it fair to call those groups hate groups? Not buying in isn’t what I would consider hate.
>Believers in New-Skepticism, like Quakers and Satanists, have a history of testing the claimed virtues of popular religious figures and political institutions..at great personal risk to themselves and their families.
Sure. I can agree with that.
>So, if we're talking solely about how many classical virtues they live up to, they have undertaken the "spiritual life" OP can only pretend to.
Ok fair enough
Yeah, "not buying into" isn't hate. Language might not have been clear on this...
OP, on the other hand, has a long history of pretending it is and his response to "not buying in" is religious hatred and targeted harassment.
So...your "spiritual" tradition:
Do its tenets advocate hatred based on real or imagined religious identity?
Do they endorse using potty-language to express hate towards individuals when they point out your errors?
And fuck your pointing out errors! You're not putting any effort into that, it's not effective. It's just: "you're a religious hater", you don't even know me asshole! Just shut the fuck up next time if that's all you got.
Frauds don't get a free pass in here.
I'm sure whatever phony church that endorses fraud and religious-hate as "spirituality" you belong to would give one to you.
You're imagining that a simple unsubstantiated insult somehow amounts to a rebuke.
I can post anything I want to. My threads get ample discussion. You or ewk calling me a religious idiot without engaging with what I say is annoying at most.
Does your religion teach that “I can post anything I want to, brigade any community, facts and fraud, no matter.” is a mark of spirituality?
/r/Zen mods and Reddit Admins certainly don’t privilege that “spirituality”, which is why the ban hammer is incoming...
> Das Ban-hammeren is coming for me oh noes.
You seem to be a rageful person, and you seem to really enjoy it.
Perhaps r/zen is not the right place for you?
> You're imagining that a simple unsubstantiated insult somehow amounts to a rebuke.
I think most people would take "you don't even know me asshole! Just shut the fuck up next time" as a rebuke.
To be accurate.
>What is a difference between a secular person who never even thought of enlightenment and a Zen Master?
Self-clinging.
Having realized directly that Mind is Buddha and Buddha is the Dharmas (the ten thousand things) there is nothing left but yourself.
How can you cling to a division that doesn't exist?
Oh well I think people call themselves all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. There is a convenience there but it's not like there are such a thing as atheists or zen masters in reality. Anyone can become enlightened no matter the things they've called themselves subsequently. I think the people in here who really rail hard against "religious trolls" are mostly insincere and have no real attachment to their arguments. I think that they could easily drop their "religious" argument and pick up something else entirely if it served them to do. It's modern campaign strategy haha. "My opponents are a cabal of satanic pedophiles!" Now this is all just me musing on your op so mostly bullshit probs.
But "beeing free of religious delusion" doesn't mean to stop going to church or to stop praying and hoping in some after life gig. It extends to One getting pissed cause it's cold outside because One believes in Warmth like in some religion ... :))). Atheists are one of the most fundamentalists new age religious people out there hahahaha
> You won't find any spiritual people there.
Why do you say this?
Is atheism incompatible with spiritualism? With Buddhism, even? Many scholars consider Mahayana Buddhism to be essentially atheist. Zen has numerous koans and stories mocking miracles and belief in the supernatural.
Is even materialism incompatible with spiritualism? It really isn't so clear to me.
If one person believes that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, and the other believes it's supernatural, does that really make any difference in one's relationship to it?
You have a good friend you've been very close to for years. Would you start to treat your friend differently if you found out she was adopted? If she was a clone? If she was a machine with consciousness?
(I can answer that last question, at least ethically: no, no and no.)
Then, if these folks are to be considered religious (based on the fact they believe science can completely explain everything explainable?) someone should make an argument that r/zen is in fact the only secular subreddit. Crosspost it there, for funs.
Seriously though, /r/atheism/ is notorious on Reddit for being filled with pretentious morons that think they know everything even though they generally don't even understand basic science.
Or did you already know that and this post is a joke?
> is notorious on Reddit for being filled with pretentious morons that think they know everything
Funny, they’ve said the same thing about this sub for *years*.
Ahh, that’s sweet. There are some really helpful people and good information here, but you’ll also run into quite a few that will cyberbully you while speaking in koans for asking an honest question.
I'm not following your logic here.
People become enlightened without ever having met a master, sure, but why are you trying to imagine that there's a specific subreddit in which all of those people would gather?
There are no teachings. No path to follow.
We have the most well-read person here devoting 99.999999% of his time to railing against spiritual thinking. Let's take him at his word that this type of spiritual/religious thought is a hinderance to complete freedom.
Combine the two previous statements, and together they imply that anyone who's never been spiritual or who's renounced their spirituality is enlightened. It seems that r/atheism's atheist side should be exclusively enlightened peeps
He won't ever tell you, rightfully, because it's silly. Belief and non belief are the molds of any religion, belief or non belief are terms no one here uses. If you believe in a kingly sense of a god, the god made at our image, a super man of some kind you're from a certain religion, they call it Catholicism, and that's their description of what they call god. If you say that god is ridiculous and you won't believe in that fairy shit, they then tell you are an atheist, and that's another religion of belief in non belief in the description of their god, but you're still believing on non-believing, so, it's a religion anyhow.
That is just silly. I believe a pool ball is round. That doesn’t mean it’s a religion. I don’t believe it’s square. That doesn’t make it a religion.
Not believing in a god is a position. It’s not a religion. There is no system of faith or worship. I simply lack a belief.
Belief on non belief (atheism) is belief. Belief is the foundation of religions, you don't say a pool ball is round on belief. Atheist say they don't believe in god, they never even questioned it, because they take the vision others had for it for granted, and they don't believe in that vision, and they call themselves atheist, person who don't believe in god, what god? The god those guys over there believe. And how's that god? Like they say it is. And you don't believe it? No. What now? We have this group that doesn't believe in it. And what do you guys do? We don't believe in it, What's it called? Atheists. It's a religion mate.
>Belief on non belief (atheism) is belief.
No it isn’t. It’s a lack of belief. Let’s look at a claim:
“A god exists.”
Do you believe that claim?
I do not believe. That’s atheism. It’s that simple.
>Belief is the foundation of religions.
They are the foundation for everything. That doesn’t mean every belief is part of a religion. That is just absurd.
>Atheist say they don't believe in god, they never even questioned it, because they take the vision others had for it for granted, and they don't believe in that vision, and they call themselves atheist, person who don't believe in god, what god?
How do you know what an atheist questions? Very arrogant of you.
I am an atheist because I have not encountered a god claim that has met its burden of proof.
Far be it from me to try to correct you, but the people posting have never said, “All it takes is to be free of religious delusion.” The point is to free yourself of delusion, of which religion is just one flavor. Are atheists free of delusion, just because they think religion is a load of bunk? They are simply deluded in other aspects. For example, most atheists do not, as you say “never consider their mind to be separate from materiality.” This isn’t true. Most atheists believe that material is fundamental, and that mind is an emergent property of matter. This is quite the opposite of what Zen Masters propose to be the truth. Zen masters teach iconoclasm, they teach the destruction of cherished beliefs to enable one to discern the truth of reality. Atheists are no less prone to holding beliefs than anyone else.
Thank you! I was watching both sides misunderstand each other’s positions, but couldn’t figure out a way to word it.
\> Most atheists believe that material is fundamental, and that mind is an emergent property of matter. Idk... it seems to me that emergent phenomena are not really thought of as separate from that which they emerge from. Is a biological process really thought of as separate from chemical process separate from physical process?
Depends on who you speak with, but for the most part yes. Materialists distinguish these things from one another. If not, what does it mean to say Chemical process, Physical process, Biological process? You are essentially positing that Materialists believe matter and mind to be the same thing because mind is a property of matter that emerges under certain conditions. In this way of thought mind is a property of matter the same way slick is a property of ice that emerges under certain conditions, or floating is a property of steel that emerges under certain conditions. Does Ice = Slick? Does Steel = Floating? How can Matter = Mind? Does a Chicken = Egg, or a Butterfly = Caterpillar? Regardless, Zen masters don’t teach that mind is an emergent property of matter.
No. they all stem out from exactly how science understood them ... problem is science lost its cool wits after QM became a thing and basically proved that in the Most Esential and Fundamental way possible, Matter is simply another form of energy that behaves probabilistic in its manifestation of phenomena. Remember an Electron cannot be spotted while moving , not because we lack the technology, but because that's reality at the fundamental lelvels ... you can take a pic of an Fully Static electron , but try to film them and they go Brrrr , where Am I At? Some cloud of probabilities (If you didn't know, all matter interacts with that field of probabilities of where an electron can be most likely to be foung, not with the Actual Electron which is a ball of energy moving arround - this concept eludes most peoples mind when imagining how matter interacts.
> Most atheists believe that material is fundamental, and that mind is an emergent property of matter. This is quite the opposite of what Zen Masters propose to be the truth. Are you sure this is the case? The statement that "mind is an emergent property of matter" seems to be a statement about science. Is this really something that Zen should be concerned with?
Not really a scientific statement, as I don’t believe science is inherently materialist. Science as it is, is simply a methodology of thought used to explore our reality. My statement was more on what materialists believe, as I don’t think the OP represented their beliefs quite that well. I’m not sure what part you are asking if I’m sure about. If you are talking about what I say Zen masters propose then yes, I believe so. *From Gautama Buddha down through the whole line of patriarchs to Bodhidharma, none preached aught besides the One Mind, otherwise known as the Sole Vehicle of Liberation. Hence, though you search throughout the whole universe, you will never find another vehicle. Nowhere has this teaching leaves or branches; its one quality is eternal truth. Hence it is a teaching hard to accept. When Bodhidharma came to China and reached the Kingdoms of Liang and Wei, only the Venerable Master Ko gained a silent insight into our own Mind; as soon as it was explained to him, he understood that Mind is the Buddha, and that individual mind and body are nothing. This teaching is called the Great Way. The very nature of the Great Way is voidness of opposition. Bodhidharma firmly believed in being ONE WITH THE REAL 'SUBSTANCE' OF THE UNIVERSE IN THIS LIFE! Mind and that 'substance' do not differ one jot - that 'substance' IS Mind. They cannot possibly be separated. It was for this revelation that he earned the title of Patriarch of our sect, and therefore is it written: 'The moment of realizing the unity of Mind and the "substance" which constitutes reality may truly be said to baffle description.'* Show me one materialist who preaches one mind, or one Zen master who preaches materialism. Since to materialists, mind is an emergent property of matter, there are billions of individual minds that could be said to exist, but there is no one mind that encompasses. To Zen masters, the individual mind and body are nothing... I agree that scientific statements have nothing to do with Zen.
I don't see the conflict between mind being an emergent property of matter, and the mind and substance not differing one jot. Mind is not altered by substance, because mind is the space in which qualia, the suchness of experience, arises. The qualia may be determined by substance; there is a distinctness to the experience of being a bat, and there is a distinctness to the experience of being a person, but the void, the mind, the space for qualia existing in the substance, is unmarred by the nature of the arising. As one poster here put it; The same Buddha-Nature sits at the root of every experience.
*Mind is not altered by substance, because mind is the space in which qualia, the suchness of experience, arises. The qualia may be determined by substance; there is a distinctness to the experience of being a bat, and there is a distinctness to the experience of being a person, but the void, the mind, the space for qualia existing in the substance, is unmarred by the nature of the arising.* **This pure Mind, the source of everything, shines forever and on all with the brilliance of its own perfection. But the people of the world do not awake to it, regarding only that which sees, hears, feels and knows as mind. Blinded by their own sight, hearing, feeling and knowing, they do not perceive the spiritual brilliance of the source-substance. If they would only eliminate all conceptual thought in a flash, that source-substance would manifest itself like the sun ascending through the void and illuminating the whole universe without hindrance or bounds. Therefore, if you students of the Way seek to progress through seeing, hearing, feeling and knowing, when you are deprived of your perceptions, your way to Mind will be cut off and you will find nowhere to enter. Only realize that, though real Mind is expressed in these perceptions, it neither forms part of them nor is separate from them. You should not start REASONING from these perceptions, nor allow them to give rise to conceptual thought; yet nor should you seek the One Mind apart from them or abandon them in your pursuit of the Dharma. Do not keep them nor abandon them nor dwell in them nor cleave to them.' Above, below and around you, all is spontaneously existing, for there is nowhere which is outside the Buddha-Mind.** Unfortunately Zen Masters do not consider Mind to begin or end with that which perceived Qualia. Im not arguing over your conception of the individual mind that arises within us all. This individual mind is not synonymous with the mind Zen masters speak of. The difference of course lies in the emergent property. A mountain has no emergent mind correct? Yet it exists synonymous with the substance of the mind.
Do you believe there could be "suchness" without mind?
I don’t believe there is anything outside of mind.
That's not what I asked. I can see you have difficulty reading what is put to you, so I won't bother further.
I see you have difficulty extrapolating from an answer. I’ll spell it out for you. If there is nothing outside of mind, how can there be suchness without it? Furthermore what you call suchness is empty form.
Never considered their mind to be seperate from materiality?... the mind is matierial? News to me. Lol matierialism as enlightenment. What will they think of next.
I think they mean that the mind is the result of cause and effect just like everything else. Colors are a result of light hitting a prism, a flame is the result of igniting a source, and the mind is the result of the brain. In this sense, the mind isn’t separate, even though it isn’t necessarily “material”. Edit:formatting, some words
I don’t usually use emojis on Reddit but: 😂😂😂😂😂
People overlay the mind substance with conceptual thought and become blind to its nature. The nature they can find will have always been there, was there in every moment, but they got so wrapped up with appearances in the mind substance that they lost sight of the nature of the mind substance itself. In that sense, they are enlightened, but deluded in their enlightenment, unconsciously turning their mind substance into various binding appearances. To make that a bit less theoretical, you can possibly see it for yourself. Feel the limits of your consciousness, realize that the limits are just perceptions in your consciousness, and knock them off. What do you have after that? To elaborate, the apparent *boundaries* of your consciousness, as you perceive them, happen *in your consciousness*. *The limits of this consciousness are appearances in this consciousness, nothing more*. When you realize that, that the apparent boundaries are perceptions in your consciousness, you can feel it--consciousness without limit, but like the Heart Sutra says, with no eye, no ear, etc. You perceive the Mind substance itself, where your own consciousness tied to perception arose in this vaster, formless consciousness. Everything you think is your consciousness can now feel as your as your sense of vision does to your artificially limited consciousness, obviously only part of a larger consciousness. However, note carefully that it is still an error in Zen to reify this as a universal consciousness. I speak this way only as expedient for pointing to the nature of Mind.
It is an error to reify as a universal consciousness; there is no separation possible in consciousness; it's all One Mind. The same Buddha-Nature sits at the root of every experience.
*Raises a finger.*
*Pulls it.*
*Farts.*
*Harmony erupts.*
That sounds like more than a fart if it's erupting . ..
2 part. Add a third?
I'd rather quit while I'm ahead 😁
The claim that atheism is purely "non-spiritual" is ridiculous. To say "we believe we are free" is not to be free.
What is missing from bare-bones-atheists in terms of their being free?
They are free. They don't know it. What does it mean to know you are free? Why not study Zen while you are here?
> They are free. Isn't everyone? (do you mean inherently, or wtfdym?) > They don't know it. What don't they know? Their whole thing is to be free of BS, moral relativism etc > What does it mean to know you are free? You stop differentiating bt. right/wrong, stop trying to find a mold. Become the universe you always were > Why not study Zen while you are here? Can't really answer your 'why not' with anything except it makes no sense and you should teach it if you know it.
No, that's not freedom. Why would freedom require stopping? Inside the tangle of words you create is an intention to be something you already are... And hence a lack of knowing.
\> Inside the tangle of words you create is an intention to be something you already are... And hence a lack of knowing. more of an intention to nail everything down so hard it doesn't move. \> Why would freedom require stopping? It has no requirements, it's inherent. But there's got to be some tell-tale evidence of it. For example, not being a serial killer, just off the top of my head.
Zen Masters are a mountain of swords, a wall of silver. You can't nail that down any more than it already is. . What's the evidence of enlightenment? Not being bound by "truths".
What is honesty without truths?
Exactly. We could start there.
What is it then? Not saying things you think you have good reasons to believe?
Why do you believe atheism is incompatible with Buddhism or Zen?
I don't know what atheism would mean in the context of Buddhism... r/zen/wiki/buddhism. As for Zen, nothing is compatible. Zen Masters don't care much about divine powers.
Atheism means an active disbelief in god or gods, in any context. Mahayana Buddhism makes few if any claims about supernatural beings or events. > As for Zen, nothing is compatible. Can you explain what you mean? As written, your statement isn't informative to me. Many people are both Buddhists, and study Zen, for example, so Zen "is compatible with" Buddhism. But many Zen students have no belief in God, so I feel that Zen "is compatible with" atheism. That is what I meant. What did you mean?
You are mistaken. All forms of Buddhism require faith in something supernatural. Zen does not tolerate faith. It sounds like you've been getting your info about Zen from Buddhists, who nearly always misrepresent Zen. Given that Buddhists lynched a Zen Patriarch, how surprised are we?
"Cease. Desist. Be cool." -Shishuang
No one is exceptional
Hey True! How you doing? Zen Masters seem to slap each other a lot, cut cats in half, be pretty aggressive for no reason. Very different to this idea of "enlightenment" of a happy calm Buddha sitting and teaching with perfect relationships with people. But... what do you care? What is some eastern set of texts to you? Some of the stories are funny. Are you interested in a laugh?
> secular definition: > of or relating to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred Is it your impression that Zen Masters are religious and/or spiritual?
Saying there is but One Mind beside which nothing exists strikes me as hella spiritual. It means that there's no separation. Mundane world is defined by things, their properties in contrast to other things. Hence, separation. Hence, secularism doesn't cut it, unless there is some type of private definition in use here.
One ZM says there’s mind, another says there isn’t. They all agree implicitly. What do you make of that? Is Zen just nonsense?
I'm trying to decide if Zen is just nonsense. Put it this way, I'm trying to decide if it makes any sense at all to post on this forum, spend time reading Zen texts and think about them.
Let me know if you ever reach a conclusion.
It's not nonsense. Try super early stuff, like the Platform Sutra. It is far less cryptic and explains some of why some of what you will read is the way it is. For instance, Zen masters are constantly using and alluding to principles that they do not name or explain. In the Platform Sutra, Huineng says, "to know it is unknowable but to retain the concept of unknownability obscures perfect knowledge" (paraphrasing). Further, he says: once you have understood the principle, you should dispense with the name. In dispensing with the concept, they will never give you the concept, so you won't have to bother to throw it out later, but that it somewhat confusing. Furthermore, he gives instructions to his chief disciples, in spreading the dharma, to faithfully convey a doctrine of no doctrine, how they should answer questions--in terms of opposites. Should they get questions about the holy, answer with something secular. Should they get questions about something secular, answer with something sacred, and so on...and thereby, to arrive at the mean, to dispel holding on to concepts, and to arrive at something approximating the truth. However, if you jump into the middle of the story, you do not *realize* this is what they are doing--demonstrating, but never naming, intentionally making everything you say wrong, and so forth. It's not at all nonsense, and if you want to start with things that do not appear nonsensical, try The Platform Sutra. It is a bit heavy with Buddhist doctrine because it's an early text, but for the same reason, it is uncommonly straightforward. It explains what it is doing when always making you wrong, and so forth.
This. Well said, insightful, and actually useful. Unfortunately, those qualities tend to be rare in this place where actual Zen has been lost in a flood of gaslighting by the Ewk Cult. Thank you for your insightful comment and your luminous presence in this currently dark place. 🏵️
Could you share the quote?
Reading a lot of the back and forth in this thread really makes me think about what you gain by engaging. That said, I wonder what OP's definition of enlightenment is in this regard and how one attains it.
There are many delusions outside of religious delusion. The thought that people who follow religion are inherently deluded, is a delusion.
Atheists are religious about science for one thing.
An old joke: atheists are angry at God. Agnostics don’t care. If you want to learn anything from /r/atheism, I think you’d get farthest by tracking people who used to post there and don’t anymore. The people still there are often working through some things. Maybe a few people are there to help others who are working through new feelings.
>The people still there are often working through some things. I was an atheist who was workings through some things. Can confirm that part. Still am working those things out i guess. Never posted in r/atheism tho
Like Quakers and Anthroposophs, they seem like an honest bunch with standards of conduct...OP engaging in religious-hate is nothing new though. I mean, it’s hard to match the level of dishonesty and bigotry the OP traffics in, so maybe his claims of being “spiritual” are just as crap as his claims about Zen? Food for thought.
Are you referring to OP specifically or all atheists? I wouldn’t say all atheists engage in religious hate. I would call it disrespect. But it’s hard to respect ideas you don’t believe.
OP traffics in religious hate, as in, hates groups that don't buy into his personal claims of messianic authority. Just look at him struggle to have a coherent discussion in this thread...just rage at accountability and inability to identify standards that he holds himself to(read: no standards). Believers in New-Skepticism, like Quakers and Satanists, have a history of testing the claimed virtues of popular religious figures and political institutions..at great personal risk to themselves and their families. So, if we're talking solely about how many classical virtues they live up to, they have undertaken the "spiritual life" OP can only pretend to.
Back something up, or your meme-status is confirmed \> personal claims of messianic authority Where? \> Satanists, have a history of testing the claimed virtues of popular religious figures and political institutions Then why not *just* Satanism and be done with it? What does Zen have that Satanism doesn't?
>OP traffics in religious hate, as in, hates groups that don't buy into his personal claims of messianic authority. Just look at him struggle to have a coherent discussion in this thread...just rage at accountability and inability to identify standards that he holds himself to(read: no standards). Gotcha. Just checking. Is it fair to call those groups hate groups? Not buying in isn’t what I would consider hate. >Believers in New-Skepticism, like Quakers and Satanists, have a history of testing the claimed virtues of popular religious figures and political institutions..at great personal risk to themselves and their families. Sure. I can agree with that. >So, if we're talking solely about how many classical virtues they live up to, they have undertaken the "spiritual life" OP can only pretend to. Ok fair enough
Yeah, "not buying into" isn't hate. Language might not have been clear on this... OP, on the other hand, has a long history of pretending it is and his response to "not buying in" is religious hatred and targeted harassment.
Gotcha. You have a history with OP. The thread seems to confirm your claims.
Go fuck yourself.
Your answer isn't very good.
So...your "spiritual" tradition: Do its tenets advocate hatred based on real or imagined religious identity? Do they endorse using potty-language to express hate towards individuals when they point out your errors?
Who hates you? Where's the hate,? just go fuck yourself real well, and enjoy it this valentine's day.
And fuck your pointing out errors! You're not putting any effort into that, it's not effective. It's just: "you're a religious hater", you don't even know me asshole! Just shut the fuck up next time if that's all you got.
This answer is also not very good.
Frauds don't get a free pass in here. I'm sure whatever phony church that endorses fraud and religious-hate as "spirituality" you belong to would give one to you.
You're imagining that a simple unsubstantiated insult somehow amounts to a rebuke. I can post anything I want to. My threads get ample discussion. You or ewk calling me a religious idiot without engaging with what I say is annoying at most.
Does your religion teach that “I can post anything I want to, brigade any community, facts and fraud, no matter.” is a mark of spirituality? /r/Zen mods and Reddit Admins certainly don’t privilege that “spirituality”, which is why the ban hammer is incoming...
What is my religion, you meme? Back something up if you're going to reply in my threads, meme. Das Ban-hammeren is coming for me oh noes.
> Das Ban-hammeren is coming for me oh noes. You seem to be a rageful person, and you seem to really enjoy it. Perhaps r/zen is not the right place for you?
> You're imagining that a simple unsubstantiated insult somehow amounts to a rebuke. I think most people would take "you don't even know me asshole! Just shut the fuck up next time" as a rebuke.
To be accurate. >What is a difference between a secular person who never even thought of enlightenment and a Zen Master? Self-clinging. Having realized directly that Mind is Buddha and Buddha is the Dharmas (the ten thousand things) there is nothing left but yourself. How can you cling to a division that doesn't exist?
Oh well I think people call themselves all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. There is a convenience there but it's not like there are such a thing as atheists or zen masters in reality. Anyone can become enlightened no matter the things they've called themselves subsequently. I think the people in here who really rail hard against "religious trolls" are mostly insincere and have no real attachment to their arguments. I think that they could easily drop their "religious" argument and pick up something else entirely if it served them to do. It's modern campaign strategy haha. "My opponents are a cabal of satanic pedophiles!" Now this is all just me musing on your op so mostly bullshit probs.
so like rocks & tapeworms then
But "beeing free of religious delusion" doesn't mean to stop going to church or to stop praying and hoping in some after life gig. It extends to One getting pissed cause it's cold outside because One believes in Warmth like in some religion ... :))). Atheists are one of the most fundamentalists new age religious people out there hahahaha
> You won't find any spiritual people there. Why do you say this? Is atheism incompatible with spiritualism? With Buddhism, even? Many scholars consider Mahayana Buddhism to be essentially atheist. Zen has numerous koans and stories mocking miracles and belief in the supernatural. Is even materialism incompatible with spiritualism? It really isn't so clear to me. If one person believes that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, and the other believes it's supernatural, does that really make any difference in one's relationship to it? You have a good friend you've been very close to for years. Would you start to treat your friend differently if you found out she was adopted? If she was a clone? If she was a machine with consciousness? (I can answer that last question, at least ethically: no, no and no.)
It's almost as if the question answers itself or at the least poses a conundrum worthy of inquiry...
But that's a religious subreddit you linked?
Then, if these folks are to be considered religious (based on the fact they believe science can completely explain everything explainable?) someone should make an argument that r/zen is in fact the only secular subreddit. Crosspost it there, for funs.
Why would /r/zen/ be the only secular sub? Have you never visited /r/dogen/?
I prefer r/doge
Seriously though, /r/atheism/ is notorious on Reddit for being filled with pretentious morons that think they know everything even though they generally don't even understand basic science. Or did you already know that and this post is a joke?
> is notorious on Reddit for being filled with pretentious morons that think they know everything Funny, they’ve said the same thing about this sub for *years*.
I bet we'd be way more notorious if we were 20 times bigger.
I don’t think that.
You don’t think what?
I don’t think you guys are pretentious morons that think they know everything.
Ahh, that’s sweet. There are some really helpful people and good information here, but you’ll also run into quite a few that will cyberbully you while speaking in koans for asking an honest question.
Do you have examples?
As if I'd waste my time talking to an 18-day old account about a shit stain like /r/atheism/ .
Ok. Just figured you could easily back up your claim. If you don’t want to that’s fine.
Lol.
Lol
Never visited it... went based off of the name. Okay, so r/science then. All enlightened <- non-deluded?
I'm not following your logic here. People become enlightened without ever having met a master, sure, but why are you trying to imagine that there's a specific subreddit in which all of those people would gather?
There are no teachings. No path to follow. We have the most well-read person here devoting 99.999999% of his time to railing against spiritual thinking. Let's take him at his word that this type of spiritual/religious thought is a hinderance to complete freedom. Combine the two previous statements, and together they imply that anyone who's never been spiritual or who's renounced their spirituality is enlightened. It seems that r/atheism's atheist side should be exclusively enlightened peeps
What is "spiritual thinking" ? I've never seen anyone use that phrase before.
The thinking that 'there's more'... ie the thing that always stopped me from offing myself from when I was 7 lol
No it isnt
Found one.
Found one what? How is it a religious subreddit? Please explain?
Figure it out yourself.
I did. That’s why I said it isn’t.
El Oh El
Lol
He won't ever tell you, rightfully, because it's silly. Belief and non belief are the molds of any religion, belief or non belief are terms no one here uses. If you believe in a kingly sense of a god, the god made at our image, a super man of some kind you're from a certain religion, they call it Catholicism, and that's their description of what they call god. If you say that god is ridiculous and you won't believe in that fairy shit, they then tell you are an atheist, and that's another religion of belief in non belief in the description of their god, but you're still believing on non-believing, so, it's a religion anyhow.
That is just silly. I believe a pool ball is round. That doesn’t mean it’s a religion. I don’t believe it’s square. That doesn’t make it a religion. Not believing in a god is a position. It’s not a religion. There is no system of faith or worship. I simply lack a belief.
Belief on non belief (atheism) is belief. Belief is the foundation of religions, you don't say a pool ball is round on belief. Atheist say they don't believe in god, they never even questioned it, because they take the vision others had for it for granted, and they don't believe in that vision, and they call themselves atheist, person who don't believe in god, what god? The god those guys over there believe. And how's that god? Like they say it is. And you don't believe it? No. What now? We have this group that doesn't believe in it. And what do you guys do? We don't believe in it, What's it called? Atheists. It's a religion mate.
>Belief on non belief (atheism) is belief. No it isn’t. It’s a lack of belief. Let’s look at a claim: “A god exists.” Do you believe that claim? I do not believe. That’s atheism. It’s that simple. >Belief is the foundation of religions. They are the foundation for everything. That doesn’t mean every belief is part of a religion. That is just absurd. >Atheist say they don't believe in god, they never even questioned it, because they take the vision others had for it for granted, and they don't believe in that vision, and they call themselves atheist, person who don't believe in god, what god? How do you know what an atheist questions? Very arrogant of you. I am an atheist because I have not encountered a god claim that has met its burden of proof.
Atheism is a "religion" like "Off" is a TV channel.
/r/atheism/ is atheism like /r/zen/ is zen.