I see another (additional) dimension, or possibility opened by the burning of the book. Of course the act of burning a book is sacrilegious or at the very least shocking but that’s part of the style. It’s a hyperbole coding for something less shocking: the necessary distance one should take with tradition. Maybe the student wanted to write his own book, based on tradition evidently (the oral teaching of his master is seen by the student as primordial), but also radically departing here or there from tradition. Maybe he was not content with writing comments in the margins of someone else’s book.

Apologies for my late response, but it is 4 years since I looked into this and I don’t have time now to refresh my perspective on this particular teaching. However more generally one of the core aims of Zen is the freeing of the mind from human conditioning. Books condition the reader, although they also inform the reader. Rather like a koan, how to read a book and not read a book. How to clap with one hand.

No need to apologise, it’s my fault for not noticing how old this thread was.

like a koan, how to read a book and not read a book — Punshhh

Easy: you read it and then you forget it. :-)

I’m only half joking. In my experience, forgetting the details is a good way to focus on what’s important.

That's not my interpretation, it's canonical. As I said before, I think it’s one of the most distinctive ideas in Buddhism, I can’t think of a parallel in the Biblical religions. — Wayfarer

What about the Abrahamic triad's notion of The End Of Days otherwise known as Judgment Day? There seems to be this sense of finality, closure, and completion in these ideas. Not an exact match for Zen's burn-the-holy-books nonetheless there's an overall agreement in spirit if not in letter.

Many similarities have been noted between Buddhist and process philosophy, of whom H. was an exponent. But that only goes so far. — Wayfarer

It appears that despite the many obstacles to information exchange during the ancient era, some civilizations did manage to share their culture and ideas with others. In short, the similarities between Heraclitus and thd Buddha weren't a coincidcence.

Pfhorrest asked about that recently. It’s a saying by Master Dōgen, a much later Buddhist master who was the originator of Sōtō Zen. It's a very pithy aphorism about the transformation of the understanding that the Zen practitioner goes through: first, naive realism (mountains are mountains); then the 'realisation of śūnyatā' (everything is inter-dependent, 'mountains' [i.e. anything] have no essential being); but then an integrated understanding, whereby mountains are seen as mountains again, albeit with subtle and mature insight. — Wayfarer

A very sagacious way to interpret Dogen's words. I recall being in an oppresively hot and humid city somewhere in the tropics and one day I had something to do at an office, a 20 minute walk from where I was putting up. I remember the trip to the office was one of the most unpleasant 20 minutes of my life - by the time I reached my destination I was panting like a dog and drenched in sweat. I swung open the glass doors at the entrance and was greeted by the coolness of the air-conditioned lobby. I felt an immediate sense of relief and once inside, I managed to recover from the ordeal of the walk. I got my work done in within an hour and once again I found myself at the glass doors of the entrance but on the opposite side of course. I exited...it was as hot and humid as it was when I had entered. :chin:

Not an exact match..... — TheMadFool

:scream:

That's brilliant. :lol:

:scream: You don't see any similarities then?

By the way, what do you know about this Yang Yi (born 947 AD - died 1020 AD) character, reportedly a Song Court official who, according to an article I read on the web, was instrumental in recasting Zen's image as so-called special transmissions [outside of scriptures] and this is, I believe, Koans and all, the current incarnation of Zen? Would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.

Who is to know Buddhism is right or wrong? You're going to have to follow, to a great degree your intuition. I would suggest that anyone actually engaging in the practices and community of Buddhism, will realize that my advice is aligned with Buddhist teaching. It takes experience to know if advice is right and in this case intuition.

Some of your imaginative leaps are tangential, to say the least.

Let’s re-wind. Parable of the raft. What impresses me about this parable is its self-deprecating nature. The Buddha is, after all, teaching ‘a doctrine of salvation’ - release from all earthly sorrows. And yet, he compares ‘the dhamma’ that he teaches, to a makeshift raft, cobbled together from twigs and branches, and furthermore says that, once it’s served its purpose, it is to be let go, left behind. In some ways, it’s a very prosaic, even a homely, metaphor.

As for Yang Yi - I’m not familiar with the name. I understand that a lot of Zen’s telling of its own story has been greatly embellished over history, in fact the IEP article I mentioned on Hui Neng describes this. But Zen history belongs in the domain of ‘sacred narrative’, and doesn’t pretend to be what we would call objective. Not that it’s ‘only myth’, either.

Let’s re-wind. Parable of the raft. What impresses me about this parable is its self-deprecating nature. The Buddha is, after all, teaching ‘a doctrine of salvation’ - release from all earthly sorrows. And yet, he compares ‘the dhamma’ that he teaches, to a makeshift raft, cobbled together from twigs and branches, and furthermore says that, once it’s served its purpose, it is to be let go, left behind. In some ways, it’s a very prosaic, even a homely, metaphor. — Wayfarer

I did comment on this take on the dhamma and how it parallels Judgement Day or The End Of Days - in both cases we arrive at our destination, no? But you only :scream:

As for Yang Yi - I’m not familiar with the name. I understand that a lot of Zen’s telling of its own story has been greatly embellished over history, in fact the IEP article I mentioned on Hui Neng describes this. But Zen history belongs in the domain of ‘sacred narrative’, and doesn’t pretend to be what we would call objective. Not that it’s ‘only myth’, either. — Wayfarer

Well then I'm privileged and honored to inform you that Yang Yi (947 AD - 1020 AD) was a court official in the Song Dynasty of China who, because of the Ch'an masters he rubbed shoulders with, insisted and ensured that Zen be treated as special transmissions outside of scripture and...wait for it...also made it a point to stress on sudden enlightenment, both defining features of Zen today. What's your opinion of this?

I’d need to see the reference.

I’d need to see the reference. — Wayfarer

https://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/40b.5-Transmission-outside-the-scriptures.pdf

Zen places a lot of emphasis on 'subitism' which is a sudden and radical transformation or conversion. — Wayfarer

Subitism is an excellent topic for a thread of its own. It figures prominently into Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations" but remains unexplained, as hidden. Here there is basically a gap which develops between learning through repetition, and the sudden grasp of the eureka moment. The gap manifests from a description of the mechanics of learning. Wittgenstein describes the repetition feature as a machine, directly observable in instances like learning mathematical procedures and reading. But it is implied that even in such repetitive type learning, there is a moment of sudden apprehension when the person moves from simply memorizing the motions of the procedure, to actually understanding what is going on. So it appears like the two aspects, repetition of practice and sudden enlightenment, are features of all learning.

The following article attempts to place the two into the terms of Hegelian teleology, "means and ends". Consider that the Zen way of 'transmission outside words and letters', is portrayed as a removal of the means to the end, to achieve the end without use of the means. The article implies that this is impossible, but the Hegelian method is to consider each individual means as an end in itself, and so the gradual way becomes a succession of individual moments of enlightenment. But the subitists seem to warn us that this cannot be the true representation of enlightenment because it becomes an infinite procedure with no true finality.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/267922692.pdf

Thanks. I've read Piya Tan's articles previously, he seems a careful scholar.

//excellent and informative paper. There’s a poster by the name of Astus on Dharmawheel who has expertise in these subjects.

Thanks! Interesting Christmas reading.

I went through the article quickly to get the gist of it, and I find it a good comparison. But I don't accept Hegel's dialectics of sublation. I don't agree with the process in principle because of the way that it fails to deal with the potential for contradiction. So when the article gets to the discussion of the infinite, I find that the classifications made, external/internal, subjective/objective, are not well supported.

I'm privileged and honored to inform you that Yang Yi (947 AD - 1020 AD) was a court official in the Song Dynasty of China who, because of the Ch'an masters he rubbed shoulders with, insisted and ensured that Zen be treated as special transmissions outside of scripture and...wait for it...also made it a point to stress on sudden enlightenment, both defining features of Zen today. — TheMadFool

I'm reading the Piya Tan article, which is very detailed, and quite lengthy (and I'm sure a good article as Piya Tan is a respected independent scholar). But as yet I've been able to find that specific reference in it; the name 'Yang Yi' doesn't seem to appear when I search the text. Maybe you could help out.//although I've now found the ref to yangyi, single name.//

It is certainly true that many of the core ideas of Ch'an/Zen were developed after the events they purport to describe, but, as I noted, Ch'an/Zen is not particularly concerned with what we would designate objective history (as the article itself notes towards the end).

It's unfortunate there is no one on the forum who has had the Zen epiphany, described in various ways. I did Zen meditation for about a year sixty years ago, but dropped out of the practice. A friend has been doing Zen for over thirty years and he describes the sudden enlightenment as a very stunning, even jarring moment. He then describes his mental state as "empty awareness" - and I argue that since he is seemingly aware of the state it cannot be empty. He also argues it is not a "mental state".

Thanks — Wayfarer

You're welcome.

Yang Yi' doesn't seem to appear when I search the text. — Wayfarer

This is most unfortunate. I tried searching for the PDF on Yang Yi (974 - 1020) sometimes written Yang I but no luck. I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for it but let's not let that get in the way of our discussion; as you correctly pointed out it's tangential.

Resuming where we left off. What similarities/differences do you see between The Day Of Reckoning in Abrahamic religions and Buddha's advice to let go of the dhamma after it's served its purpose, its purpose being nirvana?

As far as I can tell, if the dhamma is only a means to an end, the end being Buddhahood, and if morality is a major aspect of the dhamma then, morality, goodness, has no intrinsic value of its own; goodness has the same worth as the food and water monks eat and drink to sustain themselves in their quest for nirvana - they're both only of instrumental value to enlightenment

Likewise, the notion of The Day Of Reckoning or Judgment Day reduces morality to nothing more than the fee one has to pay for a ticket to paradise. In this case too, morality is simply a means to an end.

Prima facie there seems to be something off about this because people like myself have this belief that morality possesses/should possess a value of its own independent of all other considerations that may apply to it, especially considerations that have to do with the idea of reward and punishment, this very idea (reward/punishment) robbing morality of any intrinsic value. However, if we dig a little deeper, we come to the realization that morality's raison d'etre is happiness and heaven and nirvana are its idealizations; so, it's alright for morality/the dhamma to be just a means (of reaching heaven or attaining nirvana).

Yet, we can't ignore the fact that according to Buddhism and the Abrahamic triad the first and foremost obstacle on our path towards nirvana and heaven is bad karma and sin respectively and both are essentially defined in terms of morality. In other words, if we let go of the dhamma after enlightenment or if we don't be careful about our conduct in heaven, we could acquire bad karma or sin and descend back into samsara or find ourselves journeying to hell.

Yang Yi' doesn't seem to appear when I search the text.
— Wayfarer

This is most unfortunate — TheMadFool

Oh, I did find it. Yangyi is mentioned on page 112, although I don't think he's credited with everything you attributed to him. But, as the essay says, the characteristic line 'transmission outside the scriptures' was indeed added as a consequence of various sectarian tussles over the preceding centuries, and it appeared in the Yangyi edition.

What similarities/differences do you see between The Day Of Reckoning in Abrahamic religions and Buddha's advice to let go of the dhamma after it's served its purpose, its purpose being nirvana? — TheMadFool

To me, the comparison seems preposterous, pardon me for so saying. Completely different. The 'Day of Reckoning' is apocalyptic and cosmic, 'the end days', the end of the world or of an epoch.

As I said, the Parable of the Raft is much more prosaic, and in my mind, much more believable, on that account. It's saying 'don't get attached to the idea of Buddhism'. Don't make an idol - which is ironic, as it certainly has happened, in my view. It's concerned with liberating insight. Really, there is no direct equivalent for 'liberating insight' in current Western religious culture, although some of the more mystically-inclined have it. There are some analogies for it in Western religious culture, but it's practical advice about unbinding the self from its attachments and projections. It's very down-to-earth, not apocalyptic and visionary.

if the dhamma is only a means to an end, — TheMadFool

It's nothing like that. It's not 'only' anything. The ultimate importance of realising the goal of Nirvāṇa is never deprecated or downplayed in Buddhism, not for a minute. The early Buddhist texts are full of exhortations, of warnings. 'Hasten and strive'. The consequences of not hearing, or not heeding, are dire in the extreme. Buddhist texts have voluminous and excruciating depictions of hell realms.

Recall that verse I quoted ends 'Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas.' To say nothing of non-Dhammas. So the hindrances - non-dhammas - are to be abandoned and overcome. It's almost like 'it goes without saying' that these have to be abandoned.

goodness has the same worth as the food and water monks eat and drink to sustain themselves in their quest for nirvana - they're both only of instrumental value to enlightenment — TheMadFool

That is gravely mistaken - 'instrumentalism' is one of the main attributes of modern materialistic culture, for which everything is a means to an end, but there is no real end! I think Buddhism would agree with the statement of Aristotelian virtue ethics, that virtue is its own reward. In any case, one does not practice compassion and cherish others for any instrumental reason or for another end, or to get somewhere or gain something. That attitude is always the diametrical opposite of the 'way-seeking mind'. One of the first Buddhist books I ever read, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, has many exhortations to 'abandon all ideas of gaining something'. That's what makes it a religious or spiritual practice. If it a strategy for getting something, even an imagined Nirvāṇa, then it's 'spiritual materialism'.

And Nirvāṇa is not 'heaven', it's not a domain of ethereal delights.

The spiritual values advocated by Buddhism are directed, not towards a new life in some higher world, but towards a state utterly transcending the world, namely, Nibbana (Nirvāṇa). In making this statement, however, we must point out that Buddhist spiritual values do not draw an absolute separation between the beyond and the here and now. They have firm roots in the world itself for they aim at the highest realization in this present existence. Along with such spiritual aspirations, Buddhism encourages earnest endeavor to make this world a better place to live in. — Nyanoponika Thera

according to Buddhism and the Abrahamic triad the first and foremost obstacle on our path towards nirvana and heaven is bad karma and sin respectively — TheMadFool

'Avidya' (ignorance) is not the same as the Biblical notion of sin. It is a cognitive affliction rather than corruption of the will. (Although, see this). There are overlaps and similarities but also crucial differences. It's a subject of study in Comparative Religion. In any case, in Zen, the factor of liberation is 'insight into the true nature'. Yes, there are parallels especially with (e.g.) Meister Eckhardt's sermons, but Eckhardt cannot be taken to typify Christian doctrine (in fact he was charged with heresy).

To me, the comparison seems preposterous, pardon me for so saying. Completely different. The 'Day of Reckoning' is apocalyptic and cosmic, 'the end days', the end of the world or of an epoch.

As I said, the Parable of the Raft is much more prosaic, and in my mind, much more believable, on that account. It's saying 'don't get attached to the idea of Buddhism'. Don't make an idol - which is ironic, as it certainly has happened, in my view. It's concerned with liberating insight. Really, there is no direct equivalent for 'liberating insight' in current Western religious culture, although some of the more mystically-inclined have it. There are some analogies for it in Western religious culture, but it's practical advice about unbinding the self from its attachments and projections. It's very down-to-earth, not apocalyptic and visionary. — Wayfarer

A couple of things:

1. I have this suspicion that when the Buddha compared the dhamma to a raft to be gotten rid of after Buddhahood he didn't mean it just as a warning against getting "...[too] attached to the idea of Buddhism" as you say. I guess this/your interpretation is meant to align the Buddha's raft analogy with the Buddhist principle of avoiding attachments of all kinds. However, the way I see it, the Buddha, by advising us to do away with the dhamma (raft), after it's done its job of enlightening us, is actually diminishing or even nullifying the value of the dhamma and everything that goes into it. If this is the correct interpretation what bothers me the most is that morality, a vital element of the dhamma, is too thus diminished or nullified. This is too hard a pill for me to swallow because there's nothing keeping a Buddha from being a morally depraved asshole. If this condition - immorality in a Buddha - is impossible then it must be that the dhamma, especially its moral facet, still lives on in a Buddha. How then can the Buddha get rid of the dhamma, get rid of the raft as it were, after nirvana? In some sense, nirvana is the raft or, if you prefer, the dhamma. :chin:

2. When I compared the Buddha's raft to the the Apocalypse I meant to draw a comparison between how these religions treat morality - not as an end itself but only as a means; in Buddhism, goodness is the raft, just there to ferry you across samsara and in the Abrahamic triad, goodness is your boarding pass for the scheduled flight to paradise which should be anytime soon going by what some self-proclaimed prophets have been saying. This is what bothers me but I suppose it's a naive way to look at the world. We are, if one really gives it some thought, only concerned about [our] happiness - everything else is simply a tool in the shed, to be used and, according to the Buddha and other religions, once their purpose is served (nirvana attained, heaven reached), to be, without a second thought, flung into the rubbish heap of the no-longer-necessary. If this is incorrect, I'd like some information on what religions have to say about morality in heaven and after nirvana.

It's nothing like that. It's not 'only' anything. The ultimate importance of realising the goal of Nirvāṇa is never deprecated or downplayed in Buddhism, not for a minute. The early Buddhist texts are full of exhortations, of warnings. 'Hasten and strive'. The consequences of not hearing, or not heeding, are dire in the extreme. Buddhist texts have voluminous and excruciating depictions of hell realms. — Wayfarer

What you say doesn't help your cause here. If the dhamma, especially its moral dimension, is about avoiding hell then it is exactly what I said it is - just a means to an end, just a way of getting something done. However, to think of morality, as part of the dhamma, as something else - something of value in and of itself - is, on reflection, a naive point of view. For instance, I find it rather difficult to imagine goodness being sorrowful; that, as of now, seems self-defeating. Yes, there's the ethical entity known as sacrifice in which there's an element of loss/pain but even in this case, without the involvement of happiness, either to an individual or to a group, sacrifice would never in a million years be an act that people would label as good.

Recall that verse I quoted ends 'Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas.' To say nothing of non-Dhammas. So the hindrances - non-dhammas - are to be abandoned and overcome. It's almost like 'it goes without saying' that these have to be abandoned — Wayfarer

Surely if your best friend is going to cause problems for you, nothing need be said of your non-best friends. It makes sense.

That is gravely mistaken - 'instrumentalism' is one of the main attributes of modern materialistic culture, for which everything is a means to an end, but there is no real end! I think Buddhism would agree with the statement of Aristotelian virtue ethics, that virtue is its own reward. In any case, one does not practice compassion and cherish others for any instrumental reason or for another end, or to get somewhere or gain something. That attitude is always the diametrical opposite of the 'way-seeking mind'. One of the first Buddhist books I ever read, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, has many exhortations to 'abandon all ideas of gaining something'. That's what makes it a religious or spiritual practice. If it a strategy for getting something, even an imagined Nirvāṇa, then it's 'spiritual materialism'.

And Nirvāṇa is not 'heaven', it's not a domain of ethereal delights. — Wayfarer

You do realize that this is, what I like to call, the Buddhist conundrum - it's impossible to solve to the extent that I'm aware. You can't have/make "...a strategy for getting something [nirvana]..." because that would be self-refuting - desiring nirvana is a sign of attachment a big no-no in Buddhism. How then are we to attain nirvana? By stumbling onto it? By not being a Buddhist for to be a Buddhist is to affirm nirvana as a goal? How? My friend, how? While this is technically a logical paradox, I do sense a childish silliness in insisting this puzzle be solved before we can get anything done in Buddhism. What say you?

'Avidya' (ignorance) is not the same as the Biblical notion of sin. It is a cognitive affliction rather than corruption of the will. There are overlaps and similarities but also crucial differences. It's a subject of study in Comparative Religion. In any case, in Zen, the factor of liberation is 'insight into the true nature'. Yes, there are parallels especially with (e.g.) Meister Eckhardt's sermons, but Eckhardt cannot be taken to typify Christian doctrine (in fact he was charged with heresy). — Wayfarer

I know you're familiar with this but I'll mention it here anyway. I'm particularly fascinated by Nagarjuna's tetralemma which basically denies all possible epistemic stances one can take given any proposition.

So, If I say there's such a thing as nirvana, Nagarjuna would deny it. If I say there's no such thing as nirvana, Nagarjuna would deny that too. If I say there's such a thing as nirvana and there's no such thing as nirvana, again, Nagarjuna would deny it. If I were to then say that neither is there such a thing as nirvana and nor that there's no such thing as nirvana, Nagarjuna would deny this too, vehemently I imagine.

Suppose N = There's such a thing as nirvana and ~N = There's no such thing as nirvana, Nagarjuna's tetralemma duly applied would look like below:

1. N....No! So ~N
2. ~N....No! So ~~N = N
3. N & ~N....No! So ~(N & ~N) = N v ~N
4. ~N & ~~N....No! So ~(~N & ~~N) = N v ~N

As you can see, applying Nagarjuna's technique to a proposition, any proposition, results in the tautology p v ~p [N v ~N above]. p v ~p is also known as the law of the excluded middle but for the purposes of this discussion the takeaway is this - we can't either affirm nor deny any given proposition, whether that proposition is about a fly in a bottle or the Buddha's enlightenment, and that's just another way of saying I don't know whether it's p or ~p. That, to my knowledge, is the quintessence of what you call Avidya or Ignorance. I have a vague feeling that ignorance is the only valid epistemic stance we can stake a claim to. All claims to knowledge are therefore empty and devoid of substance. Remember Socrates, "I know that I know nothing." and the Delphic Oracle's pronouncement, "Socrates is the wisest of them all".

The exclamation 'what are you saying?' is to remind Mu-nan of the importance of the fundamental tenet of Zen, which is 'direct pointing' and not reliant on words and letters (notwithstanding the voluminous literature which Zen has produced!) — Wayfarer

Ah yes, the voluminous literature about nothingness. Sounds very familiar. :-)

I've come to summarize this phenomena, which I very much experience myself, with the quip "it's typically the sick who show up at the hospital".

If an articulate thought-a-holic thinks enough to uncover the limitations of that medium they may go looking for a solution. Upon finding what to them seems a solution (nature in my case) they may then have an incurable urge to think and write a big pile of words about what they've discovered. It's a bit like the alcoholic who tries to cure themselves of their addiction with a case of scotch. After all, drinking is what they know, it's what they're good at, it's what comes naturally to them.

Religions and related philosophies are very often led by such folks who both had a problem that required a solution, and who are articulate and/or charismatic enough to engage many others in that conversation. A marriage of illness and talent, if you will.

The field of psychology seems pretty similar. Some of the troubled among us can't relate to religion and so go looking for a solution to their problems in the field of science. They study psychology in college, and perhaps get degrees, and then become counselors. I know someone like that, hysterical from birth, incapable of a normal social life, but they have a masters in counseling, so now they play the role of expert to others. The crazy counselor, it's almost a cliche.

Whether through religion or science, there's a ton of the blind leading the blind going on, the patients imagining themselves to be the doctors.

To receive more sage wisdom, please read my 400,000 word article on the importance of silence!

The point of any real spiritual teaching is simply to allow you to forget about your own self-importance and just learn to be (a) happy and (b) useful. In order to do that, you have to cut through a lot of social conditioning and various kinds of other crap that has encumbered you from childhood onwards. — Wayfarer

To me, such statements always raise the question of whether the problem which we are addressing arises primarily from thought content, or from the medium of thought itself. One argument for the later theory is that human psychological suffering would seem to be universally present in every time and place, irregardless of the culture and philosophies of that time and place.

Rumi says shut the fuck up. — Mongrel

Makes for bad forum conversations, though. — Wayfarer

Well, not necessarily. If it's true that we should shut the fuck up, we could have practical discussions regarding effective methods of shutting up.

The point of any real spiritual teaching is simply to allow you to forget about your own self-importance and just learn to be (a) happy and (b) useful. In order to do that, you have to cut through a lot of social conditioning and various kinds of other crap that has encumbered you from childhood onwards.
— Wayfarer

To me, such statements always raise the question of whether the problem which we are addressing arises primarily from thought content, or from the medium of thought itself. One argument for the later theory is that human psychological suffering would seem to be universally present in every time and place, irregardless of the culture and philosophies of that time and place. — Hippyhead

You’re overlooking the obvious fact that some people are more fucked-up than others, regardless of the culture and philosophies of any time and place.

How then are we to attain nirvana? By stumbling onto it? By not being a Buddhist for to be a Buddhist is to affirm nirvana as a goal? How? My friend, how? While this is technically a logical paradox, I do sense a childish silliness in insisting this puzzle be solved before we can get anything done in Buddhism. What say you? — TheMadFool

That it's not a 'puzzle' to be solved, or a game to be played. But there's an unavoidable paradoxicality in Buddhism, which 'goes with the territory'. There is no such thing as Nirvāṇa, that's for sure, because Nirvāṇa is not a thing - no-thing.

Ah yes, the voluminous literature about nothingness. — Hippyhead

And article TMF linked to clears this up a bit. It says that the notion that Ch'an 'rejects scripture' is based on a mistranslation. Really the whole idea is a direct parallel to the Biblical verse, 'the letter kills while the spirit gives life'.

It's unfortunate there is no one on the forum who has had the Zen epiphany — jgill

My take would be that perhaps we should forget about Zen epiphanies, sudden enlightenment, radical transformation and other such grandness.

I'm reminded of those who dream of going to Hollywood and becoming a big star so they'll be popular, when a more serious project might be to make a few new friends. Ok, so a tiny number of people do become big Hollywood stars, that does happen. What relevance does that have for the vast majority of us? Such conversations seems more amateur hour than advanced here.

It's unclear to me whether it's appropriate and useful to rip all the fancy talk becoming trips to shreds, or wiser to leave folks in peace to chase their own dreams. Well, ok, so I know the answer to that, but my own "it's the ill who tend to show up at the hospital" situation is still clinging to the ripping to shreds stuff a bit. Ok, ok, more than a bit. :-)

Epiphanies are real. Of course there are also ‘false epiphanies’. And simply because one has an epiphany, doesn’t mean enlightenment.

One of the Zen teachers I follow, Meido-roshi, frequently comments that it’s not that difficult to have an initial experience of satori (which is a term for epiphany), but that it’s extraordinarily difficult to integrate it and develop it fully so that it becomes stable and deep.

My experience with meditation, generally, is that some of the insights and major ‘aha’ moments, came very quickly and, seemingly, effortlessly. When I first started to consciously try and sit in meditation twice daily, I would be surprised by spontaneous feelings of bliss arising in the most unexpected situations - standing in a checkout queue or waiting for the bus. That was what made me realise I was working with something real. But, as all Zen teachers say, experiences come and go, it’s a mistake to chase them, hanker for them, or try and hang on to them.

I stuck with a regular meditation practice for a lot of years. 2020, it fell away. I encountered obstacles and hindrances which undermined my commitment. I also started attending a Pureland service. That is a Buddhist school called Jodo Shin-su, which deprecates any effort to practice meditation whatever. But I think I need to go back to it. In some ways, it’s a very difficult discipline to stick with - after all, Buddhist meditation is practically the definition of un-fun. But I’m still very drawn to the Sōtō school of Zen, and want to return to that form of practice in the New Year. Like the Nike ad - ‘just do it’.

Epiphanies are real. Of course there are also ‘false epiphanies’. And simply because one has an epiphany, doesn’t mean enlightenment.

One of the Zen teachers I follow, Meido-roshi, frequently comments that it’s not that difficult to have an initial experience of satori (which is a term for epiphany), but that it’s extraordinarily difficult to integrate it and develop it fully so that it becomes stable and deep. — Wayfarer

Which person who's ever gone to high school can forget reading about the great Greek mathematician Archimedes running stark-naked and dripping wet through the streets of Syracuse screaming "Eureka! Eureka!" after having had an epiphany on how to determine if king Hiero's golden crown had been debased (or not)?

Too, I recall reading about other people from all walks of life - mathematicians, writers, artists, etc. - having their own Eureka moments, these then either solving the main problem itself or a sub-problem that's critical to finding a solution to the main problem. I'm sorry I don't have any specific names I can cite but that's a [personal] memory issue, nothing to do with the facticity of my claims.

In a Zen context, the idea behind koans, all paradoxes in their own right, is to bring the student into immediate contact with the heart/crux of the issue which is that the world doesn't make sense or that if one thought it did, that's an illusion. Thus, by constantly assaulting the student's understanding or what fae thinks is understanding with puzzles/conundrums in the form of koans, the teacher forces the student's mind to rethink/reassess the entire situation and that too without the aid of faer much-trusted aide, rationality/common sense. In essence, the koan is a simulation of the worst-case scenario - you're stripped of all your familiar tools of analysis, unceremoniously kicked out of your comfort zone, and plopped down in unfamiliar territory; it's like being lost in rough seas without a compass. Is this an environment conducive to epiphanies?

I've never been through Koan training, and likely never will. My point was simply that epiphanies do occur and they can be real indications of a breakthrough or catharsis, or, shall we say, a reconfiguration of one's outlook.

As for the epiphanies that arise through meditation, I'm reminded of this exchange:

Practitioner: 'I've learned there are things you come to understand through meditation that you can't see any other way.'

Questioner: 'Oh yeah? What are they?'

Practitioner: :confused:

I've never been through Koan training, and likely never will. — Wayfarer

Why? What's stopping you? In for the penny, in for a pound. Right?