Such behaviour not only upsets the monastic routine but may even corrupt the Japanese monks, so that as a result of costly experience many Zen monasteries have now closed their doors to foreigners — Wayfarer

I agree that Westerners, and perhaps people in general, tend to pick the easy bits and ignore the discipline and the hard work.

But personally, I have always found Zen a rather intriguing tradition that reminds me of Christian monasticism that can be equally regimental. Apparently, the Japanese word zen comes from Sanskrit dhyana, “meditation” via Chinese chan and the roots of the tradition are traced to India in the early centuries of the Christian Era.

In any case, there are plenty of stories about the Early Christian saints that remind one of those told of Zen masters. For example:

One day when Abba (Father or Elder) John was sitting in front of the church, the brethren were consulting him about their thoughts. One of the old men who saw it became prey to jealousy and said to him, “John, your vessel is full of poison.” Abba John said to him, “That is very true, abba; and you have said that when you only see the outside, but if you were able to see the inside as well, what would you say then?”

One day some old men came to see Abba Antony. In the midst of them was Abba Joseph. Wanting to test them, the old man suggested a text from the Scriptures, and beginning with the youngest, he asked them what it meant. Each gave his opinion as he was able. But to each one the old man said: “You have not understood it”. Last of all he said to Abba Joseph, “How would you explain this saying?” and he replied “I do not know.” Then Abba Anthony said, “Indeed, Abba Joseph” has found the way, for he said, “I do not know”.

A brother came to Scetis to visit Abba Moses and asked him for a word. The old man said, “Go and sit in your cell, and your cell will teach you everything”

- R Altwell, Spiritual Classics from the Early Church

Incidentally, regarding the present, St Augustine writes:

… all the future follows from the past; and all, past and future, is created and issues out of that which is forever present … from what we have said it is abundantly clear that neither the future nor the past exist, and therefore it is not strictly correct to say that there are three times, past, present, and future. It might be correct to say that there are three times, a present of past things, a present of present things, and a present of future things. Some such different times do exist in the mind, but nowhere else that I can see …

- Confessions XI 20

But personally, I have always found Zen a rather intriguing tradition that reminds me of Christian monasticism that can be equally regimental. Apparently, the Japanese word zen comes from Sanskrit dhyana, “meditation” via Chinese chan and the roots of the tradition are traced to India in the early centuries of the Christian Era. — Apollodorus

Perfectly true. There are detailed and vivid accounts of early Chinese monastic pilgrimages to India. There's also an account of Bodhidharma, the legendary patriarch of Ch'an (Chinese version of Zen) in China. It is one of the major lineages to this day, tracing it's lineages back to Bodhidharma and beyond. It's still a very vital tradition.

There's an interesting social movement, Zen Catholicism, which grew out of Thomas Merton's dialogue with Buddhists. There followed a number of people, often Catholics, who became schooled in Zen and taught elements of Zen alongside Christian teachings. See for example Robert Kennedy Roshi and Ama Samy.

Incidentally there's a great Zen teacher, Meido Moore Roshi, who has established a teaching centre and monastery in rural Wisconsin, which I've visited. See korinji.org and also on Facebook.

I agree that Westerners, and perhaps people in general, tend to pick the easy bits and ignore the discipline and the hard work. — Apollodorus

Not only that. But many people interested in Zen seem to think that Zen is a kind of "anything goes"; that if they are "just doing their own thing", they can call it "Zen". It's bizarre. How did it come to this???

Back when I was in college I took a class in philosophy and one of the philosophies touched upon was the eastern philosophy of Zen. Part of the Zen philosophy is about "living in the moment" and a classic story in the Zen philosophy is a story where a man is being chased by a tiger, he comes to a cliff and he's hanging over the edge of a cliff by a vine. He sees a strawberry on the vine, he plucks it and pops it in his mouth, it is wonderfully delicious. — HardWorker

I heard that in an older version of the story, there is no strawberry, but a poisonous fruit, and that a Buddhist teacher, wanting to appeal to a Western audience, made some changes to the story.

Also, the imagery is symbolic: the first tiger represents one's heedless desires that drive one to the edge of a dangerous cliff; the second tiger below are the looming dangers of having acted on those desires; the two mice are the passage of time; the strawberry is the distraction from looking earnestly at one's situation.


Be that as it may, let's look at an early Buddhist sutta and what it says about how to have a good day:

You shouldn’t chase after the past
or place expectations on the future.
What is past
is left behind.
The future
is as yet unreached.
Whatever quality is present
you clearly see right there,
right there.
Not taken in,
unshaken,
that’s how you develop the heart.
Ardently doing
what should be done today,
for—who knows?— tomorrow
death.
There is no bargaining
with Mortality & his mighty horde.
Whoever lives thus ardently,
relentlessly
both day & night,
has truly had an auspicious day:1
So says the Peaceful Sage.

Note how the text talks about things one should do and those one shouldn't do.

The text then further explains the key terms:

“And how, monks, does one chase after the past? One gets carried away with the delight of ‘In the past I had such a form [body]’ … ‘In the past I had such a feeling’ … ‘In the past I had such a perception’ … ‘In the past I had such a fabrication” … ‘In the past I had such a consciousness.’ This is called chasing after the past.

“And how does one not chase after the past? One does not get carried away with the delight of ‘In the past I had such a form’ … ‘In the past I had such a feeling’ … ‘In the past I had such a perception’ … ‘In the past I had such a fabrication” … ‘In the past I had such a consciousness.’ This is called not chasing after the past.

“And how does one place expectations on the future? One gets carried away with the delight of ‘In the future I might have such a form’ … ‘In the future I might have such a feeling’ … ‘In the future I might have such a perception’ … ‘In the future I might have such a fabrication” … ‘In the future I might have such a consciousness.’ This is called placing expectations on the future.

“And how does one not place expectations on the future? One does not get carried away with the delight of ‘In the future I might have such a form’ … ‘In the future I might have such a feeling’ … ‘In the future I might have such a perception’ … ‘In the future I might have such a fabrication” … ‘In the future I might have such a consciousness.’ This is called not placing expectations on the future.

“And how is one taken in with regard to present qualities? There is the case where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person who has not seen the noble ones, is not versed in the teachings of the noble ones, is not trained in the teachings of the noble ones, sees form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form.

“He/she sees feeling as self, or self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in self, or self as in feeling.

“He/she sees perception as self, or self as possessing perception, or perception as in self, or self as in perception.

“He/she sees fabrications as self, or self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in self, or self as in fabrications.

“He/she sees consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. This is called being taken in with regard to present qualities.

“And how is one not taken in with regard to present qualities? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones who has seen the noble ones, is versed in the teachings of the noble ones, is well-trained in the teachings of the noble ones, does not see form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form.

“He/she does not see feeling as self, or self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in self, or self as in feeling.

“He/she does not see perception as self, or self as possessing perception, or perception as in self, or self as in perception.

“He/she does not see fabrications as self, or self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in self, or self as in fabrications.

“He/she does not see consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. This is called not being taken in with regard to present qualities.


This is what "living in the moment" is about. But this certainy isn't the popular image of it.

Part of the Zen philosophy is about "living in the moment" — HardWorker

"Living in the moment" is not part of anything, Zen or other philosophy. It is a principle held by the various Buddhist schools (of which Zen is one) and other philosophies. You can even find it in "schools" of modern psychology! Therefore, it is evident that it is interpreted in different ways. Your example with the strawberry, is one of the interpretations, that can be classified under such "mottos" as "Enjoy the moment", "Benefit from the moment", and similar. And. althouh such an attitude may be useful in some caces, I consider it, in general, as shallow, unintelligent and irresponsible. Its implications may be even catastrophic. The person hanging over the edge of a cliff would have better think about how he would be saved than enjoying a strawberry, as metaphorical this action as it may be.

So, the above is one of the interpretations of "living in the moment". Another one, which I find the most important and valuable is what is called "Living in the NOW". Not in the past, not in the future, but in the present. This state is characterized mainly by observation and expanded awareness. You are not doing this in order to enjoy anything, although joy, happiness and even serenity may well accompany it. You are doing this, in the first place, for letting sorrow, pain, anger and other negative emotions influencing your life. And with time, you are not even doing it: it just occurs by itself. "Living in the NOW" was one of the main principles that Krushnamurti was teaching --actually, transmitting-- to people. Of course, he was not the only one. Eckhart Tolle and Dalai Lama, among other, are strong proponents of this principle.

should I go buy it and not think of the big credit card bill I will be getting in the future? After all, that's living in the moment. — HardWorker

If you truly 'lived in the moment' you would not be able to do anything but breathe and observe. A tree would out-live you.

The strawberry is sustenance. Its trace elements will give the person stamina to gain inspiration and insight. What one should want to survive is one's integrity, and integrity is about one's faculties as individual. Self-respect is one's first and last experience.

Maxing out is imprudent and disrepectful to one's own faculties. Serendipity / providence put a strawberry there and serendipity / providence caused your bank balance and might never do so again. A person who is that stupid with his own means and relationships is liable to get sacked for foolishness in work.

Prudence is a form of "going equipped". Why deliberately give oneself unneeded preoccupations / paint oneself into a corner? People who use this "example" other than you are doing to get us to react appropriately, haven't faced the meaning of survival.

Maybe the man has self-respect and if he perishes it will be at a moment of self-respect and especially of gratitude to serendipity / providence. Besides its concrete sense of sustenance, does the strawberry represent integrity? Does integrity require a lifetime to build up? At the same time does it always remain open for us to start on, or start afresh on?

Close family who we didn't know we had, is now last thought to have been seen by the family when he was aged 12 (it may have been older, but information we have runs out). That was at a perilous period in the history of their countries. Is there (deliberately misleading) silliness from people with their hands on the handles of public propaganda?