Zen

[Coco]

Hello everyone,

I have been wondering how Objectivists view Zen teachings. Zen isn't about anything supernatural or about personal survival. I would like some feedback about this.

Also, I look forward to getting to know many of you in this forum.

Thanks,

Coco

Edited March 5, 2007 by Coco

[DavidOdden]

No.

Okay, that was too Zen. Insofar as Zen is a variety of Buddhism and Buddhism is a variety of not-Objectivism, it's not viewed favorably. The core of Buddhism is dimetrically opposed to Objectivism, but I presume you're interested in the Zen-specific features. That's harder to understand, because my understanding of Zen is sparse (drum roll). However, sweeping floors will not lead to understanding. The renunciation of world accomplishments is rather un-Objectivist, and the notion of "unmediated awareness" makes less than a shred of sense to me. Of course, the whole sitting and mind-empty meditating is not Objectivist practice.

[Coco]

Thank you, David.

However,what you have written is different from the ideas of Alan Watts. The idea is to look at things with fresh perspective, not with the preconceived notions we tend to have, in other words, being able to look outside the box. And he said that we must fully enjoy our lives, enjoying each moment, and not to live for any so-called future life after death. The caution is to beware of getting trapped in becoming attached to the past, which is like trying to grasp the wind with your hand. He saw no sense in sitting and emptying the mind either. He called that being a stone buddha. We are to be fully awake and engaged in life. That, to me, is very exciting. He said that Zen changed a great deal over time. What you said speaks more of later ideas. I would enjoy reading what you have to say about the above.

Coco

No.

Okay, that was too Zen. Insofar as Zen is a variety of Buddhism and Buddhism is a variety of not-Objectivism, it's not viewed favorably. The core of Buddhism is dimetrically opposed to Objectivism, but I presume you're interested in the Zen-specific features. That's harder to understand, because my understanding of Zen is sparse (drum roll). However, sweeping floors will not lead to understanding. The renunciation of world accomplishments is rather un-Objectivist, and the notion of "unmediated awareness" makes less than a shred of sense to me. Of course, the whole sitting and mind-empty meditating is not Objectivist practice.

[IAmMetaphysical]

The only thing I've read about Zen or about buddhism in general is the idea that desire leads to suffering and frustration so that one must do away with desire in order to be happy, i.e. do away with wanting to achieve so that one will do away with the possibility of failure. So while it identifies the root of suffering as not having things which one wants, it advises that you stop wanting those things which leads to the state that causes the suffering in the first place which is: not having the things you want. Of course wanting irrational things will cause suffering and one should do away with those desires, but Buddhism advises getting rid of all desires, or all values. But as said above, maybe the specific ideas of Alan Watts are different than this so you'd have to judge it based on his ideas. Any websites with more info?

[DavidOdden]

The idea is to look at things with fresh perspective, not with the preconceived notions we tend to have, in other words, being able to look outside the box.

Okay, so you're talking about a specific dialect of Zen, or neo-Zen, or whatever. I dunno what his thing is, but I'll work on the basis of what you say. Now first, Objectivism rejects the idea of a "preconceived notion", at least understood literally -- there literally are no such things. The term is used, generally derogatorily, to refer to an ill-supported conclusion (although saying that a notion is preconceived doesn't mean that it actually is). For example, some people have the pre-conceived notion that Blacks are by nature mentally inferior to whites. This notion is not supported by fact, and in general, Objectivism rejects the practice of accepting ideas that aren't supported. Supported by what? Observation, of fact.

Thinking in the box (I hate box-speak, but let's let that pass) means one of two things, from what I can tell. One is that a person may have arbitrarily accepted certain assumptions and then rejected other conclusions that contradict those assumptions. For example, "We can't sell electronics, because the company has always sold household appliances" is based on a presumed immutability of business purpose, which probably isn't supported by any fact. That is bad reasoning. The other thing it means is, accepting certain conclusions because there have been empirically validated, and they rise to the level of valid and useful principle -- but certain nihilists love to deny the validity of principles or knowledge in general; and so they will insultingly tell you to 'think outside the box', so a well-supported conclusion cannot be accepted, because it is logically based on a premise. Thus the nihilist version of "thinking outside the box" is anathema to Objectivism but Rand often advocated checking our assumptions.

And he said that we must fully enjoy our lives, enjoying each moment, and not to live for any so-called future life after death.

No problem there.

We are to be fully awake and engaged in life.

No problem there.

But of course there are many questions about whether crazy spritualism, Ouspensky, Gurdjieff, theosophy, and what all have any connection to Objectivism -- decidedly, they do not.

[softwareNerd]

One ought to reject ideas that are incorrectly conceived. Whether they are preconceived has no bearing on their worth. Indeed, as David said, Objectivism rejects the notion of a "pre-conceived" idea. After all, human babies aren't born with any pre-concieved ideas. The other sense in which people use the term "preconceived idea" is "an idea that one conceived earlier" (and they're usually implying that the idea is not relevant to the current situation. In this sense every idea that one has is preconceived because one already has it.

It is true that people sometimes make judgements using ideas that are incorrect or not applicable. perhaps the idea was relevant to an earlier time or perhaps something is fundamentally different in the current situation compared to the situation in which one formed the idea. In such case, one ought to point out why the idea is false or inapplicable; simply pointing to it's "preconception" is a non-argument.

The "in a box" thing usually refers to the same type of situation. If we take the "box" metaphor to represents the bounds that our ideas and principles place upon our actions, then we should question where the box is drawn, but not the fact that the box exists.

At their best, the fuzzy notions of "preconception" and "boxes" appear as legitimate complaints about the misuse of ideas and principles. However, they so easily mutate into attacks against ideas and principles as such. Therefore, they're a very dangerous way to think about the subject.

Edited March 5, 2007 by softwareNerd

[Dorian]

At one point I remember reading that Zen is partially about being in a state of mind where one must balance between objective reality and the subjective self. Can someone confirm or deny this?

I find this concept very interesting especially when applying it to arts. I think every artist should think objectively and balance that with subjectivity. Since my view of the world is different from any other persons, art is one way of expressing that view. The objective side thinks about subject matter, or money, how can I sell this art? How can someone relate to it? What are people interested in?

[Alessa36]

Hi Coco

Zen teachings in many ways is in direct conflict with objectivist principals. Practicing non attachment, selflessness and non permanance come to mind, however, it also represents some of the most intelligent approach to figuring out your path in life. I adore Zen but I cannot embrace it entirely. Unlike some Objectivists, I take the good I find in Zen and just reject the bad. I don't need to condemn the entire Philosophy because I am an objectivist. My favorite Zen quote (very objectivist) ...

"Never believe anything, Nothing, no matter what, no matter who has told you, not even if I have told you, unless you have figured it out and You believe it to be true"

~Buddah~

Namaste

Edited March 6, 2007 by Alessa36

[DarkWaters]

At one point I remember reading that Zen is partially about being in a state of mind where one must balance between objective reality and the subjective self.

What do you mean by the subjective self here? Do you mean that individuals have different preferences? Do you mean that each individual perceives reality differently? Do you mean that there is no objective means to understanding oneself?

I find this concept very interesting especially when applying it to arts. I think every artist should think objectively and balance that with subjectivity. Since my view of the world is different from any other persons, art is one way of expressing that view. The objective side thinks about subject matter, or money, how can I sell this art? How can someone relate to it? What are people interested in?

What do you consider to be the subjective side of art?

Objectivism certainly discusses what beauty is and what qualifies for good art. Of course, to hold the Objectivist view on Aesthetics (which I am far from an expert in) is not to say that you should have the same tastes as all other Objectivists. For example, it is perfectly fine for some individuals to appreciate the symphonies of Beethoven while other individuals might find them to be too dark.

I have been wondering how Objectivists view Zen teachings.

According to Wikipedia

Zen teaches that the entire universe is a manifestation of mind, and encourages the practitioner to confirm this for themselves through direct insight satori.

If this is accurate, then Objectivism rejects this philosophy without hesitation as this is diametrically opposed to the Objectivist view of an objective reality.

I also remember learning that lessons such as "If a tree falls in the woods, then it does not make a sound because nobody is around to hear it." or paradoxes about a stick being both the shortest and the longest stick in a bundle of sticks with varying lengths are also affiliated with Zen Buddhism. (I could be confusing this with Taoism actually, I am not sure.) These again imply a subjective reality, which would be immediately rejected by Objectivists.

Perhaps Alan Watts, analogous to Robert Pirsig, departed from these aspects of Zen though.

Zen Buddhists also like to practice meditation. I do not see why Objectivists would be too enthusiastic on this practice either.

Edited March 6, 2007 by DarkWaters

[softwareNerd]

I don't need to condemn the entire Philosophy because I am an objectivist.

In general, one does not have to condemn everything someone else says to conclude that the person is wrong.

For instance, the communists were probably making some good points when they pointed to (say) rich kids who committed crimes and got off without punishment because of connections, or when they pointed to (say) someone who'd bribed the municipal authorities to clear a whole lot of poor folks from an area that was not rightfully his, and so on. The problem with the commies is not that every observation they made was untrue -- they would never have had the success they did, based on pure fiction. The problem was with their conceptual understanding of the situation and with their solution. In other words, what was wrong was not all their observations, but the final result: the political philosophy.

Take another example: John Dewey, "father" of progressive education. Many of his criticisms of traditional education were correct. Education should not be a spewing of facts and rote memorization; education should take the nature of the child into account, and so on. However, the way he conceptualized his observations, and the solutions he designed ended up as a system that simply let many kids do whatever they wished, devalued the idea of objective knowledge and was an overall disaster. In other words, what was wrong was not all his observations, but the final result: the educational philosophy.

With Zen, let's assume that it says some right things and some wrong things. So, one may like and agree with some things that it says. However, the point is: how does one evaluate it as a philosophy. If one says: these things about Zen are correct but it draws the wrong conclusions, then one is rejecting the philosophy.

If one has an integrated philosophy, then that philosophy should address reality. Therefore, a good, integrated political philosophy will acknowledge the true observations made by the communists and will address them. Similarly, a good, integrated philosophy of education will address the negatives of traditional education and the true observations of Dewey. Similarly, with Zen, one would point to the valid observations that lead people to conceptualize things like "being in boxes" and explain the same observation in different terms.

All too often, people understand a large part of the problem, and even come up with some good semi-solutions to some parts of the problem, but still don't come up with the right integrated solution. Many dichotomies are of this type: e.g., traditional education vs. progressive education. So, finding good nuggets within things that are overall bad is not exceptional.

Finally, even if one has a negative formal evaluation of a particular author, one may sometimes retain a personal "soft-spot" for them. For instance, an author may open one's eyes to something and one may love what they're saying. Later, one might realize that they were right in some observations, but their overall advice was flawed. One might then end up with a negative evaluation of their approach, while still thanking them for having pointed out something one had otherwise missed.

As a whole, Zen sounds like a protest against intrinsicism but a call for subjectivism. So, while it validly rejects one side of a classic dichotomy, it pushes the other. Objectivism steps neatly "between the horns of the dilemma".

[Dorian]

I'd like to answer your questions Darkwater, but I'm going to try to keep it short in order to not de-rail this thread. It's kind of off-topic.

Do you mean that individuals have different preferences? Do you mean that each individual perceives reality differently?

Yes, and yes.

Do you mean that there is no objective means to understanding oneself?

No.

What do you consider to be the subjective side of art?

My opinion of quality. Individualism. The objective side being related to decisions of reality. For example, say my objectives are to make money, well I would try to understand what people like, and/or what would generate me the most value, then create art related to those facts.

What I find interesting about balancing subjectivity and objectivity is balancing my personal opinions against objective facts which don't align with my opinions. Personally, I weigh most of my decisions towards objectivity since they tend to align with my subjective opinions or change them. Hope this makes sense!

Edited March 7, 2007 by Dorian

[John McVey]

They say that even a dead clock is correct twice a day... the Christians say that the wages of sin is death, and here is an example germaine to the present thread:

Buddhist dilemma over ants: "Buddhist monks in Malaysia are struggling to combat an infestation of stinging red ants - without killing any of them. Monks at the Hong HockSee Temple in Kuala Lumpur face a moral dilemma because of their belief in non-violence. The insects have plagued the temple for a year and one worshipper needed hospital treatment after being bitten, reports Sky News.

Hat-tip: Wicked Thoughts

They've got buckley's chance, I reckon. Eventually they must choose, ants or humans. For Objectivism, there's no contest, and there would be no story in the first place as at the first sign of such pests in one of our buildings (which wouldn't be a temple) it's immediate chemical warfare and fight to the death.

JJM

[softwareNerd]

Eventually they must choose, ants or humans. For Objectivism, there's no contest, ...

A nice little example of the immoral (i.e. Buddhism) being the impractical.

[punk]

I think the core of Zen is at odds with objectivism.

A big point of Zen is to set aside all our emotional and romantic associations with things, and view them just as they are.

So even if you had a pen that belonged to Abraham Lincoln, you'd just see it as a pen, and not look at it with the attitude "Hey! This is LINCOLN's PEN!", or if you had a car, you'd view it as a means of transportation, and not get all caught up in image, style, and flair.

Rand's brand of Romanticism has a view to finding and enacting the "heroic" in the world. Zen would say the heroic is just a figment of our mind, and that it is in our best interest to get past that.

[tps_fan]

I took a survey of Asian philosophy class when I first went to college, so I'm familiar with some of the general concepts.

One of the first things which I would have to take issue with is the Zen Buddhist view of ethics. As you likely know, Zen practitioners aspire to operate in the guise of "not doing" (as exemplified in the classic lit. on Zen archery.) My professor never really offered a virtuous gain to be had from such behavior, but that's precisely the point! "Not doing" is in direct opposition of the Objectivist idea of a value being something to gain and keep by way of virtuous achievement.

Not only would an Objectivist archer completely eschew the directive of "not doing", but he would whole-heartedly go out of his way to practice his craft in an optimal fashion. That is, he would strive to be precise, fully conscious, passionate, and serious. In other words, he would be goal-oriented.

Further, he would look to "cash-in" by taking his successful achievements as points of pride as well as potential sources for greater learning. The Christians may be explicitly opposed to "eating from the tree of Knowledge", but Zen Buddhists (and more broadly Asian philosophers) advocate the same vice. In turn, it's the very pursuit of greater self-esteem that all mystics seek to undermine (whether the related normative directives are made explicitly and pointedly or not.)

(...starts to once again think about how utterly ridiculous it is for Christians claiming to defend America against radical Islam....)

Edited March 17, 2007 by tps_fan

[MisterSwig]

However,what you have written is different from the ideas of Alan Watts. The idea is to look at things with fresh perspective, not with the preconceived notions we tend to have, in other words, being able to look outside the box. And he said that we must fully enjoy our lives, enjoying each moment, and not to live for any so-called future life after death. The caution is to beware of getting trapped in becoming attached to the past, which is like trying to grasp the wind with your hand. He saw no sense in sitting and emptying the mind either. He called that being a stone buddha. We are to be fully awake and engaged in life. That, to me, is very exciting. He said that Zen changed a great deal over time. What you said speaks more of later ideas. I would enjoy reading what you have to say about the above.

Nothing personal, Coco, but I never trust someone else's description of their religion. I go to the source. And, so, that is why I started to read this lecture by Alan Watts, and I found his opening remarks to be very revealing:

If I allow you to leave here this evening, under the impression that you understand something about Zen, you will have missed the point entirely. Because Zen is a way of life, a state of being, that is not possible to embrace in any concept whatsoever, so that any concepts, any ideas, any words that I shall put across to you this evening will have as their object, showing you the limitations of words and of thinking.

Now then, if one must try to say something about what Zen is, and I want to do this by way of introduction, I must make it emphatic that Zen, in its essence, is not a doctrine. There's nothing you're supposed to believe in. It's not a philosophy in our sense, that is to say a set of ideas, an intellectual net in which one tries to catch the fish of reality. Actually, the fish of reality is more like water--it always slips through the net. And in water you know when you get into it there's nothing to hang on to. All this universe is like water; it is fluid, it is transient, it is changing. And when you're thrown into the water after being accustomed to living on the dry land, you're not used to the idea of swimming. You try to stand on the water, you try to catch hold of it, and as a result you drown. The only way to survive in the water, and this refers particularly to the waters of modern philosophical confusion, where God is dead, metaphysical propositions are meaningless, and there's really nothing to hang on to, because we're all just falling apart. And the only thing to do under those circumstances is to learn how to swim. And to swim, you relax, you let go, you give yourself to the water, and you have to know how to breathe in the right way. And then you find that the water holds you up; indeed, in a certain way you become the water. And so in the same way, one might say if one attempted to--again I say misleadingly--to put Zen into any sort of concept, it simply comes down to this:

That in this universe, there is one great energy, and we have no name for it.

So, let me get this straight. You want us to comment on a doctrine that doesn't even have the backbone to call itself a doctrine? Why should I give a rip about Zen, when it won't even provide "the great energy" with a proper name? I mean, how worthless is Zen?

[stonebuddha]

Zen which is a mixture of Buddhism & Taoism has been greatly misunderstood - especially by those who seek to understand it by renouncing worldly pleasures and desires. One need not live a life of asceticism in order to gain enlightenment. When I say enlightenment, I don't mean some holier than thou notion that one is above it all – immune to suffering, completely detached from the travails & the mundane of the everyday. Bad things can still happen to a true man of Zen, but the difference is how he deals with it.

Enlightenment is not about gaining a particular set of knowledge, but rather about getting rid of the "woe is me" attitude – hence lightening one's mental burden.

I don't see any conflict between true Zen understanding & objectivism. Unfortunately people on both sides are tripped up over semantic issues and completely miss the point. It's as if I'm talking about & pointing at the moon while you're looking solely at my finger instead.

If you really want to read the best, most concise book on Zen – it is Alan Watt's The Wisdom of Insecurity.

[Moebius]

Zen is a pretty broad term that can potentially mean alot of different things, especially in western culture.

The practice of Zen is centered on mastering your subjective self (ie. your awareness, or consciousness), and thereby being fully "in the moment". When doing so, I find that it's not only necessary to turn off the logical part of your brain, but that it's physiologically impossible to be fully analytical and fully "aware" at the same time.

It's difficult for me to describe that state of mind. For those of you that play sports or chess, it's similar to the feeling of being "in the zone", where you're not consciously thinking about what you're going to do, yet you're fully aware of everything that's going on and acting intuitively. Like when you "see" the entire basketball court and just know exactly where everyone is and how the play is going to go down, or when you're not consciously calculating the chess board but just knows intuitive how the game is going to unfold. Basically Zen teaches you how to achieve the "in the zone" feeling, even in everyday mundane tasks. Hence the practices of sand raking or meditation.

I remember reading a brain study where practitioners of Zen, when exposed to a repeating stimuli such as a continuous noise, their brain remains active each time the stimuli is applied. A normal brain on the other hand will begin to screen out that stimuli. Sort of like having a conversation in a cocktail party, where you start to screen out all the background noises. Again it's kind of hard to describe such a feeling, but I've had similar experiences while meditating where my mind felt completely still, yet my senses became extremely sharp and picking up on every single small external noise and movement, all of which fully distinct and yet integrated. I think that's what Zen really means when it says "emptying the mind" - you're shutting off the part of your brain that's constantly "talking" to yourself, and letting your awareness take over. This is also linked to the Zen emphasis on "insight", where sometimes you just know, without actually having thought out everything in logical steps.

My personal theory of Zen practice has to do with the physiology of the human brain. I think that our brain simply isn't designed to process LARGE AMOUNTS of information linearly. Instead it parallel processes the information, running everything in the background, and something just jumps out. Someone with better knowledge on cognitive science might be able to better explain this. Zen is sort of like an exercise that helps you strengthen that process, the same way that solving math problems and puzzles helps strengthen your logic skills.

[Moebius]

By the way, whether Zen is contradictory with objectivism is largely dependent on how you define "Zen".

To me Zen and objectivism isn't contradictory, but is in fact complementary, because it's really talking about different things fundamentally. Objectivism describes how we should view the objective reality, whereas Zen describes how we should view the subjective reality. Both obviously exists, since the world exists inspite of us, and yet our view of the world is entirely dependent on our senses.

Ultimately it comes down to the fact that you brain simply can't be "reasoning" and "conscious" at the same time. I wish I knew how to better explain this, since I feel like my command of words isn't really sufficient to describe what I'm trying to say.

[DavidOdden]

I don't see any conflict between true Zen understanding & objectivism.

If you're interested, there's a thread on the topic that you might want to read which explains that conflict.

[softwareNerd]

If you're interested, there's a thread on the topic that you might want to read which explains that conflict.

You got me there, for a minute!

[Moebius]

If you're interested, there's a thread on the topic that you might want to read which explains that conflict.

Oh I read the thread. Most of the comments regarding contradiction seemed to be based on either a shallow understanding of Zen or sheer ignorance.

In any case I'm talking about the practice of Zen not being contradictory to objectivism, not Buddhist philosophies as a whole.

Edited March 18, 2007 by Moebius

[MisterSwig]

Enlightenment is not about gaining a particular set of knowledge, but rather about getting rid of the "woe is me" attitude – hence lightening one's mental burden.

If Zen is about gaining enlightenment, and enlightenment is about "getting rid of the 'woe is me' attitude," then I have no use for Zen, for I no longer have a 'woe is me' attitude, thanks to the Objectivist morality of rational egoism. Besides, I still have no real clue what Zen is about, other than allegedly being a way to achieve "enlightenment," which seems to be a word that some Zen-people throw around mostly because they don't know what else to call non-observing and non-thinking.

Imagine if Sherlock Holmes were a Zen practitioner: "Watson, hand me that meditation mat! I'm going to solve this case by closing my eyes and emptying my mind of all thought and waiting for The Great Energy to bless me with wise intuition." "But, Holmes, shouldn't we go to the scene of the crime, investigate the facts, and then use logic and reason to deduce the truth?" "No way, my dear fellow. Trust me, Zen is a much better path to true enlightenment."

Man, crime-fighting would be so much easier if the police relied on Zen.

Seriously now, enlightenment is like the equivalent of the Christian's eternal truth or revelation. It is anything the religionist wants to be real. Only, the Zen-person doesn't have a Bible to contradict his "enlightened" version of the truth. He is free to invent whatever absurdity he wishes and claim it to be enlightenment. If enlightenment tells StoneBuddha that enlightenment itself is about "getting rid of the 'woe is me' attitude," then, hot damn, that is what enlightenment actually is about. And nobody can argue with StoneBuddha, because he who argues with enlightenment has not achieved enlightenment.

Isn't that right, StoneBuddha?

Edited March 21, 2007 by MisterSwig

[MisterSwig]

The practice of Zen is centered on mastering your subjective self (ie. your awareness, or consciousness), and thereby being fully "in the moment". When doing so, I find that it's not only necessary to turn off the logical part of your brain, but that it's physiologically impossible to be fully analytical and fully "aware" at the same time.

Is it Zen's goal to turn you into a monkey? I mean, a monkey is not logical, yet fully aware, right? A monkey, after all, can swing like crazy from tree branches, and he can race around like he's on speed, and he is acutely aware of his surroundings, so that nobody could possibly sneak up on him without his knowledge. I think a monkey must be one of the most enlightened, Zen-creatures on earth.

Or, are you saying that we should be a monkey only some of the time, like when we are playing sports or chess, and then we should return to being a normal, thinking person only when we no longer wish to be a monkey?

Edited March 21, 2007 by MisterSwig

[Moebius]

Is it Zen's goal to turn you into a monkey? I mean, a monkey is not logical, yet fully aware, right? A monkey, after all, can swing like crazy from tree branches, and he can race around like he's on speed, and he is acutely aware of his surroundings, so that nobody could possibly sneak up on him without his knowledge. I think a monkey must be one of the most enlightened, Zen-creatures on earth.

Or, are you saying that we should be a monkey only some of the time, like when we are playing sports or chess, and then we should return to being a normal, thinking person only when we no longer wish to be a monkey?

First of all, you're making the error of equating full awareness with Buddhist enlightenment.

As for sports or chess, perhaps you've never had any first hand experience in these activities, or perhaps you've never experienced the feeling of being "in the zone". You really aren't thinking in a linear, logical fashion; but that doesn't mean your brain isn't active and processing information in other ways.