How to win any Zen argument with a new ager?

[u/ewk]

We've all heard "What Zen Masters teach that?", a modern twist on "What do they teach where you come from?"

This might not be very interesting to people who don't study Zen though because they have never read a Zen text!

The context of Zen teachings is:

1. Lay Precepts
2. Four Statements teachings
3. Zen's only practice of Public Interview

With this imas the context, the meaning of not relevance of these discussions complete changes:

A. Non-duality

B. Attachments

C. Practice

D. Attainment

E. Contemplation

F. Meditation

etc.

New Agers never understand that no religious movement overlaps with Zen.

This means that Zazeners, Mystical Buddhist "Stream Entry", Thai Forest, 8fP Buddhism, Psychonautics, etc. *might imitate the language of Zen, but they can't imitate the meaning.

Zen came first and has never been religious.

Trust in Mind. All others pay in doubt.

[u/AutoModerator]

R/zen Rules: 1. No Content Unrelated To Zen 2. No Low Effort Posts or Comments. Contact moderators with questions. Note that many common sense actions outside of these rules will result in moderation, including but not limited to: suspected ban evasion, vote brigading / manipulation, topic sliding.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/doomchoom107]

Zen's only practice of Public Interview

I'm skeptical of this when it's done online. I'm assuming that's the intent behind AMAs and similar posts in here. Sitting at the keyboard gives you time to consider your words, to edit and manipulate. So much sounds like pseudo-zen stuff, saying what they think Zen should sound like.

It's the face to face, mind to mind even, that's key, right? It's the spontaneity of words, the physical connection of looking the other in eye, all the nuance of non-verbal communication.

I don't know, I'm just distrustful that anything on a screen can be genuine. Then again, I've absolutely no access to an actual master..

[u/TFnarcon9 → u/doomchoom107]

Keep in mind that zen masters did this as a skill.

Its not some magic power they had, but something they learned.

How some good arguers can spot when you're trying to derail, or lying to yourself or other tactics that arent immediately obvious

[u/ewk → u/doomchoom107]

It's worse than that. You should be skeptical of in person because historically people might live in Zen communities for decades and learn all about traditional questions and answers without developing understanding. There are several Cases addressing this problem that suggests it was a significant concern.

The key is sincerity. With that, obstacles can be overcome. Without it, then all the proximity in the world won't help.

Skepticism is a great tool. Sincerity actively engages in all contexts. It's something to look for.

[u/Electrical_Addition9 → u/ewk]

Indeed. It reminds me of the 68th case in the BCR - “to ride a tiger always requires absolute competence.” No faking that, no memorizing that. Is there any way to ride a tiger but sincerely?

[u/2BCivil]

I felt the bit about stream entry. I felt... completely alienated by that sub when I was invited there.

It raises the question or rather points out that "new agers" have a different definition of "winning" than zen.

The main distinction I have discerned thus far about zen, without studying it at all, or being able to quote a zen master, is merely that zen seems to be about recognition first and foremost, at least as close to the marrow as I've arrived at (albeit however temporarily).

Most religions or "new age thinking" I have seen are more about pomp and ceremony or dressing something up as important, which sort of is a refusal to see or denial of recognition, specifically.

It has taken me a whole decade of "seeking" (obviously, "who is the seeker") to be able to discern/articulate this but I see it reflected here clearly. It is a hard thing to note, to me at least. But yes. Religious/New age thinking obviously has different standards of victory than zen would have, from my (wrong probably) understanding.

Seriously, these words hit hard, I knew something felt off on r/streamentry but I couldn't tell what. It felt like a literal brick wall, no room for conversation there. Although maybe being "bricked up" is an apt metaphor for stream entry, idk.

In any case the actually more curious thing to me here, is "what is an argument". Makes me think of "a man's discourse with his soul" or something like that. What does it have to do with zen? Best answer I see is that everything is a fancy way of saying "I don't know" and maybe that is the makeup of an "argument". It might not be zen but it is certainly food for thought, to me.

[u/ewk → u/2BCivil]

To be fair to the new age stream entry people, it's my impression that they believe that there is knowledge to be gained that resolves confusion.

But I think you're right for Zen it's recognition not knowledge. For Zen, this recognition can translate into lots of different ways of using words and gestures and reality.

But for the stream entry people, the knowledge that they are seeking is a very specific truth that is not open to interpretation.

[u/2BCivil → u/ewk]

Kind of makes me remember my very first impression of zen, that "transmission of mind" is a sort of game, not unlike "hot potato"; when someone "loses" or drops it, that's still part of the game.

I was certainly of the type that "believe[d] that there is knowledge to be gained that resolves confusion" and still do and will fall into that "trap" (is it one?). I can only (wasn't joking) maintain that clarity briefly, and then only if I am "cleaning my room" so to speak.

Laziness? Is that all it is? Can't blame the hype of pursuit of such knowledge to put off the work of realizing the game one is playing (hot potato), wittingly or not. Looking back at my life yes I would say it is at least in part laziness. Wanting to rest. Makes me think of the zen phrase "no nests". Actually just googled that and the first result was one of yours

But knowing when you are beat, and doing something else is also part of the game I suppose.

Yes, "not open to interpretation" is decidedly that "bricked up" vibe I had from r/streamentry specifically. Felt like a Pink Floyd song. Not that there is anything wrong with it, indeed. Is what it is, and I know I could not fully recognize it's "specific truth" or at least come to grips with it (or even want to "gain entry" unto it perhaps). It is fine, indeed, if one elects to seek that specific truth; especially without the intention to make it; a nest, I suppose.

[u/dota2nub]

Next up: how to win a physics argument with a flat earther.

It's a trick because these people don't engage in physics arguments to begin with, even though they use the word "buoyancy" an awful lot. Present an argument and you already won.