the metaphysical basis of mysticism — FrancisRay

Emptiness?

The only non-faith based consensus is scientific where this is reduced to a mere brain state, though a beneficial one, in its depatterning affect on the mind and in reducing existential angst. Can jazz do that? There’s no consensus at all on faith based metaphysics like rebirth, karma, department origination, etc etc.

You're right to say there is not yet a consensus. However, it is demonstrable that mysticism endorses a non-dual description of Reality. This translates into metaphysics as a neutral metaphysical position.

This is not a speculation. Unless nonduality is the basis of the 'mystical' teachings then the knowledge claims it makes would not be possible. Hence sects that do not endorse the nondual teachings usually stress the need for faith, while those that do stress the importance of replacing faith with knowledge.
. .
You're right also about emptiness bei9ng the basis of the metaphysics. I prefer the word 'Unity' since it's more helpful in logic, but either way we end up with a neutral theory. .

The only non-faith based consensus is scientific...

No arguments here. But note that authentic Yoga is a science by Popper's definition. . .

where this is reduced to a mere brain state.

Not sure what you mean here.






.

mysticism endorses a non-dual description of Reality — FrancisRay

Any description of reality is necessarily dualistic. Mysticism endorses transcendence.

Unless nonduality is the basis of the 'mystical' teachings then the knowledge claims it makes would not be possible. Hence sects that do not endorse the nondual teachings usually stress the need for faith, while those that do stress the importance of replacing faith with knowledge realization of emptiness. — FrancisRay

Fixed that for ya.

I've only had a rather shallow experience of the kind were talking about, but even though whole-hog realization may be something to write home about, it ain't the end-all be-all that it's cracked up to be. After enlightenment, the dishes, as the saying goes. It is certainly not anything worth building an entire religion around, and that is exactly why Buddhism is so unpopular. Not to suggest that religions need to be built around anything of substance.

One doesn't have to be a Buddhist to endorse its teachings. — FrancisRay

That's confused.

One doesn't have to be a Buddhist to endorse its teachings.
— FrancisRay

That's confused. — baker

Many serious Zen students (including myself) do not consider themselves Buddhists. Buddhism was created by the historical Buddha as a guide for those who (for whatever reasons) could not realize the path without sequential teachings..

Many serious Zen students (including myself) do not consider themselves Buddhists. — synthesis

... because you don’t subscribe to its teachings, right?

Many serious Zen students (including myself) do not consider themselves Buddhists.
— synthesis

... because you don’t subscribe to its teachings, right? — praxis

Not really. Zen is the essence of Buddhism. The rest of Buddhism is all of the intellectual teachings that should lead to meditation (Zen means meditation in j.).

Generally speaking, Zen students are those who are the purists and wish to 'cut to the chase,' that is, if you get it (that meditation IS the path), what's the point of the rest? For many, the rest is very important and others never really get much into meditation at all,as Buddhism is a very nice religion in and of itself.

Although Zen students are technically Buddhists (I guess), many of us choose not to engage the intellectual parts any more than is necessary (only to keep us on track). A common "intellectual aid" in Zen would be the popularity of the Heart sutra, a short writing that comes about as close as you can (intellectually) to what Zen is about.

One doesn't have to be a Buddhist to endorse its teachings. — FrancisRay

That's confused. — baker

As synthesis points out, Buddhists have no need to identify as such. The most skilled Buddhist I know prefers to be thought of as a Taoist. He's also the most skllled Taoist I know.

If I had to state my affiliations I'd say I'm a Buddhist, a Taoist, a Christian, a Sufi, a Kabbalist, and a Hindu. Its all the same teaching underneath the clutter. I don't call myself any of these things since I'm a lazy practitioner.and it would be misleading and hypocritical to do so.

Besides, the adjective 'Buddhist' is pretty meaningless. It includes the greatest masters and the most naive beginners. .











. . . , . .

mysticism endorses a non-dual description of Reality — FrancisRay

Any description of reality is necessarily dualistic. Mysticism endorses transcendence. — praxis

Yes..Subject-predicate language cannot capture the truth. It remains the case the mystics endorse a nondual description or reality. This states that true words seem paradoxical, and even then cannot avoid an implied dualism. . . .

Unless nonduality is the basis of the 'mystical' teachings then the knowledge claims it makes would not be possible. Hence sects that do not endorse the nondual teachings usually stress the need for faith, while those that do stress the importance of replacing faith with knowledge (realization of emptiness). — FrancisRay

Fixed that for ya.

Ahem. I'm afraid you fixed nothing. Knowledge is Realisation. . . .

I've only had a rather shallow experience of the kind were talking about, but even though whole-hog realization may be something to write home about, it ain't the end-all be-all that it's cracked up to be. After enlightenment, the dishes, as the saying goes. It is certainly not anything worth building an entire religion around, and that is exactly why Buddhism is so unpopular. Not to suggest that religions need to be built around anything of substance.

I feel you;d do well to hold off with your views and just study the facts. It's not sensible to have a shallow experience and then form views about how important it is.

As for religion, you must be speaking about Theravada. The Mahayana is not a religion in the common sense of the word. I do not endorse the Theravada approach since it has no metaphysical foundation.and appears to be faith-based.

If Buddhism is unpopular because it is a religion,then this just goes to show how poorly it is understood. But its an odd comment seeing that Buddhism is the most popular religion on the planet at this time.
. .
For the mystic view on organised religion check out Sadhguru or Alan Watts on youtube. They advise us to rise above it. .

Generally speaking, Zen students are those who are the purists and wish to 'cut to the chase,' that is, if you get it (that meditation IS the path), what's the point of the rest? — synthesis

In a word, meaning. Now try to tell me that zen is meaningless, I haven’t had a good laugh yet today.

Knowledge is Realisation. . . . — FrancisRay

I know a lot about Africa but have never been there and haven’t experienced it. For all I know it may not actually exist.

It's not sensible to have a shallow experience and then form views about how important it is. — FrancisRay

It’s sensible to have a grandiose view of something without any evidence of its grandiosity?

Knowledge is Realisation. . . . — FrancisRay

I know a lot about Africa but have never been there and haven’t experienced it. For all I know it may not actually exist. — praxis

Exactly. Knowledge is going there,

It's not sensible to have a shallow experience and then form views about how important it is. — FrancisRay

Is it sensible to have a grandiose view of something without any evidence of its grandiosity?

I don't know what you mean by 'grandiose view'. If you mean what I you mean it would be idiotic. .

Don't feel bad, there are Zen students who practice for decades and never "get it."

You (and most) are confused because the conversation goes back and forth between the intellectual (Zen has meaning) and the non-intellectual (Zen does not exist).

I am not sure why some people get it and others don't (as an aside, it was one of the only questions I ever asked my teacher and he just shrugged his shoulders, as well). Regardless, it's just the way it is.

And by all means, have a good laugh!

Knowledge is Realisation. . . . — FrancisRay

I know a lot about Africa but have never been there and haven’t experienced it. For all I know it may not actually exist.
— praxis
Exactly. Knowledge is going there, — FrancisRay

??? I've never gone there. I have a lot of knowledge about Africa.

I don't know what you mean by 'grandiose view'. — FrancisRay

Exactly. There's nothing grand about it.

non-intellectual (Zen does not exist and does not exist). — synthesis

Fixed that for ya.

At the hight of my involvement I could be found bowing before a Zen priest in the predawn twilight of an alleyway in Santa Monica. Him saying that I don't need to bow (habitual demonstrations of fealty come later). Though I liked him very much and enjoyed the ritual of it all, it was never really for me. I gradually learned, by myself, that meaning is all around us and within us. To be spoon fed is to be coddled like a child, and a coddled child never grows up.

non-intellectual (Zen does not exist and does not exist).
— synthesis

Fixed that for ya. — praxis

Not quite.

Intellectual - Zen exists.
Non-intellectual - nothing (intellectual) exists.

I gradually learned, by myself, that meaning is all around us and within us. — praxis

All realization is personal and much of it manifests much later in life.

Non-intellectual would be, well, literally non-intellectual. Even saying that something does and does not exist is unmistakably intellectual. It has purpose and meaning.

I give up. Maybe synthesis will have more luck.

.

The topic is an invitation to express our disillusionment with Buddhism and I too wish synth the best of luck with that endeavor.

No. I replied because you asked for 'anything else of interest', and so I tried to suggest your reasons for having problems with Buddhism were poor. . . — FrancisRay

Some of your responses come across as really condescending.

It's not nearly as much fun as listening to Miles Davis, — FrancisRay

And then again, some of your responses come across as incredibly condescending.

Buddhism is so unpopular. — praxis

There are 500,000,000 Buddhists in the world.

If Buddhism is unpopular because it is a religion,then this just goes to show how poorly it is understood. But its an odd comment seeing that Buddhism is the most popular religion on the planet at this time. — FrancisRay

As I noted, there are 0.5 billion Buddhists. There are 2.4 billion Christians.

It ain't on the top three list.

It's not nearly as much fun as listening to Miles Davis,
— FrancisRay

And then again, some of your responses come across as incredibly condescending. — T Clark

One of the many benefits of Zen and the art of 'getting it'.

The topic is an invitation to express our disillusionment with Buddhism and I too wish synth the best of luck with that endeavor. — praxis

i was trying to point out that I see no rejection of Buddhism. All I see is a rejection o some Buddhists. The OP does not indicate that he understands the doctrine.or the method.

But if he wants to distance himself that's his business. It dosn't seem to be a philosophical matter. . .

Some of your responses come across as really condescending. — T Clark

Sorry about that. I tend to be blunt.

Sorry about that. I tend to be blunt. — FrancisRay

Blunt is fine. Condescending is rhetorical rather than philosophical. And it starts unnecessary and unproductive scuffles.

i was trying to point out that I see no rejection of Buddhism. — FrancisRay

I suspect that nothing would convince you otherwise. Am I right? Be honest.