I'd suggest Zen Buddhism, but it's more a practice than a philosophy.

It'd help if you gave a topic of discussion instead of a few books. I for one would like to know why there are so many schools of Zen, Buddhism, etc that teach radically different things. How can you reconcile someone telling you that you need years and years of practice to acquire "enlightenment" and another that says everyone already has it. I can't remember the names of the heads of either school but I can pull it up if you want.

As far as I understand it, Zen is about achieving total "spontaneity" where the conscious "you" stops trying to control things. This doesn't mean it's ascetic, because asceticism is very clearly all about controlling things but in Zen, you're supposed to give up attempting to control completely. So if you don't feel like meditating don't, if you feel like getting angry do, etc. Obviously you can't do so without attempting to control yourself into doing so which is why enlightenment is described as a "sudden realization" that attempting to control is futile so you automatically let go of it. You can't "induce" enlightenment it just happens to you. What I don't get is how that leads to the "end of suffering" that Zen purports to achieve

that attempting to control is futile so you automatically let go of it. You can't "induce" enlightenment it just happens to you. What I don't get is how that leads to the "end of suffering" that Zen purports to achieve.

The problem is that there are a myriad of sources of eastern philosophy and practice and no universally accepted interpretation. So you have to do the leg work yourself. Which is appropriate, because it is the journey which counts and if you are going to achieve anything it will be a living process, rather than an academic qualification.
For a start you could try books by Allan Watts, also Three Pillars Of Zen, by Roshi P. Kapleau was a favourite of mine. You should find your local eastern philosophy bookshop, or visit a Bhuddist centre.

a "sudden realization" that attempting to control is futile so you automatically let go of it. You can't "induce" enlightenment it just happens to you. What I don't get is how that leads to the "end of suffering" that Zen purports to achieve — khaled

Because they say the origin of all suffering is (inevitably unfulfilled) desires, so giving up trying to control things, giving up desires and just accepting everything, makes you immune to suffering. So they say.

. I for one would like to know why there are so many schools of Zen, Buddhism, etc that teach radically different things. — khaled

In anthropology and other forms of study of culture, there are etic and emic perspectives. Etic perspectives function within the domain of discourse, in other words, from the perspective of the inhabitants of that realm. The emic perspective is from outside, like that of an anthropologist (which always reminds of this farside comic):



So, I would suggest from an emic perspective, outside the Buddhist cultures, then all of these divergent schools seem highly contradictory in their teaching. But from an etic perspective inside Buddhist culture, such differences are accommodated as being examples of the '64,000 dharma doors' by which beings of various inclinations approach the dharma. This is in line with the principle that the Buddha teaches beings in accordance with the kinds of things they will understand, rather than dogmatically 'laying down the law', one-size-fits-all style.

a "sudden realization" that attempting to control is futile so you automatically let go of it. You can't "induce" enlightenment it just happens to you. What I don't get is how that leads to the "end of suffering" that Zen purports to achieve
— khaled

Because they say the origin of all suffering is (inevitably unfulfilled) desires, so giving up trying to control things, giving up desires and just accepting everything, makes you immune to suffering. So they say. — Pfhorrest

They claim that ignorance (of our true nature: emptiness) is the cause. You can’t suffer if there’s no you.

I read almost everything about alan watts. That's why I'm so confused!

Perhaps leave Alan Watts to one side then, you could try D T Suzuki. But as I said find your local eastern philosophy bookstore and familiarise yourself with what's on offer. Do lots of reading from a wide variety of sources and try some practice. Without practice, the philosophy leaves you rather dry.

The philosophy of Zen can be conveyed in a paragraph or two, by many people. But without practice, it is rather meaningless.

I would say though, that I have come to the opinion that enlightenment, if it is a reality (and I reserve judgement on that), is only something which would happen to someone who's body/s have reached the correct level of physical/spiritual development and if that is not the case, no amount of sitting under the Bodhi tree, or meditating, or ascetism will change that.

Really the goal of a seeker of, what is suggested as the goal by Eastern religions, is to live in peace, compassion and humility. This might seem a simple enough ask, but in the human world, it is not at all easy to manage. And if one's body/s are at the appropriate stage/s of development a step forward may occur.

They claim that ignorance (of our true nature: emptiness) is the cause. You can’t suffer if there’s no you.

try telling your body that when, for example, you feel the cane of a Zen master on your back.
But more seriously, we are half physical body, a body which should be cared for. So the emptiness would be of the mind, while living a simple modest life with the body.

I would include Zhuangzi.
The limits of what can be said is discussed.
The thought is expressed in other places but is a cage match in Zhuangzi.

They claim that ignorance (of our true nature: emptiness) is the cause. You can’t suffer if there’s no you.
try telling your body that when, for example, you feel the cane of a Zen master on your back.
But more seriously, we are half physical body, a body which should be cared for. So the emptiness would be of the mind, while living a simple modest life with the body. — Punshhh

They claim that everything is empty. The body or mind makes no difference.

Everything is something to somebody, but everything is nothing to nobody.

The philosophy of Zen can be conveyed in a paragraph or two, by many people. But without practice, it is rather meaningless. — Punshhh

Zen in its natural setting is a monastic discipline, arduous and requiring intense commitment. That is something that is often lost in translation, as it seems to offer the 'instant enlightenment' that Westerners think they want.

Those few [Westerners] who took the trouble to visit Japan and begin the practice of Zen under a recognized Zen master or who joined the monastic Order soon discovered that it was a very different matter from what the popularizing literature had led them to believe. They found that in the traditional Zen monastery zazen is never divorced from the daily routine of accessory disciplines. To attenuate and finally dissolve the illusion of the individual ego, it is always supplemented by manual work to clean the temple, maintain the garden, and grow food in the grounds; by strenuous study with attendance at discourses on the sutras and commentaries; and by periodical interviews with the roshi, to test spiritual progress. Acolytes are expected to develop indifference to the discomforts of heat and cold on a most frugal vegetarian diet and to abstain from self-indulgence in sleep and sex, intoxicating drinks and addictive drugs. Altogether Zen demands an ability to participate in a communal life as regimented and lacking in privacy as the army. — Harold Stewart

source

Nice article, yes Zen is entirely practice based, a practice difficult to replicate outside the society in which it has developed and been practiced.

They claim that everything is empty. The body or mind makes no difference.

Yes, I don't deny that some do, but that is a philosophical interpretation, wheras on the ground, things are more complex and embedded in the cultures in which they originated and practice in a religious life is key.

... on the ground, things are more complex and embedded in the cultures in which they originated and practice in a religious life is key. — Punshhh

On the ground, or anywhere else for that matter, we may derive the benefit (primarily meaning) of religion and/or manipulate ourselves into a state of what is typically referred to as “transcendence.” The experience of transcendence does not require a religious framework. The major benefits of a transcendent experience are that it subdues our sense of self or DMN neurology with the effect of reducing existential anxiety and depatterning the mind.

I believe it’s true that if a person could successfully reduce the activity of an overactive DMN they would generally suffer less because, in addition to the afore mentioned benefits, they wouldn’t worry as much, fret about things, second guess themselves, etc. And again, this does not require a religion. Stoicism, for example, is a non-religious philosophy/practice that may help to subdue an overactive DMN.

Because they say the origin of all suffering is (inevitably unfulfilled) desires, so giving up trying to control things, giving up desires and just accepting everything, makes you immune to suffering. So they say. — Pfhorrest

I think, its not only desires / social illusions / delusions that need to be broken down - it is indeed personality that needs to be broken down. You have to let go of your values, convictions, notions of meaning, and love. You have to let go of everything until you become a nobody who believes in nothing.

Everything is something to somebody, but everything is nothing to nobody.

If you reach this point, from a western perspective, you become quite insane! Are you a dissociative personality disorder, or are you a psychopath? Certainly you are experiencing a personality crisis!

I'm told in certain Buddhist orders this is a guided process that takes 3 years - the insanity lasts 3 years!

I can see how within this state of mind the absurdity of the world would be clear, the idea that we create our own reality would be proven experientially, and the reality / illusions of society would be crystal clear. As well the notion that we are free to create our own reality - indeed condemned to it - so that being the case it makes sense to create for your self a joyous reality. At the same time you would understand that you ultimately can have no confidence in whatever reality you do create, so exploration of your consciousness becomes the final frontier

On the ground, or anywhere else for that matter, we may derive the benefit (primarily meaning) of religion and/or manipulate ourselves into a state of what is typically referred to as “transcendence.” The experience of transcendence does not require a religious framework. The major benefits of a transcendent experience are that it subdues our sense of self or DMN neurology with the effect of reducing existential anxiety and depatterning the mind.

Agreed, although this does not diminish the benefits which may be available in religious orders. For example the monastic, religious, or spiritual life may involve such a transcendent process. However this may only be one of a number of exalted states/tools practiced/used during a living process/journey.

All these things you mention can be practiced seriously and in a controlled manner by someone who has the capacity to do so. Or be guided through by an expert within a religious, or spiritual group.

What you describe as causing insanity does happen and I've seen it. I think this is a result of trying to force a process, or where unstable people are attracted to such a lifestyle, which only makes it worse.

Yes Punshhh, you are correct. I have only conceived of enlightenment as a sudden change in personality. I suppose it would be less traumatic if the change is extended over a number of years , and validated and reinforced within a community.

Also I suppose in the east If a person believed in a life force, and understood themselves as a node in a lineage of life, they would not be so far from being a nobody. The step to enlightenment wouldn't be as great, and this would mitigate the dissosiative personality and psychopathy problem, that a westerner would incur.

Is this the popular understanding in the east - that enlightenment entails a breakdown and a rebuilding of personality??

If so, and If this is the purpose of a Zen community / practice, I would be reluctant to enter into such a situation, as it seems little different to brainwashing.

If your enlightenment is not self driven, but results from the participation of a communal process, is it enlightenment at all, or is it a programming???

I hope I don't sound disrespectful - this is the philosophy I respect above all others, but I feel everything deserves rigorous scrutiny.

Finally can anybody tell me the difference between enlightenment, and the delusion that you are enlightened???

... monastic, religious, or spiritual life may involve such a transcendent process. However this may only be one of a number of exalted states/tools practiced/used during a living process/journey. — Punshhh

Such as???

Finally can anybody tell me the difference between enlightenment, and the delusion that you are enlightened??? — Pop

Being enlightened is a personal perspective. Being deluded is someone else's perspective. :lol:

On a more serious side but definitely related- is the aha moments we all have, and for many of us, these aha moments become more profound in our later years. It is a sudden awareness that our consciousness has definitely expanded. This is not an additional thought, but a new understanding as thoughts come together.

The young assimilate facts, but in our later years, ideas in our heads seem to suddenly come together in a new awareness with greater meaning that is more than the sum of the parts. Such as realizing a discussion of virtues could be more productive than a discussion of morals without at the same time holding a concept of virtues and how a person becomes more virtuous. And a notion of consciousness being limited to experience, seems essential to any discussion of morals. That is morality becomes an increasingly complex concept, meaning something very different from the less complex concept of moral. That is enlightenment and it is more likely to be experienced later in life.

Yes, I like that :rofl: well said - and i agree - as we get older we are better able to integrate and unify ideas, and deal with situations, and that is a form of enlightenment.

So you are saying there are many forms of enlightenment??

Here's where you need someone who has experienced this kind of enlightenment. I engaged in Zen practice for a short time a lifetime ago, but did not reach that stage. A friend who has had the experience says one's "I" perspective drops away and there appears to be an empty stage of awareness, a "no-thingness", and the various koans are comprehended (?). "Form is emptiness and emptiness is form" - that sort of thing.

This is an amateurs' forum, so one doesn't expect credentialed experts to spend time here. Still, with over 6K members there might be one who has real Zen experience?

Such as???

This is a big subject, which is approached from a number of schools of thought and practice, each with their own terminology, so can get confusing due to a different understanding, interpretation of the same words. So I would ask you to be prepared to agree to come to an agreed meaning of such a word, where there is a disagreement, also to accept that some of these differences are already established within philosophical, or theological discourse and may result in an insurmountable difference in opinion, or meaning.

As you put three question marks, I will give you three alternative practices.

1, the deconstruction and rebuild of the personality, via an understanding of conditioning.
2, the control and utilisation of the ego, in the use of emotions.
3, the development of a coherent personal philosophy and learning to seamlessly apply it to one's personal spiritual journey.

This is an amateurs' forum, so one doesn't expect credentialed experts to spend time here — jgill

This is not very enlightened talk - I'm surprised to hear it from such an enlightened mathematical artist.

If you understand the underlying philosophy, you understand you create your own reality - always - you cant escape it. That being the case it makes no sense not to create a joyous reality for yourself and others.

I think it would be worth pointing out at this stage that the word Enlightenment is a blanket term used to describe a wide spectrum of exalted states. It will cause numerous disagreements unless the users specify what they mean by it.
For example, does it mean one who attains Nirvana? Or does it refer to someone who achieves some degree of Samadhi? Both entirely different states, one requiring a Nirvanic realm of existence, the other requiring no spiritual realm at all, necessarily.

Yes, pointing that out makes a huge difference.

I don't know if this was intended in the OP but is the distinction eastern and/vs western philosophy valid?

Yes, I like that :rofl: well said - and i agree - as we get older we are better able to integrate and unify ideas, and deal with situations, and that is a form of enlightenment.

So you are saying there are many forms of enlightenment?? — Pop

Well, you worded what I was trying to say much better. Thank you.

About different kinds of enlightenment I don't know. I just know my own experience and thinking this has to be an experience of enlightenment. For me, it is like a light turns on in my head and I see things more clearly, but this does not last. It becomes as old new as soon as the thought is assimilated and indistinguishable from just thinking.

I have had what may be called transcendental experiences and I would classify that just as an unusual experience. Especially one changed my perspective but being unusual I can't really trust it.

I have read there is new research into the possibility of using psychedelic drugs to resolve some mental issues that are proving very promising and from what I have heard of them, my transcendental experience would be more along the line of a drug-induced experience. But I have not done psychedelics so I can not really compare that with your explanation of enlightenment of unified ideas and a greater understanding of the complexity.

Since this is an eastern philosophy thread, I would say eastern consciousness may increase the chances of having a transcendental experience because of opening the mind to that possibility. Every culture has a subconscious and our cultures dictate what is taboo and what is okay. I think if a person has a closed mind, enlightenment or a transcendental experience is unlikely. I think we have an element in our western culture that closes people's minds.