[Buddha-l] Zen War Guilt/Zen and the Sword

[curt]

There is an old programmers adage: "garbage in, garbage out."
The beauty of that old chestnut is that it is always true, whether
the software is designed properly or not. It has been pointed out
by others (see for example:
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/g/garbage_in_garbage_out.html
that this is true of "all systems", not just computer software.

Interestingly, the wikipedia article on "GIGO" says this:
"It was most popular in the early days of computing, but has fallen out
of use as programs have become more sophisticated and now usually
have checks built in to reject improper input."
I think that pretty much sums up the problem with Zen, and other
forms of demanding, practice oriented spiritual paths - the problem
being a lack of "checking" for "improper input". Perhaps
the western Zen love affair with the idea of "beginners mind" has
been a mistake - maybe Zen is not for "beginners". But the real
problem is that it is very difficult (I think impossible) to reliably
"check" human beings and objectively evaluate them in terms of
their "readiness" for Zen. And perhaps it really isn't necessary.
All whinging aside, people pretty much sort themselves out. There
are in fact good Zen teachers around, and plenty of sincere, mature
Zen students. Which reminds me of another saying from the sciences
that might be applicable: like attracts like.

- Curt


Franz Metcalf wrote:

> Stephen et al.,
>
> Nice quote from Downing's book. This issue of the potential negative 
> effects of meditation ("in some ways it cauterizes the personality and 
> seals it off, encapsulates it") has (at last) been getting some 
> attention in psychological studies of Buddhist practice. Meditators 
> can and do use meditation and other aspects of Buddhist practice as 
> defenses against psychological insight and movement. Chapters in the 
> following two books explore this:
>
> Molino, Anthony. ed. 1999. _The Couch and the Tree: Dialogues between 
> Psychoanalysis and Buddhism_. San Francisco: North Point. (Michael 
> Eigen's chapter is particularly creepy.)
>
> Safran, Jeremy D., ed. 2003. _Psychoanalysis and Buddhism: An 
> Unfolding Dialogue_. Boston: Wisdom.
>
> Dan Capper's book, _Guru Devotion and the American Buddhist 
> Experience_ (2002, New York: Edward Mellon Press), contains nuanced 
> examinations of American practitioners' experience of both the 
> negative and the positive power of meditation (though in the Tibetan 
> tradition, not the Zen one).
>
> Robert Sharf concluded an article (can't now remember which one; 
> doesn't seem to have been "Whose Zen?" or "Sanbokyodan Zen") with a 
> critique of contemporary Western Zen practice as fundamentally 
> narcissistic: that we are so fascinated with "exotic" Zen practice 
> precisely because it *appears* to come from the "mystic East," but is, 
> in fact, a hybrid concoction heavily indebted to Western romanticism, 
> psychologizing, etc. We are in love with our own reflection--but then, 
> who isn't? (We don't need Said to teach us this, do we?)
>
> There are some pretty hard hitting articles on Zen in the "Critical 
> Zen" section of thezensite.com:
>
> http://www.thezensite.com/zenessays.html
>
> Two of the Sharf articles I mentioned (and on which Loy draws heavily 
> in the paper Stephen kindly sent us the url for) are there. Finally, 
> if you'd like to read something on Zen written by a man who has worked 
> hard to wave goodbye to Narcissus, check out three papers on Western 
> Zen by Stuart Lachs, an esteemed buddha-l denizen, online at:
>
> http://terebess.hu/english/lachs.html
>
> Trying to avert my eyes,
>
> Franz Metcalf
>
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>
>