Steve, I dunno. I just can't seem to agree with the article on this point. There are certainly elements of Zen that can be philosophised over, but there's a world of difference between those elements that can be discussed philosophically and a philosophy in itself. I think that is part of the problem we see on this forum in that Zen is something more than a philosophy yet we're limited to only being able to philosophise about it. This leads to absurdities like, "If you sit in zazen..." "But if you believe in the non-duality of Zen, then there is no 'you' to sit in zazen." etc etc ad nausem.
Mike ________________________________ From: SteveW <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, 29 March, 2011 10:19:08 Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better Orgyhouse --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: > > ED, > Â > I hope that works. > Â > Anthony > > Hi Anthony. This brings us back to the question of whether or not Zen is >actually Buddhist, and whether or not it is a philosophical approach to life. >I >personally think that it is both. The link to the article which I posted >demonstrates, imo, that it can be regarded as a philosophy of life. And the >fact >that people take it up in order to transcend the dukkha of life demonstrates >that it is a Buddhist form of philosophy. Those people who say that Zen is >just >the art of living in the present moment seem to be dodging the question of why >they took up Zen in the first place, and why living in the present moment is >better than not living in the present moment. IMO. Steve > >
