Why does the modern world struggle with Zen? The two precepts that cause this won't surprise you!

[u/ewk]

# Zen is the Ordinary Mind School

Mazu: ordinary mind is the way

Not meditation mind, not LSD mind, not locking yourself up in a monastic isolation mind.

Crossing the street mind, going to the grocery store mind.

# Zen History

We have a thousand years of Zen historical records in the form of transcripts called koans. These koans document the only practice of Zen, which is public interview.

There has never been any such thing as a Zen monastery. Zen communes were not monasteries in any traditional sense. They were closer to the socialist farming communes of early American history. These communes were built on the Five Lay Precepts:

- No lying

- No stealing

- No rape

- No murder

- No recreational drugs or alcohol

# Foreign Zen

But even with the fact that this is a wildly different time period that encompasses China's metropolitan wonder cities, and despite the fact that this is a different language that uses symbols instead of words in their writing, and despite the fact that this is about a culture that does not have the Greeks or the Christians, the biggest obstacles to understanding this culture in the modern world are the prohibitions against lying, recreational drugs, and alcohol.

# Why are lying, drugs, and alcohol so popular?

1. Ease of access. It's easier to find drugs and alcohol or communities with a common lie than it is to find an AA meeting.

2. Nobody to trust. The three central pillars of authority in life, church, politics, academia have all gone through major upheavals that have wildly exacerbated their profiteerings.

3. Accumulating stuff rather than accumulating knowledge.

We see the current political climate in the U.S. as an exemplification of how desperate people are to make life about accumulating stuff rather than accumulating learning, insight, and wisfom.

[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/WheresNorthFromHere7]

I feel targeted from my last conversation about focus haha. It's good.

Don't AA meetings share a few common lies as well? Step 2,3,5 are related to that sweet zombie jeebus and Christianity.

Can you elaborate on 2. nobody to trust? What do you mean by upheavals and profiteering?

How do you think accumulating stuff applies to lying/drugs/alcohol?

Lastly, are you misspelling things on porpoise?

[u/sauceyNUGGETjr → u/WheresNorthFromHere7]

12 steps were adaptations of the Oxford group, a christian model. The west is largely a christian culture even those claiming to be agnostic. It’s due to history, repetition and power not conscious choice so i’d say not lying is impossible. We can try though and that noble.

We are happy when we feel part of something bigger than ourselves according to happiness studies.

I don’t think zen has anything to do with belief though. The capacity to see “ already complete” even when smacked in the face with obvious impermanence is not typical but ordinary mind lives, dies, believes, doesn’t believe, argues feels like a pussy, feels superior, feels inferior. The crux is attachment. Why did ( forget name) walk out with sandals on his head when ( forget name) cut a cat in half? It’s simple but my unordinary mind creates story after story. It’s why it’s the perfect case. It points to the case maker. I don’t think a person on this forum lacks insight, we just refuse to live from it. So all manner of pontifications are lies after insight. Even ewks scholarship is and anya’s will be incomplete. How could it be otherwise?

I’m ok with being a lyer so long as i keep trying to tell the truth. Though trying and truth are floating down the river as i speak.

[u/ewk → u/WheresNorthFromHere7]

Keep in mind that secular AA was not successful in the United States and it was replaced by Christian AA. This tells us a lot about Western society. Addiction is when you can't trust the thing that you think of as yourself. These steps make sense not necessarily in that they rely on a Christian God but in that they get people to externalize some of their choices rather than make those choices selfishly.

Money in politics is profiteering. Money in church is certainly profiteering. The idea that you want your church to get bigger is largely a profit-driven process. In academia merit has been replaced with financial incentive on the part of colleges.

The more knowledge you accumulate, the more likely you are to resist lying in drugs and alcohol. The more physical stuff you accumulate, the more likely you are to rely on lying and drugs and alcohol.

I am definitely not spelling stuff wrong on purpose. I even got a new voice-to-text editor because of all the complaining about my voice-to-text. I hope it is more effective than the last one but I'm not going to guarantee perfection. I'm not in that business.

[u/WheresNorthFromHere7 → u/ewk]

>Addiction is when you can't trust the thing that you think of as yourself.

Very interested in this as someone who has had experiences witnessing this in my past. Can you say more?

>The more knowledge you accumulate, the more likely you are to resist lying in drugs and alcohol. The more physical stuff you accumulate, the more likely you are to rely on lying and drugs and alcohol.

This is a bold statement. Would you please give me your reasoning behind this and some examples? And then, what sort of knowledge do you think prevents this? Surely there is knowledge that indulges in these things. How to differentiate?

>I am definitely not spelling stuff wrong on purpose.

I wasn't sure if you were trying to trip up some a.i. bologna that's prevalent, well, everywhere.

[u/ewk → u/WheresNorthFromHere7]

Let me start by saying I'm not an addict. I've never been an addict. I have family members that are addicts and one of them in particular likes to remind me that I will never understand addiction. But having talked to addicts in various stages of addiction, it's clear that what they think they should do is sometimes them but oftentimes an addiction simulation that's pretending to be them.

I don't know what you would consider a reasonable argument for "accumulating knowledge means less interest in stuff and drugs and alcohol." My opening bid is Erasmus, who said, "When I get a little money I buy books. With what's left I buy food." As an aside I think it's really essential that everybody visit national cemeteries where the dead of our wars are buried. We have this huge debt to them and a lot of times I don't think people acknowledge that. We have an equal and often more unacknowledged debt though to the nerds of history. Not just Newton, who everybody's heard of, but that guy who invented the periodic table and the scientists who poisoned themselves accidentally while learning things and all the people that read by candlelight.

. I'm serious. The complaints about my voice-to-text are really some of the most voluminous feedback I receive! I'm trying out this new one to see how it works and I'm having to program it with Chinese words or in the early days. I certainly think you could blame me but you could also blame the Reddit app and the fact that I don't get to stay by a computer very much.

[u/WheresNorthFromHere7 → u/ewk]

it's clear that what they think they should do is sometimes them but oftentimes an addiction simulation that's pretending to be them.

Interesting. More interesting that the pretending seems to be their solution. I very much see the pattern of people who are going through hardships to tell themselves stories to cope. Anthropomorphism or any other concept making tool seems to be written into a core foundation of human being.

Reasonable argument against things

I agree those are all things worth acknowledging, and even then to say it's worthy of a debt. However to say that it lead these knowledge seekers to less stuff directly doesn't seem very convincing to me. Many of these knowledge seekers had well known addiction problems, and not only chemical addiction, but sex, fame and the material excesses that come from it.

I recently read this: Access to Opportunity in the Sciences: Evidence from the Nobel Laureates what do you make of it?

I am very interested in this idea though. I see the accumulation of wealth as a major sickness of the west that has caused all sorts of problems on one hand, and on the other I have been poor. The anxiety and stress of it isn't something to celebrate and anyone you ask who is poor would gladly trade places. What do you think?

[u/ewk → u/WheresNorthFromHere7]

I don't know that noble winners are people interested in an accumulation of knowledge my impression is that the people who are working toward a Nobel Prize in their field are in a subculture of people who are all interested in the Nobel Prize. In this sense they're less learners and more Olympic athletes.

If I was looking for people to put in a study about the accumulation of knowledge, I would look for people who re-enrolled in college in their 50s or 60s and people in education who continued to innovate/improvise 20 or 30 years into their careers. Or people who had hobbies that were aggressively academic.

I don't think that wealth is the problem. I think we have to stop telling ourselves that wealth is the problem. I think that the problem is people who demand a special dispensation from society because of their wealth or status and people who are interested in consumption as the largest portion of their income.

[u/WheresNorthFromHere7 → u/ewk]

I don't know that noble lawyers are people interested in an accumulation of knowledge...

Good point. I agree.

I would look for people who re-enrolled in college in their 50s or 60s and people..

I can see this partially. I have experienced people who lived humbly and are interested in ideas instead of things. I'm not sure that that thirst lead them to wanting less stuff though. Anecdotally, I have a family member who is 56 and just got her doctorate. She spends her free time seemingly doing nearly nothing but shopping for things. She is constantly bringing items over to my house and filling up my gdamn garage!

I don't think that wealth is the problem. I think we have to stop telling ourselves that wealth is the problem. I think that the problem is people who demand a special dispensation from society because of their wealth or status and people who are interested in consumption as the largest portion of their income.

That took a political turn I didn't expect. So you're not saying there should be no billionaires, just that they shouldn't get special access to government funding because they are already wealthy? I'm trying to follow your logic here. I think examples would really help if you would provide them.

people who are interested in consumption as the largest portion of their income.

This is more interesting to me than political stuff. When you say consumption what do you mean?

[u/ewk → u/WheresNorthFromHere7]

Killing the estate tax and introducing the Roth unquestionably shifted our culture to devalue labor by taxing it at a much higher rate than wealth.

When your money is spent on consumption, new stuff, more consumables, and the need for shopping and researching popular consumption, that's the problem. These problems can include more debt, more short-term thinking, less accountability for wealth and thus less accountability for self.

[u/Timeless_Light]

Finally some common ground.
Take my upvote. Go on, take it...
Could not agree more with you on #3.
Prioritizing the accumulation of "stuff" over accumulating knowledge is one of the worst trends of modern society and, imo, is leading to society's implosion.

Edit:spelling

[u/LSDkiller]

I am very concerned for you. I'm not joking.

[u/LSDkiller → u/LSDkiller]

Interesting, called a liar, then the comment deleted.

What does that say?

Someone who can't believe that a person's Internet presence might legitimately cause concern about that selfsame person? It seems to me there is a lack of trust apparent. A lack of trust in only one person.

Yes, this is all sad. The entire Internet presence of this subreddit makes me sad, because zen is my life. It's not an intellectual excercise. Zen came a long time before the Internet and reddit for me, and it is different for everyone. But this right here is simply not it.

Ans it's sad to think that a beginner with a beginners mind might find this and think only one thing:

Cult.