I think it's important for the community to occasionally have some interaction with the outside world on the topic of Zen and see what the educated public has to say about the sort of claims made here by the local curiosity, ewk.
The top rated reviews are as follows:
This person has some sort of an agenda to make his own school of....something. I'm not sure what it is. But it's not Zen. He is clearly uneducated on the topic and speaks from a position of absolute arrogance and ignorance.
..
I stumbled upon this text and, regrettably, wasted 20 minutes reading it. The only value this text holds is in demonstrating what a little bit of exposure to the profound teachings of the Buddha can do to someone who does not have a teacher and fails to seek guidance as to how to interpret Buddhist writings: you end up completely misunderstanding everything.
The author's flawed premise is that Bodhidharma, the Buddhist monk who is considered the father of Zen, was NOT actually a Buddhist. This astounding claim is not based on some newly discovered biography of Bodhidharma or diligent, exhaustive, original scholarship; rather, the author just decided it himself. Of course, even the most cursory examination of Bodhidharma's teachings would reveal that Bodhidharma (the First Patriarch of Zen) instructed Huike (his successor and the Second Patriarch of Zen) that he could rely solely upon the Lankavatara Sutra to gain enlightenment. This seems like an odd thing to do for someone who - the author claims - was not spreading the dharma (the instructions of the Buddha) since the Lankavatara is a major text of Mahayana Buddhism, which summarizes all the major points of Mahayana doctrine, and which, as a direct result of Bodhidharma's teaching is a seminal text of Zen Buddhism. The author fails to explain how this could have come to be, or address the matter at all, since he is obviously completely unaware of Bodhidharma's actual teachings or writings. Such writings include Bodhidharma's most famous work, his treatise on the "Two Entrances and Four Practices", which is largely a collection of advice on meditation techniques. The depth of the author's ignorance is further revealed by his remarkable assertion that Bodhidharma did not meditate. What Bodhidharma was doing silently gazing at a cave wall for nine years, the author does not tell us. He does tell us that meditation is not Zen, deliberately oblivious to the etymology of the term itself. The author's many untenable claims clearly stem from his lack of study, as he repeatedly admits that he actually hasn't studied much, and his citations consist only of links to videos on youtube and scant online sources. Notably, the author lambastes the inconvenience of "authority".
His main criticism of Buddhism generally, and Zen Buddhism in particular, is his belief that they are "dogmatic". By dogmatic the author must mean that Buddhists take it seriously when people try to mold the Buddha's profound and exhaustive teachings into their own pet views, as this author has done with his "zen" revolution. He is ignorant of even the most fundamental tenants of Buddhism, including the FIRST Noble Truth (Right View), which not only prohibits dogma, but even attachment to "correct" views, in favor of a detached form of cognition. The profound nature of this teaching is hopelessly lost on the author, who is too caught up in expounding his own dogma of nonsense in order to inflate his own sense of self -- an effort completely at odds with everything Buddhism teaches. It's a real shame that the author didn't just declare himself the godhead of his own new religion or philosophy, which is what he clearly craves. Unfortunately, he -- like so many others -- had to go and co-opt the term "zen" for this, the manifesto of his witless "revolution."
The author would do well to read the famous parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant, each of whom, having only blindly grasped a portion of the beast, develop narrow, flawed perspectives of the elephant as a whole. The author's self-exposure to a small part of the dharma has left him holding to a myopic and utterly wrong understanding of Zen, a wonderful school of Mahayana Buddhism.
..
The author ewk is more or less an internet troll who has been obsessively posting on the Zen Reddit board. Having observed his behavior and conduct over a year now I'm most certain he suffers from some sort of mental disturbance.
..
The title of the book describes it perfectly: Not Zen. It has little (or nothing) to do with the school of Mahayana known as "Zen". It contains bizarre claims such as "Zen is not Buddhism" that go against every scholar of Buddhism who has ever existed.
..
Misinformation, arrogance, intentional misinterpretation of the facts, it's laughable to call this book a revolution. I can only imagine the delusions of the author's mind
..
The author demonstrates how a person with no background in buddhist philosophy or religious studies can loosely interpret select quotes he found off the internet, fail to cite them, call it a revolution and then some how receive a good rating on Amazon. Welcome to the internet.
..
Submitted March 16, 2018 at 08:19PM by pohw http://ift.tt/2DxpRai
No comments:
Post a Comment