One Year in Your Religion

[Snoopy]

Dōgen is associated with "Zen," but it was apparently his own brand.

He is considered to be the founder of Sōtō Zen in Japan. However this is simply the “Japanese” term for the Chinese Caodong school, the teaching that he took back to Japan.

Soto Zen was his answer to the Zen he had seen in China .

No, he was taking back to Japan what had been transmitted to him in China.

The question is raised: why did he have a problem with the Zen he had seen?

He did not; it just took him a two year search to find a suitable teacher (this two year period is presumably the disappointment that you refer to). But he did find a suitable teacher, and he received transmission of the (Sōtō) teaching from Tiantong Rujing in 1227. This is what he then returned to Japan with and enunciated. Dōgen also deeply revered the Chinese Master Hongzhi Zhengjue.

Off-topic though

s.

 

[17th Angel]

One should perhaps also have regard to the manner in which the term Zen is used. It can refer to meditation, practice, a school or (in Dōgen’s usage) the buddha way).


s.

Can't it also refer to utter nonsense?

 

[GlorytoGod]

in a way I am already doing this,

I spent a couple of years as a muslim, and for the last year or so I have been a Christian and who knows what the future hold, if I didnt have a family to support I'd quite fancy spending a year in India as a devotee to some Guru

 

[citizenzen]

Can't it also refer to utter nonsense?

Care to elaborate? Or are you just cranky this morning?



BTW, path_of_one, the "How do you stop a flowing stream" was one of the first dialogues I had with a roshi. I remember that my answer was very similar to yours.

 

[17th Angel]

Not cranky just from experience zen is just like bs... lol (my experience with it is all from this forum) simply search the forums with keyword of Zen may see what I mean...

 

[citizenzen]

Not cranky just from experience zen is just like bs...

For some it is.

What do you prefer?

What does your religion look like?

 

[17th Angel]

Go stand in an airing cupboard :/ Shut the door... That is what my religion looks like :S

Just from experience here on Zen it seems like zen is nothing and everything and many cute sayings.... Like I dunno... Do not let your anger master you!! but master your anger!! lol Or errrr Don't feel down!!! but when you are down!! feel! or something lol you know? That is all I know of zen and that is like *blows rasbberies* :S

 

[Bandit]

Go stand in an airing cupboard :/ Shut the door... That is what my religion looks like :S

You know what it is like having JW come to your house. Now picture people from every religion on the market invading your cupboard for the rest of your life, a different religion each year, telling you what to believe what not to believe, what to wear, what you can and can't do...and they all chant, this is the revelation and this is the truth.

A creepy thought.

 

[seattlegal]

Go stand in an airing cupboard :/ Shut the door... That is what my religion looks like :S

Just from experience here on Zen it seems like zen is nothing and everything and many cute sayings.... Like I dunno... Do not let your anger master you!! but master your anger!! lol Or errrr Don't feel down!!! but when you are down!! feel! or something lol you know? That is all I know of zen and that is like *blows rasbberies* :S

Where do your thoughts come from, Alex? How do you select which thoughts to have?

 

[Dondi]

But let me ask this: what is a Bible-believing Christian if they are just mushing all of it together and not bothering to understand or study in depth?

I get your point, path. One of the reasons came to this forum in the first place was to gain insight in the historical, politcal, and social backgrounds in the scriptures, particularly in light of a Jewish perspective. I wish my church would do this more.

Having said that, let me clarify what I mean by 'Bible-believing Christian'. Obviously, Christians from every denomination will share in one way or another a certain affinity with the scriptures to varying degrees. But the term is used to describe those who adhere to the belief that the Bible is the true inspired Word of God and hold to the basic doctrines, beliefs, and practices derived from it. In my denomination, we hold to a 'Statement of Faith' or 'Articles of Faith' which briefly outlines in a nutshell our beliefs, similiar in nature to the Nicene Creed. For example, and I'm not expecting you to read it all, just grasp the general idea (this one, btw, isn't from my particular church, but similiar):

Statement of Faith

The Scriptures
We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Bible, as it is in truth, the Word of God... (I Thessalonians 2:13). We believe in verbal, plenary inspiration in the original writings, and God's preservation of His pure words to every generation (II Timothy 3:16, Psalms 12:6-8). The Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice.

The Godhead
We believe in one Triune God, eternally existing in three persons--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, co-eternal in being, co-identical in nature, co-equal in power and glory, and having the same attributes and perfections (Deuteronomy 6:4; II Corinthians 13:14).

The Person and Work of Christ
We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, became man, without ceasing to be God, having been conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary, in order that He might reveal God and redeem sinful men (John 1:1-2, 14; Luke 1:35; Isaiah 9:6; 7:14; Philippians 2:5-8; Galatians 4:4-5).

We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ accomplished our redemption through His finished work on the cross as a representative, vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice; and that our justification is made sure by His literal, physical resurrection from the dead (Romans 3:24-25; I Peter 2:24; Ephesians 1:7; I Peter 1:3-5).

We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ ascended to Heaven, and is now exalted at the right hand of God, where, as our High Priest, He fulfills the ministry of Representative, Intercessor, and Advocate (Acts 1:9-10; Hebrews 9:24, 7:25; Romans 8:34; I John 2:1-2).

The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit
We believe that the Holy Spirit is the Person who reproves the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment; and that He is the Supernatural Agent in regeneration, baptizing all believers into the body of Christ, indwelling and sealing them unto the day of redemption (John 16:8-11; II Corinthians 3:6; I Corinthians 12:12-14; Romans 8:9; Ephesians 1:13-14).

We believe that the sign gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as speaking in tongues and the gift of healing, were temporary. We believe that speaking in tongues was never the common or necessary sign of the baptism or filling of the Holy Spirit and that ultimate deliverance of the body from sickness or death awaits the consummation of our salvation in the resurrection, though God frequently chooses to answer the prayer of believers for physical healing (II Corinthians 12:12; I Corinthians 13:8; Hebrews 2:3-4; Mark 16:17-20; I Corinthians 1:22, 14:21-22).

Man
We believe that man was created in the image and likeness of God, but that in Adam's sin the race fell, inherited a sinful nature, and became alienated from God; and that man is totally depraved, and, of himself, utterly unable to remedy his lost condition (Genesis 1:26-27; Romans 3:22-23; Ephesians 2:1-3, 12).

The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image and is mindful of him, and in that Christ died for man; therefore every individual possesses dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love. (Psalm 8:4-9; Colossians 3:9-11).

The Way of Salvation
We believe that the clear message of salvation is “repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21). We believe that salvation is "by grace" plus nothing minus nothing. We believe that men are justified by faith alone and are accounted righteous before God only through the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 2:8-10; John 1:12; I Peter 1:18-19)

We believe that all the redeemed, once saved are kept by God's power and are thus secure in Christ forever. We believe that eternal life is the present possession of every believer (John 6:37-40, 10:27-30; Romans 8:1, 38-39; I Corinthians 1:4-8; I Peter 1:4-5; Jude 1, 2).

The Church
We believe that the Church, which is the body and the espoused bride of Christ, is a spiritual organism made up of all born-again persons of this present age which began with Christ and the Apostles, was empowered at Pentecost, and will be caught up to be with Christ at the Rapture (Ephesians 1:22-23, 5:25-27; I Corinthians 12:12-14; II Corinthians 11:2).

We believe that the establishment and continuance of local churches is clearly taught and defined in the New Testament Scriptures (Acts 14:27; 20:17, 28-32; I Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-11).
We believe in the autonomy of the local church free of any external authority or control (Acts 13:1-4, 15:19-31, 20:28; Romans 16:1, 4; I Corinthians 3:9, 16, 5:4-7, 13; I Peter 5:1-4).

The Ordinances of the Church
We recognize the ordinances of baptism by immersion in water and the Lord's Supper as a Scriptural means of testimony for the Church in this age (Matthew. 28:19-20; Acts 2:41-42, 18:18; I Corinthians 11:23-26).

Biblical Separation
We believe that all the saved should live in such a manner as not to bring reproach upon their Savior and Lord; and, that separation from all religious apostasy, all worldly and sinful pleasures, practices and associations is commanded of God (II Timothy 3:1-5; Romans 12:1, 2, 14:13; I John 2:15-17; II John 9-11; II Corinthians 6:14-7:1).

The Return of Christ
We believe the "Blessed Hope" of our Lord's return is literal, personal, visible, imminent, premillennial, and pretribulational. He will rapture His Church prior to the seven years of tribulation, and at the end of the tribulation Christ will return with His saints to establish His thousand-year reign on the earth. (I Thessalonians 4:13-18; Titus 2:13; I Thessalonians 1:10; Revelation 3:10; Zechariah 14:4-11; Revelation 19:11-16, 20:1-6; Psalm 89:3-4)

Our Eternal State
We believe in the bodily resurrection of all men, the saved to eternal life, and the unsaved to judgment and everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:46; John 5:28, 29, 11:25-26; Revelation 20:5-6, 12-13).
We believe that the souls of the redeemed are, at death, absent from the body and present with the Lord, where in conscious bliss they await the first resurrection, when spirit, soul, and body are reunited to be glorified forever with the Lord (Luke 23:43; Revelation 20:4-6; II Corinthians 5:8; Philippians 1:23, 3:21; I Thessalonians 4:16-17).
We believe that the souls of unbelievers remain, after death, in conscious misery until the second resurrection, when with soul and body reunited they shall appear at the Great White Throne Judgment, and shall be cast into the Lake of Fire, not to be annihilated, but to suffer everlasting, conscious punishment (Luke 16:19-26; Matthew 25:41-46; II Thessalonians 1:7-9; Jude 6-7; Mark 9:43-48; Revelation 20:11-15).

This list is by no means exhaustive, but it provides as visitor or member a means to examine what the church believes on certain issues and doctrines. And, you will notice, that everything is backed by scripture references.

I draw attention to that last phrase in the section for The Scriptures: The Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice. Unlike some other denominations, who rely both traditions and scripture as sources of authority, my church feels the safest way to go is with the Bible as the final authority in all matters spiritual and practical. The implication is that it guards from errors that might creep in through tradition and 'revelations'. The precedence for this is found in Mark 7:7-9:

"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."

So 'Bible-believing Christian', in the sense I'm trying to convey, means that we hold a high value in biblical truth. It is a 'safe' position to hold.

But you are right, some do not do their homework. In your example of Jesus abolishing the law only serves as an example of someone not knowing what that scripture passage really reads. Frankly, I'm surprise that your friend didn't know what a Bible-believing Christian was, if she was one herself. I think most of the people in my church would have answered your question this way:

"Why do many avowed BBCs claim that Jesus abolished the law and it is unnecessary for Jews to follow it?"
Jesus didn't abolish the Law, but fulfilled it, in that He provided the righteous requirement of the ritual law of atonement upon Himself according to Galatians 3 and Hebrews. The moral law (ten commandments) still stands, only the law kills in that when we break it we are guilty. But now in Christ, we are led by the power of Spirit, instead of the letter (Galatians 5:22-23). This opened the way for both Jews and Gentiles.

I personally, by the way, do not condemn all Jews. Romans 11 makes clear that all Israel will be saved. They after all are the 'natural branch'. But I don't think my church understands that. They lump Jews as lost like everyone else, unfortunately. And that's basically where I differ. I don't see people going to hell out of mere ignorance, misunderstanding, or purely for being in the 'wrong' religion. Clearly the scriptures say that if you seek the Lord with all your heart, you will find Him. I believe this to be true whatever religion you are in. It's all about that sincerity in heart and a willingness to do what God is telling you to do with your life and learning to love others with the compassion and mercy of the Lord.

And maybe that is my denomination's pratfall. Perhaps too much emphasis is placed on sin and consequences and not on the whole point of atonement in the first place: to reconcile us back into a right relationship with God.

 

[Netti-Netti]

He is considered to be the founder of Sōtō Zen in Japan. However this is simply the “Japanese” term for the Chinese Caodong school, the teaching that he took back to Japan.

No, he was taking back to Japan what had been transmitted to him in China.

He did not; it just took him a two year search to find a suitable teacher (this two year period is presumably the disappointment that you refer to). But he did find a suitable teacher, and he received transmission of the (Sōtō) teaching from Tiantong Rujing in 1227. This is what he then returned to Japan with and enunciated. Dōgen also deeply revered the Chinese Master Hongzhi Zhengjue.

It seems Dogen was combining several strains:

... including that of Lin-chi, a supposed rival of Ju-ching (whom Dogen later criticizes greatly). Yet, Dogen's ideas change markedly over the course of his ministry, and Ju-ching is praised later on, held up as the only transmitter of the true dharma. It was over a decade after his return to Japan that Dogen changed his beliefs and began pitting his school against the Lin-chi tradition.
​

Dogen: Master Dogen

Like I said, he was developing his own brand . . . in reaction against the Chinese brand.

Off-topic though

Could be helpful as an illustration - of the problem of deciding subject matter for research. If you're going to study Buddhism or Christianity or Islam, which variety? I'd say it depends on the research question.

 

[seattlegal]

It seems Dogen was combining several strains:

... including that of Lin-chi, a supposed rival of Ju-ching (whom Dogen later criticizes greatly). Yet, Dogen's ideas change markedly over the course of his ministry, and Ju-ching is praised later on, held up as the only transmitter of the true dharma. It was over a decade after his return to Japan that Dogen changed his beliefs and began pitting his school against the Lin-chi tradition.
​

Dogen: Master Dogen

Like I said, he was developing his own brand . . . in reaction against the Chinese brand.


Could be helpful as an illustration - of the problem of deciding subject matter for research. If you're going to study Buddhism or Christianity or Islam, which variety? I'd say it depends on the research question.

Is Zen about studying, or about doing, or about being?

 

[Snoopy]

You underestimate the power of my 3 cheese, olive and spinach pastries and my blueberry shortcake tarts. No faith on Earth can resist!!

Tao, STFU.

s.

 

[nativeastral]

Is Zen about studying, or about doing, or about being?

the zen l watched on tv [haha] was very ritualistic, it had to be this way not that way until done second nature, then, ad infinitum until studying doing and being were one and the same- extremely arduous.

 

[17th Angel]

Tao, STFU.

s.

Wow that's a new one coming from the shy passive buddist!!! *hands you some soap* Wash your mouth out snoops!

Where do your thoughts come from, Alex? How do you select which thoughts to have?

No idea... Pass?

You know what it is like having JW come to your house. Now picture people from every religion on the market invading your cupboard for the rest of your life, a different religion each year, telling you what to believe what not to believe, what to wear, what you can and can't do...and they all chant, this is the revelation and this is the truth.

A creepy thought.

Ok then change cupboard for casket/coffin!

 

[c0de]

No idea... Pass?

*buzzer sounds*

Nope, sorry... Fail

 

[Netti-Netti]

Wow that's a new one coming from the shy passive buddist!!!

I sympathize. Snoopy gets snippy with me, too.

Is Zen about studying, or about doing, or about being?

Sorry, that's too far off topic.

Contrary to Snoopy's snippy remark, I haven't been "Off-topic." From the OP:

I'm an anthropologist, I am interested in what it is like to be in this or that religion. What do people do? How do they feel doing it? How does what you do influence your worldview? ...I had this crazy idea that it would be fun, exhilerating, exhausting, and stressful... but ultimately potentially very enlightening, to participate in each of the major religious systems for one year.
​

To me this sounded like someone (Kim) is designing a comparative religion study. Just as there are many blooms that open under the Dharma rain, so there are many varieties of any one religion. It's important to keep sight of which subset one is dealing with. If I neglect to assess that up front, this scenario becomes possible:

I submit a report based on the study, the end result of a year of observation and another year of analysis and writing. You get a letter from a reviewer who got manuscript to see if it's publishable: "Dear Friendly Researcher: ok, so you spent a year with people who you say were Zen practitioners. What variety of Zen was it? (There's 5 kinds)... "

Imagine having to write back, "Dear Ms/Mr Reviewer: Oops, I was having so much fun trying out various randomized open-ended observational methods at the Zen place that I totally forgot to ask them what kind of Zen they were doing. Hope that doesn't affect our ability to generalize across all 5 types of Zen and all types of Buddhism. (These people I spent a year with moved back to Japan and I don't know how to reach them.) Sincerely, Your Friendly Researcher."
​

What do you think the reviewer's response would be?

Anyhoo, in case it wasn't apparent, I've been on topic.
(It's a dirty job but someone has to do it.)

 

[citizenzen]

"Dear Friendly Researcher: ok, so you spent a year with people who you say were Zen practitioners. What variety of Zen was it? (There's 5 kinds)... "

For all this talk about "different kinds" of zen, I have never once asked anybody (including roshis or senseis) what "kind" of zen they were teaching. I've received inspiration and insight from seemingly every branch of Buddhism. Wisdom is wisdom. Compassion is compassion. I don't care who opens up these treasures for me.

Anyhoo, in case it wasn't apparent, I've been on topic. (It's a dirty job but someone has to do it.)

And we are very grateful for that. (polite applause)

 

[seattlegal]

I was reading "The Year of Living Biblically" and began to wonder how much a person could learn about another religion in a single year if they acted as an average devout member. I've long been interested in comparative religion and have taken lots of college courses on various religions, done a lot of reading, and of course yapped here for a few years. But none of that gets into the experiential, practical end of religion. That is, especially because I'm an anthropologist, I am interested in what it is like to be in this or that religion. What do people do? How do they feel doing it? How does what you do influence your worldview? Stuff like that.

I had this crazy idea that it would be fun, exhilerating, exhausting, and stressful... but ultimately potentially very enlightening, to participate in each of the major religious systems for one year. Read the scriptures/teachings, participate with a congregation, go to study sessions. But unlike the usual anthropological approach, to do not so much theoretical analysis as open learning. Just... what would I learn? And how would it compare with what I am used to? What might I find that united people? That divided them? Brought out the best and worst in us?

So... whether I go through with it or not (it would, after all, take 6 years just to cover the five major world religions and Paganism)...

What would someone be likely to do, feel, and see in one year of your religion?

Do you believe someone could learn something valuable from a year in your religion, even if they weren't signing up to be in it permanently?

Would your religious community (church, mosque, synagogue, sangha, coven, or what have you) be offended by such a journey, or welcome it? Why? What would be the appropriate way to approach your religion if I wanted to hang out with you for a year?

Would you want to grab my hand and walk along that path with me for a year, or would you think it pointless unless I was a "real" convert from the beginning? Would you be hoping you won me over, hoping I came away with something meaningful, or totally indifferent to the process?

Is there anything you'd want from me, the religious "rolling stone"?

ETA: Yeah, I know I've spent time in lots of Christian churches, but if you are Christian and are willing to answer, humor me anyway for the sake of conversation. Perhaps tell me the specifics about your denomination and church- they're all so different. Pretend this is coming from someone unfamiliar with Christianity outside of college classes...

Hi Path. This is what I would hope you might learn/experience:

Poem – The centipede
by Mrs Edmund Craster (d. 1874)

A centipede was happy quite,
Until a toad in fun
Said ‘Pray which leg moves after which ?
This raised her doubts to such a pitch
She fell exhausted in a ditch,
Not knowing how to run.
While lying in this plight,
A ray of sunshine caught her sight;
She dwelt upon its beauties long,
Till breaking into happy song,
Unthinking she began to run,
And quite forgot the croakers fun.​

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
~Chuck Reid

 

[Netti-Netti]

Compassion is compassion. I don't care who opens up these treasures for me.

ok, if it's all the same, why did you become a Zen practitioner instead of converting to Greek Orthodoxy?

The OP was about scientific inquiry, not about religious commitment or applications of faith. Much research on religion has been done by atheists and agnostics. That doesn't mean it's biased or that it doesn't tell us anything.

For all this talk about "different kinds" of zen, I have never once asked anybody (including roshis or senseis) what "kind" of zen they were teaching.

That's fine, but scientists are for the most part pretty conservative and are not interested in sampling without knowing what and who they're sampling. They're not interested in surprises either. They're intersted in confirming theories. They want replicable results, which calls for carefully designed studies. With scarce funding resources, a scientist is much more likely to be funded if they have a specific and manageable research question and well defined sample selection method.

In research, replicability is always an issue. Other researchers would wants to know where the sample came from in order to improve their chances of repeating or extending your findings. If the sample, characteristics are relevant to other variables of interest, it may be impossible for anyone to replicate in any other sample. Soon no one would cite your research anymore and that would be that. I don't think the ediors and reviewers for a professional journal would want to take something like that on. They'd probably reject the manscript and publish somerhing that has a better shot at being a contribution to the field.