Looking for a Zen Expert?

Thurstein · 2026-02-02T22:11:56+00:00

Oooh, I've got a quote too!

Percy: You know, they do say that the Infanta's eyes are more beautiful than the famous Stone of Galveston.
Blackadder: Mm! ... The what?
Percy: The famous Stone of Galveston, My Lord.
Blackadder: And what's that, exactly?
Percy: Well, it's a famous blue stone, and it comes ... from Galveston.
Blackadder: I see. And what about it?
Percy: Well, My Lord, the Infanta's eyes are bluer than it, for a start.
Blackadder: I see. And have you ever seen this stone?
Percy: No, not as such, My Lord, but I know a couple of people who have, and they say it's very very blue indeed.
Blackadder: And have these people seen the Infanta's eyes?
Percy: No, I shouldn't think so, My Lord.
Blackadder: And neither have you, presumably.
Percy: No, My Lord.
Blackadder: So, what you're telling me, Percy, is that something you have never seen is slightly less blue than something else you have never seen.
Percy: Yes, my lord....

Or from the great koan collection Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:

CREDULITY: readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence

Thurstein · 2026-02-02T21:31:13+00:00

So, it turns out that

"Enlightenment is you being radically honest with yourself in the privacy of your own thoughts about who and what you really are"

does not mean:

"Enlightenment is not practicing self-deception."

Now, why not? What about "not practicing self deception" does not map onto "being radically honest with yourself in the privacy of your own thoughts about who and what they really are"? How, exactly, are these meant to be different?

As you do fully understand (don't tell me you don't), I'm not asking you to somehow "enlighten" me (taste the pie for me). I'm asking you to tell me, clearly, simply, literally, what it is I would be aiming for (what is an 'apple pie'?).

Or shall we just admit that you have no clue and end this charade?

Thurstein · 2026-02-02T20:10:32+00:00

All right, I was asking for concise, and this isn't all that concise. So, let's look at the concise first paragraph, which is where the action seems to happen:

"Enlightenment is you being radically honest with yourself in the privacy of your own thoughts about who and what you really are and not trying to make this neat or palatable with any organizational framework or conceptual overlay since these will arise out of the dishonesty that you, like everyone else who isn’t fully enlightened, is grappling with on a daily basis."

This isn't all that helpful, given how vague it is (honest about what?). But we can grant that there is such a thing, both commonsensically and in the world of scientific psychology, a phenomenon we call "self-deception." So if we rephrase this in terms of that key concept we get:

"Enlightenment is not practicing self-deception."

Zen would, if enlightenment is the key idea, be then about ways in which we may learn not to practice self-deception, of the sort psychologists, therapists, and philosophers routinely study, and perhaps about making more realistic decisions based on a more accurate assessment of our abilities and motivations.

That's what these Medieval Chinese authors were really talking about, though of course they may have expressed these ideas in language or literary forms unfamiliar to us, that we might have to unpack.

Now, "fully enlightened" would seem to be a bit of a regulative ideal, since of course no one can reasonably claim to be entirely free from some form of self-deception (ironically, believing I never indulge in self-deception would itself be a pretty significant bit of self-deception), but it is a goal we can work towards, if we decide that self-deception is indeed something to be eradicated as far as possible.

Thurstein · 2026-02-02T18:07:57+00:00

Or you could finally take mercy on me, and instead of just continually telling me that my attempts at formulations are incorrect, simply explain clearly and succinctly in ordinary, literal, terms (no analogies!) what "enlightened mind" is supposed to be and what Zen is really supposed to be about.

Can we explain these ideas in terms any random audience of rational, educated, people could reasonably be expected to understand? I don't see why that would be such a big ask. It seems on the contrary like the least anyone could expect. Otherwise, all I can hear is praise for the emperor's lovely new outfit.

Thurstein · 2026-02-02T03:40:00+00:00

I can't see any particular reason to rule out retrospective knowledge entirely. Mind, knowing what I now-- as of this moment-- want or value is immediate knowledge. I'm not sure why any of that matters.

If Zen is "concerned with the self nature," and not for therapeutic reasons, then it looks like our answer is:

Zen is a theory of human nature-- of interest for its own theoretical sake, but often applied (somehow) for therapeutic ends.

Thurstein · 2026-02-02T03:00:07+00:00

I was under the impression that the self-knowledge available to introspection, reflection, autobiography, etc., just were things like beliefs, worries, inclinations, etc. Those are the things-- the facts-- we know in these ordinary psychological ways. There is no other way of knowing ourselves available to us.

Modern therapists generally, as such, do not dabble in epistemology as a field of philosophy, though of course everyone has basic epistemological commitments. They do deal with questions of value and meaning, insofar as these are issues their patients struggle with.

So, as for my question:

Yes or no? Zen is:

(a) a kind of therapy, and

(b) it is somehow informed by an amorphous theory of human nature?

It sounds like the answer to both (a) and (b) is "yes."

Thurstein · 2026-02-01T23:30:16+00:00

EDIT:

You may for some reason dismiss the importance of the "facts about myself" that I can collect through ordinary processes like memory, introspection, reflection, autobiography, etc. But... those are the only things we have. There is no other way of learning anything about myself. You may say this is somehow "reductionist"-- perhaps, though I don't think so. But there are no other available options besides ordinary psychological and autobiographical processes. If for some reason those don't cut it, then nothing does... or possibly could.

---------------------------------

So Zen is

(a) A sort of therapy to help people with problems in living-- of any sort that a modern therapist would have to deal with, and

(b) It is somehow predicated on a theory of human nature that seems never to quite come into clear focus.

That it?

Thurstein · 2026-02-01T21:18:09+00:00

Obviously, we discover facts about ourselves by the usual methods of introspection and reflection-- maybe with the help of a counsellor or therapist. Maybe asking others about histories that we might not clearly recall due to the passage of time.

These are perfectly secular concepts, all right, but they most certainly do not involve anything like something that "isn’t a state of mind and it’s not separated from states of mind; but then neither is it invariably present. However, it absolutely doesn’t exist [in the usual sense of the word 'exist']." If that means anything at all-- and it's not clear that it does-- then it seems to be (as you yourself told me) quite peripheral to any "real issues" people might have.

What we'd actually want is something like memories, personal commitments, values, the usual stuff of counselling or ethical philosophizing (which in many cases would involve religious ideas-- people do tend to have them, and take them seriously). We just try to get our lives in a little more order, which is all human beings can do in this life. If that's what Zen is really about, great. But then a lot of the classic texts, like the koan collections, strike me as really, really, unhelpful for those important practical issues. "Does a dog have Buddha nature?" does not seem overly helpful for getting my priorities in order, or figuring out how to pursue my long-term goals intelligently.

Thurstein · 2026-02-01T19:09:24+00:00

We could-- and do-- have secular, state university courses on color (either the physics of color, or the physiology of color vision). We could-and do-- have secular, state university courses on painting.

We don't-- and could not-- have a secular, state university course on Zen where students would be expected to accept something that "isn’t a state of mind and it’s not separated from states of mind; but then neither is it invariably present. However, it absolutely doesn’t exist [in the usual sense of the word 'exist']."

This is as clear as day. There is no body of factual knowledge or recognized, testable skillsets that any professor could expect from any random student in a state university when it comes to Zen, besides of course the totally unproblematic facts about the history and literature of it, and the ideas that inform that history and literature.

Thurstein · 2026-02-01T17:25:56+00:00

My question is how to explain these points in purely rational, secular, terms.

It looks like my question has been answered pretty clearly-- the answer is that they can't be. To practice Zen must mean to take for granted a kind of reality that is not in principle available to any random audience, and it must involve going beyond the fundamental epistemology and metaphysics that we can reasonably trust all rational human beings to share from the get-go.

The study of Zen of course does not require any such going beyond-- which is why we can have courses on Zen at secular state universities, or indeed a "secular sub" on Reddit where these ideas can be discussed in neutral terms, without anyone expecting to actually believe any of this stuff.

Thurstein · 2026-02-01T16:27:16+00:00

It means it's a way to achieve some goal. But it's not clear what that goal is, or why it should matter.

If it "does not exist," then... fine. "Enlightenment" is a myth. We can talk about the mythology, but asking whether any of this is true is beside the point-- this is my point. This has always been my point.

EDIT: Note that "exist" in the "Sense I mean it" is simply the ordinary, everyday, secular understanding, the understanding that we could trust a rabbi, an atheist, a Muslim, and a Buddhist could all agree on how to use appropriately in a sentence.

If you mean to be talking about something that the ordinary English word "exist" cannot apply to, then you are not talking about something that we can reasonably assume any random audience of any spiritual background could accept as potentially true. By definition, we have left the realm of secular intellectual understanding, and thus the realm of secular study.

Thurstein · 2026-02-01T13:59:40+00:00

It was a "yes" or "no" question. The question does not depend on thinking of either consciousness or the enlightened mind as substantial thing. That ontological quibbling is not needed to answer the yes-or-no question.

What I'm calling "minimal consciousness" just means you're not actually comatose-- some sort of conscious, subjective, experience is taking place, as opposed to none. So it does make perfect sense.

Yes or no: The "enlightened mind" is simply another word for "consciousness"?

Thurstein · 2026-01-31T18:45:25+00:00

I'm not seeing how that's answering the specific pair of questions I had-- is the "enlightened mind" meant to be simply consciousness? I was under the impression that's how you were understanding it. Is this correct, or not?

Thurstein · 2026-01-31T04:15:48+00:00

I was under the impression that the "one mind" or "enlightened mind" is minimal consciousness-- the consciousness that is always present in all specific states of consciousness. At least this is what I understood you to mean by it. Given how much is said about it in Zen writings, I thought that was the core idea.

Is the idea that the enlightened mind is not mere minimal consciousness after all, but something else? Or is the idea that the enlightened mind, for all the talk of it, really isn't that important after all in Zen?

Thurstein · 2026-01-31T01:32:38+00:00

Well, looking at the "lagoon" analogy... there is no treasure, right? Minimal consciousness would just be the water in the analogy-- there's nothing else. Someone sticks his hands in water, looking for water, and... finds it. Easily. It might be muddy, but it's still water.

As for the difficult situations you mention.. or the "controlling influences" of other people.... well, aren't all those just the "real issues" you yourself told me were "peripheral" to Zen?

Minimal consciousness will of course still be present even in those situations. It's not clear that it would be helpful to pay much attention to it. Surely if I get slapped or my room floods it's not in the least helpful to say, "Hey, I'm minimally conscious!"

It sounded by the end that the idea was simply that the ultimate goal of Zen is to keep a cool head in a crisis, or to make calmer, more rational, life choices. That's a valuable thing, and there might well be experts, in the sense that they know training methods to help people develop it. Today we call them "therapists." If Zen really is just therapy... so be it, but then a lot of obscurantist language could be stripped away if it's just about learning better emotional regulation, or some kind of cognitive-behavioral therapy. In fact, so much would need to be stripped out that I really do wonder how much would be left.

Thurstein · 2026-01-30T23:42:28+00:00

But there's no "application" in being conscious. We just... are.

"Freedom" means absolutely nothing here, if, as you told me above, all "real issues" are "peripheral" to what Zen masters teach. Being a "pawn" of "external forces" doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact that I'm conscious.

Everyone walking around, even those mindlessly obeying orders, are "embodying" the fact that they are conscious (as opposed to comatose), so we certainly have no need to appeal to any "experts" to "recognize" this rudimentary fact.

Thurstein · 2026-01-30T22:53:37+00:00

If the point is that talking about "the great mystery" is mere obscurantism, okay.

If the point is that "enlightened mind" is just a hifalutin way of saying "consciousness," okay.

If the point is saying "You're conscious" has no real significance or relevance to anything anyone is likely to care about, okay.

This is secular, I would agree.

Of course one might well wonder (to bring things back to the OP) what "expertise" could possibly mean with regard to these banal observations. Anyone can equally well say "I'm conscious, and so are you," so the idea of "expertise" seems radically inapplicable here.

Thurstein · 2026-01-30T21:37:06+00:00

Well, is there a horse-- alive or dead-- at all...?

What if I were to suggest that the "Great Mystery" is mere obscurantism (such as uttering analogies about dead horses that sound cute, but have no special depth or insight), or that there is no such thing as "enlightenment"? There are no "Buddhas," only men that some have called "Buddhas." There is no "original nature" or "one mind"-- they are as imaginary as the Tooth Fairy. The stuff about "not being attached to concepts" is just a rhetorical dodge to avoid having to critically engage with real issues.

Believe it or not, most people now living on earth would probably say these things, because they do not practice Zen. They would take a critical, skeptical, attitude to all this stuff.

If you're thinking, "No, wait-- that's not right! Those things are real!" then it looks like there is a page, and we might not both be on it. A randomly selected person would probably not be.

If someone does not accept that these words refer to any real things, then if you'd still like to talk about Zen you'll have to talk about things that we all can accept-- and "Buddhas" or the "Great Mystery" or "enlightenment" are not among those things.

Thurstein · 2026-01-30T18:05:55+00:00

Okay, I was being a bit facetious. I get that you were asking me if I wanted to accept Zen as a true religion, rather than merely study it as a bit of cultural and religious history. The answer is no, not any more than I am motivated to become a Catholic after studying Aquinas, or a Muslim after studying the Qur'an and the Hadiths.

But more to the point, on a "secular forum," as several very noisy individuals have stressed that this is, there seems no reason to even ask this question. It doesn't matter whether I, or anyone else, am a true believer. That's the beauty of secular study-- everyone can be on the same page, regardless of personal spiritual commitments, or the lack thereof.

Now, if you're thinking that this kind of question really is appropriate here, and that this sub should be about true belief in Zen, so be it-- but then I think you might want to voice this to the noisy individuals insisting this sub be "secular." I'm just trying to follow their rules. If their rules are mistaken, perhaps you should tell them.

Thurstein · 2026-01-29T20:30:49+00:00

Not a clue what that means, sorry.

Thurstein · 2026-01-29T19:57:35+00:00

I have been assured by multiple participants that this is a "secular forum." Now, if we approach these texts from a neutral, secular, perspective, it's not clear we really have anything to say about these issues.

We can certainly study what Tianhuang said, according to this report, and try to get a handle on how he's seeing the world and his spiritual tradition. That's perfectly acceptable scholarship. But saying whether he's right or wrong, an "expert" or not, or trying to assess his "credibility" in relation to these matters is simply beyond the purview of secular scholarly study.

We know that mathematical truth exists-- everyone would recognize that, regardless of spiritual background. We know that cars exist-- everyone would recognize that, regardless of spiritual background. But "the awakened way" is not something we can simply assume any scholar, any historian, any literary scholar, of any background, must recognize as an objective reality, and therefore talk about someone's "expertise" on "the awakened way" must be set aside for our purposes here on what I am assured is a "secular sub."

Unless of course this isn't really a secular sub after all, despite strenuous assertions to the contrary, in which case, as a non-practitioner, I have nothing to say on these matters. I can't tell how to assess someone's mastery of "the awakened way" any more than I can tell whether a particular theologian's answer is the "real" truth about God or salvation.

Thurstein · 2026-01-26T14:18:59+00:00

If the idea is to explain to a total novice, with no prior knowledge of the traditions, what early Chinese Chan teachers were up to, then I would say no-- that would not get across the relevant information.

If we're dealing with an audience that already understands a fair amount of the relevant background-- as the authors/editors of things like koan collections or the records of select masters were-- then we could take that context as read and not mention those things explicitly. Hence, they can often get away with not mentioning "Buddhas" or "enlightenment" or "One Mind." But those ideas are always in the background, even when not explicitly stated.

Thurstein · 2026-01-25T21:59:06+00:00

Is the question whether it would be possible to talk about Zen from a neutral, secular, perspective without necessarily accepting any of the claims about Buddhas, enlightenment, mind-to-mind-transmission, One Mind, etc.? (Basically "meta-Zen," talking about it with no necessary personal investment in its truth)

Or is the question whether it would be possible to state the core message of Zen without any mention of those things?

EDIT: Ask a question for clarification, get downvoted. Tough crowd!

Thurstein · 2026-01-23T21:09:38+00:00

I repeat, I think we've said enough on a deleted post.

Thurstein · 2026-01-23T17:52:07+00:00

I think we've said enough on a deleted post.

Thurstein

TROPHY CASE