Dogen was a master of “zazen,” the particular flavor of contemplative practice developed in Zen. Many of his writings are attempts to help his students understand the importance of, and approach to, this practice. But Dogen also tries to explain what is found, what is discovered, in zazen — and it’s here that many find his genius. See:
The Greatest Philosopher You’ve Never Heard Of, by Adam Frank
So okay, I am looking.
Was doing some reading when I seen an article by Frank Close of NPR. What also sparked my interest was about 1 and its problems. The subject of Koan’s, as I was exposed to them as a subject very early in my life.
As may be surmised from the foregoing explanation on Zen’s methodological stance, it is perhaps best to understand Zen as an anti-philosophy if the term “philosophy” is taken to mean the establishment of “the kingdom of reason,” which has been launched vis-à-vis an intellectual effort of the most brilliant minds in Europe since the modern period to find new ways to ground our conception of human nature—beyond traditional Christian dogmas which had incorporated classic Aristotelian and Platonic views. Since then, various Western philosophers have attempted to capture human nature with this goal in mind by using ego-consciousness as a starting point as well as a destination in philosophy; to name a few representative ones, human nature has been captured in terms of ego-consciousness (e.g., Descartes), Reason, Personality, Transcendental Subjectivity (e.g., Kant and Husserl), Life (e.g., Dilthey), Existence (e.g., Existential philosophers such as Kierkegaard, Jaspers and Sartre) and Dasein (Heidegger). (Yuasa, 2003, 160–61.)[/I]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/japanese-zen/#ZenAnt”4. Zen as Anti-Philosophy Nagatomo, Shigenori, “Japanese Zen Buddhist Philosophy”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
I mean who really knew if one did not expand the subject as of the idea of a philosophy as a subject as existing outside of the Western philosophers? It was increasing clear as I looked at Plato and the relevance of the image of Raphael’s school of Athens, that the picture it self contain in the Vatican’s Signatory room at the Vatican holds special appeal for Christian assumed dogmas.
So in this thread, I speak about what “quantum realism,” and what it may look like when we speak about the one, not just as a philosophical base held in dogma, but of the wider view we look at what Plato mean’s, as the finger pointing up, or, to misconstrue the finger as implying only God or Heaven, as the One.
As may be surmised then, by relying on the above-mentioned methodological stance, Zen Buddhism has produced an understanding of reality—one’s own self, living nature and human nature—quite different from those offered by Western philosophy. Therefore, we can say that Zen is an anti-philosophy in that it is not a systematization of knowledge built on the use of a discursive mode of reasoning anchored in the (alleged) certainty or transparency of ego-consciousness, by following an Aristotelian either-or logic. Yet, it upholds something like a philosophy that springs forth through a reflective restatement of the practice, though this “upholding” must be understood with a proviso that it maintains, as mentioned in the foregoing, a “positionless position.” (Abe, 1989.) This is because Zen abhors “holding onto” anything, which Zen considers an instance of “self-binding without a rope.” That is, this self-binding traps the Zen practitioner into a mode of attachment that is the source of suffering and, consequently, disrupts the sense of embodied freedom it cherishes.[/I] Nagatomo, Shigenori, “Japanese Zen Buddhist Philosophy”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
So there is a lot of information being spoken in the Japanese philosophy that is articulated in the way one can think of mind contrary too, western philosophical thinking on the subject of philosophy? Your thoughts?