Talk:Zen/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 9 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Hofstadter? ORLY?

If no one objects, and soon, I propose to wipe the mention of Hofstadter's massive tldr tome from here. I made my way through most of that horrible book when it came out, and yawned immensely at the geeky gee-whizness of it all. "No significant zen content; hardly any bhikkus were harmed in the publishing of this work."

Hofstadter's only claim to fame in my eyes is his lame attempt to fill Martin Gardner's shoes as the writer of a monthly column in Scientific American magazine. Antique geekdom from the age of data structure discovery. urgh. too harsh? oh well Sprocket J Cogswell 17:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I object! Professor Moriarty 17:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. discuss? Sprocket J Cogswell 17:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the objection to include GEB in the list of Zen references; it's not a book about Zen proper ^{— Unsigned, by: 93.197.150.204 / talk / contribs}

I love that book, although, I must admit, I never connected it with Zen. Sssh^Sssh 14:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's very Zen to have it in there. ħuman 21:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thinking it is Zen is a mistake. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

this is horseshit

how much of this wiki is worthless as this page?

All of it. Aceⁱ⁹ 10:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Nah, not all of it. Just the pages you happen to visit, IP. It's a corrupted view that only those who are not registered see. The actual site for real members is AMAZING! Quaru (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Horseshit is useful if you're growing roses or tomatoes or perhaps creating a digester to make methane. This site is similarly useful for specific purposes like pissing off BONs who land here by chance hoping to find agreement with their weird ideas. BTW you're welcome to edit, you know. 11:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

But cow shit works better. Something about the way it's digested... But the important part, is neither of them meditate. That'd make the world a much better place. Quaru (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Horse shit is bad fertilizer because it contains undigested seeds. Cow shit is much more desirable as a soil amendment. ħuman 02:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Do we need all that "further reading"? Lists of books & authors doesn't seem like RW style. Plus, making a wild ass guess based on the titles & notes here, these look like earnest "how to do Zen" texts rather than the critical sceptical approach our readership should be most interested in. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's one of those "we need an article about this religion but I don't know enough about it to write a decent refutation or add jokes" crapticles. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As a practitioner (maybe I'm biased) part of the problem may be that there isn't enough like.. concrete texts to really mock? Mostly it'd be "You morons think we re-incarnate... Morons" And possibly, "You think doing good gets you karma.. stupid" or some such.. I mean, beyond that, there's just not much to criticize.. "You meditate? pussy!"? I dunno. I said I may be biased, but outside of those 3 points or so, the rest is just concerned with how you live your life in basic terms.. "Be good.." "Don't cause unnecessary harm.." etc.. There aren't really any zen's like.. trying to force an agenda on others, or trying to get their creation story taught, or trying to get women to stop getting abortions, or trying to get gays to not wed.. I guess I could dust off some books and try to write up some more, if anyone would like... I can try to just do a decent write-up, and leave the snark to others? I can every try to be a dick. (I really am better than me 3 examples above..) Quaru (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Make it so Mr Quaru! 13:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If I was onlne at home I could do some too :( Hi Susan btw... Totnesmartin (talk)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘"Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings -- that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide."

That's from the Kalama Sutra. Seems directly on mission: "accept nothing on authority." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, this is a rather positive view of a religion -- yes a religion, that's how it's viewed in Asia; it's viewed as the quintessential religion of cognitive dissonance. As such, it's not very rational -- and this article as it stands is horseshit. Is there nothing negative to be said about Zen? Yes, there is -- take one of main US teachers -- Kyozan Joshu Sasaki who sexually abused his female followers and was protected by others in his retinue. See his obituary -- http://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-joshu-sasaki-roshi-20140729-story.html Bongolian (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

How Zen is RationalWiki?

Does the question have meaning? Pointed moment (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)