ZEN IS DEFINITELY A SINGLE IDEA

NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT CLAIMS OTHERWISE

I FIND IT KIND OF SIMPLE ACTUALLY

IT IS A CERTAIN TYPE OF REALISM

BASED NOT ON TRANSCENDENTALISM BUT TEMPORALISM

SORT OF LIKE HINDUISM CROSSED WITH SHINTO

Mahayana -> chan + Shinto = zen

CLOSE ENOUGH FOR ME

👍

DIOGENES WAS FUN BECAUSE HE WAS A LITERALIST

REALISM IS A BIT MORE IDEALISTIC

IN THE SENSE OF GERMANIC IDEALISM

BUT I LIKE HIS GROUCHINESS

"HUMANITY... FUCKIN' BLIGHT"

Zen isn't realism, certainly not Shinto and even much less temporalism

Zen is derived from early Tantrism, originates from India, touches "Shinto" only on the plane of appearances, much like Tibetan or Mongolian folk touches Vajrayana. Zen decidedly IS transcendentalism, but unfortunately, its method is not widely understood, and is somewhat impenetrable for philosophy and dialectics

Zen places so much emphasis on the "unsayable" (Zen koans illustrate this well), that any polemical Zen is almost impossible to conceive of

Mahayanism is a much wider definition than Zen, so Zen does not derive form it, but it can be included in Mahayanist tradition, but then again, it can also be included also in Tantric tradition, but emphasis is slightly more contemplative and meditative

TRANSCENDENTALISM IS INHERENT

THE "UNSAYABLE" IS JUST A RIFF ON NIHILISM

COMMUNICATION DOES NOT EXIST

Absolutely not

Transcendentalism is connected to what defies the world of opposites

In that sense, Zen is intensely connected to going beyond the opposites

As such it does not belong to naturalist "realism", which is a Nietzschean domain

Language itself is inherently connected to the world of appearances, and hence "realization" cannot be spoken of in any definite terms, I mean this is the alphabet of transcendentalism

THAT IS MORE TROPE THAN PHILOSOPHY

IT WILL END UP AT BACKDOOR DUALISM ANYWAY

Cultivating non dual experience via meditation alone or meditation + koans. Predominantly

Yes, but the dualism and monism also belong to the same category

Even monism, in philosophical terms, does not represent any genuine realization in itself, it is a mere plane of philosophy

The Atma, the Brahman, it also has its own backdoor, which is Naturalism

I'm not a great fan of introducing concepts of non-dualism and dualism in general, because these are merely polemical devices that do not really help

Non-dualism and dualism could in fact easily be explained as one and the same

And then also not - the fundamental problem of philosophy

it's true they don't

But short of hitting each other with sticks what do you wanna do

Nothing really, but Brett is fond of pulling impossible claims, and he just produced another one, namely, that Zen is not transcendentalism

Take this for example "Cultivating non dual experience" this is an instruction which is purely philosophical, it demands elaboration, which leads down the rabbit hole

No argument there dude

"Cultivating concentration (of the mind)" this one is more intuitive