[Gem]

Originally Posted by Rain95

Those meditation stages were written by Kamalashila who did not follow the Zen "chan" school of Buddhism and in fact he disagreed with Chan Buddhism. There was a huge debate between Kamalashila and Moheyan of the East Mountain teaching of Chan Buddhism called the "Council of Lhasa." The debate was over which Buddhist school held the true dhamma. Tibetan sources claim Kamalashila won the debate and Chinese sources claim Moheyan won.

Wait... I was told my school has the pure dhamma in its pristine form .

So it's not really a matter of here are the accepted meditation stages of "Buddhism." Buddhism like all religions has disagreements within it over various teachings and practices.

That's true, and the meditation stages aren't described as JB described it.

Those writings were only accepted in certain Buddhism schools and not accepted in others. Also, of course, none of that was written or taught by Buddha. As somebody who has studied Zen, I can see a problem with those teachings right away. The problem is in emphasis. The way Kamalashila presents these teachings, they are directed to the ego. So the ego is the one seeking different experiences and stages. This is fine, but teachings like this usually don't change what a person is, only what they do. It's kind of an "on and off" teaching. One sits in meditation, experiences various things, then stops meditating and is themselves again.

The Chan school, or Zen Buddhism, does not emphasize seeking goals like stages in meditation. Zen meditation was heavily influenced by Taoism in China in it's early stages, so the emphasis is more on carrying the state of mind in meditation at all times, mindfulness or insight observation "Guan" from Daoism. A detachment from thought and thinking. An awareness of the current moment free of desire and attachment. Stages may exist in this way of emphasizing things, but one does not make them a goal or seek them. They occur naturally as one becomes selfless and pays attention to the current moment always.

That's pretty much along the lines I was taught as well.

Also, because the Zen emphasis is on current experience free from the influence of thought and thinking, teachings are of secondary importance. Teachings point to the experience, but are not a part of it. This agrees with what Buddha taught about the need to abandon all teachings in the practice or experience. Obviously, teachings are not abandoned, they just assume a new form. Teachings can be intellectual, a part of thought and thinking, or they can be actualized or lived. manifested/applied in the present.

Yes, the practice and philosophy go together.