Paul Reps Influence on Zen.

The more you talk and think about it, the further astray you wander from the truth. – Seng-ts’an, Xinxin Ming (Verses on the Faith Mind)

Seng-ts’an’s “Xinxin Ming” also known as “Verses on the Faith Mind” is a foundational Zen text that emphasizes the importance of non-attachment and the understanding of non-duality. It teaches that by letting go of preferences and distinctions, one can achieve clarity and peace of mind, ultimately realizing the truth of existence.

A Zen Buddhist Facebook group which I only recently became involved with suddenly became a drain on my time and peace of mind. As I untangle myself from a number but not all digital attachments, I’ve come to see social media groups that espouse rigid dogma as inherently restrictive. Using electronic media without inner centering can be an addictive, emotional, and anti-Zen activity that cultivates more ignorance rather than wisdom. Buddhist Guidance on Using Social Media by Anam Thubten Rinpoche is a well balanced and superb article which to read and meditate upon on the subject of discernment using social media if you’re a Buddhist or not. Paradoxically, even groups devoted exclusively to Zen Buddhism can prove either to be liberating or very ill-informed and surprisingly confining. Like a form of computerized cage, gatekeepers can curate a suffocating caravan of mind-numbing memes and tropes, focusing only on soundbite-sized small fragments of what is essentially a beautiful, oceanic and endless subject. I discovered this particular phenomena first-hand. When doctrine is enforced with unquestioning absolutist rigidity, it becomes fundamentally at odds with Buddha’s teachings. Facebook allows posts of up to 63,206 characters—roughly 20–50 pages of text, depending on formatting. I keep Facebook posts between 40–80 characters. Conciseness forces clarity.

One of my posts quoting “Centering” as transcribed by Paul Reps in one such group became something of a turning point for me. “Centering” refers to the “112 Ways of Centering” (also called the 112 meditation techniques or dharanas) that Paul Reps transcribed from the ancient Vijnana Bhairava Tantra. This text appears in Reps’ influential anthology Zen Flesh, Zen Bones (first published 1957, with subsequent editions by Shambhala Publications in 1994).The Vijnana Bhairava Tantra is a classical Kashmir Shaivism text, dated roughly between the 7th–9th centuries CE. It presents itself as a dialogue between Shiva and his consort Devi/Shakti, offering 112 distinct meditation methods for accessing higher states of consciousness. Reps’ transcription brought this ancient Tantric teaching to Western audiences, making it accessible alongside traditional Zen materials. I love Zen Flesh, Zen Bones. I can safely say it is one of my favourite books. It is work of great substance and a key text in any understanding of Zen. Despite some minor criticism of Reps’ rendering of “Centering,” I still find it a remarkable and essential text to reference and enjoy. What matters most is that Reps’ inclusion of these Tantric techniques alongside Zen koans created a rare comparative framework, revealing parallels between Buddhist and Hindu meditation practices. Unlike many esoteric Tantric texts requiring guru initiation, Reps presented these 112 methods as practical techniques accessible to lay practitioners. The Vijnana Bhairava Tantra represents one of the most comprehensive collections of meditation techniques in Eastern philosophy, and Reps’ transcription helped preserve it for contemporary study. The work remains important today because it offers systematic, varied approaches to mindfulness that transcend single-tradition boundaries—valuable for both academic study and practical meditation practice.

Paul Reps is an undisputed titan of Zen Buddhist understanding. Some institutions have recognized Paul Reps contribution. The Thomas Merton Center lists Zen Flesh, Zen Bones among key sources for Zen-Buddhist studies, and publications like Tricycle: The Buddhist Review have highlighted Reps’ work as pivotal to understanding centering techniques in contemplative traditions. In William Segal‘s excellent article The Zen of Paul Reps he states; “Although Reps enjoyed strong personal friendships with a number of Japanese Zen masters, he persistently rejected “official Zen.” To my suggestion that we train at a Zen monastery, he replied: “Don’t go. They’ll spoil you.” Paul Reps (September 15, 1895 – July 12, 1990) was an American artist, poet, and author. He is best known for his unorthodox haiku-inspired poetry that was published from 1939 onwards. He is considered one of America’s first haiku poets. However, an admin of a certain Zen Buddhist Facebook group didn’t consider Paul Rep’s gravity carefully enough for my liking. Indeed, the admin in my humble opinion was sadly inept. My post in a Zen Buddhist Facebook group was quite simple and touched lightly on the idea of the emptiness and interchangeability of self:

“Feel the consciousness of each person as your own consciousness. So, leaving aside concern for self, become each being.”
— Centering, transcribed by Paul Reps

I waited for the pending post to publish. Nothing happened. After a while I noticed that it had been removed. After waiting a reasonable and respectful amount of time, I asked the admin why it had been removed. His response follows:

“I removed it because ‘feel the consciousness of each person as your own’ is pure spiritual fantasy. In Zen Buddhism, consciousness is just one of the five skandhas, empty, dependent, with no core. Nothing there to merge with. ‘Become each being’ only inflates the sense of self into something bigger and more subtle. Sengcan said it plainly: ‘Make the smallest distinction, however, and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.’ The Buddha was just as direct: ‘In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then believe them to be true.’ If we don’t even see clearly what we call ‘ourselves,’ talking about tuning into others is just imagination. This group stays with what’s actually here, not with ideas that sound deep but drift away from it. That’s why I removed it.”

The admin’s narrow uneducated adherence to doctrine had no subtle nuance. I blocked the admin (which is not very Buddhist, tolerant, open or compassionate of me) and immediately left the group. Group culture can either stifle evolutionary discourse or encourage debate. I felt stifled and therefore left. Terence McKenna‘s phrase “Culture is not your friend” then came into my mind. This phrase suggests that modern culture often serves the interests of institutions rather than individuals. Culture can disempower and manipulate people. McKenna believed that to truly understand and experience life, one must step outside the constraints imposed by societal norms and expectations. From a Zen Buddhist standpoint, the admin’s criticism is doctrinally sound. The Vijnana Bhairava Tantra originates from Kashmir Shaivism, not Zen Buddhism, and the two traditions hold fundamentally different metaphysical views:

• Kashmir Shaivism teaches that ultimate reality is a single, luminous, self-aware consciousness (Shiva/Cit) that is both the source and substance of everything. The goal is recognizing oneself as this universal consciousness.
• Zen Buddhism (rooted in Mahāyāna doctrines of anatta and śūnyatā) holds that there is no enduring self or underlying consciousness apart from moment-to-moment experience. Emptiness means the lack of inherent existence of all phenomena, denying any permanent absolute.

However, from a Kashmir Shaivism perspective, the practices mentioned in “Centering” aren’t meant as the admin incorrectly stated to “inflate the sense of self“—but rather to dissolve the limited ego into universal consciousness. The “I” being expanded isn’t the individual personality, but the recognition of one’s true nature as the ground of all being. The admin then cited Sengcan (the Third Zen Patriarch) and attributed Buddha’s teachings accurately. In essence, while Chan Buddhism and Hinduism share a common “family tree” and many practices, they arrive at different conclusions about the nature of reality and the self. Hinduism generally seeks to realize the true Self, whereas Chan seeks to see through the illusion of the self entirely. Jianzhi Sengcan is a legitimate Zen authority. The admin articulated what the group prioritizes: “what’s actually here, not with ideas that sound deep but drift away from it.” By removing content without any form of explanation creates ambiguity. Calling the teaching “pure spiritual fantasy” was in my mind a sacrilegious and highly ignorant dismissal against an ancient and sacred text of Kashmir Shaivism (hence my rapid intolerance and blocking). A more skillful framing would acknowledge its value within that tradition while explaining why it doesn’t fit Zen practice. While defending Zen’s integrity is valid, presenting one Buddhist tradition’s view as the definitive standard risks creating an exclusionary elitist environment rather than an educational one. The inclusion of “Centering” in Zen Flesh, Zen Bones into any discourse on Zen Buddhism is important—it stands as a necessary and important text to reference when discussing meditation. Requiring group members to “ask permission” for an explanation feels like gatekeeping to me, especially when the removed content wasn’t harmful—just doctrinally different. Group rules while being sometimes necessary can also be destructive and limiting.

The removal of my quote becomes less about whether it belonged there, and more about whether the group’s culture supports open, respectful dialogue about boundaries. A group that truly embodies Zen’s openness would typically communicate removals beforehand with clarity and kindness—not silence until questioned. Buddha taught tolerance and respect toward other religious paths, recognizing that spiritual needs and dispositions vary widely. Each individual must be free to follow the path that suits their temperament. My pathway is open to various influences. Exposure to different traditions can deepen understanding of one’s own practice through contrast and comparison. Buddhism has always been syncretic. As it spread across Asia, it absorbed and transformed local traditions—Daoism in China, Shinto in Japan, and various indigenous practices throughout Southeast Asia. This adaptability is arguably part of Buddhism’s enduring success. Syncretism can broaden the tradition’s appeal and relevance but possibly risks introducing contradictions and dilution of core doctrines without careful discipline and discernment. Ultimately the question isn’t really whether openness is inherently good or bad, but whether the practitioner has the wisdom, guidance, and self-awareness to integrate various practices skillfully. For some, this is a profound strength; for others, it becomes a source of confusion while they safely opt to keep the wheel stabilizers on their bicycles of belief. Buddha’s teachings suggest openness to diverse spiritual expressions without requiring doctrinal agreement. Facebook groups in general have largely become a drain on my precious time—time which is far better spent remaining open while avoiding all forms of one-tradition absolutism. As the Tao Te Ching says: “Nothing in the world is softer or weaker than water, Yet nothing is better at overcoming the hard and strong“. My book Thai Tattoo Magick is published by Inner Traditions.