# Which type's mindset does Zen Buddhism reflect?



## Mikhail (Aug 26, 2015)

Zen Buddhism is a very peculiar spiritual practice. What type were the people who created it? Which type would find easier time understanding it? Which type would be more likely to be drawn to it?


UPD:


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Infp.


----------



## Morn (Apr 13, 2010)

Mikhail said:


> Zen Buddhism is a very peculiar spiritual practice. What type were the people who created it? Which type would find easier time understanding it? Which type would be more likely to be drawn to it?



It is difficult to say, probably an intuitive feeler.
However buddhism can have an appeal to an intuitive thinker as well. Steve Jobs was a buddhist, who appreciated the sense of minimalism and austere purity that Zen Buddhist lifestyles represent. He was an _NTJ, either INTJ or ENTJ.
He was a billionaire who lived in a very minimal house:


----------



## Mikhail (Aug 26, 2015)

mushr00m said:


> Infp.







Doesn't look like a very INFP thing to me.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Mikhail said:


> Doesn't look like a very INFP thing to me.


Oh. You could've put this in your op and I would've suggested something like ISTJ.


----------



## AdroElectro (Oct 28, 2014)

Pretty much every INFP I've ever met is drawn to Buddhism.


----------



## yet another intj (Feb 10, 2013)

Nobody naturally, unknowingly and perfectly reflects Zen Buddhism with his/her own mindset. Every single personality type contains one of it's many qualities as a certain skill from birth. I think it's a discipline for experiencing other personality types to properly understand our own, as an insignificant part of everything with them. Zen Buddhism is capable of changing two people with dramatically different personality types by teaching them the very same things. Because it's teaching us how to face with the very essence of existence, not encouraging or confusing anybody to make him/her a better individual.






It's teaching us a different kind of love that it's not evil.


----------



## Tetsuo Shima (Nov 24, 2014)

Definitely INFP.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Or INTP. I know a handful of NTs who are into Buddhism. Buddha was a Ennea-Type 5 which makes me think maybe he was a INTx.

In terms of your actual question though, the answer would be "none", no type has a particular emphasis on mindfulness... one of humanity's main faults I think.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

For what it's worth, Jung viewed Buddhism as a quintessential manifestation of _introversion_... but it's important to keep in mind that the people Jung viewed as well-defined "introverts" were really MBTI INs, not just MBTI introverts. And there's a lot more on Jung's view of introversion and Buddhism in the spoiler.


* *




A lot of people whose exposure to Jung is mostly limited to what they hear on MBTI forums or other not-so-great internet sources think Psychological Types is mostly about the eight so-called "cognitive functions." But in fact, Jung spent more of Psychological Types talking about the many things he thought extraverts had in common and introverts had in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together.

I'm not a John Beebe fan, but he certainly characterized Jung's perspective accurately when he said:



Beebe said:


> It was C.G. Jung, of course, who introduced the language we use today: words such as _function_ and _attitude_, as well as his highly specific names for the four functions of our conscious orientation (_thinking, feeling, sensation, intuition_), and the two attitudes through which those orientations are deployed (_introversion_ and _extraversion_).
> ...
> For Jung the attitude type was the primary thing, and the function type a kind of subsomething that expressed that attitude in a particular way. Accordingly, he organized his general description of the types in terms of the attitudes, describing first "the peculiarities of the basic psychological functions in the _extraverted_ attitude" and then going on to "the peculiarities of the basic psychological functions in the _introverted_ attitude."


As Jung saw it, the dynamics of the human psyche revolved first and foremost around a single great divide, and that divide involved _two_ all-important components — namely, introversion/extraversion _and_ conscious/unconscious. And it's also worth noting that Jung believed that the ultimate reason there were extraverts and introverts in the first place was that extraversion and introversion represented two competing evolutionary strategies, each successful in its own way. Here's how he described them:



Jung said:


> There are in nature two fundamentally different modes of adaptation which ensure the continued existence of the living organism. The one consists of a high rate of fertility, with low powers of defense and short duration of life for the single individual; the other consists in equipping the individual with numerous means of self-preservation plus a low fertility rate. This biological difference, it seems to me, is not merely analogous to, but the actual foundation of, our two psychological modes of adaptation. I must content myself with this broad hint. It is sufficient to note that the peculiar nature of the extravert constantly urges him to expend and propagate himself in every way, while the tendency of the introvert is to defend himself against all demands from outside, to conserve his energy by withdrawing it from objects, thereby consolidating his own position. Blake's intuition did not err when he described the two classes of men as "prolific" and "devouring." Just as, biologically, the two modes of adaptation work equally well and are successful in their own way, so too with the typical attitudes. The one achieves its end by a multiplicity of relationships, the other by a monopoly.


And the result of the corresponding genetic machinations was that, as Jung saw it, introverts tend to be "reserved, ... rather shy people," with "a hesitant, reflective, retiring nature that keeps itself to itself, shrinks from objects, is always slightly on the defensive and prefers to hide behind mistrustful scrutiny"; while extraverts tend to be "open" and "sociable," with "an outgoing, candid, and accommodating nature that adapts easily to a given situation, quickly forms attachments, and ... will often venture forth with careless confidence into unknown situations."

And as for how Mother Nature went about _causing_ that introverted approach to the world (from an internal standpoint), Jung said that the psychodynamic mechanism behind introversion involved a projection of negative unconscious contents by the introvert onto the people and things of the external world, which in turn caused the introvert to falsely perceive that those people and things were charged with negative energy (libido), which in turn caused the introvert to feel threatened by those people and things, and fear them, and mount a defense which took the form of, among other things, (1) avoidance, and (2) a process of "abstraction" by which the introvert reduced people and things to their abstract qualities, thereby (as Jung explained) "withdrawing libido from the object ... to prevent the object from gaining power over him."

And conversely, Jung characterized extraversion (_in general_; not just extraverted feeling) as a process involving "empathy," and contrasted the essential empathy at the core of the extravert's relationship to the "object" with the "abstraction" at the core of the introvert's relationship with the object.

In the first chapter of Psychological Types, describing the ways in which several of the bitterest doctrinal controversies in the early Christian church reflected the E/I divide, Jung wrote that beneath those controversies "lies the great psychological schism. The one position attaches supreme value and importance to the sensuously perceptible; ... the other maintains that the chief value lies with the abstract and extra-human."

"The man who is oriented to the idea [— i.e., the introvert —] apprehends and reacts from the standpoint of the idea," Jung explained. "But the man who is oriented to the object [— i.e., the extravert —] apprehends and reacts from the standpoint of sensation. For him the abstract is of secondary importance, since what must be thought about things seems to him relatively inessential, while for the former it is just the reverse."

Chapter 7 of Psychological Types is devoted to a discussion of Worringer's book Abstraction and Empathy. Worringer had written about an aesthetic duality that hinged on whether the artist's attitude toward the external world was positive/empathetic or negative/abstract. As Jung explained:



Jung said:


> Since antiquity, our general attitude to art has always been empathetic, and for this reason we designate as beautiful only those things we can empathize with. ... And yet another art-principle undoubtedly exists, a style that is opposed to life, that denies the will to live, but nevertheless lays a claim to beauty. When art produces life-denying, inorganic, abstract forms, there can no longer be any question of the will to create arising out of the need for empathy; it is rather a need that is directly opposed to empathy—in other words, a tendency to suppress life. Worringer says: "This counter-pole to the need for empathy appears to us to be the urge to abstraction." As to the psychology of this urge to abstraction, Worringer continues:
> 
> Now, what are the psychic preconditions for the urge to abstraction? Among those peoples where it exists we must look for them in their feeling about the world, in their psychic attitude towards the cosmos. Whereas the precondition for the urge to empathy is a happy pantheistic relationship of confidence between man and the phenomena of the external world, the urge to abstraction is the outcome of a great inner uneasiness inspired in man by these phenomena, and its religious counterpart is the strongly transcendental colouring of all ideas. We might describe this state as an immense spiritual dread of space.​


Jung said that a typical introvert had a defensive, "abstracting" attitude toward the external world because, as Jung explained, he "finds himself in a frighteningly animated world that seeks to overpower and smother him. He therefore withdraws into himself, in order to think up a saving formula calculated to enhance his subjective value at least to the point where he can hold his own against the influence of the object. ... [The introvert] retreats mistrustfully before the daemonism of objects, and builds up a protective anti-world composed of abstractions."

Jung says it's "significant that Worringer describes the influence of the object [on the abstract artist] as fear or dread. The abstracting attitude endows the object with a threatening or injurious quality against which it has to defend itself." And Jung agreed with Worringer that the abstracting attitude was particularly characteristic of Oriental art. As Jung explained:



Jung said:


> [What Worringer calls] "the great inner uneasiness inspired in man by the phenomena of the external world" is nothing other than the introvert's fear of all stimuli and change, occasioned by his deeper sensitivity and powers of realization. His abstractions serve the avowed purpose of confining the irregular and changeable within fixed limits. ... Worringer rightly says of Oriental art:
> 
> Tormented by the confusion and flux of the phenomenal world, these people were dominated by an immense need for repose. The enjoyment they sought in art consisted not so much in immersing themselves in the things of the outside world and finding pleasure there, as in raising the individual object out of its arbitrary and seemingly fortuitous existence, immortalizing it by approximation to abstract forms, and so finding a point of repose amid the ceaseless flux of appearances.
> 
> ...


It should be noted, however, that we know today — thanks to Isabel Myers, a boatload of Big Five psychologists, and decades of data — that Jung's conflation of abstraction and introversion (and "concretism" and extraverts) was one of his biggest mistakes. Not only are there abstract extraverts (ENs) and concrete introverts (ISs), but an introvert is _no more likely than an extravert_ to choose the abstract side of the MBTI S/N items that focus on the abstract/concrete duality.

Buuut setting that category muddle aside, was Jung correct to believe that the people who _he_ viewed as well-defined "introverts" — i.e., MBTI INs — were the ones most inclined to exhibit a Buddhist perspective on (and adopt a Buddhist approach to) the world? I think he was.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

Actually I believe there is a clear answer here, it's intuition. The way zen buddhists are "tested" is through the use of koans which are small stories that seek to reprogram your mind to understand the world intuitively which leads to grand realizations along the way. 

There are some examples here that clearly make no sense logically, but in each story it is clear that the student has some ineffable realization when he lets go of his intellectual world-view.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

*Would you like to read a story?*

@UnicornRainbowLove , while Koans are part of Zen practice, most involves preliminary training in mindfulness of the senses, which is patently Sensory.



Mikhail said:


> Zen Buddhism is a very peculiar spiritual practice. What type were the people who created it? Which type would find easier time understanding it? Which type would be more likely to be drawn to it?


Something I have relative credentials to speak upon!

I practiced Zen from age 19 to 22, and spent 2 months in a monastery followed by 2 months with a group of Zen squatters/renunciates in Portland, OR.

Anyway, the people who created Zen in its earliest-but-current form were the Chinese as taught by Bodhidharma.

They were very strict, usually familiar with Shaolin. But, honestly, their personality types don't matter because the practice of Zen (Chan in Chinese) was taken up by these founders as a way to direct their cognitive processes away from what is "phenomena" (the interpretations and attachments to sounds, sights, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and pre-rational cognitive perceptions "mind movements").

So, focusing on the practice in and of itself, I managed to determine a few things based on the following basic tenets underlying Zen (like, based on what we actively did and didn't do with our cognitive processes):


* *





The human mind is naturally open before it becomes entangled in its complex processing of phenomena. Meaning, usually, that which we synthesize in a rational fashion, particularly that which is implicitly derived and then rationalized (this would suggest Ti and Fi especially) are functions considered to be the roots of "myriad delusions".

A mind open to the natural world of the senses is the most lucid and clear of minds, most in touch with "reality". Summary of "reality" versus "phenomena": Reality is the sense impressions and the observations of movement we make, with very little rational extrapolation other than a recognition that some things imply other things that aren't seen; like, Te and Fe used to understand that seeing a tree from afar also means you're likely standing closer to its roots than the actual tree itself.

Anything further extrapolated or abstracted is only considered reality or (non-delusional) Right Understanding if and only if it adheres to the monistic metaphysic of shunyata (inherent emptiness, which is to be inferred that we fill up that undefiled emptiness by pouring our conceptualizations and rationalizations into it)... and the metaphysic of the skandhas: Form (literally, what can be externally seen), Sensation (forms making contact), Perceptions (basic feelings of aversion, desire, or neutrality), Formations (extrapolations pulled form those three nuances of perception), and Consciousness (our ability to manipulate which extrapolations we augment, which ones we diminish, and which ones we connect together and why we connect them together).

When you explicitly encounter a form, you're processing the simply impression of the sight, sound, smell, taste, tactile feedback, and the initial aversion/desire/neutrality feelings that arise.

Reality is form (and thus, it is defiled as we move along the skandhas) and it is also form combined with "nature".

Form- explicit appearance and movement of independent objects/people (sensory events processed by Se, Ne "Such is a tree.")
Nature- implicit qualities of such objects/people (sensory events processed by Te, Fe without making any connections to anything other than the thing-in-and-of-itself "Such a tree has roots which carry water.")

The combination:
Embodiment- ties that bind all objects/people together, explicitly and implicitiy (sensory events processed by all extroverted functions, limited to the things-in-and-of-themselves, and envisioned as one Thing; this can be seen as a function of Si and Ni, and does not likely extend to Ti and Fi)

The _*functions*_ of reality will be invariably processed by more Ti and Fi, but such use of those functions is not encouraged to go beyond a simple recognition of cause and effect (karma) in Zen. Other forms of Buddhism involve more complex understandings, and practices and meditations specifically designed to grasp the concepts conveyed in the Sutras that get very Ne, Ni, Fe, Fi heavy.

In Zen, however, it is standard practice to prune any further processing by returning your focus to sensations (Se) and the simple awareness that your mind is processing them (Ne) and needn't go on any tangents (no Te, no Fe, no Si, Ni, Ti, or Fi). This however, is only the introductory practice of Zen... the mindfulness practice. It's considered the kind of technique one can learn "right off the streets". It is by no means novice-only.

It's called _shikantaza_ "clear minded sitting" (roughly). Some sects of Zen are shikantaza-only (like the Soto school), others are koan-study only (Rinzai school), but most are somewhere in between.

Most teachers won't engage a student in koan study until they've gotten a basic grip on the whole Cutting-Back-[Te-Fe-Si-Ni-Ti-Fi]-and-Returning-to-[Se-Ne]-ad-nauseam Thing down-pat.

A mind opened (by focusing on both the senses and their intrinsic emptiness [shunyata, which is a metaphysical concept that is adherent to Monism: the belief that all is one, and that our minds are deluded to think otherwise]).... a mind opened serves the purpose of unconditional, composed, calm compassion.

Once disengaged from _static Zen_ (seated, unmoving, and ritualistic-moving), such as performing menial tasks, the practice is strengthened by largely irrational tasks, both physical tasks (tedium, physical labor, chanting, prostrations, drumming) and mental tasks (koan, contemplation of abstractions that I'll outline below).

In both Soto and Rinzai, Te and Ti are seen as in need of the most tempering. Hence the logic-breaking koans. Ethics to some degree to supported by the practice, because when you're not doing physical tasks, and you have reached a point in practice where you begin to take up ethical precepts (negative and positive rules), you spend a great deal of time determining what those precepts mean individually to you (Fi), and to the entire world as a whole (Fe).

Distinctions made between subjects/mechanisms (aspects processed typically by Te, Ti, Fe, and Fi) and objects/movements (aspects processed by Se, Si, Ne, and Ni) are considered the antithesis of the Soto Zen (_shikantaza_) mindset, though. As stated, shikantaza (mindfulness meditation) is very Se/Ne.

And when you do engage in Ni abstractions, it's generally to gain a baseline "understanding" of absolute reality, and to disengage any processes that are considered to be defilement:


The first defilement is when you begin to process the dependent links between things (which would eliminate any processing of the introverted functions). This isn't defilement in an abominable sense- it's just an indication that that's what our minds tend to do, and if tempered we can return to the absolute reality.
The second defilement is anything that is conceptualized, which seems like it would eliminate Te and Fe as well.






Therefore, 
Koans which are designed to break logic are inherently not Te or Ti, and are likely Ne with some Ni in it once you break down the koan. Throughout the process of skillfully navigating a koan (before you've "broken it down"), Fe and Fi are relied upon heavily, because koans are essentially riddles that require you think abstractly (Ne, Ni) but also direct any rational processing to how your emotions are interacting (Fi) with the riddle-solving process. . . and Fe to process the characters/subjects usually present in the riddle.

This invariably eliminates any MBTI with T in it as _*The Mindset of Zen*_.​
　
[HR][/HR]
This doesn't mean that T-types aren't drawn to Zen. Actually, some T-types come to logically understand the gist of the beliefs, and honestly believe that they'd be better off dialing-down their T'ness. Some of them go to the practice because their intellect has led to immense suffering. In this sense, any type will have incentive to practice.

But, the practice itself-- as far as the functions used to navigate the specific tenets of Zen as opposed to Buddhism as a whole-- are:

Se > Ne > Si > Ni > Fe > Te > Fi > Ti.

Whichever types you can derive from that schematic, that will give you the "pecking order" of who's closest to the mindset and who's farthest away:


* *





Obviously SF's have a leg up. NF's can encounter some problems (I'll probably give some anecdotes under the quote of the next person below). Out of the T types: NT's would have an easier time in Rinzai (koans), and ST's would have an easier time in Soto (shikantaza). However, because Soto mindfulness (not necessarily shikantaza) is involved at some point in all practices in all schools. So, ST's will be the ones most constantly challenged, and it can be very draining to be constantly looping your S and N functions and short-circuiting your T.

In this sense, NT's may find it _more comfortable_, as they can escape into the metaphysics of the practice (even though, in shikantaza, this would be considered daydreaming and a waste of time). Or they can turn to koan practice and actually be happy as a clam, while ST's would have a problem with koans.

SF's will be the least likely to be challenged. NF's will find it very much in their wheelhouse if they actually enjoy the process, though they're the most prone to being detached from the physical aspects and should definitely opt for Rinzai. NT's will likely be pipelined into koan practice where they'll fair not as well as the Fs, but still better than ST's.

And ST's will be _good at shikantaza_, and struggle with koans. So, if they opted for Soto, they'd likely get really REALLY bored and want to indulge their T. And in koan study, they'd likely get kinda lost unless they have tert N... and even that would be just a little bit of an upperhand over inferior S.

INFJs will likely have the hardest time out of the NF's with shikantaza. I can attest to this because, for an entire year of my practice (the last 12 months), I was in a state of chronic psychosis triggered by the stress of _forcing Se_ constantly in shikantaza. However, my Ne was built up incredibly to the point where it's what I would consider my makeshift INFJ "subtype". All the neurotic time spent with myself also strengthened my Fi.

However, it was so stressful as to literally, neurochemically shut down my executive functions and I ended up in 6 day/wk intensive treatment, 6 hours each of those days. And at one point, despite being medicated and under intense care, I ended up being involuntarily committed to a psych ward for a little less than a weak.

I would say I would have done well with koans eventually.

INFP's actually tend to "do okay" in shikantaza, and are really good at koans. However, INFP's invariably end up daydreaming and dissociating, so they'd be pipelined with the NT's into koan practice after they've got through initiation rites (shikantaza for an indefinite period, designed to deliberately grate their egos and see if they're willing to give up daydreaming). NT's would likely go right into koan practice.

So, NF's will have a period of discomfort that SF's will be less likely to have. NT's will be ushered directly into something more suited to their wheelhouse because the teachers will assess their logical faculties quickly and prescribe koan study to break those habits. While ST's will struggle (A) in shikantaza with intellectualizing everything and climbing into their minds, or (B) in koan practice trying to reel-in their logic, and use some intuitive processing.




　



yet another intj said:


> Nobody naturally, unknowingly and perfectly reflects Zen Buddhism with his/her own mindset. Every single personality type contains one of it's many qualities as a certain skill from birth. I think it's a discipline for experiencing other personality types to properly understand our own, as an insignificant part of everything with them. Zen Buddhism is capable of changing two people with dramatically different personality types by teaching them the very same things. Because it's teaching us how to face with the very essence of existence, not encouraging or confusing anybody to make him/her a better individual.


 @Mikhail , Yes, every person will have some function going in that will suit the practice. And, the assertion of "experiencing other personality types" can become very literal in practice, because I turned into a (erratic, pathologically disturbed version of an) INFP by the end of my practice. After a bit of rebound, my Ne and Fi still tend to intermingle subconsciously with Ni and Fe.

That's part of the reason I get pissed off when people type me as INFP. I've spent more time with my own mind, in silence, with nothing other than a blank wall in front of me, for longer than most people ever will in the entirety of their own lifetimes plus the cumulative time their lineage has spent doing so in up at least until two generations ago.

And Yet Another INTJ is correct that it doesn't encourage "building better humans". It's simply extremely intense mind-training. And anyone who lumps Zen in with some of the peaceful, relaxing New-Age-reduced practices like "Yin Yoga" or Reiki-hypnosis (which I'm certified in), and those weekend retreats where you breathe and smile completely away from all the trappings of your mundane life (I forget what those are called . . . Appasana? Vipasana meditation??).....

Zen is nothing like those. Zen is boring. Zen is exhilirating. Zen is frustrating. Zen is anything about yourself that you hate. Everything about others that make them easy targets to project your hatred onto. Zen is feeling disgusted with yourself. Zen is feeling overly attached to yourself and trying to let go. Zen is literally intense enough to trigger acute psychosis, so much so that such psychotic events are referred to in common psychology literature as "Spiritual Emergencies".

Zen is every feeling you've ever had, and every feeling you've ever prevented yourself from feeling.

Some Zen practitioners don't even call it "meditation".

It will get you in contact with the frame of mind that Buddhists believe is "absolute buddha-mind". Yes. It can get you there, but it doesn't mean that there's anything that special about that mindstate. It's just a state of mind. If you break your practice, you'll likely never experience it again. And if you're not in existential despair, you probably won't care that it's missing.

It's a seated martial art.

　



charlie.elliot said:


> In terms of your actual question though, the answer would be "none", no type has a particular emphasis on mindfulness... one of humanity's main faults I think.


S types would have an easier time with the practice of learning mindfulness in Zen, because Zen mindfulness is focused on sensory experience at the expense of mental experience.


----------



## Baerlieber (May 18, 2015)

Zen believes in no-self, so...it would probably not find this question relevant and/or it would be seen as being attached too much to a mind object


----------



## Another Lost Cause (Oct 6, 2015)

I would also argue dom Ni. Zen isn't a philosophy/religion that really puts a lot of emphasis on "hard reality", but is more about breaking the stranglehold of our senses/thoughts, and in some sense is about letting things take their natural course rather than interfering. It's definitely more about introverted perceiving than judging.


----------



## Baerlieber (May 18, 2015)

I'm surprised people are saying Zen doesn't have to do with hard reality, senses, etc. That is, in some ways, ALL it has to do with. Using the sense doors (sight, sound, touch, smell, taste, mind) to perceive reality as it is, right here, right now, completely directly. Buddhism, particularly Zen, is about a direct, raw contact with reality, pre-the stuff we project onto it.

At the end of the day I do not think there's a way to say that Zen lends itself to a type. I think that's a total misunderstanding of Zen.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

carolyn_z said:


> I'm surprised people are saying Zen doesn't have to do with hard reality, senses, etc. That is, in some ways, ALL it has to do with. Using the sense doors (sight, sound, touch, smell, taste, mind) to perceive reality as it is, right here, right now, completely directly. Buddhism, particularly Zen, is about a direct, raw contact with reality, pre-the stuff we project onto it.
> 
> At the end of the day I do not think there's a way to say that Zen lends itself to a type. I think that's a total misunderstanding of Zen.


It doesn't necessarily lend itself to a type, but people with specific ways of processing information will be placing themselves in zazen position, taking in the "dhatus" in the context of their inherent emptiness, so their sense of traditional self will revolt at first. So, it's important to give concession to the differences in people, because they're not going to just sit down and suddenly be Less Mental'Formation'ish. Their formations will arise, and get in the way, and it can be very much an act of "skillful means" to take into account what kind of ways individuals process things in order to more expediently guide their minds to the trajectory of samadhi.

In talking to laypeople about Zen, talking about Zen in the non-dual "it's beside the point because Zen is everything including this, yet without some of this clouding it all up" standard way can ultimately just confuse people or make them think it's some kind of wishy-washy transcendental bs.

The "Sit down, and shut up!" approach isn't appropriate unless you're talking to an initiate.


----------



## WendyNguyen (Sep 2, 2016)

I don't think it would necessarily be INFP, because we must remember that INFP is an internal Judging type. Considering how vague Buddhism often is, it may not be able to give an INFP the internal certainty that it craves. I don't think much of Buddhism would appeal to a typical INFP such as my dad. Buddhism' emphasis on the here and now, as well as acceptance of reality rather than imagining and fantasizing, go against the core nature of the INFP. On the other hand, you have the very rigid, almost military-like structure of monastic life that spells doom for an INFP's desire for freedom and individuality. An INFP ay likely view Buddhism as full of contradictions and not offering the sense of peace that comes with an immovable set of values.


----------



## Bond Villain (Sep 30, 2020)

ISFP for sure. You won't see it as much of they aren't developed. I could see the same for INFP.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Mikhail said:


> Zen Buddhism is a very peculiar spiritual practice. What type were the people who created it? Which type would find easier time understanding it? Which type would be more likely to be drawn to it?
> 
> 
> UPD:


Any type that's open.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Any enneagram 5. The 8fold path is integration.


----------

