Hi Anthony,

Yes, I think so too. My point was that the Buddhist sutras paint Buddha to be a 
very ordinary man who made a very extraordinary discovery, free of ritual and 
spiritual mumbo-jumbo. If anything, Mahayana (to which Zen belongs), is more 
esoteric than the Theravada tradition, which rather surprised me. Mike.

----- Original Message ----
From: Anthony Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 October, 2008 7:03:46
Subject: Re: [Zen] In Heaven and on Earth

Hi Mike,
I believe Buddha's meditation technique is a key path to enlightenment, not 
just for psychological treatment, though it also has that effect.

--- On Wed, 8/10/08, mike brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED] co.uk> wrote:

From: mike brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED] co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Zen] In Heaven and on Earth
Date: Wednesday, 8 October, 2008, 8:26 AM

Hi Anthony,

Yes, on my recent Vipassana retreat I was surprised to find out how 'stripped 
down' of mythology and spirituality Theravada is.. I believed quite the 
opposite. In fact it seems much less a religion than Mahayana is, especially 
because of the Bodhisattva ideal (which of course does not have to be taken 
literally). I would say  that the sutras (taken far more seriously in 
Theravada) show Buddha to be much closer to a clinical therapist than a 
religous icon and his meditation more a breathing technique for psychological 
purposes than spiritual ones. Mike.

----- Original Message ----
From: Anthony Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com.sg>
Sent: Wednesday, 8 October, 2008 7:28:56
Subject: [Zen] In Heaven and on Earth

I spent two years in Thailand building a chemical plant. But I was too busy 
making my worldly living to interact with local monks. However, I read a lot 
about good monks such as Ajahn Chah and Puthathat (maybe a wrong spelling). In 
my opinion, Theravada represents an 'original' Buddhism, as close to Buddha's 
teachings as you can find right now. I appreciate the fact that they don't have 
much mythology. When you come to Hong Kong or Singapore, though there are many 
good monks, some clear examples point to profiteering only. I don't see many 
who can walk the talk. The Bodhisatva ideal is for devotees only (with 
previlege). The mythology is as funny as saying the Buddha was able to walk, as 
soon as he was born, 7 steps in each direction, then proclaim, 'in heaven and 
on earth, I am the most worthy of honor'. So It takes a zen master to kill him 
and feed the body to hungry dogs.

--- On Tue, 7/10/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] org <[EMAIL PROTECTED] org> wrote:

Subject: RE: [Zen] Re: -----<---@
Date: Tuesday, 7 October, 2008, 6:59 PM


I don't reconcile with Theravada. I interact with the local wats (temples) and 
the monks all the time. It's just another religious rip-off as far as I'm 
concerned. I've yet to meet any senior monks or temple heads that even seemed 
like good people, much less good representatives of Buddhism.

Have you had any experiences with Theravada?


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com] On Behalf Of 
Anthony Wu
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 8:43 AM
Subject: RE: [Zen] Re: -----<---@


I did not realize you are in Thailand! How do you reconcile with Theravada 



 Get your preferred Email name! 
Now you can @ymail.com and @rocketmail. .com. 

 What do you consider a Singaporean?  
Check it out quick on Yahoo Answers!    


Reply via email to