Dana, My Rich-Text Formatted replies are imbedded below:
--- In [email protected], "Dana S. Leslie" <dsleslie@...> wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill!" BillSmart@... > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 5:12 AM > Subject: Re: [Zen] Is Chan Buddhist? > > > > ED, > > > > The Noble Eightfold Path is a very good example of why I don't consider > > Zen a subset of Buddhism. First of all to assert there are 8 items of > > conduct such as this borders on hubris. Also to proceed all of them with > > a qualifier 'Right' is also an example of the impertinence that > > characterizes most religions. > > Bill, > > First, I don't think The Eight-Fold Path makes any sort of ontological > assertion about the number of sub-categories of the category of conduct that > exist, as you seem to think it does. Of course it does. There are 8 of them, aren't there? It's not the How-Ever-Many-You-Want-Fold Path. ED's original post even shows them as subcategories of 3 high-level categories. It is simply a pragmatic mnemonic > identifying eight areas of human action in which to apply cultivation. Might > one identify more or fewer such areas? Of course. But the particular eight > that have come down to us are (presumably) those that Shakyamuni found most > useful in teaching his students his way of applying cultivation. This is pure speculation by you. You have no idea why Shakyamuni specified these 8 areas - if he indeed did. And even if he did that's Shakyamuni's categorization and valuation. Why do you think it should be yours? > > Second, I don't think the qualifier "right" is meant to be taken > deontologically, as you seem to think. Substitute "skillful" for "right" (if > "right" offends you), and it is STILL The Noble Eight-Fold Path. 'Right' certainly is not the correct qualifier; neither is 'Skillful'. Both these imply absolute valuations. It implies someone has determined what is 'Right' or 'Skillful' for everyone. JMJM suggested 'Harmonious' which does sound like a better translation to me. At least it's a relative valuation. > Another apparent tension between Zen and The Eight-Fold Path (as it is > usually presented) that has long intrigued me is this: The EFP is usually > presented as a *means* to the elimination of suffering/the attainment of > enlightenment/etc. But Zen is continually repudiating any sort of thinking > in terms of means and ends, goals to be attained, etc. The only 'means' of eliminating suffering is to eliminate attachments which requires elimination of the illusion of self. I don't see how any of these 8 suggestions help you do that. These are just 8 more things to which you'll eventually have to drop attachments. > After meditating on this paradox for some time, I have come to think of the > EFP as NOT a means to enlightenment, but a *pragmatic* definition of just > what constitutes enlightenment. Enlightenment JUST IS living skillfully, > living the EFP (to the ideal?). There is no 'enlightenment', there is Just THIS! Skill and certainl ideals have nothing to do with it. Thanks for your post...Bill! ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
