there are many ways of 'believing'. I don't think the Sixth Patriarch Huineng believed the Diamond Sutra was really from Buddha's mouth. But he believed that 'you should develop a mind which abides nowhere'. Do you believe that Buddha really held up a flower and Mahakasypa smiled? It is very wholesome to believe it. Anthony
________________________________ From: Kristopher Grey <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, 4 June 2012, 5:08 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: News: Stanford scholar tracks meditation's migration from ancient monasteries to modern yoga Is this really what they profess, or simply how most choose to interpret them? I am unconcerned with their source, or even if people see this, but it is curious how this hinders believers and nonbelievers equally. K On 6/3/2012 9:57 AM, Anthony Wu wrote: >K, I have to agree with you again that though the sutras profess to be from >the words of the historcal Buddha, they are actually not. > >Anthony > > >From: Kristopher Grey <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Sunday, 3 June 2012, 21:37 >Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: News: Stanford scholar tracks meditation's migration >from ancient monasteries to modern yoga > > > >Also a matter of what is meant by 'Buddha'. While not the words of THE >[historical] Buddha, they are words of Buddha. > >Buddha, is not a name. Buddha Dharma is not a teaching. Buddha Nature is not a >state or quality... > >K > > > >On 6/3/2012 8:43 AM, Anthony Wu wrote: > >>Heart and Diamond Sutras are supposed to be about Buddha's own words, but >>actually they were written collectively by anonymous authors hudreds of years >>after Buddha's death. They are mahayanas classics. >> >>Anthony >> >> >>From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> >>To: [email protected] >>Sent: Sunday, 3 June 2012, 19:46 >>Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: News: Stanford scholar tracks meditation's migration >>from ancient monasteries to modern yoga >> >> >> >>What about the Heart and Diamond Sutras though? >> >> >>Edgar >> >> >> >> >>On Jun 2, 2012, at 8:21 PM, Bill! wrote: >> >> >>>This is true in my experience. Most texts are written ABOUT zen masters, no >>>BY zen masters. There are some notable exceptions, but for example Buddha >>>himself left no writings (we know of). Neither did important zen masters >>>like Joshu. And of course Jesus left no personal written teachings. >>> >>>...Bill! >>> >>>--- In [email protected], Kristopher Grey <kris@...> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Not being able to read from those who have not written, this is your >>>> understanding of 'zen masters'. Most do not write. With other forms of >>>> Buddhism, same. Yet, there are more works than can easily be cataloged. >>>> Also notice how much is written ABOUT such 'masters', and about Buddha - >>>> and consider why this is so. >>>> >>>> K >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/2/2012 8:42 AM, Anthony Wu wrote: >>>> > How come zen masters historically produced more words than any >>>> > Buddhist sects did? >>>> > Anthony >>>> > >>>> > *From:* Joe <desert_woodworker@...> >>>> > *To:* [email protected] >>>> > *Sent:* Saturday, 2 June 2012, 7:20 >>>> > *Subject:* [Zen] Re: News: Stanford scholar tracks meditation's >>>> > migration from ancient monasteries to modern yoga >>>> > >>>> > --- In [email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, >>>> > "ED" <seacrofter001@> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > Zen is nothing about which anything can be said? >>>> > >>>> > Probably the less said the better. People get entangled or biased. >>>> > >>>> > We can talk about zen PRACTICE, though, and the more said, and the >>>> > more practiced, the better. >>>> > >>>> > --Joe / Tucson >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > >
