the only mistake is thinking one made a mistake..merle
The mention of Lao Tzu and Confucius brings to mind the ground upon which Ch'an took root - and how this has shaped the practices/teachings. To greatly over-simplify: Zen may appear at times inwardly Taoist, outwardly Confucian. At other times the reverse. Zen is unconcerned with such appearances. By this, I am also pointing to the nature of all such appearances commonly discussed and debated (such talk appearing to me to be more about Zen Buddhism [or all forms of Buddhism] - than Zen realization - but this only appears so). Some common/familiar themes emerge, some apparent contrasts, others apparently complimentary (a short set as example, in no particular order): West/East Chaos/Order Samsara/Nirvana Ordinary/Divine Path/Attainment Deluded/Realized Householder/Monastic Sudden/Gradual Meditation/Sutras Etc./Etc... The fodder of forums such as this. Ordinary mind sees separation between these forms, and identifies with them more/less, seeking to find it's way - thus forming/borrowing a ''path'- or perhaps falling into the void by mistaking "/" as the 'middle way' - mistaking forsaking for equanimity (accepting 'no-self' as rejection of form rather than realizing empty nature of form). Buddha mind realizes all appearances as suchness, as abiding... Thus ordinary mind/Buddha mind are one. I do not claim to be a [Zen] Buddhist , thus have no more than passing interest in these (10,000) things - and see them as no help or hindrance. Merely points of reflection, offering nothing less than bewildering clarity revealed in all it's murkiness. There is no point I'm trying to make, no position I advance, nothing I offer, no one I address this to. You know who you are. The path begins and ends here. What would you intend otherwise? What else would you expect? Questions not seeking answers. Pass the Sake. K
