Horse-hockey.
Sheesh, how unsophisticated these Westerners (still) are; and, that's probably
a very, very good thing. ;-)
See, the point of orthodoxy is "Buddhist".
Zen has "another" program going, many of us would observe, or admit; but it
claims it is not ultimately in any way nor in any detail unorthodox, with
respect to the Buddhist canon. In fact, Ch'an uses the Buddhist canon as a
touchstone for its teaching and practice, and as a diagnostic or determinant
(test) for its particular enlightenment, which is definitive, unique, and
characteristic.
That is "one" beauty of our tradition, and the fine line we walk: but *If* we
become un-orthodox, we must do a mid-course correction, re-orient the gyros,
and burn some fuel to get back in the right trajectory. This has been carried
out by compassionate Ch'an teachers and reformers since the beginning. And by
Zen teachers, too. Like Dogen. ;-)
This is as we were taught. And -- as we all realized long ago -- this is not
just a piece of teaching!, it is felt internally, or wherever, but by means of
basic human constitution, and not by will; and the teaching is thereby
confirmed, and in fact made redundant.
There is no doubt about it; the original mind, once uncovered and restored to
primacy, is the only Being.
The Tao knows what it is doing, and we care for "it" as it cares for us, just
as MUCH as we care for it, that is.
You'll get nothing but the orthodox line from me. I'm not about to mince
words, lie, nor mislead.
Folks still say that Ch'an or Zen is "radical", though, and so do I.
But it is not unorthodox. If it's unorthodox, it's something other than
Buddhist, and other than Ch'an, or Zen, god forbid.
How I wish people knew the orthodox, before they set themselves ignorantly
against it, just because of the "sound" of the language.
The 1960s were bad for the understanding of religion and religious practice.
Western extended-adolescent rebellion is a sorry state of behavior.
In fact, the pure Dharma is in the orthodox, and there only. Not because of
scholarly or sectarian preservation, but because of 49 generations of practice,
and transmission. Bloodlines.
--Joe
> Kristopher Grey <kris@...> wrote:
>
> Odd it appears you mistake my point for an attack on orthodoxy, and
> imply it indicates a lack of realization, rather recognizing it as a
> simple a pointer to any zen orthodoxy not being 'zen'.
------------------------------------
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/
