On 7/9/2012 5:05 PM, Joe wrote:
See, the point of orthodoxy is "Buddhist".
This is so, though being neither orthodox nor Buddhist, I say it the
other way 'round.
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.
Radical orthodoxy, eh? OK. Whatever Zen is or isn't - I leave to
Zennists to argue. Again, this is not, and never has been, my point.
How I wish people knew the orthodox, before they set themselves
ignorantly against it, just because of the "sound" of the language.
It is you friend, who have set up this pro/con dichotomy, then rail
against any who dare to call it out as such.
I have no issues with 'orthodox' practices. I just reply any time
someone starts going on about what Zen is, and what practices lead to
what, with some version of: "Is that so?"
But since we travel down memory lane here, was Ch'an not to some extent
a reaction to earlier orthodoxies? A stripping back to the essence of
the teachings that was not a rejection of any of the cannon, but a fresh
look at these teachings unattached to their particular form or
associated dogma?
Perhaps among the hordes of irreligious Western barbarians raising
religious hackles now are a few who do so for the same reason as the
Barbarian from the West did oh so long ago.
Practically speaking, I am no more concerned with this than with the
color of Buddhas robes.
K
