Kris, Fuck "Truth". Practice isn't even an expression of my life. It is my life. Banging our heads around what is "Truth" just leads to metaphysical speculation which goes around and around in circles.
Mike ________________________________ From: Kristopher Grey <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, 9 September 2012, 19:20 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: THE BASIC TEACHING OF BUDDHA Some strip down, some dress up. The middle way realizes this. Your practice, a direct expression of 'truth', as is all that presents, whatever the form. KG On 9/9/2012 10:46 AM, mike brown wrote: >Kris, > >>But as you say, so what? Buddha had no interest in Buddhism. > >Indeed. I thinks it's really exciting tho that we live in a time where the Dharma is now being taught as a secular practice rather than with all the rituals and sectarianism of schools like Tibetan and Mahayana Buddhism. 'Buddhism' stripped of such metaphysical claims such as karma, re-birth, deities etc. makes it easier for me, and many of our contemporaries, to practice. I think even getting hung up on terms such as 'emptiness' distracts us from the reality of our world of day-to-day experience. I don't practice (for want of a better word) to understand the truth or illusion of reality, but to just cope happier in a world that is too often fraught with difficulty and suffering and can end in the blink of an eye. > >Mike > > > > > > >________________________________ > From: Kristopher Grey <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Saturday, 8 September 2012, 20:51 >Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: THE BASIC TEACHING OF BUDDHA > > > >On 9/8/2012 2:36 PM, mike brown wrote: > > >> >>Belief has nothing to do with it. Whether Jesus or Buddha was a historical >>person,or not, makes no difference - the Buddhist teachings speak to me >>because they correspond to my experiences time after time. Christianity >>doesn't. Neither does Wicca or Scientology. That doesn't bother me. Does it >>bother you? > >Nope. > >Biblical lingo does not ring to many contemporary ears (particulary thise who think it does and "believe"), as we are not raised with oral traditions and metaphors the refer to yet older metaphors. I certain wasn't - but wasn't raised Neo-Christian fundamentalist either. Pretty atheist environment, very minimal church exposure - handful of visits in a lifetime, most weddings/funerals, only a few services with friends, and that was mixed denominations. > >I other words, I get where you coming from, and probably has less history with such shit. No dog in that fight, I can simply now see the same core is there, just a very different expression. I'm still working on Islam - Sufis help - but I suspect they were around before Islam and just changed the sign on the door (many Muslims also suspect this and persecute them accordingly). > >Buddhism IMWO / TMSE (in my worthless opinion/to my simple ears) has done a better job of adjusting it's voice - a tradition of Upaya along with a reformation/back to basics split every few centuries or so helps - but contemporary particularly Western ears still read the teaching too scientifically/literally. > >But as you say, so what? Buddha had no interest in Buddhism. > >KG > > >
