That's just what the various sects tried to tell Gautama when he first showed up...
In fact all sects and religions all still claim they are the best or only way to this day! :-) Edgar On Nov 18, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > as my first teacher would say in the intro to Zen talks, Traditional Zen had > been around a long time and had the kinks worked out of the system. It is not > perfect but it is fairly dependable. > > On Nov 18, 2012 8:41 AM, "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote: > Edgar, > > Old habits die hard, here. My first career was as a Philosopher. Socrates > is still a pal. We go 'way back. > > I turned to my avocation, though, and made a career in Science. This was > because of my experience after I converted formally to Ch'an Buddhism: it > changed by life and my desire about what to do with the mind, and the life of > work ahead. I've had three careers in different but related specializations > in Astronomy, working my way through the spectrum to progressively shorter > wavelengths. There's more spectrum left but for the moment I am retired and > concentrating on ham radio; and woodworking, making things for Ch'an and Zen > Buddhist practice-places, and for teachers, you know. > > I practice Zen orthodoxy of the Lin Chi and T'sao Tung schools of Chinese > Ch'an, and dedicate myself to promulgate and propagate it, yes; I've made > that promise. Also practiced 25 years in a Zen center based on an American > teacher's teaching who was heir to a Japanese line. I see the differences > and the similarities. This is good, because neither one nor the other of the > old-country schools seems "just right" for, say, America, but what is "just > right" is changing here, etc., all the time, too. What's right are the > methods. The packaging and wrappers can be changed gradually for our > stainless steel market shelves. > > Zen Orthodoxy -- what in America in the 1950s was so totally new and > exciting! -- has done me and others no wrong (unlike Buji-Zennists, and those > who deprecate practice for themselves and others). > > What makes me laugh -- and cry -- are those who would change established > practice and practices who have not yet practiced them deeply, and then try > to diminish others for actually having genuine experience and trying to give > Zen a push in the public mind while never, ever, misrepresenting it. Many of > them are drug-addled, and have not once ever tasted (natural) samadhi, much > less its sudden break-up in Awakening, which is the elementary gate of Zen, > and where/when a lifetime of zen practice only BEGINS. > > Zen practice will evolve in the West, and is doing so, and it will adapt to a > non-monastic model. This is new! This is what we are about, now. The > original "orthodox" will evolve to become our orthodox: will you still > squeal, then, Edgar? I predict Yes. Slackers cry even with a loaf of bread > under their arm; they just don't know how to sit down and eat. Meanwhile... > > You pls. do your part; I'll do mine. > > --Joe > > PS Senator, I knew Jack Socrates; Jack Socrates was a friend of mine; > Senator, you're no Jack Socrates. > > > Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > > > You a Socratic gadfly? Come on Joe, that's the role I play here. You on the > > other hand represent conformity and acceptance of the Zen orthodoxy... > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >
