bill...
butting in i am..yes yes yes.. no one can climb the mountain but your good self...and remember after you reach the top..there never was a mountain to climb... now that's were your illusion song can come in... however be also aware as soon as you begin to sing that..you'll find yourself looking at another mountain higher than the first one... and then realise something you've never realised before.....ho hum! merle Mike, This does make perfect sense, which as you know from my perspective does not always warrant my seal of approval, but in this case I do agree. The Zen Buddhist teaching I received did not emphasize (and sometimes even discouraged) the reading of the sutras. My training emphasized learning to sit zazen, then koan study and finally shikantaza (although the latter two were not sequential but overlapping). I've never said Bhuddist dogma, doctrine or sutras contradict zen (realization of Buddha Nature) in any way; I've only said they do not define nor totally encompass zen. I've always said that Buddhism is the best religious expression of zen of which I know. It is said there are many paths up the mountain. Zen to me is putting on your boots and backpack and climbing - the specific path isn't that important. Buddhist dogma, doctrine and sutras are to me like sitting down and studying a map someone else has drawn of paths up the mountain, and maybe reading about what the view is like up there, but not actually getting up and putting one foot in front of the other. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > Bill!,<br/><br/>I think I'm starting to understand where our paths cross in > all this (I hope!). Traditional Buddhism uses the sutras and teachings (most > notably The Four Noble Truths and the Eight-Fold Path) to Liberation. Zen > views these methods as potential hindrances to Awakening (being the finger > and not the moon), so posits that sudden awakening is the best way (but not > the only way) to realise Buddha's experience under the Bodhi tree. > <br/><br/>I think this view is supported by many Zen masters as they often > point out that *after* awakening practice is gradual and recommend reading of > the sutras etc. to deepen the realisation. So I think we're both coming to > the same conclusion about Buddha Nature, but from different directions. I > must say that I have no problem coming from either direction as I practice > both (Vipassana and Zen). I can fully understand why Subhana (the Roshi of > previous discussion) teaches both traditions. They are complementary > not antagonistic. Does this make sense?<br/><br/>Mike<br/><br/><br/>Sent > from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone >
