Joe, When I said I thought Buddhism proper was too complex I was mainly thinking of the sutras. They are also very intellectual. That's fine because I know they are used as the basis for a religion - Buddhism.
I'm just saying I don't need a religion, Buddhism or any other. I'm not saying that all religions are trash. They do certainly serve a very good purpose for the most part, and as we know sometimes invoke very bad actions also. I just think relying on intellectually-based teachings are not the way to awaken, just as reading about how to do the backstroke is not the way to get across the pool. Reading first might help, but sooner or later you have to jump in the water and swim. Buddhism is teaching about awakening. Zen is experiencing awakening. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@...> wrote: > > Bill!, > > We must err-r, "keep in mind" that there is no general "Buddhism". > > Buddhism is always presented through one school or another. That is, one > school or another of *practice*. Not in a text of Comparative Religion. > > The exception is where (when) Buddhism is approached academically, or > presented in the abstract, or described Historically. > > It's as I reproached Edgar for insulting people who embrace religions: > doctrines and practices do not exist in the abstract, they exist only in the > embrace of warm-blooded Mammals called Humans. > > Thus, anyone embracing the teachings and practice(s) of any Buddhist "school" > is a practitioner, and is drawn to the stream by the flavor and soothing > helpfulness of the Teachings, ...just as they ARE. > > You say that Buddhism as it is presented is too complicated. Maybe!: > > I think you mean for yourself. As one who might study it. But, Buddhism is > not a study. The teachings are for life, in the matter of life and death. > Once a person starts pulling on a string, the rest of the string is there for > the pulling. So it goes in any tradition (Science, too). > > Not everyone has the constitution or the personal "bent" for Zen practice. > Others are bent differently. > > As before, it's likely that different streams of Buddhist practice will > develop, perhaps in the West, and perhaps in Eastern places where Buddhism > may come back into popular practice (as now in China, in the fading influence > of the "Cultural Revolution"). > > Streams always develop, and branch. > > What seems like unnecessary baggage to some is effective medicine for others. > > It's also "good psychology" and fabulously compassionate to use skilful means > to develop a system of practice which appeals to the bent of people who would > take it up. Some streams even incorporate bright colors in their gatherings, > in clothing, and decorations of their practice place, and rather wild musical > sounds (as in Tibetan practice). > > Anyway, Buddhism (Buddhadharma, and its travels) has a history. It's just > not actually simple! > > Dalai Lama presents his Buddhism "simply"; it has appeal for hearers. Some > even quote it. Some carry the quote on their cars as a bumper-sticker. Is > it sufficient? Does it make a lasting impression? Would it have been > enough, by itself, to put Him in the condition He is in?: > > "My religion is kindness." > > Simple! Necessary. And, insufficient. > > --Joe > > PS (let that be my epitaph) > > > > "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > Joe, > > > > I hear what you are saying, but I think Buddhism as it is presented today > > is way too complicated and complex. But of course that's why I'm drawn to > > zen. Nothing complicated or complex there. Just THIS! > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@> wrote: > > > > > > Bill!, > > > > > > No, every generation makes some changes in how they teach, "live", and in > > > the records they write down, or that others write about them. > > > > > > I just found it odd that you should take the Buddha to task for beginning > > > the teaching in his day of an entirely new system with a simple outline, > > > instead of an immediately minutely detailed one which might take hours > > > for him to recite to Hearers. > > > > > > His first people were "Hearers", Stream-Enterers", and so they can be > > > today. Maybe you and I both were, back in the day. > > > > > > I suspect he knew something about pedagogy, and that what he "knew" was > > > entirely informed by the Wisdom dawned in him; and, he was teaching from > > > the Heart. He had to start somewhere and with something. His start was > > > like the Preamble of a founding document. He taught a "graspable" > > > skeleton, perhaps based on the model from Hinduism, but intended to > > > distinguish itself from Hinduism. His students and hearers were Hindu. > > > > > > (Why didn't the Pointillists use twice the number of pixelated "dots" in > > > their paintings, why just 11,391?) > > > > > > And from a Mind seeing no divisions between anything(s), but only the > > > interconnectedness, he was able to call out EIGHT. Quite an achievement! > > > And he gave them as useful tools to people, as a start to practice, or > > > to draw them to practice. > > > > > > Compassion made him do it. > > > > > > Has this become outdated? I think not by a long shot. > > > > > > Let's remember, too, that "words are goads": A hearing and appreciation > > > of the Eightfold Path -- or a more manifold Path -- is not yet Practice. > > > > > > The history of Buddhism is a history of Change. And a big teaching of > > > the tradition -- and it is yet a tradition -- has to do with "Change". > > > All quite remarkable, one of the more remarkable things on Earth, and > > > directly concerning Humans' lives. > > > > > > --Joe > > > > > > > "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Joe, > > > > > > > > So are you saying that we should not make any attempts to modernize and > > > > make more relevant the mode of explanations and teachings from that of > > > > 2500 years ago? > > > > > > > > If that were the case in your line of work (astronomy) wouldn't we > > > > still be locked into the earth as being flat and the center of the > > > > universe, and the stars other heavenly bodies were actual gods? > ------------------------------------ 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/
