Hi wai, --- wai_dk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The are many roads that lead to truth. It is said > that the Buddha > taught 84,000 Dharmas, meaning that He has taught > many, many, many > methods of liberation. And depending on each > individual's > inclination, every method is a good method as long > as it works. Just > because you like Madhyamika teachings does not mean > you have to > oppose Zen. To insist that Madhyamika is the one and > only way is > definitely not a very Middle Way approach. > I do feel that Madhyamika teachings are more > suitable for people who > are more intellectually inclined, and you appear to > be so. And good > for you that you are able to encounter such a > wonderful and suitable > teaching.
Yes. I think that the Buddha was absolutely the most misunderstood person in history. Because his teaching was so abstract, it allowed (and is still allowing) many people to read all kind of agendas into it. Also, the Buddha's teaching, as recorded by his disciples, was mostly suggestive in nature. What Nagarjuna did was to systematize this teaching, to give it unambiguous structure. That in itself helped eliminate some more coarse misconceptions. Unfortunately, due to the relative obscurity of Madhyamika, this wonderful teching did not realy penetrate the mainstream Buddhist practice. You are absolutely correct that the Buddha taught many, many methods of liberation. But each of these methods, as different as they were, pointed to the same place. And Madhyamika is a systematized way that explains that very place the Buddha was pointing at. > For Zen people to go into intellectual discussion of > Madhyamika is > actually a step *backwards*. For the Madhyamaka, to abandon the intellectual ways it teaches and to plunge into zen would actually also be a step *backwards*. Funny how these things work, eh? > Not that there is > anything wrong with > Madhyamika (it is a wonderful teaching), but because > intellectual > discussion is unable to access truths, since truths > are beyond > conceptualization and hence inexpressible through > speech, except > with 'live' words. This is the jist of our misunderstanding. Madhyamika teaches that it is a prejudice that intellectual discussion is unable to access truths. It is indisputably correct that the truth is always beyond conceptualization. Madhyamika and zen agree on that 100%. But, what Madhyamika teaches is that the truth must be accessed via concepts. > I'm sure intellectual discussion has some merits of > its own. But > after you have crossed the river, would you still > want to be carrying > the raft? Intellectual discourse could be likened to a raft used to cross the river. Once you cross to the other shore, you actually wouldn't be able to carry the raft around. So, the question is in a way meaningless. > When Nagarjuna taught Madhyamika, I doubt very much > that He wants you > to only indulge yourself in intellectual discussion, > for that would > be mistaking the finger for the moon. He would want > you to digest the > teachings and EXPERIENCE truths DIRECTLY instead of > through your > INTELLECT. What Nagarjuna taught is that there is no other way to reach the truth than through your intellect. Yes, the intellect could be likened to a finger pointing to the moon, but that's the only way you could ever get to see the moon. So do not disqualify the finger, is what Nagarjuna was saying. > If you find *talking* about the Middle Way so > fulfilling , don't you > feel that *living* the Middle Way will be even more > fulfilling? And > it is only through *living* the teachings that they > truly come > *alive*. Talking about something is every bit as much living as it is living something without talking. I see no difference between the two. Talking is living, living is talking. How could it be any other way? > To me, this too is a cause for alarm. That's why I'm > seizing every opportunity to promote Zen > teaching. People are blissfully unaware of it, even > some of my hard core Buddhist friends who have been > practising full tilt for almost 20 years. And not > being aware of the full blown teaching of Zen is > truly sad, in my eyes. :->> Great. That's why I'm enjoying reading your posts. > What makes you so sure that no one did Zen during > Buddha's or > Nagarjuna's time? Not in an organized fashion, anyway. Best regards, Alex ===== No karma was produced during the composition of this letter __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/S27xlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Noble Eightfold Path: Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration, Right Livelihood Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZenForum/ <*> 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/
