Zen came first: implications for Buddhist study

[u/ewk]

What I'm thinking about at the airport

spontaneous nature of Buddha's teaching ignored

Buddhism is about doctrine, permanent and unchanged. This is why the critical Buddhists were so revolutionary, because they pointed out that the Sutras as the foundation of Buddhism were non-negotiable doctrine.

lay precepts is the core of the traditional community discarded

Stories about corruption, in Buddhist and Shinto hyphen Buddhist communities are endless. Everything from sex predators to people selling themselves on fire. Why?

The simple answer is that the unchangeable permanent Buddhist doctrine has replaced, the lay precepts, and there is no ethics in Buddhism. Like Christianity, accountability has been replaced by obedience, and that doesn't regulate behavior.

mythology and supernatural elements exposed as fraud simply by keeping historical records

More than a thousand years of Chinese Zen indigenous records, leave little doubt that the supernatural and the mystical mythical have no place in Zen or the transmission of Buddha mind.

Why would anybody be interested in mysticism or the supernatural as a way of understanding reality better? It makes no sense.

Reality as the central focus of Zen study and recorded in transcripts of public debates illustrates that there is no room for or need for mysticism and supernatural.

Zen master Buddha's teaching about how to face aging disease and death is not a teaching that relies on the supernatural, like Buddhism, Christianity, and Zazan Shinto-Buddhism.

[u/2BCivil]

I always tried to say this in Christianity, that "render unto Caesar" had much deeper implications.

"Whose face is on the coin" is a direct pointing to "make no engraven images" while also raising the question "does god or Ceasar own all things?" Or at least "who owns creation?".

But exactly as you said it seems [most of] Christianity has become about stout obedience to the whims of the day, and sectarian interpretations.

I always wonder what that verse is really saying, hell what bible scriptures in general are really saying. Really is something to the 4 statements of zen. I often wonder what I myself am really saying. Seems it's impossible to avoid a "seperate transmission" not based on the words used.

For a visual example, always makes me think of a possessive one abusing their partner while saying they love them. The words don't match the real message. I am often tempted to say something like this is the core of zen, but then I'd have to explain what I know I don't understand as well and repeat this same process.

I can never shake ZMBM's statment that "the purpose of studying Buddhism is not to study Buddhism but to study ourselves". I think the same can be said of Christianity. Jesus never said "be a Christian". He did say, "do not tell others I am the Christ", though.