[Buddha-l] Mere mereness

[Richard Hayes]

On Tuesday 29 August 2006 08:51, Joy Vriens wrote:

> Hi everybody, nice to see you back Richard,

Hi Joy, nice to you you back, everybody!

> I think I intuitively understand what is meant by mere
> Christianity or mere Buddhism, but as a more mystically (and I
> don't mean that in any nasty way) enclined person for whom
> religion is more an interior thing, it is hard to see how there
> can be anything Christian or Buddhist left if everything
> extraneous or unnecessary has been "got rid of" or has simply
> ceased to be of any importance. 

I also have strong internalist vasanas, which are being reinforced 
recently by taking a course called Quakerism 101. For all my adult 
life I have loved the Quaker way of doing things and have felt 
comfortable around Quakers. One of the readings we have done 
pointed out that the Puritans subtracted most of the sacraments and 
traditional teachings from Christianity; the Baptists subtracted 
even more sacraments and also subtracted creeds, keeping only adult 
Baptism. The Quakers then subtracted even baptism and went on to 
subtract the ordained ministry. The text goes on to say that if the 
Quakers had done nothing but subtract, as the Ranters did, then 
they would have become anarchists (as the Ranters did) and then 
gone extinct (as the Ranters did). But it was precisely by holding 
onto the core conviction that the truth reveals itself to everyone 
who remains still and patient that the Quakers did not throw out 
everything of value.

> Mere Christianity and mere 
> Buddhism seem like contradictions in terms to me, a bit like the
> moon and the finger idea.

The moon is still there for anyone to see, even if no one is 
pointing a finger at it.

> If you have the mere, you have no more 
> Buddhism or it has become extraneous or unnecessary,

I cannot help seeing that as a positive outcome.

> if you have Buddhism, you haven't gotten to the mere yet.

> So if someone 
> offers you to pull his finger, do as you like but know you won't
> get the moon.

Even if one points to the moon with a finger, the moon is still 
there to see.

> The term "mere", "core", or "essential" implies a certain
> criticism or critical attitude towards that which isn't all that
> and that could therefore be considered as extraneous or
> unnecessary.

Exactly.

> And if one comes to think of it, that which is 
> extraneous or unnecessary is often the method. 

That is true unless the method is the practice of making the mind 
silent and receptive to whatever there may be. If the method is one 
of clearing away the debris of creeds and dogmas and rituals that 
obscure rather than reveal truths, then one has come close to 
mereness.

Merely quaking,
Richard