[Buddha-l] Mere meness

[Piya Tan]

Mere Buddhism then would also be "early Buddhism" (in the sense of that of
the Buddha's own time and say about a century after that), or pre-sectarian
Buddhism. We have enough record of such teachings to live by.

I have just an article by Ajahn Brahmali (a pupil of Ajahn Chah) about
Samadhi and Lokuttarajjhana, where he commented something like we should
take the Suttas as they are: let the Suttas interpret themselves, and not
use the Commentaries to do that. (Of course, purists may say that we are
treating the early texts like evangelists the Bible). Let's simply answer
that we are not evangelists.

Mere Buddhism also refers in a very significant way to mindful training.
"Traditional orghnized Buddhism" I think has it the wrong way: study the
texts then you will understand what meditation is about".

The reality is I think mindfulness training (having learned the basics form
an experienced and compassionate practitioner) helps one understand the
texts and traditions better. More important than that, it bring a profound
mental calm and clarity.

Otherwise we would mostly be merely dumplng our own mental garbage in this
anarchy called the internet (or Buddha-L).

The choice, anyway, is clear really: mere buddhism or vague buddhism.

Piya

On 8/30/06, Joy Vriens <joy.vriens at nerim.net> wrote:
>
>  "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."
>
> I have an intellectual and emotional feeble for strugglers and heretics
> like the Ranters (I had to look them up) and other Christian anarchists,
> because I see their activity as an expression of implication, concern and
> compassion, as misguided as it often may be or may be considered. And
> strangely enough all those tendancies seem to go back all the way to the
> idea of God's grace of the "mere" Paul, the source of Christianity, who
> never seemed to take time to enjoy the grace and remain still and patient. I
> don't feel enclined to follow Christian or other anarchists (mad Ch'an
> masters, recalcitrant Taoists, mahasiddhas etc.) other than in imagination,
> but to read about them and to think of them gives me great pleasure. A
> proper balance between faith and works, wisdom and means, activity and
> passivity is a mystery to me and seems very hard to find and stick to.
>
> In his book Sexualités bouddhiques, Bernard Faure, mentions tendancies of
> what he calls Naturalist Buddhism, like the one "practised" by Wuzhu and his
> followers of the Bao Tang monastery, which reminds me of your description of
> the Quakers. So for me mere christianity, mere Buddhism, or naturalist
> Buddhism are most appealing as long as they are very natural and don't have
> too much Christianity or Buddhism in them.
>
> Joy
>
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20060830/b1453746/attachment-0001.html