Buddhism the easy way

It is much easier to know what the Buddha did not teach than what he taught.  For example, any materialistic interpretation of Buddhism can be rejected.  It simply lacks credibility since it can’t deal with nirvana which is transcendent and deathless according to the Buddhist canon.  Only beginners get hooked on a materialistic interpretation of Buddhism because they have not read what the Buddha actually taught.  

On this same score, it is fairly easy  to show that the Buddha did not deny the self which in Pali is natthattâ (this can been seen in the Ananda Sutta at S. iv. 400).  To deny the self is nihilism. Nihilism is antithetical to Buddhism.  There is no dispute.  It is also fairly easy to show that the Buddha did not teach the self to be any of the Five Aggregates or a phenomenon. 

It is also easy to show that the Buddha did not spend much time showering his wisdom on the non-stream entered who are called puthujjana.  The Buddha was certainly not into self-help psychology either; not the way Buddhists are today.  Nor was he running a clinic for the mentally afflicted or handing out blankets to the homeless.  The Buddha was no Mother Teresa.

It is easy to show that the Buddha did not believe in a creator god (demiurge) like the god of Abraham and Moses.  For the Buddha all created things are impermanent, suffering, and not our self.

When we look at modern Zen, much of it has nothing to do with the Buddha’s teachings.  The Buddha did not demand of his disciples that they do zazen or just sit (J., shikantaza)!  Nor did he teach that we are already fully awakened Buddhas and all that we see is also Buddha-nature.  Also, using the older canon and the Mahayana, Avatamsaka Sutra, it is easy to show that the Buddha never taught a lineage beginning with Mahakashyapa.

Often people imagine that the Buddha taught such and such.  But more than likely the evidence is not there.  When the evidence is not there, many times revisionism rears its ugly head.  I am never surprised to see how much of it goes on in modern Buddhism.

 

Comments

[azanshi]

Reading your nice article, slightly stained with that acerbic wit I so appreciate, our dear genious Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe comes to thought;

"The world is for thousands a freak show; the images flicker past and vanish"

In this day of complete information overload, imagery in its many various forms has almost become an incurable sickness inevitably leading to complete narcotic shock of the unenlightened mind.

The dharma is not easily found nor digested by such a confused and spiritually lost crowd. It would be like sending a subtle signal of the dharma drowned in the white noice from billions of other crap channels transmitting at the same time, hoping the receiver would tune it in perfectly. What are the odds?

[Psychologicis]

"The Buddha was certainly not into self-help psychology either; not the way Buddhists are today. "

I think the difference is that today some people mistakenly think that the "psychological" aspects are the real thing ... but the Buddha helped many , the Tathagata taught different things to different audiences so he even spoke about such things as what constitutes a good wife in the suttas. - It is just that he understood everything to be a pyramid upward going structure from the common folk to the spiritual ones and he taught appropriately ... while some misunderstand his "lower" teachings to be the ultimate thing. I think this is the problem. - But also trying to deny the "realtive", "lower" teachings is wrong. It is just like this: everything has its place.

For instance: I have my place, too. So I know I'm just a beginner in Zen and make little comments here without thinking I know anything. And so I warn others and say: I'm not an authority, I just write a little comment.

If everything and everyone knew its place, wouldn't that be good? Heaven on Earth I Tell ya!

thanks the Zennist for another excellent article