I can’t assert that there actually is such a thing as Buddhism.
I do not assert Buddhism exists.
A few gestures, attitudes, words, a couple of chants : Is that sufficient to claim the existence of Buddhism anywhere else than in the minds of people who call themselves ‘Buddhists’ ?
I can’t assert there actually is a teaching from the Buddha, apart from what his surrounding and — more or less directly connected — followers, have solidified over the years and passed on to us.
Buddhism is a by-product of the collision between scenes people have heard of and individual/collective psychological structures.
If such a thing exists, it is the result of an adaptation by the dharma-animal to the environment it encounters.
Buddhism is pointing to non-substance, anatta, and this also applies to its own corpus.
This, is the Dharma : not watching Buddha’s finger but the absolute nudity which never ceases to appear one way or another.
The Buddha deals with the mind : its tendencies and flows. He invites to the practice of this raw mind-terial.
Extra layers to this statement can never really be called ‘buddhist’ and do not deal with the core teaching from the Buddha.
Everything adding to nudity
Instantly ruins it.
No conceptual scaffolding can ever grant access to the nudity of the Buddha.
It can only point to it and, eventually, hide it.
Next : Naked Buddha (2/2)
©FJ Fev 2021- All rights reserved.
Articles are available in book and e-book formats here :RECUEILS/ Books
Thanks to all for making this content possible through your participations or donations.