Nothing About Buddhism

The true monk has no title and wears no robe.
The true disciple of the Buddha knows nothing about Buddhism.

©FJ Jan 2022
Recueils / Participations
Telegram (Publications et Pratiq

3 commentaires

  1. Question. Please do not take this as critical, but it is issues with which I have wrestled over the years.

    What is a « true… »? The « true Christian » was an idea to which I would have subscribed, once. But I realised that it is merely a trap. A way to erect an ideological boundary. So, I reject the concept. It is whatever the members of a given sect agree that it is.

    The true disciple of Buddha? Yours seems is strange formulation, as you simultaneously deny the necessity for the formal connection to the « system » (more accurately, perhaps, « systems ») of Buddhism, yet a « true » anything can only be defined by its adherence to certain accepted absolutes.

    I doubt absolutes. Perhaps deity is the ultimate relativist. And was not the Buddha a disciple?

    So, might I ask are you in danger of creating a definition of the true disciple that will exclude seekers who find alternate formulations? Is « true » a term that is best avoided?

    I am assuming, in all this, that you do not mean that the true disciple is ultimately the Buddhist who manages to detach himself from the Buddha and the trappings of the systems that have grown up around the ideology. But the question would remain the same, only with greater force, in that event.

    Aimé par 1 personne

    1. Hello Simon,
      This latter paragraph reflects exactly what I meant in this note.
      (Did you really mean to make this a negative assumption (« not »)?).

      I did not mean true as a dicrinating act between true and false, but aimed at referring, in a somehow clumsy or unthorough manner– the purpose/throughout these pages is never to pretend I am delivering a fixated version of a deeply though out material, but to try to mirror quick insights passing through.. ..whatever it is passing through)

      I guess I meant true as in ‘truly aligned with the beating heart of Truth / Life/ Dharma/ teachings…’
      In any case, I was aiming at dissolving false pretensions, not densifying them some more)

      Thanks for reading this.
      Your analysis is certainly worth more than the initial note.
      Also, it brings the perfect bridge from what I meant to what might be heard, which, I admit, is under considered in my ‘ work’ as I spend most of these time I can dedicate to this typing from the notebook and scheduling posts on the blog.

      Have a nice weekend-end


      1. Thanks for the detailed reply.

        Yes, the negative was intended. Without completely thinking this through, it occurred to me that what I thought you meant (as per the final paragraph) might require more detailed discussion but to the same result. Therefore, it seemed easier (shorter… lazier…) to take a more literal interpretation and add that rider at the end. I hope that does not cause too much confusion.

        « Truth » is a term I treat warily, as you probably have realised. I have yet to find a verifiable meaning. One may speak of what one holds true, but, beyond that, I wonder if there is only a universe of contradictions.

        Aimé par 1 personne

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:


Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Connexion à %s