It’s interesting how many critics fail to consider the context of certain things. Like ignoring the fact that the ancient masters made references to a variety of sutras, clearly assuming their audience (other monks and monastics) were familiar with what they were talking about. Yet they didn’t focus on writing about sutras and chanting. It was clearly part of their daily routine and practice and there was no need in their time and at that moment to address that particular topic. Same goes for the zazen topic. Every single master speaks of zazen in one form or another although the way they address the issue is based on the needs of their monastic communities, thus they were sometimes criticizing those who became overly attached to their zafus and zazen to the point where it became a tool and lacked any substance or sincerity. I believe it was Foyan who spent quite some time criticizing those stuck cross-legged, insisting on the need to attain understanding, on letting go of concepts and judgments, on having faith and trust in the dharma, yet he ends with a chapter dedicated to zazen, detailing how it it to be done and saying: “if you meditate, why not sit and if you sit, why not meditate?”
Only those who choose it can’t see the place zazen has had in Buddhist practice and especially Zen.
So sorry about the extra long reply. I’ll behave from now! [emoji3526]
[emoji1374] SatToday lah
Only those who choose it can’t see the place zazen has had in Buddhist practice and especially Zen.
So sorry about the extra long reply. I’ll behave from now! [emoji3526]
[emoji1374] SatToday lah
Comment