Desert wrote:
Meanwhile, since you're the closest thing we have to a real buddhist in this thread, would you mind sharing what aspects of buddhism appeal to you?
There are many different flavors of Buddhism, so what follows is based on my conception of the Zen tradition.
For one, it's a very personal pursuit. I believe in the primacy of human experience, and I like that if I want to know what the ancients were talking about I can go upstairs, sit on a cushion, and experience it to some extent. Contrast this with Christianity where God is ultimately something out there, unknowable to the average schmuck. There were people in history who have spoken to God and there are representatives of God such as the Pope, and I can go listen to someone who knows more about God preach to me, but the whole authority figure thing doesn't appeal to me. (See Case 21 [1]).
I like the idea of enlightenment and seeing through the delusion that arises in our minds. Although I sometimes wonder if enlightenment is just some sort of unreachable carrot that gets placed in front of you.
I like that the ordinary modes of knowing that I've relied on my whole life get mostly thrown out the window. My efforts to search for meaning through reading words are thwarted by monks who say that "You may know the Old Indian, but you are not allowed to have an understanding of Him. If an ordinary man attains enlightenment, he is a sage. When the sage is concerned about an understanding, he is only an ordinary man." (see the second case 8 [1]). So you're not after an understanding, more of an experiential knowing like learning to dance or play the guitar.
I like the seeming impenetrability of it all. And the occasional flash of knowing. And the sometimes straightforwardness (see case 7 [1])
I like the urgency and weight: "If anyone, like eight-armed Nata who bravely goes straight forward, ventures into Zen practice, no delusion will disturb him. The Indian and Chinese patriarchs will beg for their lives in his commanding presence. If, however, he hesitates even a moment, he is just a person that watches from a narrow window for a speedy horseman to pass by and misses everything in a wink." (from the preface [1])
I like the focus on the great matter of life and death. There is a promise of freedom from birth and death, but not in the sense that you somehow disappear into some paradise. Who are "you" anyway? Is there even a "you" or are you more like a tornado: visible, active, temporary, ultimately empty.
I like the beauty (see case 19 [1]).
Not all the writings are like the Mumonkan, so if it all just seems like nonsense don't write off all of Buddhism. Also, speaking of Buddhism, I've read that Buddhism is what happened when Western academics studied the Eastern beliefs. There was never a "Buddhism" until modern times. So studying these matters as an outsider is difficult because there are biases even in a translation like this.
[1]
http://www.csudh.edu/phenom_studies/mum ... monkan.htm
