[CedssypeEdids]

Earlier today I was looking at the back of the sleeve of my translation of Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika where there's this comment:

"Garfield's interpretation of Nagarjuna is pleasingly clear and evinces a balanced appreciation of his soteriological concerns as well as his dialectial subtlety"


Later I was reading a little Ajahn Chah:


The Simple Path

Traditionally the Eightfold Path is taught with eight steps such as Right Understanding, Right Speech, Right Concentration, and so forth. But the true Eightfold Path is within us-two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, a tongue, and a body. These eight doors are our entire Path and the mind is the one that walks on the Path. Know these doors, examine them, and all the dharmas will be revealed.

The heart of the path is SO simple. No need for long explanations. Give up clinging to love and hate, just rest with things as they are. That is all I do in my own practice.

Do not try to become anything. Do not make yourself into anything. Do not be a meditator. Do not become enlightened. When you sit, let it be. When you walk, let it be. Grasp at nothing. Resist nothing.

Of course, there are dozens of meditation techniques to develop samadhi and many kinds of vipassana. But it all comes back to this-just let it all be. Step over here where it is cool, out of the battle.

Why not give it a try? Do you dare?

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Bo...dhas Teachings

My question for the group is:

Do we make the Dhamma too complicated when it doesn't need to be ?

What are your own thoughts about this ?

[ENCOSEARRALIA]

This is what makes Buddhism so cool, it can be as complicated or as simple as you like.
It can be what you want it to be.
I love this part of the quote,
"Do not try to become anything. Do not make yourself into anything. Do not be a meditator. Do not become enlightened. When you sit, let it be. When you walk, let it be. Grasp at nothing. Resist nothing."

With gratitude
Gary

[samanthalueus]

That's what I like about Thai Forest tradition. So direct and uncomplicated.

[Loolasant]

Do we make the Dhamma too complicated when it doesn't need to be ?

Absolutely Aloka. That is why Zen has been is so attractive. Some Zen traditions truly go directly to the issue of Dukkha and in that sense I feel we walk hand in hand with Theravada. Dhamma becomes complicated when we want to cheat the teachings of the historical Buddha not knowing we are cheating ourselves because at the end we do not want to give up our mental defilements that have been there for many, many years and this defilements take many ways to be kept in our minds.

I do not know WHY some traditions have made out from the teachings of the historical Buddha such a complicated thing full of mysteries so to be unveiled. This mysteries so to be unveiled are very attractive to the careless mind. In some way it is like the child impressed with the magician for not knowing that there is a trick.

[GenManagerS]

Do not become enlightened.

This is the begining of the path.

[alenbarbaf]

lol, well that quote from the sleeve of your translation is delightful in a perverse way. It's not saying anything more complicated than the blurbs you find dressing most other books, it's just couched in philosophical jargon. Basically: "Garfield's version will make you see how brilliant Nagarjuna's explanation of a good life is and how brilliant his arguments are."

I like Gary's point that Buddhism can be as simple or complicated as you need it to be. I think many people attracted to philosophy (particularly Western philosophy from about the 18th century onwards; the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers were comparatively down-to-earth) and academia tend to become caught up in very complicated webs of concepts and ideas. You need to talk to them in the language of their complexity before you can "talk them down" to the present-moment level at which the Buddha's path unfolds as Ajahn Chah so beautifully describes. Otherwise, such people will tend to look at you with suspicion and not really appreciate the truly life-changing implications of the Buddha's message.

[TZtrDuso]

I think many people attracted to philosophy (particularly Western philosophy from about the 18th century onwards; the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers were comparatively down-to-earth) and academia tend to become caught up in very complicated webs of concepts and ideas.

Direct to the point Glow...

[ErubTiereedig]

I do not know WHY some traditions have made out from the teachings of the historical Buddha such a complicated thing full of mysteries so to be unveiled. This mysteries so to be unveiled are very attractive to the careless mind. In some way it is like the child impressed with the magician for not knowing that there is a trick.

I don't know how people can stand to eat eggplant. But they do, and so I accept that. Perhaps they can taste something good in it that I cannot. Every tradition has its elaborations, it's huge temples, giant statues, mythical legends and large bank accounts. Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, it doesn't matter. These are mere ashes, ashes accumulated over 2500 years from all over the world. They are not what makes Dhamma complicated. If these things bother me, then I need to look at my own mind to find out where the problem lies. If I claim that my Buddhism is right and yours is wrong, that one is simple and the other complicated, then I am following a Buddha who hasn't yet transcended dualism.

[ignonsoli]

Maybe because we lead complicated lives in a complicated world, we complicate even the most uncomplicated things in order to understand them. For example, what could be as uncomplicated as sitting still for an hour, watching one's own breathing? Yet look at how hard it is when you first begin. Of course, things were complicated for people in Buddha's time too.

[dgdhgjjgj]

I don't know how people can stand to eat eggplant.

Hi fojiao2. I don't know what does this phrase means. What is to eat eggplant?

Every tradition has its elaborations, it's huge temples, giant statues, mythical legends and large bank accounts. Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, it doesn't matter. These are mere ashes, ashes accumulated over 2500 years from all over the world.

True, I agree. Here we are talking about the many Buddh-isms that offer different attractions for different temperaments but not about the teachings of the historical Buddha. Some traditions and schools are closer to the original teachings than others and IMHO to be at the root of those teachings can give you a better idea of what is about the practice of them. That is all.

They are not what makes Dhamma complicated.

I don't agree. Those adornments are the outcome of mind entanglements around a teaching and represent an unnecessary sophisticated elaboration of Dhamma; they are a reflection of that and if we are not aware, the original purpose can be corrupted. This adornments, like the statues and temples you talk about, are cultural elaborations that are full of symbols that are neither good nor bad but veil the direct understanding; they represent mental fabrications and in an unaware mind, they work as noise to the direct contemplation and clear insight.

If these things bother me [...]

No way. I am not bothered about cultural elaborations around the many Buddhisms we have at hand. I practice in a very particular tradition, the Soto Zen, but I am aware of the many corruptions that Japanese Zen branches have. And the aim of argumentation here is a very sporty one, as having a friendly game of chess. I am learning here from the different perspectives that are at hand in the forum. It is important to know other ways of understanding and I think you have exposed them and they are useful for all members here. That is all.

If I claim that my Buddhism is right and yours is wrong, that one is simple and the other complicated, then I am following a Buddha who hasn't yet transcended dualism.

This will ever happen when we are about Buddh-isms but not, maybe, if we were about the teachings of the historical Buddha. Perhaps based on them there would not be the need to elaborate Buddh-isms in our minds and many agreements will be gathered.

[incizarry]

[...]what could be as uncomplicated as sitting still for an hour, watching one's own breathing?

yes! That is what is all about; there is no need for more.

[Munccoughe]

Do we make the Dhamma/Dharma too complicated? This cat thinks...as long as it doesn't fall into this and this
Otherwise...

[Blahhhshsh]

This cat thinks...as long as it doesn't fall into this and this

Very true.

[beloveds]

I think Ajahn Sumedho has to be the master of uncomplicating the seemingly complicated teachings; always getting us to point back to this awareness. As he always says, you don't have to try and figure out why you get angry at this or delighted at that etc. That task is never ending because it's coming from a personality point of view; why do "I" get angry, "I" need to become someone that doesn't get angry, or what do "I" do about this anger. Just recognise, the mind in this state, is like this. Then you're no longer feeding the anger or the personality view.

It would have been nice to have started my journey into Buddhism with Sumedho's teachings.

[Aminkaoo]

It would have been nice to have started my journey into Buddhism with Sumedho's teachings.

I agree, Magga! ....but I found him eventually, and I think that because of what had gone before, it made him all the more special.

[theatadug]

In the suttas, the arahant disciples, both men & women, generally received short teachings, where they were taught the basics, to see life simply as just elements, sense spheres & aggregates, empty of self

[Smabeabumjess]

to see life simply as just elements, sense spheres & aggregates, empty of self

The sole reading of this settles the mind...

[alias]

....but I found him eventually

How fortunate Aloka!

[Poohoppesmase]

I think many people attracted to philosophy (particularly Western philosophy from about the 18th century onwards; the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers were comparatively down-to-earth)

Just out from the Topic...

This 18th Western philosophy, when I came in touch with it, I really run away... I felt there was a huge amount of mental entanglements and suffering not clearly understood neither resolved.

[lalffibra]

Just out from the Topic...

This 18th Western philosophy, when I came in touch with it, I really run away... I felt there was a huge amount of mental entanglements and suffering not clearly understood neither resolved.

Yeah. I think part of the problem with a lot of Western philosophy is that much of it is just made up stuff of no real consequence -- basically, it creates unsolvable problems out of thin air, and proceeds to obsess over them. What saves Buddhism's philosophy from this fate is that the Buddha built his ideas around "dukkha and the end of dukkha" -- it isn't just mental fabrications, but something of real consequence in how we go about living our lives.