tiltbillings wrote:You are still way over stating the Zen business
this is why it sounds like i'm overstating it: zen is not even one thing, calling it zen is really misleading. it would be more appropriate to only speak of soto, rinzai, yunmen, and so on and so on since they are so different one could even go so far as to only talk about each individual master! so we only talk about dogen and forget everything else or only talk about yunmen or whatever. if we do that then we can have a consistent debate about that one teachers ideas. when we just talk about "zen" everyone is right and wrong at the same time since it is so loosely defined due to each master and school having their own unique definition it's absurd.
you probably have an idea in your mind about what zen is and it is probably largely colored by one or two similar schools so what i'm saying sounds outlandish when in fact there are so many schools and so much variation that talking about them as one thing inevitably leads to overstatement of zen such as i have allegedly done above. it is an offshoot of an offshoot of an offshoot and it keeps going. there are very few rules or boundaries as to what can be a zen school or how to define it. most would even say it cannot be defined.
but if this is true:
tiltbillings wrote: but quite frankly it is not worth the time to argue.
what have we been doing this whole time? why are you talking about it at all? what is worth the time to argue?
is it worth talking about:
tiltbillings wrote: Buddhadasa's interpretations or the Thai forest tradition's citta, ot Vimalaramsi's finding finding the true practice of the Buddha in the suttas while all others flounder about.
because i'm quite interested, i haven't heard about these things.