|
Mepitans, given your argument, nothing here has a point. In the Buddhist mindset, it does have a point though. Historically speaking, classical Buddhism has always encouraged debate amongst its' adherents. Such debate is an accepted method by which both the teachings are spread and the teachings are refined.
Zen is radical in the sense that it took the Buddha's teachings and ideas and applied them to the religion itself. Zen cuts away the centuries of politics that crept into Buddhism and seeks to return to the true Dharma of the Buddha. There is an amazing amount of backbiting and intolerance in the Buddhist 'church' historically. The results of that backbiting are similar to the 'karmic accretion' the Jains talk about, except in this case it is scriptural accretion. Zen tries to sweep away scriptural and dogmatic waste inherent to a religion's progress through the centuries, and regain the kernel of truth within the teachings.
It is somewhat akin to the Protestant Reformation that the Christians went through, excepting that it was far more peaceful and did not end so poorly.
I do tend to agree with your basic premise of religions functioning as doorways into higher order consciousness. It is an excellent way of looking at things.
|