A Ch'an (Chinese Zen) tradition records the following dialogue:

Emperor Wu of China asked Bodhidharma: "What is the most holy principle of Buddhism?"

Bodhidharma responded: "There is no holiness, only great emptiness."

There is no fundamental, essential, out-there or even 'in here' rational truth to be found in Buddhism.

Buddhism is a path, an action - toward a goal, a destination.

Beyond this purpose Buddhism has nothing to do with morality, ditto for belief.

Buddhism is primarily concerned with meditation; a continual increasing awareness of reality, until reaching the destination of 'total awareness,' enlightenment is; a wordless, incommunicable breakthrough into realization of nirvana; an integration with reality; a view of reality 'as it is'; a melting of the ego back into the namelessness; to become reality; a wordless communication; to cease the desperate, frantic floundering that is trying "with more than Munchhausen temerity, to pull oneself into existence out of the swamp of nothingness." 1

Really, the destination is none of those things, however the words may induce a feeling of the path; a pointer in the right direction.

A common Buddhist expression is 'Buddhism is a finger pointing at the moon.'

Much in the way of culture was appended to Buddhism during its long journey across Central, Southern, and Eastern Asia, through jungle and dust and grassland, through cultures advanced and primitive, but meditation remains the core of the belief. Without meditation there would be no Buddhism.

Meditation is essential to perceiving and experiencing what Buddhists 'believe.' Buddhists are not deliberately obscure, there is no alternate method as there exists no Buddhist belief outside of a personal experience which is vivid and wordless.

Buddhist belief has nothing to do with 'on such and such a day Buddha/God did/said this,' or 'Buddha/God is like this,' or 'Buddha/God wants us to do this and not this.'

Do Buddhists believe in Buddha/God?

If I respond with a negative then it may be understood as denying a very real experience.

If I respond with an affirmative, then it may be understood as a belief in an 'it,' a 'thing,' whatever you the reader conceives of (or thinks I conceive of) as Buddha/God - which would be different from my experience.

'I believe' is emotive and meaningless.

The Buddhist path consists of the removal of mental habits called 'defilements,' the primary form of which are emotional egoistical addictions, particularly to sensations and to the illusion of an ego (soul.) They are overcome through meditation.

Even the concept of illusion is illusion.

Meditation is toward a wordlessness.

There is not much that can be said of Buddhism.

'Be still and meditate' is as good as any.

the crown prince Manjusri said to the Licchavi Vimalakirti, 'We have all given our own teachings, noble sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the entrance into the principle of nonduality!' Thereupon, the Licchavi Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying nothing at all. 2

Reality does not conform to any syrup-like emotional utopian model, therefore Buddhism does not. Reality is harsh, awesome, and indifferent. Buddhism really begins, not with a philosophical principle or a supernatural experience, but with a simple, perhaps startling, and audacious, observation; 'life is suffering.'

Morality means an enforced constraint of action over a long period of time, regardless of necessity.

A Buddhist acts according to conditions, and necessity; whatever exists in the moment of environment and objectives, with a ruthless pragmatism which yet, and as a result, produces action that is more sane, more effective, and thus more compassionate.

When one practices meditation frequently, one gains an intuition that reality does not contain morality, that it is fully a human imagination. One has looked, and touched, and smelt, and tasted, and listened, but it was nowhere to be found. Knowledge gleaned by by direct perception is very effective at removing even such long-held and highly regarded illusions. An intellectual, theoretical appreciation is less effective (though not in all cases, and the two approaches are often combined, with the latter used more as an aid to meditation than a substitute. Buddhism tackles illusion through the discourses found in Sutras and elsewhere. Expediency is central to Buddhism.)

Sakyamuni Buddha:

Apart from consciousness, no divers truths exist. Mere sophistry declares this 'true' and that view 'false.' 3
Perfect tranquilization is possible only with the seventh stage. So long as their minds are in confusion, they cannot attain to a clear conviction as to the cessation of all multiplicity and the actuality of the perfect oneness of all things. In their minds the self-nature of things is still discriminated as good and bad, therefore, their minds are in confusion and they cannot pass beyond the sixth stage. 4
One may not reach nirvana if one is carrying intellectual baggage.

Buddhism will tear off one's morality and leave it, in a ditch, by the wayside.

Morality, particularly the soft-warm-fuzzy kind, directs attention away from reality and toward words, and ego. With morality one excuses one's self of responsibility for decision, action, and consequence. It is also addictive. Morality constrains thought, and perception. The emotions directed toward 'good' and 'evil,' are highly egotistical.

At all times people believe (providing we are talking about verbal beliefs,) only what they want to believe. A moralizer will semi-consciously exclude evidence which provides problems for their morality. When morality is directly challenged, moralists will likely turn upon the challenger.

Thus 'pacifists' have supported violent dictators, and I have seen many filled with hatred and violence.

All over the world, everywhere, are the people of the Evil One
Who clamor in vain and engage in meaningless arguments.
Making false expectations, they teach sentient beings.
Talking about remedies, they cure not one disease. 5

When Buddhists practice asceticism, it is not due to any belief that physical pleasure is immoral, or that physical pleasure per-se diverts one from reality, it is itself part of reality, but because we are addicted.

With our attention directed toward our addictions we live scarcely more than a computer program.

We become ascetic not because asceticism is of itself 'good' but because we are 'ill.'

Once our addictions are terminated, we do not practice asceticism unless it comes involuntarily upon us.

You only have one life, and then you are not. To avoid enjoying it is extremely silly.

Why don't you die right now and enjoy the rest of your life? 6
To practice asceticism out of a belief that it is 'godly' or 'spiritual' is also an egoistic addiction to morality. It is a belief in an illusive 'merit' and an illusive ego.

Addicts do not enjoy life to any great degree.

Wu: "I have built many temples and supported many monks. In relation to my entering Nirvanna, how much merit have I earned?"

Bodhidharma: "None."

Wu: "What should I do instead?"

Bodhidharma: "Be empty of yourself."

Wu: "Who do you think you are?"

Bodhidharma: "I have no idea."

Ah, socialism...

Socialists outwardly disdain material wealth because they are egoists, not self-less. Marxism is a religion based on envy, moralizing, and other excretions of ego.

Buddhism is frequently placed, and particularly by socialists, in the category of warm-and-fuzzy-sentiments, mostly due to mistaking Buddhist attitudes of non-violence for pacifism.

'Non-violence' in a Buddhist context is I think correctly interpreted as 'try to do no harm,' which does not discount a necessary violence or choosing 'the lesser evil.' Reality does not fit an ideal, often it is not possible to avoid using violence without causing a much greater harm.

Socialism is highly idealist, that is to say, unpragmatic and dissonant with reality.

Socialism consists in part of beliefs in absolutes - morality, equality, 'social justice,' 'the social good,' etc.

Socialism is entirely incompatible with unemotional, reality-centered Buddhism.

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on';
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son! 7
Sakyamuni Buddha, like all good teachers, adapted his teachings according to the aptitudes of his audiences.

One message he gave to one particular audience at one particular time was "one should neither kill nor cause to kill." 8 Thus non-violence is one of the five Buddhist precepts, which form the most basic teachings of Buddhism. The precepts: 1 to abstain from harming sentient beings. 2 to abstain from stealing. 3 to abstain from sexual misconduct. 4 abstaining from false speech. 5 to abstain from intoxication.

It was a simple message, intended for a people inclined to violence and disorder, enabling them to live relatively peaceful and fulfilled lives, and creating conditions conducive to spiritual life.

Sakyamuni was a pragmatist par excellence, he did not place unrealistic demands to understand complex teachings which would then either be tossed aside in frustration, or misinterpreted and misapplied. The Buddhist term for this is upaya-kausalya.

According to Mahayana Buddhism one of the attributes of a Bodhisattva is to use skill-in-means or upaya-kausalya. This refers to the ability to present the teachings in such a way as they will be understood by audiences with different levels of comprehension. It is ultimately an instrument of compassion which means that no individual is denied the dharma or teaching. One interpretation that all Buddhist teachings are merely conceptual frameworks to aid the practitioner towards enlightenment. They are not ultimately truths in themselves. As an individual approaches enlightenment, all concepts will be dispensed with, just as crutches are dispensed with by someone who no longer has any need for them. 9
Sakyamuni:

The Paramitas are ideals of spiritual perfection that are to be the guide of the Bodhisattvas on the path to self-realization. There are six of them but they are to be considered in three different ways according to the progress of the Bodhisattva on the stages. At first they are to be considered as ideals for the worldly life; next as ideals for the mental life; and, lastly, as ideals of the spiritual and unitive life.
In the worldly life where one is still holding tenaciously to the notions of an ego-soul and what concerns it and holding fast to the discriminations of dualism, if only for worldly benefits, one should cherish ideals of charity, good behavior, patience, zeal, thoughtfulness and wisdom. Even in the worldly life the practice of these virtues will bring rewards of happiness and success.
Much more in the mind-world of earnest disciples and masters will their practice bring joys of emancipation, enlightenment and peace of mind, because the Paramitas are grounded on right-knowledge and lead to thoughts of Nirvana, even if the Nirvana of their thoughts is for themselves. In the mind-world the Paramitas become more ideal and more sympathetic; charity can no longer be expressed in the giving of impersonal gifts but will call for the more costly gifts of sympathy and understanding; good behavior will call for something more than outward conformity to the five precepts because in the light of the Paramitas they must practice humility, simplicity, restraint and self-giving. Patience will call for something more than forbearance with external circumstances and the temperaments of other people: it will now call for patience with one's self. Zeal will call for something more than industry and outward show of earnestness: it will call for more self-control in the task of following the Noble Path and in manifesting the Dharma in one's own life. Thoughtfulness will give way to mindfulness wherein discriminated meanings and logical deductions and rationalizations will give way to intuitions of significance and spirit. The Paramita of Wisdom (Prajna) will no longer be concerned with pragmatic wisdom and erudition, but will reveal itself in its true perfectness of All-inclusive Truth which is Love.
The third aspect of the Paramitas as seen in the ideal perfection of the Tathagatas can only be fully understood by the Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas who are devoted to the highest spiritual disciple and have fully understood that there is nothing to be seen in the world but that which issues from the mind itself; in whose minds the discrimination of dualities has ceased to function; and seizing and clinging has become non-existent. Thus free from all attachments to individual objects and ideas, their minds are free to consider ways of benefiting and giving happiness to others, even to all sentient beings. To the Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas the ideal of charity is shown in the self-yielding of the Tathagata's hope of Nirvana that all may enjoy it together. While having relations with an objective world there is no rising in the minds of the Tathagatas of discriminations between the interests of self and the interests of others, between good and evil,- there is just the spontaneity and effortless actuality of perfect behavior. To practice patience with full knowledge of this and that, of grasp and grasping, but with no thought of discrimination nor of attachment,- that is the Tathagatas Paramita of Patience. To exert oneself with energy from the first part of the night to its end in conformity with the disciplinary measures with no rising of discrimination as to comfort or discomfort,- that is the Tathagata's Paramita of Zeal. Not to discriminate between self and others in thoughts of Nirvana, but to keep the mind fixed on Nirvana,- that is the Paramita of Mindfulness. As to the Prajna-Paramita, which is Noble Wisdom, who can predicate it? When in Samadhi the mind ceases to discriminate and there is only perfect and love-filled imagelessness, then an inscrutable 'turning-about' will take place in the inmost consciousness and one will have attained self-realization of Noble Wisdom,- that is the highest Prajna-Paramita. 4
Shariputra, listen carefully,
for the Law which the Buddhas have attained,
through the power of countless expedient means
they preach for the benefit of living beings.
The thoughts that are in the minds of living beings,
the different types of paths they follow,
their various desires and natures,
the good and bad deeds they have done in previous existences--
all these the Buddha takes cognizance of,
and then he employs causes, similes and parables,
words that embody the power of expedient means,
in order to gladden and please them all.
Sometimes he preaches sutras,
verses, stories of the previous lives of disciples,
stories of the previous lives of the Buddha, of unheard-of things.
At other times he preaches regarding causes and conditions,
uses similes, parables, passages of poetry
or discourses.
For those of dull capacities who delight in a little Law,
who greedily cling to birth and death,
who, despite the innumerable Buddhas,
fail to practice the profound and wonderful way
but are perplexed and confused by a host of troubles--
for these I preach nirvana.
I devise these expedient means
and so cause them to enter into the Buddha wisdom.
Up to now I have never told you
that you were certain to attain the Buddha way.
The reason I never preached in that manner
was that the time to preach so had not yet come. 10
The simple precept 4 [abstaining from false speech] is Buddhism, and so is this fine allegory of religious literature and Buddhist teaching, related by Sakyamuni:

Good men, the Buddhas and Thus Come Ones all preach a Law such as this. They act in order to save all living beings, so what they do is true and not false.
Suppose, for example, that there is a skilled physician who is wise and understanding and knows how to compound medicines to effectively cure all kinds of diseases. He has many sons, perhaps ten, twenty, or even a hundred. He goes off to some other land far away to see about a certain affair. After he has gone, the children drink some kind of poison that make them distraught with pain and they fall writhing to the ground.
At that time the father returns to his home and finds that his children have drunk poison. Some are completely out of their minds, while others are not. Seeing their father from far off, all are overjoyed and kneel down and entreat him, saying:
'How fine that you have returned safely. We were stupid and by mistake drank some poison. We beg you to cure us and let us live out our lives!'
The father, seeing his children suffering like this, follows various prescriptions. Gathering fine medicinal herbs that meet all the requirements of color, fragrance and flavor, he grinds, sifts and mixes them together. Giving a dose of these to his children, he tells them:
'This is a highly effective medicine, meeting all the requirements of color, fragrance and flavor. Take it and you will quickly be relieved of your sufferings and will be free of all illness.'
Those children who have not lost their senses can see that this is good medicine, outstanding in both color and fragrance, so they take it immediately and are completely cured of their sickness. Those who are out of their minds are equally delighted to see their father return and beg him to cure their sickness, but when they are given the medicine, they refuse to take it. Why? Because the poison has penetrated deeply and their minds no longer function as before. So although the medicine is of excellent color and fragrance, they do not perceive it as good. The father thinks to himself:
'My poor children! Because of the poison in them, their minds are completely befuddled. Although they are happy to see me and ask me to cure them, they refuse to take this excellent medicine. I must now resort to some expedient means to induce them to take the medicine.'
So he says to them:
'You should know that I am now old and worn out, and the time of my death has come. I will leave this good medicine here. You should take it and not worry that it will not cure you.'
Having given these instructions, he then goes off to another land where he sends a messenger home to announce,
'Your father is dead.'
At that time the children, hearing that their father has deserted them and died, are filled with great grief and consternation and think to themselves:
'If our father were alive he would have pity on us and see that we are protected. But now he has abandoned us and died in some other country far away. We are shelter-less orphans with no one to rely on!'
Constantly harboring such feelings of grief, they at last come to their senses and realize that the medicine is in fact excellent in color and fragrance and flavor, and so they take it and are healed of all the effects of the poison. The father, hearing that his children are all cured, immediately returns home and appears to them all once more.
Good men, what is your opinion? Can anyone say that this skilled physician is guilty of lying? 10
Paul Fleischman writes:

The Buddha did not intend to form either a religious or political position, nor a philosophy of society. Historically, he lived before the era of organized, systematic theorizing about the human collective. He addressed himself as an individual to individuals. Even when he spoke to large groups, as he frequently did, he focused on individual responsibility. He understood every group - for example, the democratic states that existed in the India of his times Р as resting upon the insight, conscience, and actions of each of its participants. He had no theory of, nor belief in, supervening collective structures of society or government that could amend or replace the bedrock of individual choice.
Rather than a theologian or a systems thinker, the Buddha was a liberator, a spiritually attained practitioner and teacher of the path to nibbana, freedom from hate, delusion, and fear. 11
An individual cannot live without harming sentient beings. And if one dies to avoid doing so then one is still harming a sentient being.

Cases demanding abortion often present a choice between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn. Reality does not conform to any humanistic ideal. Buddhism is to realize and accept all of reality.

Pacifism advocates the constraint of violent action that would prevent worse violence, when there is no other effective response available. Pacifism is thus objectively pro-violence, but is thought of otherwise by those who believe in words rather than attend to reality.

In a brief discourse, the Buddha is challenged by a General who claims that Dhamma is mere passivity. The Buddha replies that he teaches inactivity in regard to unwholesome things and 'activity by way of good conduct in deeds, words, and thoughts.' There is no further blanket position taken towards government, warfare or the karma of Generals. What constitutes good conduct is left to the General's discernment. The Buddha gave the principle, not the details of the infinite varieties of interpretation and application.
In a poignant conversation that occurred when both the Buddha and King Pasenadi were eighty years old, the king praises the Buddha, his teaching, and the conduct of his followers, while describing himself as '... an anointed warrior-king, able to have executed those who should be executed...' After the king departs, the Buddha comments to the meditators around him that the King's insights were 'monuments to the Dhamma' that should be learned and remembered as 'fundamentals of the holy life.' [Majjhima 89] This passage clarifies that the Buddha neither condemned nor even rebuked the king for his fulfillment of the kingship, with it dire responsibilities. 11
As evidenced by his teachings, Sakyamuni was no fool. To claim he intended non-violence as absolute assumes otherwise, and ignores his more advanced teachings against absolute morality, whilst misrepresenting his aims.

Here are two key differences between nonviolence as taught by the Buddha, and pacifism. First, the Buddha did not teach social and political philosophy; and second, he taught a path of life, not a blanket ideology. Guiding each interested individual to walk the path, the Buddha encouraged a pure mind that seeks the least harm. He recognized different levels of personality development, different social roles and obligations, different responsibilities and necessities incumbent on different individuals according to their history and choices. The Buddha taught people according to their 'karma.' 11
What the writer means by "according to their karma" is that Sakyamuni approached people based upon 'what they do' - their karma - their reality.

Buddhist teachings are more against hatred than violence. Hatred, and only in some cases, is a factor in the production of violence.

Violent acts committed without hatred, are not necessarily un-Buddhist.

Buddhism was the main driving force for the development of Gung Fu, and other martial arts that took the form of self-defense. Monks lived in violent times (and they still do.)

Dead monks cannot achieve nirvana.

The statement by Sakyamuni:

Even if bandits brutally severed him limb from limb with a two handled saw, he who entertained hate in his heart on that account would not be one who followed my teaching. 11
... is a statement relating to meditation, the control of emotions and sensations, and it is addressed to an audience that are highly advanced in their practice. It has nothing to do with prohibiting self-defense, and it is directed against hatred, not against action.

Much of equating Buddhism with pacifism rests upon an assumption; that Buddhists have tended to achieve more peaceful, successful interpersonal relationships than members of other religions because of messages toward non-violence, despite that the majority of other religions also contain similar teachings. Christian pacifist 'turn the over cheek' did not stop the crusades, 'love thy neighbor' did not stop the burning of witches, pagans, heathens, heretics. In fact there is far more emphasis on forgiveness in Christianity, yet religion-inspired persecution was also more frequent.

Meditation creates emotional detachment, non-greed, non-envy, non-egoism, a greater awareness of the needs of other individuals, and accordance with the nature of reality. Much violence has been done in the name of morality because it is far removed from reality. The horrors of the Christian inquisition resulted from the belief in eternal good, as did the 130 million killed by socialism.

It is permissible for Buddhists, in some Asian cultures, to consume meat.

Some of the greatest Zen masters of China and Japan used violence as a tool to concentrate the minds of their followers upon attaining nirvana - and with quite some success. The records of the deeds of the great masters are filled with slapping, thwacking, pushing, nose-pulling, dislocations. One even killed a disciple (not intentionally it must be said) through an excessive blow - and treated this death with a Zen, accepting, lack of emotion.

It is worth noting that of all Buddhist sects, Zen/Ch'an places the utmost importance upon meditation. Zen/Ch'an is the Japanese/Chinese translation of the Indian word Dhyana, which means meditation.

Zen masters are not sweet, gentle folk who spend their time padding quietly around between talk of peace and love. They are loud, gruff, and vulgar, at least (still) considered to be so by the standards of polite society.

A monk to Zen master Joshu: "To be holy - what is it like?"

Joshu replied: "To dump a mountain of shit on a clean plain." 6

And yet there is another side:

The sky disintegrates and turns to dust,
The great earth becomes peaceful, no-one can see it.
Abruptly, the dry tree opens its one flower.
Calling to another spring, beyond history.
(What Daichi taught the Samurai Kiksushi in the snow) 13
Buddhism is not a cuddly religion! Reality is awesome, unflinching, unstoppable, and entirely indifferent to human sensibilities:

A Chan Master once undertook the instruction of a novice who was having great difficulty in detaching himself from the persons of his former, secular life. 'You cannot serve the Dharma until you sever these bonds,' said the Master. 'You must destroy these possessive relationships! Kill them! Regard them as if they no longer existed!'
The novice asked, 'But my parents? Must I slay them, too?'
And the Master replied, 'Who are they to be spared?'
'And you, Master,' said the novice, 'must I kill you, too?'
And the Master smiled and said, 'Don't worry. There is not enough of me left for you to get your hands on.'
Such a master was Xu Yun. 14
Once Buddhism has brought one to enlightenment, it must be discarded.

Anyone walking about Chinatowns in America will observe statues of a stout fellow carrying a linen sack. Chinese merchants call him Happy Chinaman or Laughing Buddha.
This Hotei lived in the T'ang dynasty. He had no desire to call himself a Zen master or to gather many disciples about him. Instead he walked the streets with a big sack into which he would put gifts of candy, fruit, or doughnuts. These he would give to children who gathered around him in play. He established a kindergarten of the streets.
Whenever he met a Zen devotee he would extend his hand and say: 'Give me one penny.' And if anyone asked him to return to a temple to teach others, again he would reply: 'Give me one penny.'
Once he was about his play-work [when] another Zen master happened along and inquired: 'What is the significance of Zen?'
Hotei immediately plopped his sack down on the ground in silent answer.
'Then,' asked the other, 'what is the actualization of Zen?'
At once the Happy Chinaman swung the sack over his shoulder and continued on his way. 15
This is a depiction of Hotei:

This is a picture of Sakyamnuni:

Like Hotei, one returns to business. Everything one did before, though everything is different.

what would I do without this silence where the murmurs die
the paintings the frenzies toward succour towards love
without this sky that soars
above it's ballast dust
what would I do what I did yesterday and the day before 16
One lives in the moment.

The conundrum of the epicurean monk.

An epicurean is not an addict.

Addicts seek after bulk, inexpensive sources of pleasure - quantity not quality. Much of addiction is also a placebo effect.

An epicurean savours high quality products. A monk, as a result of meditation, is naturally inclined toward epicureanism.

A Zen appreciation of chocolate is different from that of the 'chocaholic.'

A Zen monk, being chased by a bear runs off a cliff. As he is falling, he grabs a branch. He looks up and sees the bear leaning over the cliff, clawing at his head and missing only by inches. As the monk looks down to the ground, about fifteen feet below him, he sees a lion leaping up, missing his feet only by inches. As he looks at the branch he is clutching, he sees two groundhogs gnawing away at it. He watches as his lifeline disappears, bite by bite. As the monk takes a long, deep breath, he notices, next to his branch, a clump of wild strawberries. In the middle of the clump is a great, red, juicy strawberry. With his one free hand, the Zen monk reaches over, picks the strawberry, puts it in his mouth, chews it slowly and says, 'Ah ... delicious.' 17
Zen master Daowu:

Whenever you bring me tea, I take it from your hands,
Whenever you serve the meal, I accept it and eat it.
Whenever you greet me, I nod in response.
On what points have I failed to show you the essence of the mind? 6
Nansen said:

The path does not belong to the perception world, neither does it belong to the nonperception world. Cognition is a delusion and noncognition is senseless.
If you want to reach the true path beyond doubt, place yourself in the same freedom as the sky. 6
1. "Beyond Good and Evil" by Friedrich Nietzsche.

2. "Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra," http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/mahayana-writings/vimalakirti-nirdesa-sutra.htm

3. "Sutta-Nipata"

4. "Lankavatara Sutra," http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/mahayana-writings/lankavatara-sutra.htm

5. "First letter" by an unknown author, possibly Hui-k'o, translation in "The Bodhidharma Anthology" by Jeffrey L. Broughton.

6. http://www.inf.tu-dresden.de/~hs3/miscstuff/zitate.zen

7. "If" by Rudyard Kipling.

8. "Dhammapada," http://www.dhammathai.org/e/dhammapada/page1.php

9. "Skill-in-Means ('Upaya-Kausalya')," http://buddhism.about.com/library/weekly/aa121302a.htm

10. "Lotus Sutra," http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/Buddhism/LotusSutra/index.html

11. "The Budhha Taught Nonviolence, Not Pacifism" by Paul Fleischman, http://www.dharma.org/ij/archives/2002a/nonviolence.htm

13. Master Taisen Deshimaru in "The Zen Way to the Martial Arts," http://windsofchange.net/archives/002876.php

14. "Empty Cloud: The Teachings of Xu Yun" by Jy Din Shakya, Ming Zhen Shakya & Upasaka Richard Cheung. Preface ii. http://zbohy.zatma.org/common/downloads/xuyun5.pdf

15. "Shaseki-shu (Collection of stone and sand)," http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/zenindex.html

16. "Dieppe" by Samuel Beckett, http://mural.uv.es/sagrau/textos/poems.html

17. http://www.jimforce.ca/zensoup.html