The Dharma Ending Age.
Jan 30, 2007 11:31:31 GMT 1
Post by Shi Da Dao on Jan 30, 2007 11:31:31 GMT 1
Dear Robert
Thank you for your email. I write for the Noetic Institute, regarding Mind development, and Ming Zhen and her peculiar Dharmic interpretation came up. A few years ago, I wrote to her regarding Charles Luk. I wish I had the emails from that time, but my computer crashed and I lost everything. Richard was alive then, and I asked Ming Zhen about Charles Luk, and she said that he was a criminal who had stolen some photographs from her master! I passed it all on to Richard, who just found it all very sad.
As it transpires, she does not seem to remember me. I wrote to her recently the following question;
'On Jan 29, 2007, at 2:55 AM, Adrian Chan-Wyles Ph.D wrote:
> Dear Friends in the Dharma
>
> I am enquiry as to the separation between your group, and the ZOHY.
>
> I would like to hear your side.
>
> Thank you.'
This is her reply:
'Hi Dr. Chan-Wyles,
There is no side. We are the original Zen Buddhist Order of Hsu Yun.
(ZBOHY)
which was incorporated in Nevada in 1997.
The other group split off and filed articles of incorporation in
another state (Utah)
in May of 2004..
Since their webmaster owned the domain name, they kept the address.
Since
I had always wanted to unite Zen and the martial arts - as they were
originally
formed. So that is what we called our website - ZATMA.org
I was ordained at Nan Hua temple in China. Chuan Zhi of the other
website
was ordained in Shen Zhen... (Near Hong Kong). His master, Jy Din
Shakya
of Honolulu died a few years ago. I don't know if he has another
master.
My first master was Ven. Wei Yin, Abbot of Nan Hua Si. When he died I
returned to China and became a disciple of Ven. Fo Yuan of Yun Men Si.
Hsu Yun named him 13th Patriarch of Yun Men lineage (which is the
lineage
I am in. He retired and named my brother Ming Zhao 14th Patriarch. You
can see their photographs on our home page.
Now you can visit both websites. I know that my name was removed from
much of the work I had done on the original website. So if you have
any questions about any of the articles on either website, you can check
with me if you like and if the work is mine, I'll happily answer as best
I can.
Regards,
Ming Zhen Shakya'
Compare this response to what she has written on her website;
'Notice to our Zen Buddhist Order of Hsu Yun sangha members and readers
There has been some confusion about which website is the site of the original Zen Buddhist Order of Hsu Yun, a non-profit corporation, that has served the Internet community since November, 1997. We are that group and anyone who wishes to check with the Secretary of State's office in Carson City, Nevada, can confirm this.
The organization now located at the address www.hsuyun.org is a non-profit corporation chartered in the state of Utah on August 3, 2004, #5702081-0140. This Utah organization is not related to or affiliated with the original Zen Buddhist Order of Hsu Yun, and Ming Zhen Shakya has likewise never been involved or affiliated with the Utah organization.
Anyone who received Buddhist Precepts from the Zen Buddhist Order of Hsu Yun prior to that date has received them from our Order and is invited to consult with a priest through our ZATMA.org address. '
So it would appear that Ming Zhen is both involved, and definitely not involved with the 'other' website.
I also asked her why she does not teach the fundamental Buddhist teachings of 'karma' and 're-birth', this is her response;
'Dear Dr. Chan-Wyles,
Zen has never identified itself as an orthodox Buddhist school. I'm
not entirely sure that there is any school that can rightfully identify
itself as orthodox. Nothing that the Buddha ever said was written down
until he had been dead for nearly 400 years. And by that time, Jain
doctrine had often infiltrated the teaching.
A legitimate question might be raised about how Buddhism was able to
distinguish itself from Jainism if its basic doctrines were virtually
identical. Or why, for that matter, there was a need to introduce a
"new" teaching that was already in existence.
Since there are no definitive eye-witness or holographic accounts of
the Dharma as originally promulgated and since there are, in fact, a
variety of Buddhist Paths, it does not seem appropriate for any one
school to claim to be authentic - at the expense of others which would,
in that event, be considered heretical.
I suppose that in the final analysis everything depends on the
interpretation an individual places on the Four Noble Truths. If that
interpretation leads him to Buddhist Salvation, there can hardly be an
objection by anyone. Languages change with distance and time. The
Truth exists independently of these. The validity of that Truth is
established experientially.
I hope this helps to clarify our position.
Sincerely,
Ming Zhen Shakya'
I find this response bizarre in the extreme. It is poor academics and an attempt to 'bluff' one's way out of a tricky situation. Notice that she does not answer my question at any point, but utilises a cack-handed rhetoric that does not appear that convincing - even to her! Also, I find it disturbing that on both websites, not only are they mis-using master Xu Yun's image (as they reject both karma and re-birth, there is not much left that Xu Yun taught, that they could make use of), but the phrase 'modern Western thought' appears a number of times. Referring of ocurse, that modernisitc, Western thinking is inherently 'superior', to 'inferior' Eastern thinking. This is not only a dangerous philosophical position to create and occupy (least of all as it opens the participant to the allegation of 'racism'), but it is also, blatantly not correct. Karma, far from being 'inferior', is infact totally compatible to the 'cause and effect' of Classical Physics. Re-birth, is also compatible to Classical Physics, as according to the Law of Thermodynamics, energy can not be destroyed or created - it can only change form. Of course, once we venture out of Classical Physics, into the world of Quantum Physics, Eastern philosophy becomes even more applicable to Western thinking.
My question is really quite very simple; How can an organisation, founded in the USA, whose members wear an apparenlty 'Chinese' Ch'an robe, Who adopt Chinese Dharma names and ordination titles, claim, with any creditability, to represent Ch'an master Xu Yun (1840-1959), when they reject two of the most important philosophical teachings of Buddhism? Even a brief exploration of Xu Yun's Dharma teaching, will show that both karma and re-birth are staple subjects for his teaching. Infact, traditionally speaking, Ch'an masters were expected to become familiar with the mundane Dharma, after their enlightenment.
And as for Ming Zhen's rather weak thrust that Buddhism was not that much different from Jainism, perhaps then, we might assume that the Buddha Dharma is not that much different to Hinduism, or perhaps (out of the hat) Patanjali's yoga Sutra!
Perhaps it is, after-all, as the Buddha warned, that we are in the Dharma ending age.
As always, thank you for your time.
Thank you for your email. I write for the Noetic Institute, regarding Mind development, and Ming Zhen and her peculiar Dharmic interpretation came up. A few years ago, I wrote to her regarding Charles Luk. I wish I had the emails from that time, but my computer crashed and I lost everything. Richard was alive then, and I asked Ming Zhen about Charles Luk, and she said that he was a criminal who had stolen some photographs from her master! I passed it all on to Richard, who just found it all very sad.
As it transpires, she does not seem to remember me. I wrote to her recently the following question;
'On Jan 29, 2007, at 2:55 AM, Adrian Chan-Wyles Ph.D wrote:
> Dear Friends in the Dharma
>
> I am enquiry as to the separation between your group, and the ZOHY.
>
> I would like to hear your side.
>
> Thank you.'
This is her reply:
'Hi Dr. Chan-Wyles,
There is no side. We are the original Zen Buddhist Order of Hsu Yun.
(ZBOHY)
which was incorporated in Nevada in 1997.
The other group split off and filed articles of incorporation in
another state (Utah)
in May of 2004..
Since their webmaster owned the domain name, they kept the address.
Since
I had always wanted to unite Zen and the martial arts - as they were
originally
formed. So that is what we called our website - ZATMA.org
I was ordained at Nan Hua temple in China. Chuan Zhi of the other
website
was ordained in Shen Zhen... (Near Hong Kong). His master, Jy Din
Shakya
of Honolulu died a few years ago. I don't know if he has another
master.
My first master was Ven. Wei Yin, Abbot of Nan Hua Si. When he died I
returned to China and became a disciple of Ven. Fo Yuan of Yun Men Si.
Hsu Yun named him 13th Patriarch of Yun Men lineage (which is the
lineage
I am in. He retired and named my brother Ming Zhao 14th Patriarch. You
can see their photographs on our home page.
Now you can visit both websites. I know that my name was removed from
much of the work I had done on the original website. So if you have
any questions about any of the articles on either website, you can check
with me if you like and if the work is mine, I'll happily answer as best
I can.
Regards,
Ming Zhen Shakya'
Compare this response to what she has written on her website;
'Notice to our Zen Buddhist Order of Hsu Yun sangha members and readers
There has been some confusion about which website is the site of the original Zen Buddhist Order of Hsu Yun, a non-profit corporation, that has served the Internet community since November, 1997. We are that group and anyone who wishes to check with the Secretary of State's office in Carson City, Nevada, can confirm this.
The organization now located at the address www.hsuyun.org is a non-profit corporation chartered in the state of Utah on August 3, 2004, #5702081-0140. This Utah organization is not related to or affiliated with the original Zen Buddhist Order of Hsu Yun, and Ming Zhen Shakya has likewise never been involved or affiliated with the Utah organization.
Anyone who received Buddhist Precepts from the Zen Buddhist Order of Hsu Yun prior to that date has received them from our Order and is invited to consult with a priest through our ZATMA.org address. '
So it would appear that Ming Zhen is both involved, and definitely not involved with the 'other' website.
I also asked her why she does not teach the fundamental Buddhist teachings of 'karma' and 're-birth', this is her response;
'Dear Dr. Chan-Wyles,
Zen has never identified itself as an orthodox Buddhist school. I'm
not entirely sure that there is any school that can rightfully identify
itself as orthodox. Nothing that the Buddha ever said was written down
until he had been dead for nearly 400 years. And by that time, Jain
doctrine had often infiltrated the teaching.
A legitimate question might be raised about how Buddhism was able to
distinguish itself from Jainism if its basic doctrines were virtually
identical. Or why, for that matter, there was a need to introduce a
"new" teaching that was already in existence.
Since there are no definitive eye-witness or holographic accounts of
the Dharma as originally promulgated and since there are, in fact, a
variety of Buddhist Paths, it does not seem appropriate for any one
school to claim to be authentic - at the expense of others which would,
in that event, be considered heretical.
I suppose that in the final analysis everything depends on the
interpretation an individual places on the Four Noble Truths. If that
interpretation leads him to Buddhist Salvation, there can hardly be an
objection by anyone. Languages change with distance and time. The
Truth exists independently of these. The validity of that Truth is
established experientially.
I hope this helps to clarify our position.
Sincerely,
Ming Zhen Shakya'
I find this response bizarre in the extreme. It is poor academics and an attempt to 'bluff' one's way out of a tricky situation. Notice that she does not answer my question at any point, but utilises a cack-handed rhetoric that does not appear that convincing - even to her! Also, I find it disturbing that on both websites, not only are they mis-using master Xu Yun's image (as they reject both karma and re-birth, there is not much left that Xu Yun taught, that they could make use of), but the phrase 'modern Western thought' appears a number of times. Referring of ocurse, that modernisitc, Western thinking is inherently 'superior', to 'inferior' Eastern thinking. This is not only a dangerous philosophical position to create and occupy (least of all as it opens the participant to the allegation of 'racism'), but it is also, blatantly not correct. Karma, far from being 'inferior', is infact totally compatible to the 'cause and effect' of Classical Physics. Re-birth, is also compatible to Classical Physics, as according to the Law of Thermodynamics, energy can not be destroyed or created - it can only change form. Of course, once we venture out of Classical Physics, into the world of Quantum Physics, Eastern philosophy becomes even more applicable to Western thinking.
My question is really quite very simple; How can an organisation, founded in the USA, whose members wear an apparenlty 'Chinese' Ch'an robe, Who adopt Chinese Dharma names and ordination titles, claim, with any creditability, to represent Ch'an master Xu Yun (1840-1959), when they reject two of the most important philosophical teachings of Buddhism? Even a brief exploration of Xu Yun's Dharma teaching, will show that both karma and re-birth are staple subjects for his teaching. Infact, traditionally speaking, Ch'an masters were expected to become familiar with the mundane Dharma, after their enlightenment.
And as for Ming Zhen's rather weak thrust that Buddhism was not that much different from Jainism, perhaps then, we might assume that the Buddha Dharma is not that much different to Hinduism, or perhaps (out of the hat) Patanjali's yoga Sutra!
Perhaps it is, after-all, as the Buddha warned, that we are in the Dharma ending age.
As always, thank you for your time.