|
Post by edjason on Feb 2, 2007 15:57:47 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Shi Da Dao on Feb 3, 2007 10:20:20 GMT 1
Thank you for your kind consideration. I have clicked the link, and found to my great pleasure and surprise, the latest Ch'an Digest - published, I think, upon your blog site.
I like your heading of 'Liberty'. I also like your site. The text of the email you have published, was inspired by a response Ihad received from a group claiming to be 'Ch'an, infact claiming to be of master Hsu Yun's lineage, but whilst calling themselves 'Buddhist', they refuse to teach about karma or re-birth.
The method of Mind development is a treasure that should be guarded and kept for the next generation. This is even more important today, when one considers the sheer amount of information that assaults our senses all of the time. It can be hard to make any sense of it. Indeed, often, it is near impossible.
As Buddhism is not a dogmatic religion, and as it does not contain a 'theology' as such, it is important that the 'method', or the 'path' be maintained for others to follow it when the time is right for them.
Cause and effect is the key and the clue. To abandon these most basic of insights, is to spoil the entire path to enlightenment and effectively 're-write' history by negating the Lord Buddha's very enlightenment. And in so doing, negating our own.
I might re-produce the email that inspired the latest Ch'an Digest, on this thread, and answer its claims more fully.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Shi Da Dao on Feb 3, 2007 10:30:58 GMT 1
I wrote the following email of enquiry to an apparent Zen Buddhist association;
'I wonder if you can assist me in a matter of research? I have been informed that the ZBOHY has a number of teachings that deny two aspects of traditional Buddhist philosophy;
1) Karma as taught by the Lord Buddha and master Xu Yun is not part of its teaching.
2) Reincarnation as taught by the Lord Buddha and master Xu Yun is not part of its teacings.
I am not sure if this is correct, as I can not evisage a Buddhist organisation not actually teaching or adhering to basic Buddhist doctrine.
Thank you in advance.'
A few day later, this is the reply I received, which, upon the face of it, does not answer my two, very clear questions;
'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.'
I shall attempt to 'deconstruct' this reply, and give my extensive answer in a post below.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Shi Da Dao on Feb 5, 2007 12:58:46 GMT 1
This conversation via email, occured between myself and Rev. Ming Zhen of the;
Zen & the Martial Arts forum (<http://zatma.org/Dharma/zbohy/Home/home.html>)
Rev. Ming Zhen was formerly a member of the;
Zen Buddhist Order of Hsu Yun (<http://www.hsuyun.org/Dharma/zbohy/Home/home-index.html From MZ.
Both organisations continue to lay claim to a lineage of master Xu Yun - whilst at exacly the sametime, actually denying two very major aspects of Buddhist teaching, used extensively by master Xu Yun to liberate all beings. The two aspects are 'karma' and 're-birth'. The Lord Buddha of course, would not have accepted them as 'Buddhists', and master Xu Yun would have described this attitude as 'deluded'. We must be on our guard against this kind of misrepresentation of the Dharma.
Rev. Ming Zhen Wrote: '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.’
My Reposte. Dhyana/Ch’anna/Zenna/Sonna – has never described itself as ‘unorthodox’. The ‘Meditative’ School, in any of its various manifestations, simply emphasises the ‘meditational’ aspect of the Lord Buddha’s teaching, nothing more or nothing less. The methods used to encourage the student both during and outside of meditation practice, are merely expedient, an do not, in themselves, denote a doctrinal ‘disagreement’, or indeed and ‘moving away’ from the Dharmic teachings of Lord Buddha. The terms ‘Orthodox’ and ‘unorthodox’ represents two sides of the dualistic Mind; a base dualism that zen meditation serves to transcend.
From MZ. ‘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.’
My Reposte. Immediately following the Lord Buddha’s Parinirvana (final extinction on the physical plane), a council convened to discuss and codify the received teachings (Dharma). Within these teachings, the Lord Buddha made it perfectly clear what was acceptable on His path, and what was not. Indeed, in the Digha Nikaya, we find the six viewpoints considered ‘heretical’ by the Buddha, and it is the fifth of these that may concern us here; namely that of Nataputta, considered by scholars to be none other than Mahavira Himself (the ‘Jina’, or ‘Spiritual Victor’, from which title ‘Jainism’ inherits its name). King Ajatasatru, as recorded in the Digha Nikaya, elucidates to the Buddha, the six other teachings he has encountered, but which have not served to develop him spiritually. It is therefore, highly unlikely, that any aspect of Buddhist philosophy has been ‘influenced’ by non-Buddhist thought (clearly stated in the Dignha Nikaya), and inparticularly by ‘Jainist’ thought.
There have been a least six Buddhist Councils over the last 2,500. The purpose of these councils was for the practicing Buddhist Sangha to come together and ensure that the teachings they were practicing, were ‘uniform’, and agree that the Lord Buddha had taught them that way. The first two councils required the reciting and ‘memorising’ of the teachings. The third council, during the time of the emporer Ashoka (326BC), also convened in this manner. However, the presiding elder, Thera Moggaliputta Tissa, kept a written record of ALL the disputes arising, and the decisions regarding those disputes – containing 23 chapters, the Kathavatthu Ilit: ‘Collection of Discussions’ in Pali), is the 5th of the 7 books of the Theravada Abhidhidhamma pitaka. This book clearly states the refutations of the various heresies that had crept into some aspects of Buddhist philosophy.
Particularly the Jainist belief in a permanent ‘soul’ (jiva), and a form of karma that was purely ‘material’ (i.e. ‘physical’) in nature. The ‘jiva’ or soul, is enmeshed in the physical matter (termed ‘pudgala’ – or ‘temporary collection of phsyical attributes). Through severe austere practices, and slowly over-time, the jiva, or soud, is disentangled from the body. Whilst the Jainist practitioner is alive however, there can only ever be a ‘partial’ enlightenment, but not only this, Jainist enlightenment in this stage is only temporary, the and jainist scriptures teach that a practitioner can ‘slip back’ into a deluded state, if austere practice is not maintained. Infact, for the Jainist, true and full enlightenment is only attained with the complete death of the physical body. There is a ritual for this, that involves fasting unto death.
The 4th council in 29BC, did indeed commit the Buddha’s teachings to a written form for the first time. But the previous 3 council had served the ongoing purpose of maintaining the purity of the Buddha-Dharma, carefully filtering out such heretical teachings (from the Budhist perspective) as Jainism. And the earlier 3rd council clearly recorded in writing the heresies that were not compatible with the Buddha-Dharma, and it is to one of thee heresies that I now turn.
From MZ. 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.
My Response. As can be seen from the above, and through further study, the teachings of Jainism are not only completely different to the teachings of Buddhism, but diametrically opposed to it. From the Buddhist perspective, Jainism commits the following hersies;
1) Belief in a permanent ‘soul’ (jiva) – as opposed to the clear Buddhist doctrine of ‘anatma’ (no permanent ‘soul’).
2) The ‘soul’ is considered ‘eternal’ – ‘eternalism’ being against the Buddhist teaching of the Middle Way.
3) A definition of karma that is purely ‘materialistic’ in nature. Buddhist karma is purely ‘volitional’ or ‘psychological’ in essence.
4) For complete Jainist enlightenment, the physical body must die. This is ‘nihilistic’ in nature and opposed to the Buddha’s teaching of the ‘Middle Way’.
5) The Jainist practice of severe austerity is again, against the Buddha’s teaching of the Middle Way.
6) Jainist enlightenment teaches that an eternal soul resides in a blissful Heaven, after physical death.
7) The Lord Buddha publically rebuked the village headman Asibandhakaputta, when he said that Mahavira (the leader of the Jains) taught that whoever kills, steals, lies, or acts unchaste, will all go on the downward path to hell. As he habitually lives, he goes to his destiny.
The Buddha pointed-out that most of the time, a person would not e committing the acts spoken of, so their ordinary karma would not take them on a path to hell, and that Mahavira was wrong to say that it did. And if we think we are going to hell as a result of an action, then that is in our minds only, and if we think it enough, we will create it. But it originates in our minds, and not necessarily from our actions. I, the Buddha teach that if one commits any of these actions, which I, the Buddha also think are bad, then one's karma maybe purified with the practice of remorse, which develops in time, right view, self-control, concentration, kindness, compassion sympathetic joy and equanimity. (SN42.2,8)
In short, there is nothing remotely similar between the jainist teachings, and the teaching of the Buddha. Jainism may be considered a more severe version of othodox Hindu teaching. Whereas the Buddha’s teachings are/were revolutionary in nature. No one in His lifetime, taught the Dharma that he did. Mahavira – the ‘Jina’ of Jainism, certainly did not. The Buddha’s enlightenment was not a mere ‘intellection’ of the surveying of the contemporary philosophical environment He found himself within. The Dharma is not an ‘idea’, designed to be ‘different’ from the other ‘ideas’ around at the time. The ego that leads to the need for philosophical ‘distinction’, is the same ego that the Buddha over-came through meditation, the essence of Zen practice.
From MZ. 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.
My Response. In the Digha Nikaya, the six heretical doctines are carefully presented to us from the people who first heard them from the Buddha Himself, passed down through the ages by monks whose job it was to remember these holy teachings discourses, until they were committed in writing.
There is no doctrinal disagreement between the two main schools, the Theravada and the Mahayana, only a difference in emphasis and interpetation of the same core teachings. Non-Dharmic teachings are obvious and can be clearly seen. The Buddhist Councils removed any sect that was causing a schism in the Sangha, just one of the many offences the Buddha spoke out against.
The Buddha spoke clearly and definitively about ‘karma’ and ‘re-birth’ Volitional karma is the essence of the Buddha’s teachings. It is within accordance even with Western, Classical Physics. It is nothing more than the teaching of ‘cause and effect’. Re-birth is an allegory for the fact that ‘energy’ can be ‘destroyed’ or ‘created’ but can only change form. Without the karma teaching, one moment to the next, can not be changed in the cause of self-development.
From MZ. 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.
My Response. Meditative insight, particularly in the Ch’an/Zen tradition ‘precedes’ scriptural understanding. The Four Noble Truths prepare the Mind for intense meditation, and it is the meditation that will eventually lead to spiritual freedom. A freedom that is in essence pure wisdom. Allowing the receiver to understand all the Buddhist sutras and sastras,
From MZ. I hope this helps to clarify our position.
My Response. My questions were do you deny the teachings of;
1) karma. 2) Re-birth.
These question have not been directly answered, but I would be most interested in hearing you view in this matter.
Thank you.
|
|
|
liberty
Jan 14, 2009 23:19:31 GMT 1
Post by dougdoug on Jan 14, 2009 23:19:31 GMT 1
Hello This is getting really tricky to understand - if we believe in karma, does this mean that we are to believe in an un-ending chain of causal events from way back when leading to forever and ever? And as for re-birth, what is there apart from the delusion of self that can be reborn? Unless we're talking about the original self, in which case: how can one talk of birth and death? Anyhow, I thought that Gautama escaped all this cycle of reincarnation by simply awakening? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png)
|
|
|
liberty
Jan 14, 2009 23:33:20 GMT 1
Post by dougdoug on Jan 14, 2009 23:33:20 GMT 1
Sorry about that - I've re read the 'diffences between Jainism and Bouddhism' bit again and feel a lot better.
Seems to me that the modern day - european cultural understanding of karma and reincarnation are pretty much based on the Jain way of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Shi Da Dao on Jan 15, 2009 8:31:17 GMT 1
Thank you dougdoug. Jainism is a very beautiful philosophy - and one that existed in the time of the historical Buddha. Buddhist Sutras mention the founder of Jainism - Mahavera. There was a nature programme on the BBC about a year or so ago, that showed a former jain monk walking across Dartmoor - and how he viewed nature and interacted with it. It was truly inspiring.
As regards the above dialogue, from an academic perspective, things are separated clearly into 'this' and 'that'. This is designed to aid understanding, but also causes much arguing. There are differences between Buddhism and Jainism from an intellectual perspective - but if one penetrates the Mind, regardless of method, then one has 'arrived', so-to-speak.
Thank you
|
|