Torn between soto zen and thai forest

[Cittasanto]

I too started off in Zen and still love it, but as it is now it is far removed from the teachings of the Buddha. I could never understand those later mahayana sutras and was disappointed with the state of modern Zen discipline - no Bhikkhu lineage in Japan at all. So I just take the idealised aspects of Zen/Chan from books. Similar with Theravada - it is also far removed from what the Buddha taught, but perhaps closer to it than modern Zen.

Though there is no Bhikkhu lineage in Japan due to some historic events, some priests do live very exemplary lives and there is certainly a Bhikkhu lineage in China and Korea where Chan/Son is very much alive and kicking.

If you go and stay in some of these monasteries or even study with a monastic trained there, perhaps you may change your mind about it being "far removed from the teachings of the Buddha."

And if you throw such a accusation, you should at least as Tilt says "Back it up."

_/|\_

I never knew there wasn't a lineage in Japan! learn something everyday

[Bankei]

I too started off in Zen and still love it, but as it is now it is far removed from the teachings of the Buddha. I could never understand those later mahayana sutras and was disappointed with the state of modern Zen discipline - no Bhikkhu lineage in Japan at all. So I just take the idealised aspects of Zen/Chan from books. Similar with Theravada - it is also far removed from what the Buddha taught, but perhaps closer to it than modern Zen.

Though there is no Bhikkhu lineage in Japan due to some historic events, some priests do live very exemplary lives and there is certainly a Bhikkhu lineage in China and Korea where Chan/Son is very much alive and kicking.

If you go and stay in some of these monasteries or even study with a monastic trained there, perhaps you may change your mind about it being "far removed from the teachings of the Buddha."

And if you throw such a accusation, you should at least as Tilt says "Back it up."

_/|\_

hi Dan

In Japanese Zen there has been a development of ordination of a person after death - Kaimyou. Family members pay an outrageous amount of money to some Zen priests for a little ceremony to ordain their dead relative and give him/her an ordination name. This is one modern practice that is far removed, in my opinion, from the teachings of the Buddha.

Another modern practice (or maybe not so modern) is the passing of the temple down from the father priest to the son. Temples in Japan are usually run by a male priest and his wife. This includes Zen temples.

However, there are a few good training monasteries there, such as Eiheiji one of the head temples of Soto Zen. But most of the monks here are usually sons of a family temple doing a 1 or 2 year stint before going back home to run the temple, get married and earn a large tax free income.

On the doctrinal side there are many teachings which are far removed from the teachings of the Buddha - this doesn't necessarily mean they are not Buddhism. Examples are:
Hongaku Shiso = inherent/original enlightenment thought
Tathagatagarbha (womb of the Buddha) thought
Busshou Buddha nature

All of these theories arose long after the death of the Buddha.

[Dan74]

Hi Bankei,

I too started off in Zen and still love it, but as it is now it is far removed from the teachings of the Buddha. I could never understand those later mahayana sutras and was disappointed with the state of modern Zen discipline - no Bhikkhu lineage in Japan at all. So I just take the idealised aspects of Zen/Chan from books. Similar with Theravada - it is also far removed from what the Buddha taught, but perhaps closer to it than modern Zen.

Though there is no Bhikkhu lineage in Japan due to some historic events, some priests do live very exemplary lives and there is certainly a Bhikkhu lineage in China and Korea where Chan/Son is very much alive and kicking.

If you go and stay in some of these monasteries or even study with a monastic trained there, perhaps you may change your mind about it being "far removed from the teachings of the Buddha."

And if you throw such a accusation, you should at least as Tilt says "Back it up."

_/|\_

hi Dan

In Japanese Zen there has been a development of ordination of a person after death - Kaimyou. Family members pay an outrageous amount of money to some Zen priests for a little ceremony to ordain their dead relative and give him/her an ordination name. This is one modern practice that is far removed, in my opinion, from the teachings of the Buddha.

I haven't heard but I guess this is the sort of dodgy fund-raising that happens in various forms in all Buddhist countries. I recall a Thai variation discussed here some time ago.

One seeks out genuine teachers like always.

Another modern practice (or maybe not so modern) is the passing of the temple down from the father priest to the son. Temples in Japan are usually run by a male priest and his wife. This includes Zen temples.

Yep, this happens from what I've heard. Temples serve communities in various ways and this arrangement seems to work. But again, one seeks out good temples with good teachers.

However, there are a few good training monasteries there, such as Eiheiji one of the head temples of Soto Zen. But most of the monks here are usually sons of a family temple doing a 1 or 2 year stint before going back home to run the temple, get married and earn a large tax free income.

Most but not all. Depends what you are after.

On the doctrinal side there are many teachings which are far removed from the teachings of the Buddha - this doesn't necessarily mean they are not Buddhism. Examples are:
Hongaku Shiso = inherent/original enlightenment thought
Tathagatagarbha (womb of the Buddha) thought
Busshou Buddha nature

All of these theories arose long after the death of the Buddha.

I am no expert, but an exchange with Pannasikkhara led me to believe that this is not the case, ie these are not necessarily new doctrines but interpretations of existing teachings. But I am no scholar.

_/|\_

[catmoon]

If you go to a smorgasbord, are you torn between choices? Or do you simply choose what works for you?

I do not think you are under any obligation to select a single path and follow it dogmatically. There are many well defined paths out there, and while they are somewhat more self-consistent than what you might assemble for yourself, it is entirely possible that rigid adherence will not work for you. Come to think of it, I know of no practioner anywhere who has not selected and adapted his beliefs to some degree.

My view, (and it is only a view, note well) is that the most beneficial way is to build around those texts, teachers, and practices that inspire you. Seek checks and balances. For instance, I can't see why anyone would wholly abandon Zen, because it offers a hard clarity that is almost impervious to delusion. It's a marvellous counter to irrational flights of fancy. OTOH Tibetan Buddhism offers great scope for the imaginative mind and can harness the talents of such a mind for benefit.

[Paññāsikhara]

I too started off in Zen and still love it, but as it is now it is far removed from the teachings of the Buddha. I could never understand those later mahayana sutras and was disappointed with the state of modern Zen discipline - no Bhikkhu lineage in Japan at all. So I just take the idealised aspects of Zen/Chan from books. Similar with Theravada - it is also far removed from what the Buddha taught, but perhaps closer to it than modern Zen.

Though there is no Bhikkhu lineage in Japan due to some historic events, some priests do live very exemplary lives and there is certainly a Bhikkhu lineage in China and Korea where Chan/Son is very much alive and kicking.

If you go and stay in some of these monasteries or even study with a monastic trained there, perhaps you may change your mind about it being "far removed from the teachings of the Buddha."

And if you throw such a accusation, you should at least as Tilt says "Back it up."

_/|\_

Hi Dan

I don't want to split hairs just for the sake of it, but there is still some difference between the Japanese Zen, Korean Son and Chinese Chan, though, and how they are practiced in the West is not always identical, either. Of course, this doesn't mean that there are not great teachers in any tradition, for there are! But I wouldn't be too quick to put Chan and Zen in the same category for a lot of stuff (except some historical connections, obviously).

For example, Bankei also states:

In Japanese Zen there has been a development of ordination of a person after death - Kaimyou. Family members pay an outrageous amount of money to some Zen priests for a little ceremony to ordain their dead relative and give him/her an ordination name. This is one modern practice that is far removed, in my opinion, from the teachings of the Buddha.

As far as I know, this never happens in Chan.

Another modern practice (or maybe not so modern) is the passing of the temple down from the father priest to the son. Temples in Japan are usually run by a male priest and his wife. This includes Zen temples.

This certainly is not the case in China, and may happen only is some Korean traditions, but not all.

However, there are a few good training monasteries there, such as Eiheiji one of the head temples of Soto Zen. But most of the monks here are usually sons of a family temple doing a 1 or 2 year stint before going back home to run the temple, get married and earn a large tax free income.

As above.

On the doctrinal side there are many teachings which are far removed from the teachings of the Buddha - this doesn't necessarily mean they are not Buddhism. Examples are:
Hongaku Shiso = inherent/original enlightenment thought
Tathagatagarbha (womb of the Buddha) thought
Busshou Buddha nature

All of these theories arose long after the death of the Buddha.

These are all originally from Chinese schools, but because most of the Japanese schools have a much heavier dose of Tendai - which is where a lot of these ideas got developed in depth - than China, some of the arguments about "inherent enlightenment" that you'll hear from Soto and Dogen in particular, are just nowhere near as important in China.

Chinese Chan has basically never heard of Dogen, and is not that interested on the whole. And considering most Soto Zen forms in the West - which is what the OP is referring to - rely a lot on Dogen, then obviously this shows a difference. There also seems to be a lot of Theravada influence in Western Zen, at least, and I haven't seen this really happen in Chan.

[Bankei]

Don't get me wrong, I still have a high regard for Zen and Chan - especially the idealised classical version. We just have to be critical of some aspects of it.

There are some great articles out there by some Soto Zen priests from Komazawa University in Tokyo, Hakamaya and Matsumoto - who argue that Zen is not Buddhism (nor is the rest of Japanese Buddhism). There is a book in English called Pruning the Bodhi Tree with some good articles by these and other scholars.

Bankei

[Paññāsikhara]

Don't get me wrong, I still have a high regard for Zen and Chan - especially the idealised classical version. We just have to be critical of some aspects of it.

There are some great articles out there by some Soto Zen priests from Komazawa University in Tokyo, Hakamaya and Matsumoto - who argue that Zen is not Buddhism (nor is the rest of Japanese Buddhism). There is a book in English called Pruning the Bodhi Tree with some good articles by these and other scholars.

Bankei

It is known as the "critical buddhism" movement.

One of the main ideas, is that most of east asian buddhism (not just Zen, or Soto Zen, but very dominant there) follows the idea of "dharmadhatu" causation. This is from the Huayan / Kegon school, with it's ideas of Buddha nature, and Tathagatagarbha. They argue that this is not in accord with the notion of dependent origination, and is more akin to Brahmanic ideas of causality, focused on a self viz brahma. And, wrong ideas about practice, social ethics, and all manner of common Buddhist notions in Japan, follow as a result. They are often focusing on Japan and it's social ills, and how Buddhism merely emphasizes the status quo.

At the high point, they argue that this "is not Buddhism!" It then gets pretty intense, as you could imagine.

Some of the arguments would also apply to (parts of) Chan, and some other forms of Chinese buddhism too. But certainly not all. There are a couple of reasons. For a start, the basic notion of Buddha nature as it is expressed in Japan is stronger than in China, I think. In Japan, it seems to be the basic "explicit / ultimate teaching", whereas in China, many still say that it is just a provisional teaching, and that the ultimate is dependent origination / sunyata / not self, cf. Nagarjuna style.

An example of this can be seen, in that before the Critical Buddhism made it's hit in Japan, in Taiwan, Yinshun wrote a book called "Studies in Tathagatagarbha", and concluded that Tathagatagarbha is Brahmanic influenced, but is still buddhist as an expedient means alone, but not as an ultimate teaching, whereas he always puts dependent origination and emptiness / not self as the core teaching. This is interesting too, in that one of the most well known Chinese buddhist scholars before Yinshun was Taixu, and he put them the other way around, with Tathagatagarbha on top of the doxographical heap. Nowadays, in China, I think that the large majority would agree with Yinshun over Taixu.

This is not just a different conclusion from the Japanese, because it also shows that the Japanese and Chinese ways of understanding Tathagatagarbha, and Buddha nature, etc. are still a bit different.

It also shows that scholars in japan at least are now reconsidering their basic buddhist tenets in the light of both early buddhism (Pali Nikayas and Chinese Agamas) and also other literature such as the Abhidharma, and Tibetan sources of Mahayana (which tend to put Madhyamaka as ultimate over expedient Tathagatagarbha).

[Bankei]

Thanks ven Paññāsikhara. This is a fascinating topic.

We what need now is a critical Buddhism movement in modern Theravada!