Yes, and maybe we should, if the wheel in question must by necessity exist (at least in part) from the substance of people's own discernment and perception.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
other religionists quote their scriptures well,what about us?
- Thread starter sampuna
- Start date
Writing scripture is far more religiously useful than quoting them, though.
Even and perhaps most of all if one ends up discarding them immediately after.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
How do we refer back to the scriptures without interpreting them?
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
If we develop a good knowledge of the suttas and the practices they describe, then I think we can interpret them in a meaningful way. At very least we can develop an understanding of the different interpretations contemporary teachers have, and why they disagree on particular points. That should help us to identify an approach that works for us personally. The alternative is to have complete faith in one teacher's approach and always stick to it, but not everyone can do that.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
A complicating factor is the sheer abundance of wheels which already exist.
Zen terminology, for sure. What traditions have a different approach and how is it different?
Indeed. That, however, is as much an opportunity as it is a complication.
sampuna
Member
to sidetrack a little, here's a good read on the subject of authenticity http://dhammaloka.org.au/files/pdf/authenticity.pdf .
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Most Buddhist schools place a high value on the study of suttas and sutras, Zen is an exception ( at least in the popular conception ).
Last edited by a moderator:
Are there other exceptions? Are those exceptions popular conceptions, too? Also, if the exception exists within popular conception, then isn't it possible that the exception is non existant?
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Yes, it's certainly possible.
That's cool.
Again, are there other exceptions? What other traditions downplay sutra study?
Vishvavajra
Active Member
Our Chan center had a Lotus Sutra study group just last year. The idea that our school doesn't value scriptural study is simply false. It's "pop Zen," which bears little resemblance to the authentic practices of the Chan lineage. Unfortunately, "pop Zen" is a big money maker in the paperback market, since it tells people what they want to hear (such as that they don't actually have to study Buddhadharma or practice hard in order to "be Zen").
Of course, from the perspective of the Theravada school, all other schools appear to have a lackadaisical and dismissive attitude towards scripture, whereas to everyone else's perspective the Theravada are ultra-conservative, often to the point of fundamentalism. I'd say that's where the major cultural difference lies in how Buddhist schools approach the question.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
Incidentally, here's something Guo Gu, a student of Chan Master Sheng Yen, had to say about that:
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I've been to many Zen meditation groups but not what I'd consider authentic Zen more meditation focus. What would be the characteristics of "pop Zen"?
I know the Zen I used to practice they do study; and, the purpose is not to cling to the study but use them as backbones to the practice of non attachment by siting (which is our true nature in itself) usually in front of a blank white wall letting thoughts come in and out without labeling them.
I know the Zen I used to practice they do study; and, the purpose is not to cling to the study but use them as backbones to the practice of non attachment by siting (which is our true nature in itself) usually in front of a blank white wall letting thoughts come in and out without labeling them.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
What I call "pop Zen" isn't attached to any particular monastic lineage but was very common in books about Zen, especially those published in the mid-to-late 20th century. It's presented as strictly a counter-culture phenomenon, antinomian and iconoclastic in the extreme, even to the point of rejecting the "Buddhist" label and being sold as its own thing. It takes various corrective, reformist messages out of context and presents them as if they were absolutes. So it seems to reject tradition, structure, authority, morality, ritual, scripture, precepts, and even its own context. And that sells pretty well among Americans who fancy themselves counter-culture, since not only does it seem to give them a quasi-religious authorization for whatever contrariness they have in mind (including just sounding ineffable a lot of the time without actually saying anything), but it also conveniently doesn't ask anything of them. If you don't need scriptures, why study them? If doctrines aren't important, why learn them? If morality is just more false rules, why not do what you want? If everything is mu, why find out more about the traditional context of any of this stuff? After all, Zen is self-contained and self-explanatory and equally transparent to everyone, right?
Well, no. True, all people are inherently capable of achieving the goal of Chan, which is to cut through delusion to see one's true nature. But it's not that easy. Chan has developed over the past millennium-plus into such a comprehensive set of teachings and practices precisely because it's not that easy. And in the process it's also been the guardian of Mahayana orthodoxy in China. It's got what might be the largest canon of scriptures in the world, with extensive commentaries on them. In China at least, it's very big on the keeping of precepts (unfortunately no longer true in Japan, for historical reasons). In Chinese Buddhism Chan is not pushing against the mainstream; it is the mainstream. Of all the schools of Chinese Buddhism that rose and fell over the centuries, it's the one that survived intact. All those warnings that pop Zen throws out as if they were the entire message, are actually meant to guard against excessive conservatism in a tradition that might otherwise be prone to it, and also to keep people from focusing on the trees and missing the forest. But you can't see the forest at all if you don't have any trees to look at, can you?
As for authentic Chan/Zen practice, it does have a strong focus on meditation. That's its inheritance from the very earliest days of Buddhism. Even laymen are expected to meditate, which is not the case in all Buddhist schools. Sitting meditation is our group's primary activity, though it's not meant to be practiced in isolation from the other Paramitas. We've inherited the Caodong (Soto) practice of facing a wall, as you say, although the recommended methods probably differ. Our lineage is big on awareness of physical sensations, such as breath, instead of awareness of mind, although you could say they are both orthodox practices of the same basic type (the mind's ability to be aware of its contents was categorized as the sixth sense in ancient India, on top of the five physical ones). In the end, authentic Chan/Zen is about practice, recognizing that scriptural study is also a kind of practice. What it's not about is standing around being ineffable and pretending that there isn't any work to do, which is unfortunately the view that many Americans have.
Well, no. True, all people are inherently capable of achieving the goal of Chan, which is to cut through delusion to see one's true nature. But it's not that easy. Chan has developed over the past millennium-plus into such a comprehensive set of teachings and practices precisely because it's not that easy. And in the process it's also been the guardian of Mahayana orthodoxy in China. It's got what might be the largest canon of scriptures in the world, with extensive commentaries on them. In China at least, it's very big on the keeping of precepts (unfortunately no longer true in Japan, for historical reasons). In Chinese Buddhism Chan is not pushing against the mainstream; it is the mainstream. Of all the schools of Chinese Buddhism that rose and fell over the centuries, it's the one that survived intact. All those warnings that pop Zen throws out as if they were the entire message, are actually meant to guard against excessive conservatism in a tradition that might otherwise be prone to it, and also to keep people from focusing on the trees and missing the forest. But you can't see the forest at all if you don't have any trees to look at, can you?
As for authentic Chan/Zen practice, it does have a strong focus on meditation. That's its inheritance from the very earliest days of Buddhism. Even laymen are expected to meditate, which is not the case in all Buddhist schools. Sitting meditation is our group's primary activity, though it's not meant to be practiced in isolation from the other Paramitas. We've inherited the Caodong (Soto) practice of facing a wall, as you say, although the recommended methods probably differ. Our lineage is big on awareness of physical sensations, such as breath, instead of awareness of mind, although you could say they are both orthodox practices of the same basic type (the mind's ability to be aware of its contents was categorized as the sixth sense in ancient India, on top of the five physical ones). In the end, authentic Chan/Zen is about practice, recognizing that scriptural study is also a kind of practice. What it's not about is standing around being ineffable and pretending that there isn't any work to do, which is unfortunately the view that many Americans have.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Except that Theravada is comprised of various sub-schools, some of which place greater emphasis than others on the suttas. Thai Forest for example tends to place greater emphasis on what contemporary teachers say.
Yeah, Theravada is not monolithic. For instance, traditionally Theravada places great emphasis on the Abhidhamma and the commentarial tradition; however, there are teachers such as Buddhadasa who have minimized the importance of these texts. You also find subtle and not so subtle differences between Thai, Sri Lankan, and Burmese schools. None of the differences negate their commonality, but they are there. (One of the biggest differences is seeing how each community approaches the Abhidhamma. Another is whether the emphasis is on scholar monks who have mastered the textual corpus or solitary monks who have made great achievements in meditation. Both types of monks will be celebrated in every tradition, it is just a matter of emphasis.)
Musty
Active Member
I've found that quotes are often misused by those whose who use them to argue from a position of authority rather than to provide depth or insight into their position. A typical example is a person who quotes the Koran or Bible to back up their views because they believe that the religious texts are the word of God and therefore are automatically correct and supersede all other opinions.
I don't see any reason why a person shouldn't quote a particularly pertinent section of a sutta if it helps convey a concept or idea to another. There are times when someone has already explained something extremely well and it would be silly not to quote them when the opportunity arises.
I don't see any reason why a person shouldn't quote a particularly pertinent section of a sutta if it helps convey a concept or idea to another. There are times when someone has already explained something extremely well and it would be silly not to quote them when the opportunity arises.