You mean being closed-moth about lineage and teacher? Well, there's a first time for everything. Ever taken part in discussions about Choygyam Trungpa? Clueless haters come out of the woodwork, saying clueless hater crap like they were all that and a bag of chips. Ever wonder why you never see Shambalians online?
Never heard of the guy. His Wikipedia page gives some indication of what people might say about him. Our teacher has alluded to other teachers' behaving in an inappropriate manner, such as having sex with students, though he never mentioned names. I suspect he was thinking of Seung Sahn, who is controvsersial for similar reasons, though not including allegations of drug use.
But of course in the Chan tradition the precepts are seen as models of how enlightened people naturally behave, not as things that enlightened people cast aside and ignore. Probably has a lot to do with the Caodong idea that enlightenment is manifest in practice, and that there's no point at which one stops practicing. Consequently, Chan practitioners are very suspicious of those who claim they've progressed beyond the need for things like precepts.
I've nocticed that. The first sangha I was in regular contact was was Chinese and they were big on taking Precept Vows. I moved on from there, looking into mainy Tibetan and Zen sanghas and Precepts weren't such a big deal.
The tradition I'm talking about
is Zen, or rather the tradition that Japanese Zen grew out of. The lack of emphasis on precepts in Japanese Buddhism has less to do with sectarian differences and more to do with the persecution of the religion by the Meiji state in the 19th century, during which monks were forced to break the precepts and return to lay life on pain of death. That led to lasting changes in the Japanese traditions.
I've been in discussions online where some will cast doubt and aspersions on someone's refuge for not keeping the precepts. I don't buy it. Not for one second. If someone feels the need to make such a commitment, I applaud it, but let us not be so naive as to think that is the way it should be or is for everyone.
Cast aspersions on one's refuge? No, that wouldn't be right. Taking refuge is a statement of intent. Failing to live up to that intent doesn't make the intent itself insincere. On the other hand, I would certainly cast doubt on someone's qualifications as a Dharma teacher, guru, or enlightened master if their behavior falls short.
Ultimately, as much as Buddhist morality isn't a list of rules, it's also not completely relativistic: the basic four precepts refer to things that are held to be wrong by nature, in the sense that they invariably have negative consequences even at the best of times. There's nobody for whom killing, stealing, lying, and sexual immorality are good things, even though there may be times when they are the least bad option. The taking of intoxicants isn't considered wrong by nature, as it isn't
invariably negative. It's simply discouraged as a way of guarding good practice and avoiding the things that
are wrong by nature. When we took the refuge ceremony, we were told that the Fifth Precept vow was optional (on the logic that many people drink socially), but we were encouraged to take it in any case, as failing to follow precepts is still considered better than never taking them at all. From what I could tell, most people did.
