Through time Zen evolved from Chinese Ch'an Buddhism into the Rinzai,
Soto, and Sambo Kyodan schools. All claim to guard the original
teaching of the Buddha, much like Theravada and Tibetan Buddhism do.
As far as Zen goes (which differs greatly from Theravada Buddhism, and
shares Mahayana texts with Tibetan Buddhism), what are your feelings
regarding these three schools in the Zen tradition?
Recently I attended a Sesshin with a Japanese Soto Zen Master who was
abbot at the Eihei-ji zen temple (founded by Dogen in the XIII
century), and I found that Soto Zen relies heavily upon Dogen's
teachings. Although the Sesshin was extraordinary, I felt that the
teaching that "goes beyond words and scriptures" still relies upon
them very heavily.
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Zazen Ivan <iariz...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Through time Zen evolved from Chinese Ch'an Buddhism into the Rinzai, > Soto, and Sambo Kyodan schools. All claim to guard the original > teaching of the Buddha, much like Theravada and Tibetan Buddhism do. > As far as Zen goes (which differs greatly from Theravada Buddhism, and > shares Mahayana texts with Tibetan Buddhism), what are your feelings > regarding these three schools in the Zen tradition?
Hi Ivan!
Dogen was asked why there were different schools of buddhism. His answer was, that the different names of the various schools was just for the convenience of outsiders. To the Buddhist practitioner, there is only the Dharma.
Because buddhism is natural, it reacts to its environment. This, along with reacting to the needs of the people in their places, different flavors of Buddhism evolved.
> Recently I attended a Sesshin with a Japanese Soto Zen Master who was > abbot at the Eihei-ji zen temple (founded by Dogen in the XIII > century), and I found that Soto Zen relies heavily upon Dogen's > teachings. Although the Sesshin was extraordinary, I felt that the > teaching that "goes beyond words and scriptures" still relies upon > them very heavily.
Soto is not anti-intellectual. We use the scriptures but understand the need to know the scriptures "beyond words and scriptures." That is why in Buddhism, there is no dogma, no creed and no friction between the various schools.
"With Humans it's what's here (he points to his heart) that makes the difference. If you don't have it in the heart, nothing you make will make a difference." ~~Bernard Leach~~ (As told to Dean Schwarz)
I agree with you. I feel the same way towards Zen. What left me
somewhat bewildered from that sesshin is that at one point, one of the
attendants asked the Zen Master about his opinion on Gudo Nishijima's
book "To Meet the Real Dragon." which most of us enjoyed, and his
answer was "Oh yes! I know him! He's very intellectual!" He pointed
it out as if the intellect tainted the teaching. Besides, you know
how the Funkanzazengi goes about "You should therefore cease from
practice based on intellectual understanding, pursuing words and
following after speech, and learn the backward step that turns your
light inwardly to illuminate your self. Body and mind of themselves
will drop away, and your original face will be manifest. If you want
to attain suchness, you should practice suchness without delay." So
it has always appeared to me as if Soto Zen tended to be anti-
intellect.
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Zazen Ivan <iariz...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> > Through time Zen evolved from Chinese Ch'an Buddhism into the Rinzai,
> > Soto, and Sambo Kyodan schools. All claim to guard the original
> > teaching of the Buddha, much like Theravada and Tibetan Buddhism do.
> > As far as Zen goes (which differs greatly from Theravada Buddhism, and
> > shares Mahayana texts with Tibetan Buddhism), what are your feelings
> > regarding these three schools in the Zen tradition?
> Hi Ivan!
> Dogen was asked why there were different schools of
> buddhism. His answer was, that the different names of the various
> schools was just for the convenience of outsiders. To the Buddhist
> practitioner, there is only the Dharma.
> Because buddhism is natural, it reacts to its environment.
> This, along with reacting to the needs of the people in their
> places, different flavors of Buddhism evolved.
> > Recently I attended a Sesshin with a Japanese Soto Zen Master who was
> > abbot at the Eihei-ji zen temple (founded by Dogen in the XIII
> > century), and I found that Soto Zen relies heavily upon Dogen's
> > teachings. Although the Sesshin was extraordinary, I felt that the
> > teaching that "goes beyond words and scriptures" still relies upon
> > them very heavily.
> Soto is not anti-intellectual. We use the scriptures but
> understand the need to know the scriptures "beyond words and
> scriptures." That is why in Buddhism, there is no dogma, no creed
> and no friction between the various schools.
> "With Humans it's what's here (he points to his heart) that makes the
> difference. If you don't have it in the heart, nothing you make will
> make a difference." ~~Bernard Leach~~ (As told to Dean Schwarz)
Dogen is sometimes called "The Socrates of Japan." He wrote many books and composed poetry. What is encouraged is to not be totally dependent upon the intellect.
"With Humans it's what's here (he points to his heart) that makes the difference. If you don't have it in the heart, nothing you make will make a difference." ~~Bernard Leach~~ (As told to Dean Schwarz)
On May 7, 9:10 am, Zazen Ivan <iariz...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Through time Zen evolved from Chinese Ch'an Buddhism into the Rinzai,
> Soto, and Sambo Kyodan schools. All claim to guard the original
> teaching of the Buddha, much like Theravada and Tibetan Buddhism do.
> As far as Zen goes (which differs greatly from Theravada Buddhism, and
> shares Mahayana texts with Tibetan Buddhism), what are your feelings
> regarding these three schools in the Zen tradition?
> Recently I attended a Sesshin with a Japanese Soto Zen Master who was
> abbot at the Eihei-ji zen temple (founded by Dogen in the XIII
> century), and I found that Soto Zen relies heavily upon Dogen's
> teachings. Although the Sesshin was extraordinary, I felt that the
> teaching that "goes beyond words and scriptures" still relies upon
> them very heavily.
> I would truly appreciate your insight.
I personally view the different schools of Buddhism, along with their
respective sub-school as forms of 'upaya', or 'skillful means'. I
essentially think there is only one Waking Up, one 'Ultimate Reality',
and many different ways to go about stripping away whatever is
preventing you from experiencing it. Some ways suit some people, other
ways suit other people. The variation within Buddhism then become a
'different strokes for different folks' type of deal, however,
underlying all semantic and practical differences, the Dharma remains
the same, and at the end of the day, all semantic maps fall away in
the face of experiencing non-verbal non-dual realization.
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Julian <aspaciousm...@gmail.com> wrote: > 'different strokes for different folks' type of deal, however, > underlying all semantic and practical differences, the Dharma remains > the same, and at the end of the day, all semantic maps fall away in > the face of experiencing non-verbal non-dual realization.
Hi Julian,
Welcome aboard~! Dogen Zenji was asked why there were different schools of Buddhism with different names and Dogen answered that it was for the convenience of outsiders. To the Dharma practitioner, there is only the Dharma.
-- Lee Love in Minneapolis http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/ "We are such stuff / As dreams are made on, and our little life / Is rounded with a sleep."
|
