Recommend any newsgroups on Chinese culture?
Further
considering questions about, or exchanging information on,
Chinese culture? I mean something where the exchanges are civil
and serious -- not a flame-fest type of newsgroup.
Thanks. (Flamers or trolls need not respond.)
Further
Guru Google
Try alt.culture.china. If you think the rules too tight, you can come
back here: http://groups.google.com/groups?as_ugroup=alt.culture.china
As for forums, wanna try people daily forums or BBS?
> Further
Klm
wrote:
If you have visited other newsgroups this one is as good as it gets.
Your desire for civil and serious discussion can be met by starting
discussions yourself or engage in the discussions of others by
maintaining the quality and civility on the subject. Ignore obvious
trolls and provocateurs, gg and gf included.
Guru Google
Hi Further,
I wanna recommend KLM posts. KLM likes to share URLs from English
people daily so you gonna know how great Chinese communist party has
done, how good China DVD perform, how good china CPU do computations,
how great china redflag linux is, anything CCP wanna you know .....
So if you wanna know SARS or bird flu in China, look other place.
What do you wanna know about Chinese culture? Food, embroilder, or
caligraphy?
BTW, people daily forum is also moderated. The moderation rule
differ. You can also try there, Further, bug you gotta read Chinese.
P.S. I don't wanna tell ya who is troll and who provokes like KLM
here, cuz that's exactly the stuff you don't wanna see , Further --
"(Flamers or trolls need not respond)' :)
Further
wrote:
>Klm <klm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<m78g30p86li28num7...@4ax.com>...
>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:10:27 -0800, Further <furth...@hotmail.com>
>
>Hi Further,
<snip>
>
>What do you wanna know about Chinese culture? Food, embroilder, or
>caligraphy?
>
I tried starting a thread a couple of times. I am not, in this
case, so much interested in the Chinese history of the last 70
years, per se. I wanted to ask about the legendary Chinese
propensity for practicality, and willingness to *work* .
In the history of Buddhism, this work orientation said to have
resulted in the early Chinese Ch'an Buddhist shift from the
Indian mendicant ("holy beggar") style of life to that of the
more self-reliant training-community life that became
characteristic of Ch'an (which they pronounce " Zen." in Japan).
I've read some references (in writings by D.T. Suzuki, Hu Shih,
Snyder, Watts, and others) to how the lifestyle changed, and so
and the philosophy of life developed from that. But I want to
learn more about this history.
I believe you know what I mean: what developed was the lifestyle
in which monks learned and practiced gardening, carpentry,
architecture, administration, groundskeeping, cooking, medicine.
I came to this n.g. wondering if any authors have specifically
treated this aspect of Ch'an history? Published an in-depth study
in English of the history of this "work" side of Zen in China,
Korea, and Japan? If so, can you provide the names of authors
and books (or other publications)? That's it. Thanks.
Further
LT Lee
> On 22 Feb 2004 00:13:33 -0800, goor...@yahoo.com (Guru Google)
> wrote:
>
> >Klm <klm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<m78g30p86li28num7...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:10:27 -0800, Further <furth...@hotmail.com>
> >
> >Hi Further,
> <snip>
> >
> >What do you wanna know about Chinese culture? Food, embroilder, or
> >caligraphy?
> >
> I tried starting a thread a couple of times. I am not, in this
> case, so much interested in the Chinese history of the last 70
> years, per se. I wanted to ask about the legendary Chinese
> propensity for practicality, and willingness to *work* .
>
> In the history of Buddhism, this work orientation said to have
> resulted in the early Chinese Ch'an Buddhist shift from the
> Indian mendicant ("holy beggar") style of life to that of the
> more self-reliant training-community life that became
> characteristic of Ch'an (which they pronounce " Zen." in Japan).
Don't know about the influence of work orientation.
Basically, Chinese are pragmatic people. To most of them life is real.
This is fundamentally different from Buddhism's basic premises that
life is empty, something not real. Ch'an Buddhism in China also
reflects the influence of Daoism.
Guru Google
> wrote:
>
> >Klm <klm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<m78g30p86li28num7...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:10:27 -0800, Further <furth...@hotmail.com>
> >
> >Hi Further,
> <snip>
> >
> >What do you wanna know about Chinese culture? Food, embroilder, or
> >caligraphy?
> >
> I tried starting a thread a couple of times. I am not, in this
> case, so much interested in the Chinese history of the last 70
> years, per se. I wanted to ask about the legendary Chinese
> propensity for practicality, and willingness to *work* .
Well, outside the 70 years, and even for today China for those outside
big cities, Chinese are, ya konw, hard working and industrious. They
are not "willing" to work -- they know they gotta to work.
I know you wanna start such thread ..... but I'm no expert and I cant
help you much, so I was silent.
> In the history of Buddhism, this work orientation said to have
> resulted in the early Chinese Ch'an Buddhist shift from the
> Indian mendicant ("holy beggar") style of life to that of the
> more self-reliant training-community life that became
> characteristic of Ch'an (which they pronounce " Zen." in Japan).
>
> I've read some references (in writings by D.T. Suzuki, Hu Shih,
> Snyder, Watts, and others) to how the lifestyle changed, and so
> and the philosophy of life developed from that. But I want to
> learn more about this history.
>
> I believe you know what I mean: what developed was the lifestyle
> in which monks learned and practiced gardening, carpentry,
> architecture, administration, groundskeeping, cooking, medicine.
I'm not so sure -- in Chinese culture, monks -- only do buddhism
thinking. Monks don't do gardening, carpentry, cooking, and so on.
Monks in Shaolin temple practice martial arts, but that was just a
branch of their daily life, and it is not consider the main purpose of
their belng in Shaolin.
Japanese monks sound more like your description. They do gardening,
they serve parole officers for criminals. They even get married.
> I came to this n.g. wondering if any authors have specifically
> treated this aspect of Ch'an history? Published an in-depth study
> in English of the history of this "work" side of Zen in China,
> Korea, and Japan? If so, can you provide the names of authors
> and books (or other publications)? That's it. Thanks.
That's really not an easy question. You had the same thing in
soc.religion.eastern and got no answer, and you gotta several other
newsgroups. I think if Usenet don't give you the stuff you need, you
might wanna try some online chatrooms.
But your topic is really ont easy for ordinary people.
Klm
wrote:
>>
>I tried starting a thread a couple of times. I am not, in this
>case, so much interested in the Chinese history of the last 70
>years, per se. I wanted to ask about the legendary Chinese
>propensity for practicality, and willingness to *work* .
An adequate response will take many pages to expound, because without
a historical examination of the underlying causes and events, no
conclusion can make sense to someone not Chinese. So don't be
surprised if the response to your question is scant.
Yet the conclusion can be made in one short paragraph. Religion plays
a very marginal role in the lives of ordinary Chinese. China's
mainstream religions, Buddhism, Taoism and ancestor worship, is one
of ritual, retreat and meditation on a personal level, not an
inspiration or for action. There is no link between Buddhism and the
legendary Chinese propensity for practically, and willingness to
*work.* The means for life had always been marginal throughout
China's history up to now. If you don't work you don't eat. There is
no leisure class any more than there is a priestly class.
As a long reply won't be forthcoming a good alternative will be for
you to ask specific questions and we can respond by agreeing with your
assumptions and interpretations or else modify or rebut them.
Without intending to and without realising it in just the few words
you have written above you have encapsulated the issues that really
concern modern Chinese.
We are interested in the history of the last 70 years because the
memory of that epic struggle and the near dissolution of China is
still fresh in our minds. There are still alive elders who had lived
through those times. It is only over the last twenty years that we
have moved ahead from those times to reassert China's place as a
leading civilization and a modern one. Chinese today are interested
in getting the means to get ahead in the modern world.
Recorded Chinese history goes back 3000 years but you will find that
most Chinese don't have a good grasp of the timeline although we quote
freely from history. Most will for example quote from Confucius (born
551 BC) as if he was someone who lived only a few hundred years ago.
The Master would be just as readily and confusingly juxtaposed with
events that happened more than a thousand years after his death.
>
>In the history of Buddhism, this work orientation said to have
>resulted in the early Chinese Ch'an Buddhist shift from the
>Indian mendicant ("holy beggar") style of life to that of the
>more self-reliant training-community life that became
>characteristic of Ch'an (which they pronounce " Zen." in Japan).
>
>I've read some references (in writings by D.T. Suzuki, Hu Shih,
>Snyder, Watts, and others) to how the lifestyle changed, and so
>and the philosophy of life developed from that. But I want to
>learn more about this history.
>
>I believe you know what I mean: what developed was the lifestyle
>in which monks learned and practiced gardening, carpentry,
>architecture, administration, groundskeeping, cooking, medicine.
>
>I came to this n.g. wondering if any authors have specifically
>treated this aspect of Ch'an history? Published an in-depth study
>in English of the history of this "work" side of Zen in China,
>Korea, and Japan? If so, can you provide the names of authors
>and books (or other publications)? That's it. Thanks.
>
I do believe I have read a good number of books on China over the
years. I haven't come across any that wrote about or supports your
thesis that Ch'an Buddhism as having influenced mainstream Chinese
affairs at the national or cultural level to any great extent. When
Buddhism at its height and relatively new, Tang (circa 630-755 AD)
central Asiatic modes of dress, games and music were adopted.
Buddhism influenced Chinese art to a freer form of representation of
the human body, etc. Some highlights from a chronology of China
include 1. 490AD. Buddhist caves begun in Yungang and Louyang, 2.
496 AD. Shaolin monastery founded-later becomes a major centre of Chan
(Zen) Buddhism. 3. 629 AD. Xuanzang (Tripitaka) a Buddhist monk
travels to India. 4. 684-705 AD. Empress Wu, an autocrat ruler and
patron of Buddhist on the throne. Buddhism lost its imperial
patronage with her death.
Back to my earlier statement. Ask specific questions that require
only a few words to answer, like yes or no, and you will probably get
more useful responses.
Further
wrote:
>> >Hi Further,
>> >
>> >What do you wanna know about Chinese culture? Food, embroilder, or
>> >caligraphy?
>> >
>> I tried starting a thread a couple of times. I am not, in this
>> case, so much interested in the Chinese history of the last 70
>> years, per se. I wanted to ask about the legendary Chinese
>> propensity for practicality, and willingness to *work* .
>
>Well, outside the 70 years, and even for today China for those outside
>big cities, Chinese are, ya konw, hard working and industrious. They
>are not "willing" to work -- they know they gotta to work.
>
Yeah, and the same thing was true for the Ch'an monasteries.
Ch'an couldn't grow much in China when the monks were beggars,
because the Chinese in general didn't like beggars.... figured
they were a drag on society.
>I know you wanna start such thread ..... but I'm no expert and I cant
>help you much, so I was silent.
>
I respect that. And also your willingness to try to be helpful.
>>
>> I believe you know what I mean: what developed was the lifestyle
>> in which monks learned and practiced gardening, carpentry,
>> architecture, administration, groundskeeping, cooking, medicine.
>
>I'm not so sure -- in Chinese culture, monks -- only do buddhism
>thinking. Monks don't do gardening, carpentry, cooking, and so on.
>Monks in Shaolin temple practice martial arts, but that was just a
>branch of their daily life, and it is not consider the main purpose of
>their belng in Shaolin.
>
>Japanese monks sound more like your description. They do gardening,
>they serve parole officers for criminals. They even get married.
>
It started in China in the 8th century C.E. That much I know.
It's based on "P'ai Chang's law" which literally translated says
"one day no work, one day no eat". P'ai Chang is credited in the
Ch'an/Zen traditions with having created the possibilities of
larger-scale community.
The monks took responsibility for themselves and hence gained the
respect of the populace.
>
>That's really not an easy question. You had the same thing in
>soc.religion.eastern and got no answer, and you gotta several other
>newsgroups. I think if Usenet don't give you the stuff you need, you
>might wanna try some online chatrooms.
>
>But your topic is really ont easy for ordinary people.
Gee, we're each and all ordinary. I'm not disappointed, at least
people here were willing to chat about it. Over on the alt.zen
board, they seem to have all kinds of stuff to yak about, but
they don't seem to know the traditions of Zen (Ch'an).... most of
them may never have spent time in a Zen training hall. Maybe
their Zen comes out of books and drugs <g>
Further
Further
<snip>
>
>Yet the conclusion can be made in one short paragraph. Religion plays
>a very marginal role in the lives of ordinary Chinese. China's
>mainstream religions, Buddhism, Taoism and ancestor worship, is one
>of ritual, retreat and meditation on a personal level, not an
>inspiration or for action. There is no link between Buddhism and the
>legendary Chinese propensity for practically, and willingness to
>*work.* The means for life had always been marginal throughout
>China's history up to now. If you don't work you don't eat. There is
>no leisure class any more than there is a priestly class.
>
Thank you for the reply. Clearly, you are a thinking individual
with a knowledge base to draw upon.
As I replied to Guru Google, as I understand it Ch'an couldn't
grow much in China when the monks were beggars, because the
Chinese in general didn't like beggars. They thought beggars,
even "holy beggars," were a drag on society.
According to people like D.T. Suzuki and Gary Snyder, the shift
from the Indian orientation to the Chinese orientation was based
on "P'ai Chang's law" which literally translated says "one day no
work, one day no eat". P'ai Chang (lived in the 8th century) is
credited in the Ch'an/Zen traditions with having created the
possibilities of larger-scale community.
This was the community of monks who were rice farmers, bamboo
cutters, folk physicians, architects, carpenters, and
administrators. According to Dumoulin and Suzuki, when the monks
took responsibility for themselves they gained the respect of the
Chinese populace and drew peopl to them.
>>
>I do believe I have read a good number of books on China over the
>years. I haven't come across any that wrote about or supports your
>thesis that Ch'an Buddhism as having influenced mainstream Chinese
>affairs at the national or cultural level to any great extent.
I believe Suzuki feels that Ch'an (Zen) influenced the
development of Japanese society a great deal.... but this is
probably because Ch'an came into Japanese society along with a
lot of other Chinese culture and technology.
>
>Back to my earlier statement. Ask specific questions that require
>only a few words to answer, like yes or no, and you will probably get
>more useful responses.
Thank you. I appreciate it. You are very generous.
Further
Further
KLM,
You've provided the only really informed response to my question
about Ch'an monastery life and Chines culture. I'd like to
converse a little more, please.
<snip>
>
>Yet the conclusion can be made in one short paragraph. Religion plays
>a very marginal role in the lives of ordinary Chinese. China's
>mainstream religions, Buddhism, Taoism and ancestor worship, is one
>of ritual, retreat and meditation on a personal level, not an
>inspiration or for action. There is no link between Buddhism and the
>legendary Chinese propensity for practically, and willingness to
>*work.*
I did not believe Ch'an influenced the life of the Cinese people
in general. Rather, I looked at it the other way around. The
Chinese work ethic, practicality, and attitudes made the Ch'an
tradition what it has been.
>The means for life had always been marginal throughout
>China's history up to now. If you don't work you don't eat. There is
>no leisure class any more than there is a priestly class.
>
Yes, as I understand it Ch'an couldn't grow much in China when
the monks were beggars (until the 8th century) --, because the
Chinese in general didn't like beggars. They felt beggars, even
"holy beggars," were not contributing to society's needs.
According to people like D.T. Suzuki and Gary Snyder, the shift
from the Indian orientation to the Chinese orientation was based
on "P'ai Chang's law" which literally translated into English
says "one day no work, one day no eat". This is the same as your
stetement that without working, individuals in China did not eat.
P'ai Chang (lived in the 8th century) is credited in the
Ch'an/Zen traditions with having created the possibilities of
larger-scale community associated with the retreat places and
temples. There grew the communities of monks who were rice
farmers, bamboo cutters, folk physicians, architects, carpenters,
and administrators. According to Dumoulin and Suzuki, when the
monks took responsibility for themselves they gained the respect
of the Chinese populace and drew people to them.
>>
>I do believe I have read a good number of books on China over the
>years. I haven't come across any that wrote about or supports your
>thesis that Ch'an Buddhism as having influenced mainstream Chinese
>affairs at the national or cultural level to any great extent.
It seems that when Ch'an was brought into Japanese society, along
with a lot of other Chinese culture and technology (crafts,
architecture, music, medicine), it influenced Japan's life a
great deal.
I appreciate your perspective and your generosity with your
knowledge. I just wanted to explain which direction I think the
influence went in (which apparently was mainly from the Chinese
way of life and social structure and *on* Buddhist monasticism).
Further
Klm
wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:18:53 GMT, Klm <klm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>KLM,
>
>You've provided the only really informed response to my question
>about Ch'an monastery life and Chines culture. I'd like to
>converse a little more, please.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gee, we're each and all ordinary. I'm not disappointed, at least
>people here were willing to chat about it. Over on the alt.zen
>board, they seem to have all kinds of stuff to yak about, but
>they don't seem to know the traditions of Zen (Ch'an).... most of
>them may never have spent time in a Zen training hall. Maybe
>their Zen comes out of books and drugs <g>
Oh man. You really made my day with the above comment. You wouldn't
believe the number of people who wade into any discussion without an
idea of the most basic tenets of the subject.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I must confess that I have no interest in religion as having any
influence in my everyday affairs although I do have an interest in
asmuch as that's what a lot of people belive in and think accordingly.
Anyway since you have singled me out to say more about Ch'an Buddhism
the least I can do is look up some of the books I have and go from
there. The best references to start with are Encyclopedia Brittanica
and that old standby "The Story of Civilization" by Will Durant. Mr.
Durant's first volume with its section on China should be essential
reading to get a broad sweep of Chinese civilization. His
observations and comments on Chinese life, philosophy, the arts, the
politics and so on, woven on the fabric of its history will provide a
good foundation on which to get an understanding from other authors on
China. Durant's writing is valuable in that he writes of each
civilization and each era in the context of other world civilizations,
a board picture rarely treated in other books. For your questions,
the civilization of Japan and the role of Buddhism in Japan is also
well treated later in the same volume. Durant China is an easy read of
just 188 pages (635 to 823) and it ends with the Japanese occupation
of Shanghai in 1938. They were before the events of the Communist
Revolution and modern China. Durant's world was the old China and all
that implied.
We shall jump to page 783 and find
"Chinese society was built not on science but on a strange and unique
mixture of religion, morals and philosophy. History has known no
people more superstitious, and none more skeptical; no people more
devoted to piety, and non more rationalistic and secular; no nation so
free from clerical domination, and none but the Hindus so blessed and
so cursed with gods. How shall we explain these contradictions,
except by ascribing to the philosophers of China a degree of influence
unparalleled in history at the same time recognizing in the poverty of
China an inexhaustible fountain of hopeful fantasy.
"...…..Out of these beginnings grew the two elements of the orthodox
religions of China: the nation-wide worship of ancestors, and the
Confucian worship of ancestors and great men........."
Klm: Now the important paragraphs on pages 786 and 787 that neatly
encapsulate the rise and fall of Buddhism in China.
"For a thousand years the Taoist faith had millions of adherents,
converted many emperors, and fought long battles of intrigue to wrest
from the Confucians the divine right to tax and spend. In the end it
was broken down not by the logic of Confucious, but by the coming of a
new religion even better suited than itself to console and inspire the
common man. For the Buddhism that began its migration from India to
China in the first century after Christ was not the hard and gloomy
doctrine that the Enlightened One had preached five hundred years
before;....................
..
"When after the fall of the Han, China found itself torn with
political chaos, turned to Buddhism as the Roman world was at the same
time turning to Christianity. Taoism opened its arms to take in the
new faith, and in time became inextricably mingled with it the Chinese
soul. Emperors persecuted Buddhism, philosophers complained of its
superstitions, statesmen were concerned over the fact that some of the
best blood of China was being sterilized in monasteries; but in the
end the government found again that religion is stronger than the
state; the emperors made treaties of peace with the new gods; the
Buddhist priests were allowed to collect alms and raise temples, and
the bureaucracy of officials and scholars were perforce content to
keep Confucianism as its own aristocratic creed.............
"Then, it, too, like Taoism fell into decay; its clergy became
corrupt, its doctrine was permeated more and more by sinister deities
and popular superstitions, and its political power, never strong, was
practically destroyed by the renaissance of Confucianism under Chu
His. Today its temples are neglected, its resources are exhausted,
and its only devotees are its impoverished priests.
"Nevertheless it has sunk into the national soul, and is still part of
the complex but informal religion of simpler Chinese. For religions
in China are not mutually exclusive as in Europe and America, nor have
they ever precipitated the country into religious wars. Normally they
tolerate one another not only in the state but in the same breast; and
the average Chinese is at once an animist, a Taoist, a Buddhist and a
Confucianist. He is a modest philosopher, and knows that nothing is
certain; perhaps after all, the theologian may be right, and there may
be a paradise; the best policy would be to humor all these creeds, and
pay many diverse priests to say prayers over one's grave. While
fortunes smile, however, the Chinese citizen does not pay much
attention to the gods; but lets the Taoist and the Buddhist temples
get along with a few women. He is the most secular spirit ever
produced, as a type, in known history; this life absorbs him; and
when he prays he asks not for happiness in paradise, but for some
profit here on earth......................
"Hence the average Chinese has not taken passionately to Mohammedanism
or Christianity; these offered him a heaven that Buddhism had already
promised, but what he really wanted was a guarantee of happiness here.
Most of the fifteen million Chinese Moslems are not really Chinese,
but people of foreign origin or parentage. Christianity entered China
with the Nestorians about 636 A.D. ......................."
Klm: Wow. The paragraph just above this one describes us Chinese as
accurately as I have come across anywhere else. This is worth
repeating
"the best policy would be to humor all these creeds, and pay many
diverse priests to say prayers over one's grave. While fortunes
smile, however, the Chinese citizen does not pay much attention to the
gods; ...................... He is the most secular spirit ever
produced, as a type, in known history; this life absorbs him; and
when he prays he asks not for happiness in paradise, but for some
profit here on earth"
This also address you big question on Ch'an Buddhism having influenced
the everyday behavior of the Chinese. Nope it didn't.
I was going to quote and comment from Brittanica too but I will have
to decline. This response taken too much of my time already. But do
read the Brittanica on Buddhism and its quite a long entry then come
back and ask questions that may interest you.
Flying Tigers
Confucianism. Readers should definately learn up Mandarin and read up
first hand on works of Chinese from Chinese authors. Many of the
Western sinologists have western thinking and serious misconception.
Further
KLM,
Thank you very much for your reply. I appreciate it. I'm enjoying
this, but apparently I still have not made my ideas clear enough.
See below.....
>>
<snip>
>Klm: Now the important paragraphs on pages 786 and 787 that neatly
>encapsulate the rise and fall of Buddhism in China.
>
>"For a thousand years the Taoist faith had millions of adherents,
>converted many emperors, and fought long battles of intrigue to wrest
>from the Confucians the divine right to tax and spend. In the end it
>was broken down not by the logic of Confucious, but by the coming of a
>new religion even better suited than itself to console and inspire the
>common man. For the Buddhism that began its migration from India to
>China in the first century after Christ was not the hard and gloomy
>doctrine that the Enlightened One had preached five hundred years
>before;....................
>
But, as I understand it, even the Mahayana version brought to
China from India was not so well-suited to Chinese people in
general. The missionaries were meditating recluses, did not have
practical skills, and had to be fed by devoted followers. And
according to Suzuki, Dumoulin, Snyder and others, this kind of
lifestyle would not beacceptable to grow very much as a social
phenomenon.
I thnk you for your scholarship (Durant, etc), but I believe my
main point is still not clear -- see below....
.
>"When after the fall of the Han, China found itself torn with
>political chaos, turned to Buddhism as the Roman world was at the same
>time turning to Christianity. Taoism opened its arms to take in the
>new faith, and in time became inextricably mingled with it the Chinese
>soul. Emperors persecuted Buddhism, philosophers complained of its
>superstitions, statesmen were concerned over the fact that some of the
>best blood of China was being sterilized in monasteries; but in the
>end the government found again that religion is stronger than the
>state; the emperors made treaties of peace with the new gods; the
>Buddhist priests were allowed to collect alms and raise temples, and
>the bureaucracy of officials and scholars were perforce content to
>keep Confucianism as its own aristocratic creed.............
>
According to my sources, much if not most of the work on the
tmples, meditation halls, infirmaries, and kitchens -- and in the
gardens -- was done by the monks themselves. The monasteries
became repositories of culture and learning (medicine, woodcraft,
architecture).
>"Then, it, too, like Taoism fell into decay; its clergy became
>corrupt, its doctrine was permeated more and more by sinister deities
>and popular superstitions, and its political power, never strong, was
>practically destroyed by the renaissance of Confucianism under Chu
>His. Today its temples are neglected, its resources are exhausted,
>and its only devotees are its impoverished priests.
>
>"Nevertheless it has sunk into the national soul, and is still part of
>the complex but informal religion of simpler Chinese. For religions
>in China are not mutually exclusive as in Europe and America, nor have
>they ever precipitated the country into religious wars. Normally they
>tolerate one another not only in the state but in the same breast; and
>the average Chinese is at once an animist, a Taoist, a Buddhist and a
>Confucianist.
<snip>
>
But this next point is the one I wish to address, sir.....
>This also address you big question on Ch'an Buddhism having influenced
>the everyday behavior of the Chinese. Nope it didn't.
>
This is still backwards from "my big point" -- my point is that
the Chinese way of life, with all its practicality, work, and
focus to duty, influenced Chinese Buddhism... *not* the other way
around.
From what I know, you are correct when you say "Nope it
didn't"... Buddhism did not much influence Chinese culture, but
the culture of the people determined the Ch'an way of life. I'm
referring to a way of life, not a set of religious beliefs as
such.
>I was going to quote and comment from Brittanica too but I will have
>to decline. This response taken too much of my time already. But do
>read the Brittanica on Buddhism and its quite a long entry then come
>back and ask questions that may interest you.
>
Thank you. May I add something? I believe that, if I am correct
and China put Buddhism in the context of responsibilioty and
work, then it is an appropriate form for those Americans who wish
to take up Buddhism. Because it is essentially pragmatic, as are
the old-fshioned American values.
Further
Klm
wrote:
>read up
>first hand on works of Chinese from Chinese authors.
Can you enlighten us with specific quotes from Chinese authors? We
are particularly interested in your take on the subject, that is which
passages do you think we should examine closely for an insight into
things Chinese.
This is an international English language forum and it will be much
appreciated that the sources be from English language publications,
translations perhaps, that we can access from the library and study
in full.
A problem I find with Chinese authors is that they make a statement as
if it is an irrefutable fact because that's what the authorities said,
be the authority a quote from an old classic or just someone who
happens to be in power today.
Events are rarely argued in context of the social conditions and
issues of the day and, least of all, how other alternatives were
considered, tried and failed to arrive at the final solution. You
know, that accusation of rote learning still holds. The result is that
most Chinese, present day ones included, look for a precedent that
fits the problem and just apply it without thinking it through from
first principles. Its frustrating to lose that thrill of discovery
and understanding.
Klm
wrote:
>>
>
>But, as I understand it, even the Mahayana version brought to
>China from India was not so well-suited to Chinese people in
>general. The missionaries were meditating recluses, did not have
>practical skills, and had to be fed by devoted followers. And
>according to Suzuki, Dumoulin, Snyder and others, this kind of
>lifestyle would not beacceptable to grow very much as a social
>phenomenon.
>
Ok. I am going to wing it from here. That is my response is my take
on the subject, not scholarship.
Buddhism is not a proselytizing religion. I don't think there was
such a thing as a professional missionary supported by his church to
go recruiting converts. There is no historical record of Buddhist
missionaries travelling directly to China. Buddhism spread gradually
over a few hundred years from India through Tibet and western China
where the land is sparse and poor. The land would be quite unwelcome
to a professional class of beggars promising pies in the sky. So
these early Buddhists would be natives who adopted the faith, and if
not, at least outsiders who could take care of and feed themselves.
Same thing when they entered China and were eventually allowed to
establish themselves. Note Durant's words "they were allowed to seek
alms" and inspite of imperial patronage, not given land grants or tax
collecting privileges. Whatever they had they had to build for
themselves. Therefore <The missionaries were meditating recluses, did
not have practical skills, and had to be fed by devoted followers. >
sounds like nonsense to me as there was no such thing as a Buddhist
Vatican that could send parasitic priests to lord over the locals. To
get to become an abbot who could lord over the others he first had to
be an apprentice monk who had to clean the toilets and work his way
up. Neither being Chinese nor being Ch'an Buddhist was the
inspiration for a monk to work hard.
I have probably still missed the point you are trying to make. To me
Buddhism had a brief 200 year run in China and at the close of the
Tang Dynasty 1,300 years ago, it was already a spent force. I think
you are trying to hard too bring to glory and currency a period that
had been dead for far too long.
>I thnk you for your scholarship (Durant, etc), but I believe my
>main point is still not clear -- see below....
>.
>According to my sources, much if not most of the work on the
>tmples, meditation halls, infirmaries, and kitchens -- and in the
>gardens -- was done by the monks themselves. The monasteries
>became repositories of culture and learning (medicine, woodcraft,
>architecture).
You are using as the example, the European monasteries where they were
the sanctuaries for scholarship and knowledge during the Dark Ages.
This model not applicable to Buddhist monasteries in China or anywhere
else. Watch that movie "Crouching Tiger.." and the monastery there is
pretty much what monasteries in China were and are like. The altar,
prayer hall, dining hall, kitchen and monks quarters are necessities.
There is no infirmary and a monastery is not the place for treating
the village sick. Monasteries may have scribes to make copies of
their scriptures but we haven't heard of scholarship or new ideas
coming out of them in two thousand years of their existence. They
were centers of learning only within the very narrow field of their
particular Buddhist sect. Same goes for pictorial art and sculpture.
Buddhism did not give birth to anything new and certainly had no place
for artifacts that were not Buddhist. Their religion disdains worldly
possessions and idolatory. Therefore they were not repositories for
Chinese culture, learning, woodcraft, medicine or anything. Even in
the darkest days of Chinese history the core of Chinese civilization
was never threatened or lost.
>Thank you. May I add something? I believe that, if I am correct
>and China put Buddhism in the context of responsibilioty and
>work, then it is an appropriate form for those Americans who wish
>to take up Buddhism. Because it is essentially pragmatic, as are
>the old-fshioned American values.
>
And if I may add, man does not live for food alone. Man also needs
spiritual sustenance. You seek spiritual sustenance. We are in a
modern world where society is rich enough and does support those who
wish to withdraw from life to seek nirvana. That is you don't have to
feel guilty about using the begging bowl and goof off. Working hard
on ordinary tasks that keep body and soul together is not in conflict
with any religion. If that makes you feel good go for it and your
labors will be much appreciated by everyone.
But please, for the last 2000 years, the Buddhist monks in China were
quite capable of working hard to support themselves without having to
invoke Buddha to inspire them.
Further
>
>
>Ok. I am going to wing it from here. That is my response is my take
>on the subject, not scholarship.
>
I appreciate your willingness to do that. Thank you.
>Buddhism is not a proselytizing religion. I don't think there was
>such a thing as a professional missionary supported by his church to
>go recruiting converts. There is no historical record of Buddhist
>missionaries travelling directly to China.
The attitude in Buddhism has more been one of openness and
sharing (perhaps not always), and it has not been characterized
by proselytizing, as have Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
Historial records are difficult to get, as you say. Bodhidarma,
one of the early Indian Buddhists to come to China (as is said),
is always called a semi-legendary figure.
>So
>these early Buddhists would be natives who adopted the faith, and if
>not, at least outsiders who could take care of and feed themselves.
>Same thing when they entered China and were eventually allowed to
>establish themselves.
Somehow Buddhism came to China, yes. According to Dumoulin,
Suzuki, Watts, Snyder, and others, Buddhist monks lived on the
charity of others for a number of centuries. There may have been
lay conversts, too.... but the whole Ch'an movement was not large
until the self-supporting monasteries were established (according
to Suzuki, and Dumoulin).
>Note Durant's words "they were allowed to seek
>alms" and inspite of imperial patronage, not given land grants or tax
>collecting privileges. Whatever they had they had to build for
>themselves.
It is said by the experts I've read that alms remained part of
the picture, but not the whole picture, after the 8th century.
The Buddhists considered begging to have value in building
"character" (humility) in a monk.
In Japan, the Ch'an (Zen) monks were still taking alms walks in
the 1960s, possibly later, even though they had been living in
self-reliant monasteries since the 13th century, when the pattern
had been imported from China. But I believe that in Japan (not in
China), during certain periods, the emporer decreed that a
certain amount of local rice harvest should go to the Zen
monasteries.
>Therefore <The missionaries were meditating recluses, did
>not have practical skills, and had to be fed by devoted followers. >
>sounds like nonsense to me as there was no such thing as a Buddhist
>Vatican that could send parasitic priests to lord over the locals. To
>get to become an abbot who could lord over the others he first had to
>be an apprentice monk who had to clean the toilets and work his way
>up. Neither being Chinese nor being Ch'an Buddhist was the
>inspiration for a monk to work hard.
I won't argue with you. It would be pointless. You seem to
believe that the only motivation of a monk is a status and power
game within the monastery; that seems too cynical, for me. I've
spent time with many practicing Buddhists, including a number of
Zen and Vajrayana monks from Asia. They did not impress me, *at
all*, as being that sort of person.
>
>I have probably still missed the point you are trying to make. To me
>Buddhism had a brief 200 year run in China and at the close of the
>Tang Dynasty 1,300 years ago, it was already a spent force.
The experts I've read would differ with that idea. They see the
Tang Dynasty period as the most spiritually vigorous period for
Ch'an. But the temples, monasteries, and doctrine continued to
develop considerably. P'ai Chang's work rule was established in
the 8th century CE, and 700 years later Japan was still importing
the practices, doctrines, lifestyle, and skills associated with
the Chinese monasteries. (See Heinrich Dumoulin's writing)
Please don't misunderstand me. I myself am no expert. I have
certain interests and questions, and have read certain books, but
there is more than a tremendous amount that, I admit, I don't
know.
>I think
>you are trying to hard too bring to glory and currency a period that
>had been dead for far too long.
>
My interest is not glorification. I admire the Chinese people for
their intelligence, focus, family values, creativity, and
(usually) willingness to work hard.
I appreciate without glorifying what I know of the Ch'an
tradition. I admire the willingness of the monks to grip up to
social and economic realities and to work at self support, even
along with their devoted life of meditation, prayer, and learning
of the sutras.
I have read bits of Durant's historical writings (and read his
Lessons of History), and I admire his work. But I do not think
he is an expert on Buddhism, per se.... and perhaps especially
not on Ch'an.
>
>You are using as the example, the European monasteries where they were
>the sanctuaries for scholarship and knowledge during the Dark Ages.
>This model not applicable to Buddhist monasteries in China or anywhere
>else. Watch that movie "Crouching Tiger.." and the monastery there is
>pretty much what monasteries in China were and are like. The altar,
>prayer hall, dining hall, kitchen and monks quarters are necessities.
They *are* necessities, and someone had to design, build, and
maintain them. Cleaning is not much of a skill, perhaps... but
architecture and carpentry are definitely skills.
>There is no infirmary and a monastery is not the place for treating
>the village sick.
I don't say they were *village* infirmaries. I do not esay that
they provided exactly what a modern society feels its citizens
should have.
In Japan, the Zen (Ch'an) monasteries maintained infirmaries
where moxabustian and other healing arts were practiced.... for
the monks. Dr. D.T. Suzuki began training in one of these
somewhat before 1900. Suzuki was a friend and colleague of
Chinese scholar Hu Shih. Suzuki strongly asserted that the
Japanese Zen monastic pattern, including the work and
responsibilities aspects, was imported almost entirely from
China.
>Monasteries may have scribes to make copies of
>their scriptures but we haven't heard of scholarship or new ideas
>coming out of them in two thousand years of their existence. They
>were centers of learning only within the very narrow field of their
>particular Buddhist sect.
Suzuki says that skills like food-gardening, cooking, carpentry,
administration, maintenance, and folk medicine were all learned
by the monks in the monastery.
>Therefore they were not repositories for
>Chinese culture, learning, woodcraft, medicine or anything. Even in
>the darkest days of Chinese history the core of Chinese civilization
>was never threatened or lost.
>
No, I did not say so. And I was not looking to Europe as the
pattern for the Chinese Ch'an monasteries. To my mind, any place
where people can learn numerous skills is a repository, of sorts
-- even if the people learning are such "oddballs" as monks or
nuns.
>
>But please, for the last 2000 years, the Buddhist monks in China were
>quite capable of working hard to support themselves without having to
>invoke Buddha to inspire them.
I totally agree with what you just wrote. As I have been trying
to say, the monks found themselves in a situation where, if they
were going to live communally to practice their Buddhism, they
would have to look after themselves. By necessity, they learned
and practiced practical skills.
I just want to learn more about the history of it.
Klm
wrote:
>>Ok. I am going to wing it from here. That is my response is my take
>>on the subject, not scholarship.
>>
>
>I appreciate your willingness to do that. Thank you.
Now that we have a debate going please don't be so apologetic. Its
uncomfortable and quite unecessary. Your views are as valid as
anyone's.
>
>>Buddhism is not a proselytizing religion. I don't think there was
>>such a thing as a professional missionary supported by his church to
>>go recruiting converts. There is no historical record of Buddhist
>>missionaries travelling directly to China.
>
>The attitude in Buddhism has more been one of openness and
>sharing (perhaps not always), and it has not been characterized
>by proselytizing, as have Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
I think the best countries to look for parctising Buddhism are Sri
Lanka and Thailand. Buddhism in China, Taiwan, Korea and Japan have
been infused with local flavors and dieties that doesn't quite agree
with my feel of what the original religion should be. But I'm no
authority since I don't go into depth in the body of any faith. I
think the Tibetan form of Buddhism is the one most corrupted by its
long history as the ruling class for they enslaved the common people
for centuries in the guise of religion. Brittanica attributes the
beginning of Tibetan Buddhism to a Tibetan prince Slon-brtsan-sgam-po
(c 605 - 650 AD.)
That said, the monks in Sri Lanka and Thailand seemed to have meshed
well into the ordinary fabric of the societies in which they have
thrived, begging bowl and all. I don't know if their faith has imbued
in them a propensity for hard work but if your thesis is right it must
have for they look well fed enough and their temples are generally in
good repair and filled with worshippers. In both countries the clergy
had managed to stay out of their turbulent politics. Perhaps wade
into their newsgroups and put your questions to them.
>
>Historial records are difficult to get, as you say. Bodhidarma,
>one of the early Indian Buddhists to come to China (as is said),
>is always called a semi-legendary figure.
I just wonder how he managed to make himself understood in plain
language let alone put across the subtleties of a novel philosophy. A
dark skinned Aryan looking Indian would have been more of a court
freak than a respected scholar or priest. A scholar would have been
welcome in court, a priest not.
China is one big place especially if traversed by foot. Do you have
any sources that said he reached the imperial court?
>
>Somehow Buddhism came to China, yes. According to Dumoulin,
>Suzuki, Watts, Snyder, and others, Buddhist monks lived on the
>charity of others for a number of centuries. There may have been
>lay conversts, too.... but the whole Ch'an movement was not large
>until the self-supporting monasteries were established (according
>to Suzuki, and Dumoulin).
Do quote a few passages from them to support your points. There is no
way I will look up these authors unless I happen upon them by chance.
I don't have the interest in this subject.
>
>>Note Durant's words "they were allowed to seek
>>alms" and inspite of imperial patronage, not given land grants or tax
>>collecting privileges. Whatever they had they had to build for
>>themselves.
>
I like to use Durant as the starting point because he summarizes the
key events of every civilization very well and in the size of a few
hundred pages. More than just a laundry list of events he provides
insight into the social and philosophical context of history. He won
me quickly by sprinkling generously in his writings the "pious fraud"
that many a great historical figure had foisted onto mankind.
>It is said by the experts I've read that alms remained part of
>the picture, but not the whole picture, after the 8th century.
>The Buddhists considered begging to have value in building
>"character" (humility) in a monk.
>
>In Japan, the Ch'an (Zen) monks were still taking alms walks in
>the 1960s, possibly later, even though they had been living in
>self-reliant monasteries since the 13th century, when the pattern
>had been imported from China. But I believe that in Japan (not in
>China), during certain periods, the emporer decreed that a
>certain amount of local rice harvest should go to the Zen
>monasteries.
Check with the Thai and Sri Lanka Buddhist communities for the best
discussions on this.
>
>
>I won't argue with you. It would be pointless. You seem to
>believe that the only motivation of a monk is a status and power
>game within the monastery; that seems too cynical, for me.
I didn't imply that. There are saints and there are men. When there
is a group of men someone will take charge and since you mentioned
monastery life there will be an abbot. It is inconceivable that this
abbot will allow a saintly monk in his monastery to eat, sleep and
meditate all day. I digress.
>I've
>spent time with many practicing Buddhists, including a number of
>Zen and Vajrayana monks from Asia. They did not impress me, *at
>all*, as being that sort of person.
I would love the life of quiet meditation too without having the cares
of the world on my shoulders except memorizing the sutras would drive
me nuts. I do live like a monk without the religion.
>>
>>I have probably still missed the point you are trying to make. To me
>>Buddhism had a brief 200 year run in China and at the close of the
>>Tang Dynasty 1,300 years ago, it was already a spent force.
>
>The experts I've read would differ with that idea. They see the
>Tang Dynasty period as the most spiritually vigorous period for
>Ch'an. But the temples, monasteries, and doctrine continued to
>develop considerably. P'ai Chang's work rule was established in
>the 8th century CE, and 700 years later Japan was still importing
>the practices, doctrines, lifestyle, and skills associated with
>the Chinese monasteries. (See Heinrich Dumoulin's writing)
>
Refer my earlier quote from Durant that the Chinese are very tolerant
of all religions and quite readily harbor all in the same breast at
the same time. Buddhism never died out and by and large continued to
prosper. But they never became a power, a religious or social force
after the Tangs. I am suspicious of the "doctrine continued to
develop considerably" as I haven't come across any profound new
thought that arose from Chinese Buddhism. Adding local dieties to the
pantheon doesn't count.
Can you elaborate?
>
>>I think
>>you are trying to hard too bring to glory and currency a period that
>>had been dead for far too long.
>>
>
>My interest is not glorification. I admire the Chinese people for
>their intelligence, focus, family values, creativity, and
>(usually) willingness to work hard.
By glorification I meant that you try too hard to attribute Chinese
industry and custom to Buddhism. This is patently nonsense. If
Buddhism is that influential in the everyday life of the Chinese, then
Taoism, Islam, Christianity and a host lof other belief systems would
surely have caused a wide deviation to this pretty picture.
>
>
>No, I did not say so. And I was not looking to Europe as the
>pattern for the Chinese Ch'an monasteries. To my mind, any place
>where people can learn numerous skills is a repository, of sorts
>-- even if the people learning are such "oddballs" as monks or
>nuns.
>
I am puzzled here as to the direction of your arguments. Is it
"The monasteries are places where a peasant can learn life skills like
carpentry, folk medicine, farming and maybe even to read the
scriptures. That will get him a good job in the monastery or in the
outside world."(?)
If the part about learning a trade as an apprentice monk to get work
again in the outside world doesn't hold then why are you trying so
hard to make this link?
If the monks have to learn trades just like everyone else so as to
keep the monastery functioning of what importance is this to Buddhism?
The monks didn't advance or invent any new technologies.
>I totally agree with what you just wrote. As I have been trying
>to say, the monks found themselves in a situation where, if they
>were going to live communally to practice their Buddhism, they
>would have to look after themselves. By necessity, they learned
>and practiced practical skills.
And if tthey didn't China would have been spared the existence of
another unproductive superstition.
Further
>On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:02:01 -0800, Further <furth...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>Ok. I am going to wing it from here. That is my response is my take
>>>on the subject, not scholarship.
>>>
>>I appreciate your willingness to do that. Thank you.
>
>Now that we have a debate going please don't be so apologetic. Its
>uncomfortable and quite unecessary. Your views are as valid as
>anyone's.
>>
My views are less valid than people who may have looked into this
particular history (Ch'an history) more than myself, and I know
it. KLM, with you I'm simply comparing notes, so to speak. You
have knowledge in areas that I do not, and perhaps vice versa. I
see this as more of a sharing than a debate.
>>
>>Historial records are difficult to get, as you say. Bodhidarma,
>>one of the early Indian Buddhists to come to China (as is said),
>>is always called a semi-legendary figure.
>
>I just wonder how he managed to make himself understood in plain
>language let alone put across the subtleties of a novel philosophy. A
>dark skinned Aryan looking Indian would have been more of a court
>freak than a respected scholar or priest. A scholar would have been
>welcome in court, a priest not.
>
>China is one big place especially if traversed by foot. Do you have
>any sources that said he reached the imperial court?
>>
Yes, these are good points. They must have occured to the
historians, and the stories of Bodhidarma and other Indian monks
who are believed to have attracted the initial Buddhist converts
of China leave many details unexplained. This would be why
Bodhidarma has been referred to as a "semi-legendary figure."
However, there were no complex doctrines in the basic Ch'an
"message"... and a lot of the practice just consisted of a type
of quiet sitting (ch'anna, or zazen). The purpose of it isn't to
learn the sutras or worship gods, instead it is to awaken prajna
(deep intuition, or spiritual intuition). Prajna is the
transliterated Sanskrit term, there is a transliteration of the
Chinese equivalent, but I forget it right now.
>
>>Somehow Buddhism came to China, yes. According to Dumoulin,
>>Suzuki, Watts, Snyder, and others, Buddhist monks lived on the
>>charity of others for a number of centuries. There may have been
>>lay conversts, too.... but the whole Ch'an movement was not large
>>until the self-supporting monasteries were established (according
>>to Suzuki, and Dumoulin).
>
>Do quote a few passages from them to support your points. There is no
>way I will look up these authors unless I happen upon them by chance.
>I don't have the interest in this subject.
I will get the books and post some quotes. I do not have them at
hand, at the moment.
>
>>
>>I won't argue with you. It would be pointless. You seem to
>>believe that the only motivation of a monk is a status and power
>>game within the monastery; that seems too cynical, for me.
>
>I didn't imply that. There are saints and there are men. When there
>is a group of men someone will take charge and since you mentioned
>monastery life there will be an abbot. It is inconceivable that this
>abbot will allow a saintly monk in his monastery to eat, sleep and
>meditate all day. I digress.
>
No, I think you do not digress. This is just the point. In Ch'an,
the abbot is chosen by his abbot. It is supposed to be a
succession of men whose spiritual intuition has been awakened,
who is of good character, who has come to understand his
intuitive perception in relation to the Buddhist writings.
But in Ch'an, everyone has to work at something. The abbot, the
star monk-pupils, all of them. Each works at something, be it
administration, cleaning, cooking, carpentry, tilling the soil.
That is why Suzuki (who studied the history, and who lived the
life in a training monastery in Kamakura) called it a spiritual
democracy. He said that traditionally, the master or abbot of the
monastery frequently worked in the fields alongside the ordinary
monks. (I do not say that this must invariably have been the
case.)
>
>I would love the life of quiet meditation too without having the cares
>of the world on my shoulders except memorizing the sutras would drive
>me nuts. I do live like a monk without the religion.
I don't think all of the monks memorize huge amounts of the
sutras. All of them, in the traditional pattern, had to work, all
had to meditate and have interviews with the master for testing
the awakening of prajna intuition.
>>
>Refer my earlier quote from Durant that the Chinese are very tolerant
>of all religions and quite readily harbor all in the same breast at
>the same time. Buddhism never died out and by and large continued to
>prosper. But they never became a power, a religious or social force
>after the Tangs.
I would suppose that is true, though the architecture and the
craftsmanship of the temples and meditation halls continued to
develop.
>I am suspicious of the "doctrine continued to
>develop considerably" as I haven't come across any profound new
>thought that arose from Chinese Buddhism. Adding local dieties to the
>pantheon doesn't count.
>Can you elaborate?
The pantheon of deities may be associated with some of the other
streams of Buddhism in China, I'm not sure.
The Ch'an doctrines are actually records of events and
conversations and some personal writings from the Ch'an monastic
tradition. They give hints about the relationship between the
practical life of the monks, their experience of and appreciation
for nature, and the development of prajna in the individual. But
in Ch'an, prajna intuition had to be embodied in practicality,
becaue this was the social psychology of the Chinese people.
Interest in enlightenment drove the person to become a monk in
the monastery. Once in the monastery, necessity drove them into a
life of work, because the emperor and society in general thought
they should pretty much take care of themselves.
>By glorification I meant that you try too hard to attribute Chinese
>industry and custom to Buddhism.
No. Again, I say it is the other way around. Ch'an put physical
work and practical skills *into* Buddhism. The Chinese attitudes
influenced Buddhism, to make it into a new way of life. It is a
way of life that is still alive, such as in some of the training
centres established by Zen monks from Japan who went to Canada,
western U.S., New England, and elsewhere.
"If you don't work today, you ddon't eat today" P'ai Chag's law.
>This is patently nonsense. If
>Buddhism is that influential in the everyday life of the Chinese, then
>Taoism, Islam, Christianity and a host lof other belief systems would
>surely have caused a wide deviation to this pretty picture.
>>
You, my friend, are still looking at ideology. My emphasis since
the start of this conversation, which I am enjoying, is on *way
of living* -- the Ch'an monks took up work. And over time, it
molded the form of Buddhism they practiced.
Ch'an is a combination of Buddhist intuitive mysticism (not piety
to a pantheon), plus Taoist hygiene and bidy energetics (or qi),
plus everyday communal responsibility and work.
>I am puzzled here as to the direction of your arguments. Is it
>"The monasteries are places where a peasant can learn life skills like
>carpentry, folk medicine, farming and maybe even to read the
>scriptures. That will get him a good job in the monastery or in the
>outside world."(?)
Some may have left the omnastery with trade skills, I suppose.
Most probably stayed in the monastery.
>If the part about learning a trade as an apprentice monk to get work
>again in the outside world doesn't hold then why are you trying so
>hard to make this link?
Well.... I'm not Chinese. I'm English, Celt, and a bit of Swiss.
My grandfather was interested in China, and he read books by Lin
Yu Tang. However, I was personally not much interested in China
until I discovered books about Zen Buddhism
When you read the ones about the *historical* side of Zen (or
Ch'an, as the Chinese say it), you find out about these very
interesting, hard-working, self-supporting monks. Who in later
centuries built beautiful temples and did wonderful paintings. I
do not say that other Chinese people did not make beautiful
paintings or architecture. But I was impressed byu these
religious men who were not idlers, but worked with energy, skill,
and aesthetic ability.
>
>>I totally agree with what you just wrote. As I have been trying
>>to say, the monks found themselves in a situation where, if they
>>were going to live communally to practice their Buddhism, they
>>would have to look after themselves. By necessity, they learned
>>and practiced practical skills.
>
>And if tthey didn't China would have been spared the existence of
>another unproductive superstition.
You yourself said (quoting the Gospel phrase) "Man does not live
by bread alone." The reason Ch'an has been spreading in the West
in the last, say, four decades is that Westerns can admire the
self-supporting traditions involved. Plus, it is much easier and
more cost-effective, in the West as well, when people who wish to
pursue meditation and develop their spiritual intuition, are
brought physically into the process of building the training
centre, maintaining it, cooking, cleaning, etc. And this is
happening from California, to Vermont, to Europe. Because people
want it.
Where do you live (general area, only), if I may ask?
Further
Klm
wrote:
>>Where do you live (general area, only), if I may ask?
Klm: Edmonton, Alberta. Grew up in the Far East.
Tell us more about yourself and what you are seeking.
> I'm not Chinese. I'm English, Celt, and a bit of Swiss.
>>My grandfather was interested in China, and he read books by Lin
>>Yu Tang.
Hard work through Ch'an Buddhism doesn't do it.
Some closing thoughts.
We are fortunate that in this time and day the world is far more
tolerant of alternative lifestyles. In the scheme of things a group
seeking self fulfilment through a passive meditative religion is more
than welcome considering the other alternative lifestyles such as
hippie communes and Hare Krishna townships. At least Buddhism is an
old and mainstream religion. Hare Krishna was an aberration in every
sense of the word and TVangelists are not far behind as despicable
scams on weak minded people.
There is a fairly large Buddhist temple on the north side of town but
I have no desire to visit or to find out more about them. The monks
likewise are quite invisible but enjoy good support among local
Buddhists who prefer to practice their faith in private. The temple
puts out an English language newsletter (haven't seen one of late) and
the contents are just to say which priest is visiting and the rest of
the newsletter incomprehensible, with nothing on the tenets of the
religion itself.
Oh yes. There are a few white monks and they look (to me anyway) as
out of place as an oriental trying to make a career as a country and
western singing star. Thus when you seek self discovery and peace
through an eastern religion it is out of context with your cultural
heritage and leaves you in neither world. Whatever insights you
arrive at are meaningful only to a minute group of people like
yourself. This is an isolation that you will have to accept.
In general I am suspicious of religions for they seek to subsume self
to a "higher authority." Undoubted this is desirable to many who find
life too complex to cope with. Weak minded people allow "religion"
and their copycats, do all their thinking for them for life is easy if
they follow a set of rules set by the sect.
>However, there were no complex doctrines in the basic Ch'an
>"message"... and a lot of the practice just consisted of a type
>of quiet sitting (ch'anna, or zazen). The purpose of it isn't to
>learn the sutras or worship gods, instead it is to awaken prajna
>(deep intuition, or spiritual intuition). Prajna is the
>transliterated Sanskrit term, there is a transliteration of the
>Chinese equivalent, but I forget it right now.
>
>>
>>>Somehow Buddhism came to China, yes. According to Dumoulin,
>>>Suzuki, Watts, Snyder, and others, Buddhist monks lived on the
>>>charity of others for a number of centuries. There may have been
>>>lay conversts, too.... but the whole Ch'an movement was not large
>>>until the self-supporting monasteries were established (according
>>>to Suzuki, and Dumoulin).
Circa 500 BC seems to have been a particulary momentous age for
humankind with the birth of Greek enlightment, Buddhism and
Confucianism that contributed much to new ways of thinking and of
civilization. We are still dealing with the questions that these
people raised. If you are looking for the meaning of life, their body
of ideas should keep you happy and occupied for a long time and be far
more rewarding spiritually and materially than Ch'an Buddhism.
>>
>
>No, I think you do not digress. This is just the point. In Ch'an,
>the abbot is chosen by his abbot.
(you mean abbey?)
> It is supposed to be a
>succession of men whose spiritual intuition has been awakened,
>who is of good character, who has come to understand his
>intuitive perception in relation to the Buddhist writings.
The argument is lost on me. I am quite happy to deal with life as
it comes. I do not seek to go to heaven or to be reincarnated.
>
>But in Ch'an, everyone has to work at something. The abbot, the
>star monk-pupils, all of them. Each works at something, be it
>administration, cleaning, cooking, carpentry, tilling the soil.
>That is why Suzuki (who studied the history, and who lived the
>life in a training monastery in Kamakura) called it a spiritual
>democracy. He said that traditionally, the master or abbot of the
>monastery frequently worked in the fields alongside the ordinary
>monks. (I do not say that this must invariably have been the
>case.)
>
So where is the contradiction with common sense and with what everyone
does as a matter of course? If there is no contradiction why the long
discourse?
>>
> Buddhism never died out and by and large continued to
>>prosper. But they never became a power, a religious or social force
>>after the Tangs.
>
>I would suppose that is true, though the architecture and the
>craftsmanship of the temples and meditation halls continued to
>develop.
Groan. Buddhism did contribute something like a freer depiction of
the human form - the sleeping Buddha, one that is seated with one leg
propped up on the bench for example. They didn't introduce new forms
of architecture but were, as were other monasteries, supreme in
blending classical Chinese forms with nature. The movie "Crouching
Tiger" monastery is a good example although I don't know if that is
Buddhist or Taoist.
>
>>I am suspicious of the "doctrine continued to
>>develop considerably" as I haven't come across any profound new
>>thought that arose from Chinese Buddhism. Adding local dieties to the
>>pantheon doesn't count.
>>Can you elaborate?
>
>The pantheon of deities may be associated with some of the other
>streams of Buddhism in China, I'm not sure.
The Goddess of Mercy, Kuan Yin, is the most noticible. Then there
were no end of smaller Bodhisattvas that cluttered the temple altars.
Buddha never saw himself as a diety to be worshipped let alone have
numerous midget clones of himself enjoy the same privilege.
Yes. Iam am trying to fathom why you are trying so hard to associate
very ordinary things with Ch'an Buddhism. Hard work we all already
know about and don't need some confused Celt to give us a spin.
Buddhism is an ideology This is what the debate is about - Ch'an
Buddhism. Buddhism, you have studied. Do tell us more about it.
>
>Ch'an is a combination of Buddhist intuitive mysticism (not piety
>to a pantheon), plus Taoist hygiene and bidy energetics (or qi),
>plus everyday communal responsibility and work.
So is breathing. Move on. I think you sense my exasperation with
your mumbo jumbo.
>
>Well.... I'm not Chinese. I'm English, Celt, and a bit of Swiss.
>My grandfather was interested in China, and he read books by Lin
>Yu Tang. However, I was personally not much interested in China
>until I discovered books about Zen Buddhism
So talk about what Zen Buddhism and fight for our minds. We don't
need to know how you find hard work has to be justified.
>
> When you read the ones about the *historical* side of Zen (or
>Ch'an,
You mentioned you are interested in Ch'an history. Make up your mind.
History is based on fact and can be cross checked. Since history is of
events of men we can apply that knowledge to our everyday affairs.
On religion I would not know or care what goes on in the mind of a
practioner. He (many US Catholic priests) may be fantasizing about
pedophilia for all I may know.
>as the Chinese say it), you find out about these very
>interesting, hard-working, self-supporting monks. Who in later
>centuries built beautiful temples and did wonderful paintings. I
>do not say that other Chinese people did not make beautiful
>paintings or architecture. But I was impressed byu these
>religious men who were not idlers, but worked with energy, skill,
>and aesthetic ability.
>
>>
>>And if tthey didn't China would have been spared the existence of
>>another unproductive superstition.
>
>You yourself said (quoting the Gospel phrase) "Man does not live
>by bread alone."
I am not the one seeking spiritual salvation. You are.
>The reason Ch'an has been spreading in the West
>in the last, say, four decades is that Westerns can admire the
>self-supporting traditions involved. Plus, it is much easier and
>more cost-effective, in the West as well, when people who wish to
>pursue meditation and develop their spiritual intuition, are
>brought physically into the process of building the training
>centre, maintaining it, cooking, cleaning, etc. And this is
>happening from California, to Vermont, to Europe. Because people
>want it.
>
Good for you and your kind. Now that you have progressed from B
(Buddha) to C (Ch'an) move on to D, E, F.........there are only 26
letters and not that far to go. You don't have to agonize over
anything and least of all seek the world's (our) approval for anything
you do.
Further
>>But in Ch'an, everyone has to work at something. The abbot, the
>>star monk-pupils, all of them. Each works at something, be it
>>administration, cleaning, cooking, carpentry, tilling the soil.
>>That is why Suzuki (who studied the history, and who lived the
>>life in a training monastery in Kamakura) called it a spiritual
>>democracy. He said that traditionally, the master or abbot of the
>>monastery frequently worked in the fields alongside the ordinary
>>monks. (I do not say that this must invariably have been the
>>case.)
>>
>So where is the contradiction with common sense and with what everyone
>does as a matter of course? If there is no contradiction why the long
>discourse?
>>>
Well, the thread is simpler than you might think. I was, and am,
merely seeking conversation on the history. History as a
discipline may look at the impact of values on society, or the
impact of beliefs. But history does not look at the worth or
validiy of the values or beliefs themselves. I don't care to
debate whether Ch'an had the best religious values or not, or
whether its insights are valid, or even whether it influenced
Chinese history as a whole very much.
There are the historians of Japanese society who say that Zen
influenced nearly every aspect of Japanese society, beginning in
the 12th and 13th centuries. It had impact on people's
comportment and demeanor, on psychology, on the technique of
swordsmen, on the martial spirit, on painting and ceramics, on
architecture, flower arranging, and the tea ceremony.
You may not care about this. But I'm interested.
I'm not a monk, though.
I hope you have not been completely bored. You are a good person
to have exchanged with. Too many of the people posting here on
this newsgroup are trolls and bigots and flamers. And ignorant of
much of anything in history.
Thanks, again.
Further
KLM
wrote:
>
>Well, the thread is simpler than you might think. I was, and am,
>merely seeking conversation on the history.
Eureka! The ancestors be praised. Or is it amamitabatha or some
mouthful like that? You know the Buddhist prayer bead chant?
You have found the meaning of life and achieved enlightment. Buddha
would be pleased.
Life is very, very simple. Buddha said so two and a half millenia
ago.
So go ahead and do whatever gives you pleasure. You don't have to
justify anything. There is no need to invoke history. Do your thing
for the sheer joy of it. You are obviously a person who would never
think of harming anyone. Therefore do whatever you feel like doing
and no one will bother you and no one will take it from you. Go sit
on a lotus leaf and contemplate your navel. As they said in Victorian
England, anything goes so long as you don't scare the horses.
God bless.
Klm
I have a strong feeling we just had a visit from a pretty
sophisticated agents provocateur, "Mr. Further."
I'll let Mr. Further respond.
Then I 'll give my reasons in a couple of days.
Further
Amusing to me. What would I be trying to provoke?
The other day I read a wild conspiracy theory. In it, John Lennon
was murdered by the author Stephen King, and a look-alike (Mark
Chapman.... apparently he looks like Mr. King) was substituted to
be convicted, do the prison time, and deceive the public!
Preposterous of course! A good laugh, if you like things that are
completely silly.
I consider Mr. KLM to be someone who participates sincerely and
decently in this newsgroup. But, truth is, I also participated
here in that spirit.
I had said to Mr. KLM that I would find historical quotes on
which I based my statements and questions about an aspect of
Chinese Buddhist development in the Tang Dynasty and later.
While I have been going through the books looking for the
passages, my Usenet friend came up with a "provocateur"
suspicion. Hee, hee.
Do we all have too much time on our hands?
Further
P.S. Believe what you want, KLM. But in regard to the original
thread, do let me know if it is worth my time to post the quotes
about Ch'an from Suzuki, Dumoulin, Snyder and others.
Klm
wrote:
>Amusing to me. What would I be trying to provoke?
Aha. No longer the confused Celt seeking the Ch'an way to
enlightening labor?
All little boys like to pull apart the insects or poke at frogs and
all manner of creepy crawlies to see what makes them tick. That's
good for quite a few hours of free fun although it does nothing for
that poor animal, aka the victim.
With the advent of Internet newsgroups there is a new breed of fun
seekers who pose as innocents seeking advice from how to pee to the
meaning of life. The thread starts of innocuously enough. Then he
(you) wlll add introduce a few ridiculous assumptions here and there
that even a five year old can figure out is not kosher and see if that
makes the responder hop. Remember my earlier mention of "my feeling
of exasperation." That set my antenna vibrating because you are no
five year old.
I'll use a recent example from another newsgroup.
This guy poses as a computer nerd with four high speed high cost
($280K total) computer CPUs, not your ordinary desktop PC, that
needs to run continuously because the animation graphics he does as a
HOBBY! ( plus $280K = BIG clue no. 1) needs several days to render.
The CPUs cannot be stopped because he will have to reload the
impressive sounding special animation program and run the whole
animation processing routine. Else the animation cels will not patch
seamlessly.
The original question this guy asked was how he can have an auxillary
household power generator to reduce his monthly power bills. Gave
authoritative figures about his power consumption in kilowatt-hours
draw, peak loads and so on. So engineering and other technie types
helpfully responded. Wind turbines - nope because his house is in the
boondocks surrounded by trees. Solar panels - nope because of trees
too, its often cloudy and the house is built in a hollow. Buried
heat exchanger systems that cool in summer and heat in winter - nope
because the house in built in a rocky area. Diesel or gas powered
generators for peak loads - not cost effective. And so it went on.
The original poster responded promptly and politely with objections to
each solution based on details that he did not provide in the original
post. Very lilkely, as the thread developed, the OP made up his
objections which is a big part of the fun.
Along they way complains that it won't solve his $200 plus monthly
electricity bill. (BIG clue no. 2) Anyway when someone pointed this
out we knew we had been had.
This same guy visits that newsgroup maybe half a dozen times over a
year with some of the most creative stories asking for advice. I
can't recall what they were but the pattern was to pose a very
impressive technical problem (the technical descriptions were
impressive and believable) to solve a very trivial problem. The
challenge is who gets to spot the trivial clues first and call the
bluff.
>P.S. Believe what you want, KLM. But in regard to the original
>thread, do let me know if it is worth my time to post the quotes
>about Ch'an from Suzuki, Dumoulin, Snyder and others.
That's what triggered my suspicions of you. You claim to have made a
study of these books and have yet to cite a single idea from any of
them. There are other things you said about yourself and the image
you present between your first post and this latest reply that just
don't jive. I'll leave the others to figure out what they are.
That's part of the fun.
Anyway do post your quotes. That's also part of the fun.
Further
>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:43:11 -0800, Further <Furth...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Amusing to me. What would I be trying to provoke?
>
>Aha. No longer the confused Celt seeking the Ch'an way to
>enlightening labor?
>
I'm more English than Celt or Swiss. Do you like to pick on the
Celts? (Just a joke .... but why term *them* "confused"? There
are very many good and admirable people among them.)
>
>>P.S. Believe what you want, KLM. But in regard to the original
>>thread, do let me know if it is worth my time to post the quotes
>>about Ch'an from Suzuki, Dumoulin, Snyder and others.
>
>That's what triggered my suspicions of you. You claim to have made a
>study of these books and have yet to cite a single idea from any of
>them.
I will post some.
>There are other things you said about yourself and the image
>you present between your first post and this latest reply that just
>don't jive. I'll leave the others to figure out what they are.
>That's part of the fun.
>
I agree that the Usenet can be fun. There's no harm in that.
Personally, I pefer actual fun to trolling or flaming.
The aspect of this newsgroup that I do not care for (though I do
not aim this at you, KLM) is ethnic nationalism and bigotry.
As to whether things jive, well why not ponder that anyone who is
not a five year old has had time in life to develop a number of
facets to their personality and interests.
>Anyway do post your quotes. That's also part of the fun.
>
Okay.
Further
Further
>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:43:11 -0800, Further <Furth...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>That's what triggered my suspicions of you. You claim to have made a
>study of these books and have yet to cite a single idea from any of
>them.
>
>Anyway do post your quotes. That's also part of the fun.
>
KLM.... I'm not an expert on this very interesting history,
even though I will give some quotes below from a few of the books
I have read. I came to this newsgroup seeking more information
than I have as yet been exposed to, though your general history
quoted from Durant is interesting in its own right.
Ch'an Pai-chang, and work, etc:
"In China... Zen united itself to a great extent with Taoist
beliefs and practices and with the Confucian teaching of
morality, but it did not affect the cultural life of the people
as much as it did in Japan." D.T. Suzuki, 1970 Zen and Japanese
Culture, (chapter: "What is Zen?"), p. 23.
While Suzuki was able to read Chinese, Sanskrit, and English as
well as speak and read the written Japanese of the 20th century,
he commonly used transliterations of Japanese pronunciations
instead of the Chinese (e.g., zen instead of ch'an, satori in
stead of t'un wu).
"Hyakujo (Pao-chang, died 814) was the founder of a new type of
Buddhist monastery in China, for he found that Zen life could not
be carried out in the older system. The new order was a
self-supporting and self-governing body. It was divided into
several departments such as treasury, ceremonies, culinary,
provisions, farming, etc. Each department had its office headed
by an elder monk and assisted by younger ones. When the whole
brotherhood was engaged for instance in the field, the master
himself came out to work with the rest."
D.T. Suzuki, 1958 Zen and Japanese Buddhism (chapter: "The
Development of Zen"), pp. 29-30.
"I think such Buddhist philosophers as Chih-I and Fa-tsang are
among some of the greatest thinkers in the world. It was in Zen
that the Chinese mind completely asserted itself, in opposition
to the Indian mind... If any people or race is to be
characterized in a word, I would say that the Chinese mind is
eminently practical, in contrast to the Indian mind, which is
speculative and tends toward abstraction and unworldliness and
non-historical-mindedness.
"... When Buddhist monks first came to China the people objected
to their not working... The Chinese people reasoned: If those
monks do not work, who will feed them? No other than those who
are not monks or priests." D.T. Suzuki, 1955 Studies in Zen
(chapter: "Zen" a Reply to Dr. Hu Shih"), p. 155.
I believe that it is in other books by Suzuki (such as The
Training of the Zen Buddhist Monk) that he had text and
illustrations about the work of the Ch'an and Zen monks in
architecture and carpentry.
"During the heyday of Zen in the T'ang period, the monastic rule
of P'ai-Chang (749-814), which regulated the life of Zen monks,
was developed. While in India 'a robe and a bowl on a stone
under a tree' was adequate to the meager needs of a mendicant, in
China, with its more rigorous climate and different customs, such
simplicity did not suffice.
"... The main precept of the rules is manual labor, a principle
pregnantly formulated by P'ai -chang: 'A day without work - a day
without eating.' The master put the greatest value on having his
monks work, and he himself set the best example.
"... The ethical value of work, within the framework of Zen, was
recognized above all by the master P'ai-chang, who for his
celebrated monastic regulations was given the title 'The
Patriarch Who Created the Forest' (i.e., the community of
disciples)."
Heinrich Dumoulin, 1963 A History of Zen Buddhism (chapter:
"the monastic Life"), pp 102-103.
The name is also transliterated into English as Po-Chang, and his
contributions to the monastic life, the practices, and the
doctrines is treated in an essay in Gary Snyder's book Earth
House Hold, 1969 (chapter: "Record of the Life of the Ch'an
Master Po-chang Hauai-Hai", pp. 69-82. Snyder is an American who
studied Chinese translation it U.C. Berkeley in the early '50s,
and practiced Zen in Japanese monasteries from 1956-1968. His
writing describe the work aspects of monastery life in the 1950s
and '60s. Since the essay is long and detailed, I won't quote it
here.
Please appreciate that it took me a couple days to find the books
and the quotes.
Well, I have no control over whether you are suspicious about me
for whatever reason. That's up to you. I've entered into these
conversations sincerely, and I believe you did as well. So, I
thank you.
Further
Klm
wrote:
>
>I'm more English than Celt or Swiss. Do you like to pick on the
>Celts? (Just a joke .... but why term *them* "confused"? There
>are very many good and admirable people among them.)
>
>
>The aspect of this newsgroup that I do not care for (though I do
>not aim this at you, KLM) is ethnic nationalism and bigotry.
>
Confused Celt is a play on words, a pun. None of us would know what a
CC looks like if one slapped us on the face anymore than you would if
a Chinese scholar and not much of a gentleman returned the compliment
on you.
The confused part is your puzzlement over a very prosaic (as in Prozac
prescribed for hyper-people) concept of having to work first before
you can eat. Any illiterate superstitious grandma peasant in the
wilds of China could have told you that. So could your own grandma
and she didn't know a Buddha from bubba. You had to read three books
to come to the same conclusion? Contemplating one's navel would be a
more merciful pursuit for at least that does not tax one's common
sense.
Your quote:
> D.T. Suzuki, 1958 Zen and Japanese Buddhism (chapter: "The
>Development of Zen"), pp. 29-30.
Immediate red flag. pp 29-30. Too early in any book.
It comes across as a perfunctory introduction and the subject matter
could not have been developed to any extent in the preceeding pages.
I don't know how thick Suzuki's book is but I doubt this subject was
ever visited again. That is this subject is trivial.
Secondly if your reading into the meaning of Buddhism is stalled this
early and on such a trivial point you need more help than can be
provided by the newgroup.
>
>"I think such Buddhist philosophers as Chih-I and Fa-tsang are
>among some of the greatest thinkers in the world. It was in Zen
>that the Chinese mind completely asserted itself, in opposition
>to the Indian mind... If any people or race is to be
>characterized in a word, I would say that the Chinese mind is
>eminently practical, in contrast to the Indian mind, which is
>speculative and tends toward abstraction and unworldliness and
>non-historical-mindedness.
What an unfounded sweeping statement. I would say that Suzuki lacked
a good understanding of Indian ways comparable to his claim of
knowledge of Chinese ways. A reading of Durant would have put Suzuki
in place.
>"... When Buddhist monks first came to China the people objected
>to their not working... The Chinese people reasoned: If those
>monks do not work, who will feed them? No other than those who
>are not monks or priests." D.T. Suzuki, 1955 Studies in Zen
>(chapter: "Zen" a Reply to Dr. Hu Shih"), p. 155.
Pg. 155, Ok Suzuki did revisit the subject. Your emphasis on this
very ordinary housekeeping is puzzling. Articles from today's Better
Housekeeping should be more relevant than what occurred 1500 years
ago. If housekeeping is the main thrust of Suzuki's book then you are
asking the wrong questions. I would have thought that your inquiries
into Buddhism would concentrate on its influence on the human spirit
and soul.
How did Suzuki arrive at this scenario? The spread of Buddhism was
overland and would have to cross the poorest and wildest parts of the
Tibetan plateau before reaching more hospitable climes in western
China. There would have been no such thing as strange religious nuts
coming into the land and demanding anything. And they can't just come
in and build a monastery on the assumption that the local populace
will feed them. Don't forget life was and still is very hard and
there would be little tolerance for naval gazers of any creed. Whilst
the nomadic tradition was and is to feed and shelter any stranger that
shows up at the yurt there is no tradition of the same stranger being
allowed to freeload beyond what is minimally necessary to send him
along to his next destination. To wit, if the monks want to stick
around, they better make themselves useful and relevant.
Another common sense point is, peasants all over the world are the
ultimate pragmatists. A wrong decision and his family starves. That
is why they are so resistant to new unproven ideas. We would be far
more impressed if you quote Suzuki and the other authors on how
Buddhism managed to overcome this innate peasant resistance to
anything new.
Further
>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:33:27 -0800, Further <Furth...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>Another common sense point is, peasants all over the world are the
>ultimate pragmatists. A wrong decision and his family starves. That
>is why they are so resistant to new unproven ideas. We would be far
>more impressed if you quote Suzuki and the other authors on how
>Buddhism managed to overcome this innate peasant resistance to
>anything new.
KLM, your interests and mine are different.... or more
accurately, you do not share my interest in the work habits,
skills, and practical accomplishments of the Ch'an Buddhists of
China or Japan. Fair enough.
From what you have expressed in this thread and in others, I
believe your areas of interest are quite pertinent to much that
is important to human society and the Chinese people. While a bit
mocking and irritable in how you relate, at least it is clear you
are no fool.
A bit of advice.... You shouldn't make assumptions about the
shallowness of my own interests in history, humanity, or the
Chinese. Or anything else, really. You don't serve anybody well
when you do that. I came here looking for a particular sort of
information.... but I guess that, at this time at least, it is
not available here. C'est la vie. I enjoyed it for a while.
Goodbye, and all the best.
Further
Klm
wrote:
>A bit of advice.... You shouldn't make assumptions about the
>shallowness of my own interests in history, humanity, or the
>Chinese. Or anything else, really.
What happened to that wide eyed apologetic innocent who first wandered
into this scene? Then there was that genuflecting flattery to draw a
victim in. Two can play the manipulation game. When I first probed
you a couple of posts back I expected a protest of innocence and
purity of (your) purpose. Instead you responded as one whose game
was thwarted early on.
>You don't serve anybody well
>when you do that.
You hide behind a pseudonym and obscure issues. How, may we know,
have you served as a paragon of any sort? Someone who seeks the
truth, particularly in religion and matters of faith, identifies
himself and frames his quest in a form others can sympathize with.
That's how missionaries win followers. You were not even trying.
>I came here looking for a particular sort of
>information.... but I guess that, at this time at least, it is
>not available here. C'est la vie. I enjoyed it for a while.
>
So it was for enjoyment. Gotcha.
You still haven't convinced anyone that you have a legitimate
question. No one else responded and no one else is likely to
including that group on Zen Buddhism you had visited. The test is
triviality not trivia. You have convinced only yourself on the
importance of a very trivial (Suzuki's) facet that has little if any
bearing on Buddhist enlightment. You made no argument to support your
finding.
>Goodbye, and all the best.
And the same to you too. This is a very useful greeting I learned
from Canadians. If you mean well then the reply means well. If you
have a hidden hostile intent then its the same to you too.