Moderation of "Zen" Section by "Non-Zen" Moderators
The following section highlights the issue of current moderation of the "Japanese Zen" section of the E-Sangha forums by moderators none of whom is a "Japanese Zen" practitioner. Several such site officials, even if sometimes well meaning, daily profess their personal interpretations of Japanese Zen doctrine based upon their own sects and beliefs (all with limited disclosure, especially to newcomers to Zen, that the moderators are not actually "Japanese Zen" practitioners or clergy, and with no diclosure that actual Zen clergy are banned from the site).
To explain the issue, and to allow several of those moderators an opportunity to explain their actions, we reprint here most of a recent thread from E-Sangha entitled "Eijo Does Not Practice Zen, just for the record", begun by Rev. Eijo, a Shingon Buddhist Priest residing in Japan and a 'Global Moderator' of E-Sangha very active in moderation and commentary on the "Japanese Zen" threads. Other moderators and present/former administrators joining in the conversation are indicated. We have made every effort to post the body of moderator/administrator comments in full, without edit or deletion. We have deleted the names of non-moderators on the thread from whom we do not have consent to reprint their messages, and have only reprinted their comments to the extent directly relevant to the conversation. We emphasize that none of the moderators or administrators offering their opinions here of Zen teachers and teachings are, themselves, Zen practitioners.
We believe the discussion speaks for itself ...
______________________________________
eijo
post Jul 14 2009, 07:06 PM
Post #1
Group: Global Moderator
Posts: 1,966
Joined: 28-November 05
From: Koyasan, Japan
Member No.: 10,036
There should be no need to post something like this. But, a member has
complained on another site that I am somehow trying to mislead people
here, in that I sometimes post something in the Zen forum but am not a
Zen practitioner. I am not trying to mislead anyone.
There is no necessity for any member to be a practitioner of anything
to post in any forum here, in case you didn't know.
However, to set the record straight once more, and make sure everyone
knows it if they are for some reason concerned about this, I am not a
practitioner of Zen. You can see this from my profile, and I have
clearly mentioned this already in the Zen forum. I did practice Zen
myself over 20 years ago. I have lived in Japan for 29 years, and when
I offer something in the Zen forum it is based on my experience in
Japan, and also based on general points about Japanese Buddhism that I
have learned or experienced. I have the deepest respect for Zen, its
authentic teachings, and its great masters. That's all I wanted to say.
______________________________________
caritas
post Jul 14 2009, 07:54 PM
Post #3
Group: Moderator
Posts: 2,843
Joined: 7-December 05
From: Just North of the Empire
Member No.: 10,203
if we wanted to keep the zen forum exclusive we could require that
everyone post in japanese, or at least kanji. but I think that could
get confusing. and yet it feels so natural to the history of the
tradition.
______________________________________
Upsaka JC
post Jul 14 2009, 10:38 PM
Post #4
Group: Theravada Moderator
Posts: 2,166
Joined: 25-November 03
From: anchorage alaska
Member No.: 1,132
i guess you could say i dont practice zen either, although i trained
under one teacher for the required amount of years to then go and find
other teachers... so in a way you could say i am still following a
tradition that was a part of zen , so hey maybe i'm a zen guy too! i
dont know.... confused2.gif
not to mention my meditation practice is still basically shikantaza,
only i dont do it in a japanese setting anymore, and i do more than
just that too, but then again dogen did a lot more than just that
too....
This post has been edited by Upsaka JC: Jul 14 2009, 10:56 PM
______________________________________
Astus
post Jul 16 2009, 10:19 AM
Post #5
Group: East Asian Moderator
Posts: 2,385
Joined: 1-April 04
From: Budapest, EU
Member No.: 2,058
"You're no Zen practitioner so you have no right to say what Zen is."
laugh.gif
There's nothing to worry about. No such thing as "Zen practice" has
ever existed.
______________________________________
thegiantalbion
post Jul 17 2009, 04:08 AM
Post #7
Group: East Asian Moderator
Posts: 4,273
Joined: 1-February 05
From: DC Metro
Member No.: 5,862
QUOTE(Astus @ Jul 16 2009, 10:19 AM)
"You're no Zen practitioner so you have no right to say what Zen is."
laugh.gif
There's nothing to worry about. No such thing as "Zen practice" has
ever existed.
*
If that's the case, then how do we describe the activities of Hui Neng,
Lin Chi, and Dogen? They clearly practiced something; they worked
methodically and purposively (they did it on purpose, not by accident).
So if they weren't "Zen practicioners," and they weren't "practicing
Zen"... then...
were maybe they practicing Buddhism!?
blink.gif
enough with the make-believe already
______________________________________
Anders Honore
post Jul 18 2009, 11:26 PM
Post #9
Group: Snr Member [note: former Administrator]
Posts: 3,972
Joined: 8-February 04
From: Denmark
Member No.: 1,703
QUOTE(thegiantalbion @ Jul 17 2009, 01:08 PM)
QUOTE(Astus @ Jul 16 2009, 10:19 AM)
"You're no Zen practitioner so you have no right to say what Zen is."
laugh.gif
There's nothing to worry about. No such thing as "Zen practice" has
ever existed.
*
If that's the case, then how do we describe the activities of Hui Neng,
Lin Chi, and Dogen? They clearly practiced something; they worked
methodically and purposively (they did it on purpose, not by accident).
So if they weren't "Zen practicioners," and they weren't "practicing
Zen"... then...
were maybe they practicing Buddhism!?
blink.gif
*
Well, Dogen did contend that divisions of Zen into houses and schools
were not only wrong and misleading, but in fact distinguishes Zen from
Buddhism in general was equally so. He may have been the founder of
'Soto Zen' but I reckon he saw himself as simply a plain Mahayana
Buddhist.
"You're bound to become a buddha if you practice
If water drips long enough even rocks wear through
It's not true thick skulls can't be pierced
People just imagine their minds are hard."
-- Shih-wu (1272-1352)
"Given that true emptiness and the meritorious qualities of buddha
Have been correctly analyzed in accordance with Dharma
In the doctrines of both traditions and vehicles,
What bases for disputation could there be among the wise?"
-- Nagarjuna in the Ratnavali
______________________________________
Zennist
post Yesterday, 09:18 AM
Post #13
Group: Snr Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 26-March 08
Member No.: 38,071
Warn: (0%) -----
QUOTE(eijo @ Jul 14 2009, 07:06 PM)
I have the deepest respect for Zen, its authentic teachings, and its
great masters. That's all I wanted to say.
*
Hello,
Since you are not a Zen practitioner, I am just wondering how you know
which are the "authentic" from "inauthentic" teachings of Zen and its
"great" from "no great" masters.
Thank you for your time.
Tuck
______________________________________
caritas
post Yesterday, 01:24 PM
Post #14
Group: Moderator
probably through study of dharma teachings, and observation of the
world.
how would you know which are the "authentic" from "inauthentic"
teachings of Zen and its "great" from "not great" masters, tuck.
______________________________________
eijo
post Yesterday, 03:50 PM
Post #15
Group: Global Moderator
QUOTE(caritas @ Jul 21 2009, 06:24 AM)
probably through study of dharma teachings, and observation of the
world.
*
Exactly my answer. Is there any other way to know this?
______________________________________
thegiantalbion
post Yesterday, 04:13 PM
Post #17
Group: East Asian Moderator
QUOTE(Anders Honore @ Jul 18 2009, 11:26 PM)
Well, Dogen did contend that divisions of Zen into houses and schools
were not only wrong and misleading, but in fact distinguishes Zen from
Buddhism in general was equally so. He may have been the founder of
'Soto Zen' but I reckon he saw himself as simply a plain Mahayana
Buddhist.
*
And if you look at his actions and accomplishments and the legacy he
left the world--the man was clearly a bodhisattva.
______________________________________
D_______________
post Yesterday, 04:17 PM
Post #18
Group: Snr Member
QUOTE(thegiantalbion @ Jul 20 2009, 04:13 PM)
QUOTE(Anders Honore @ Jul 18 2009, 11:26 PM)
Well, Dogen did contend that divisions of Zen into houses and schools
were not only wrong and misleading, but in fact distinguishes Zen from
Buddhism in general was equally so. He may have been the founder of
'Soto Zen' but I reckon he saw himself as simply a plain Mahayana
Buddhist.
*
And if you look at his actions and accomplishments and the legacy he
left the world--the man was clearly a bodhisattva.
*
Ummmm, I don't mean to be picky or difficult. But how do we know he was
a bodhisattva, (in the context of the definition of a bodhisattva)?
Thanks muchly for any clarification smile.gif
Kindly,
D_______________
______________________________________
Upsaka JC
post Yesterday, 08:13 PM
Post #19
Group: Theravada Moderator
whatever else he may have been, dogen was pretty awesome in my book.
probably the most misunderstood of all the famous zen guys though, and
someone who has been used by different modern teachers to serve their
own purposes while ignoring a lot of what dogen had to say about
practice other than "just sit"
______________________________________
Zennist
post Today, 07:55 AM
Post #20
Group: Snr Member
QUOTE(eijo @ Jul 20 2009, 03:50 PM)
QUOTE(caritas @ Jul 21 2009, 06:24 AM)
probably through study of dharma teachings, and observation of the
world.
*
Exactly my answer. Is there any other way to know this?
*
QUOTE(Upsaka JC @ Jul 20 2009, 08:13 PM)
whatever else he may have been, dogen was pretty awesome in my book.
probably the most misunderstood of all the famous zen guys though, and
someone who has been used by different modern teachers to serve their
own purposes while ignoring a lot of what dogen had to say about
practice other than "just sit"
*
Yes, so it does strike me that there are many Zen monks and teachers,
very many respected modern Zen teachers, who would disagree with both
of you strongly on what are the "authentic" Zen teachings. Since you
are not Zen teachers, it can be confusing to someone like me who to
listen to about Zen ... the "Zen teachers" wrong view or your authentic
view.
So, thank you for that and your time. You help us. Tuck
______________________________________
caritas
post Today, 08:08 AM
Post #21
Group: Moderator
QUOTE(Zennist @ Jul 21 2009, 11:55 AM)
Yes, so it does strike me that there are many Zen monks and teachers,
very many respected modern Zen teachers, who would disagree with both
of you strongly on what are the "authentic" Zen teachings.
perhaps you can bring us their specific words, and describe why they
are respected.
QUOTE
Since you are not Zen teachers, it can be confusing to someone like me
who to listen to about Zen ... the "Zen teachers" wrong view or your
authentic view.
*
do you have confidence that zen is buddhism? how would you go about
investigating this.
______________________________________
Sh________________
post Today, 08:19 AM
Post #22
Group: Snr Member
QUOTE(Zennist @ Jul 21 2009, 09:55 AM)
Yes, so it does strike me that there are many Zen monks and teachers,
very many respected modern Zen teachers, who would disagree with both
of you strongly on what are the "authentic" Zen teachings. Since you
are not Zen teachers, it can be confusing to someone like me who to
listen to about Zen ... the "Zen teachers" wrong view or your authentic
view.
So, thank you for that and your time. You help us. Tuck
*
There is Zen Buddhism, which has been practised in East Asia for many
centuries, and then there is Zen which is a recently invented
commodified and packaged commercial enterprise with an Asian flavour
that is sold at big box bookstores but really doesn't qualify as
Buddhism in most respects.
If we're talking about the former, then any scholar of East Asian
Buddhism will be able to identify and at least briefly discuss some
details of Chan / Zen. If it is the later you're referring to, then it
isn't Buddhism and really has no place on this forum.
______________________________________
Zennist
post Today, 08:22 AM
Post #23
Group: Snr Member
QUOTE(caritas @ Jul 21 2009, 08:08 AM)
perhaps you can bring us their specific words, and describe why they
are respected.
Some of those words cannot be discussed here or quoted, so I hesitate.
I do not want to make waves, so I think I will just return to listening.
QUOTE
do you have confidence that zen is buddhism? how would you go about
investigating this.
*
Are you implying that possibly Zen may not be Buddhism? Are you
speaking as a rDzogs-chen practitioner?
Thank you for your time, and all the work you do in moderating this
forum. Tuck
______________________________________
thegiantalbion
post Today, 08:37 AM
Post #24
Group: East Asian Moderator
QUOTE(Zennist @ Jul 21 2009, 08:22 AM)
QUOTE(caritas @ Jul 21 2009, 08:08 AM)
perhaps you can bring us their specific words, and describe why they
are respected.
Some of those words cannot be discussed here or quoted, so I hesitate.
I do not want to make waves, so I think I will just return to listening.
*
Some of them? I'm not sure what you're referring to, but if only some
of them may be objectionable (and still respected?), then most of them
must not be: that is, most of them must be acceptable here. Yes?
So please, explain. You made a claim. It's not too much to ask you to
support that claim with some evidence.
This post has been edited by thegiantalbion: Today, 08:40 AM
______________________________________
thegiantalbion
post Today, 08:39 AM
Post #25
Group: East Asian Moderator
QUOTE(D__________ @ Jul 20 2009, 04:17 PM)
QUOTE(thegiantalbion @ Jul 20 2009, 04:13 PM)
And if you look at his actions and accomplishments and the legacy he
left the world--the man was clearly a bodhisattva.
*
Ummmm, I don't mean to be picky or difficult. But how do we know he was
a bodhisattva, (in the context of the definition of a bodhisattva)?
*
If I'm reading his biography properly, I understand him to have
attained the first bhumi (path of seeing) around age 13 before he made
it to Mt Hiei. And so on.
______________________________________
Zennist
post Today, 08:44 AM
Post #26
Group: Snr Member
QUOTE(thegiantalbion @ Jul 21 2009, 08:37 AM)
Some of them? I'm not sure what you're referring to, but if only some
of them may be objectionable (and still respected?), then most of them
must not be.
*
I am sorry, I do not think I understand the question.
There are just some very common teachings in Western Zen, and I don't
wish to rehash them here. I know that one can get get into some jam for
talking about them here, and I am trying to be a good e-citizen. I know
that Eijo and you seem to disagree with what the Zen teachers teach. I
do not even want to say if I agree with all of them, because I may not.
So, is that enough to say here?
Thank you for your work on this forum too. It is an important resource.
Tuck
PS-
QUOTE
If I'm reading his biography properly, I understand him to have
attained the first bhumi (path of seeing) around age 13 before he made
it to Mt Hiei. And so on.
Would I be wrong to say that that is not a typical interpretation
within Japanese Zen Buddhism (as opposed to other schools of Buddhism)
of Dogen's life?
This post has been edited by Zennist: Today, 08:47 AM
______________________________________
thegiantalbion
post Today, 08:44 AM
Group: East Asian Moderator
QUOTE(Zennist @ Jul 21 2009, 07:55 AM)
(1) Yes, so it does strike me that there are many Zen monks and
teachers, very many respected modern Zen teachers, who would disagree
with both of you strongly on what are the "authentic" Zen teachings.
(2) Since you are not Zen teachers, it can be confusing to someone like
me who to listen to about Zen ... the "Zen teachers" wrong view or your
authentic view.
*
I took the liberty of numbering your ideas here for the sake of clarity.
(1) You mentioned elsewhere that you'd rather not say who these persons
may be. That's fine. Do you care to outline some of the positions eijo
or others have taken that others who are respected Zen teachers might
find objectionable, and why? Just a summary would be helpful so they
can be clarified or opened up for discussion.
(2) You may wish to entertain the possibility that some persons who
speak on behalf of Zen are misrepresenting it, misunderstanding it,
twisting it into a pretzel, or dumbing it down for easy consumption. Or
many other possibilities. Caveat emptor. It's your job as a student of
the teachings to resolve your confusions, burn up doubt, and move
forward. Your hair is on fire.
______________________________________
Sy_____________
post Today, 08:47 AM
Post #28
Group: Snr Member
It seems to me if you have extensive knowledge of something it is a
kindness to those less educated on the matter to learn and merit from
your experiential contribution.
It never occurred to me that you practiced zen or not. I simply
appreciate your contributions because they enrich my own understanding
which is still very primitive.
______________________________________
thegiantalbion
post Today, 08:47 AM
Post #29
Group: East Asian Moderator
QUOTE(Zennist @ Jul 21 2009, 08:44 AM)
I know that Eijo and you seem to disagree with what the Zen teachers
teach.
*
That's great, but I'm asking you to be specific so we can help you
resolve your confusion. What is the disagreement you refer to? On what
grounds?
You say that only some of the teachers are objectionable to e-sangha. I
have no clue what you're referring to there, but we'll leave that
aside. All minus some equals most. That means that most contemporary
Zen teachers you cited earlier must be available for discussion.
Please, cite those. This is part of being a good e-citizen too.
______________________________________
thegiantalbion
post Today, 08:50 AM
Post #30
Group: East Asian Moderator
QUOTE(Sy_______ @ Jul 21 2009, 08:47 AM)
This elitism of "Well you're not in our club" is illusory and wholly
contrary to the spirit of non-duality. I may be wrong since I am a
beginner, but my understanding so far is acceptance of others' opinions
and experience as such. If you have something to contribute in return
to a discussion, it shouldn't matter if you're part of the "in"crowd or
not. Solid logic and experientially tested truth speak for themselves,
no?
*
I'm inclined to agree with this. Einstein wasn't a "physics
practitioner" at the time he came up with the general theory of
relativity, but as it turns out, he had some intelligent contributions
to make on the subject of physics...
______________________________________
Zennist
post Today, 08:55 AM
Post #31
Group: Snr Member
QUOTE(thegiantalbion @ Jul 21 2009, 08:44 AM)
I took the liberty of numbering your ideas here for the sake of clarity.
(1) You mentioned elsewhere that you'd rather not say who these persons
may be. That's fine. Do you care to outline some of the positions
eijo or others have taken that others who are respected Zen teachers
might find objectionable, and why? Just a summary would be helpful so
they can be clarified or opened up for discussion.
(2) You may wish to entertain the possibility that some persons who
speak on behalf of Zen are misrepresenting it, misunderstanding it,
twisting it into a pretzel, or dumbing it down for easy consumption.
Or many other possibilities. Caveat emptor. It's your job as a
student of the teachings to resolve your confusions, burn up doubt, and
move forward. Your hair is on fire.
*
Again, I do not think I need bring them all up, and there have been
many discussions on these matters in many threads. As I said, I thank
you for bringing fresh air into these issues. Even your discussion of
Dogen as having reached the "first bhumi" is not something I have heard
many if any Soto Zen teachers say, so I thank you for providing that
insight. It is something to consider.
As you say, because these teachers are out there "misrepresenting Zen,
misunderstanding it, twisting it into a pretzel", I am very glad this
place is here.
I think I am being too much in the spotlight, and it is making me
tense. Can we just leave it there?
Thank you for all your work on this forum. Tuck
______________________________________
Zennist
post Today, 08:58 AM
Post #32
Group: Snr Member
QUOTE(thegiantalbion @ Jul 21 2009, 08:47 AM)
You say that only some of the teachers are objectionable to e-sangha.
I have no clue what you're referring to there, but we'll leave that
aside. All minus some equals most. That means that most contemporary
Zen teachers you cited earlier must be available for discussion.
Please, cite those. This is part of being a good e-citizen too.
*
Well, I feel like I am being backed into a corner here. I will mention
Rev. *************, who was head of the American Zen Teachers
Association. I know that some of the moderators here who are not
Japanese or Soto Zen Buddhists disagree with him on some
interpretations of the nature of Shakyamuni Buddha.
Can I be let off now?
Thank you for your time. Tuck
[NOTE: REV. NONIN'S NAME DELETED BY E-SANGHA'S AUTOMATIC CENSORSHIP SOFTWARE]
______________________________________
caritas
post Jul 21 2009, 09:38 AM
Post #33
Group: Moderator
QUOTE(Zennist @ Jul 21 2009, 12:22 PM)
QUOTE(caritas @ Jul 21 2009, 08:08 AM)
perhaps you can bring us their specific words, and describe why they are respected.
Some
of those words cannot be discussed here or quoted, so I hesitate. I do
not want to make waves, so I think I will just return to listening.
that's okay, I think we have a decent idea about the topics. I just don't like to assume.
QUOTE
QUOTE
do you have confidence that zen is buddhism? how would you go about investigating this.
*
Are you implying that possibly Zen may not be Buddhism?
I
was implying that if zen is buddhism then zen should in some sense
conform as a system with buddhism as a system. I didn't want to assume
that you connect the two, so I asked. smile.gif
I've heard that
when considering sources of authority for buddhist doctrine in japanese
traditions, it might be a good idea to consider from which university
they acquired their degree in buddhist studies, or for instance, zen
buddhist studies particularly. perhaps you've heard something similar.
it seems to be a useful measure, but probably not universally
applicable.
QUOTE
Are you speaking as a rDzogs-chen practitioner?
*
dzogchen is implicit as awareness.
so. smile together.gif
This post has been edited by caritas: Jul 21 2009, 09:41 AM
______________________________________
Astus
post Jul 21 2009, 10:31 AM
Post #34
Group: East Asian Moderator
I've
gone through the whole thread but it's hard to tell what the debate is
about. I assume it is whether Eijo has any right to disagree with a Zen
teacher on what constitutes authentic Zen. Well, certainly that is so.
Zen is nobody's privilege, no single person or organisation has
authority on what Zen is or is not. Thus disagreements are possible.
But there's another thing.
For instance, I am no Shingon
practitioner neither have I learnt much about it. Still, if Acharya
Eijo said that in Shingon they don't accept impermanence of phenomena I
would say that he's talking nonsense and false Dharma. Why? Because
there is no Buddhist school denying impermanence.
Similarly, there
are Zen teachers who don't accept crucial principles of Buddhism. That
makes those teachings false and harmful to those who accept it as an
authentic transmission of the Dharma. Consequently they cannot be
called teachers of the Zen of Bodhidharma either.
By the way,
Zen is not that complicated so that educated Buddhist people could not
know about it. Certainly anyone regardless of what school one follows
can read a couple of books and have a general view, especially if that
person is familiar with common East-Asian Mahayana.
______________________________________
eijo
post Jul 21 2009, 04:00 PM
Post #35
Group: Global Moderator
QUOTE(Zennist @ Jul 22 2009, 12:55 AM)
QUOTE(eijo @ Jul 20 2009, 03:50 PM)
QUOTE(caritas @ Jul 21 2009, 06:24 AM)
probably through study of dharma teachings, and observation of the world.
*
Exactly my answer. Is there any other way to know this?
*
QUOTE(Upsaka JC @ Jul 20 2009, 08:13 PM)
whatever
else he may have been, dogen was pretty awesome in my book. probably
the most misunderstood of all the famous zen guys though, and someone
who has been used by different modern teachers to serve their own
purposes while ignoring a lot of what dogen had to say about practice
other than "just sit"
*
Yes, so it does strike me
that there are many Zen monks and teachers, very many respected modern
Zen teachers, who would disagree with both of you strongly on what are
the "authentic" Zen teachings. Since you are not Zen teachers, it can
be confusing to someone like me who to listen to about Zen ... the "Zen
teachers" wrong view or your authentic view.
So, thank you for that and your time. You help us. Tuck
*
And
you are free to decide on who you want to listen to, of course. The
issue I wanted to address in this topic was one of the claim that I was
misleading people purposefully. I hope you see that claim is just hot
air now.
Let me expand on the issue of "authentic teachings." I
have studied Dogen, in the original. Also several Chinese masters.
These are all authentic teachings. I would call authentic any Zen
teachings based on (1) the four seals, and (2) such texts. You perhaps
have made an assumption about what I think authentic Zen is which was
not fully informed. It is not based on what another sect teaches, but
on Zen's own classical texts and on the most core and common teachings
of Buddhism.
Based on the above, do you still think that "many
Zen monks and teachers, very many respected modern Zen teachers, who
would disagree with both of you strongly"? If so, I hope you will
expand on what you mean as well.
______________________________________
Upsaka JC
post Jul 21 2009, 05:39 PM
Post #36
Group: Theravada Moderator
since
i was sorta singled out i would like to add, that my views on zen come
from studying under and with a japanese soto priest, though i was in
contact with a japanese rinzai priest for a short bit before that and
was asked to live and study with him. so my ideas on zen come purely
from these tradition settings. when i answer a zen question it comes
from this understanding. the views i subscribe to about zen and highly
in snyc with Uchiyama roshi.
for my own personal practice, i
conform to the pali canon, and not mahayana sutras, if there is a
discrepancy with what i come across i will rely on the pali text, this
is a personal preference and taking into account bodhidharma's advice
to not rely on scripture i see no reason why i should have to accept a
mahayana sutra over a pali sutta.
also take the words of bodhidharma
QUOTE
A special transmission outside the scriptures,
Not founded upon words and letters;
By pointing directly to [one's] mind
It lets one see into [one's own true] nature and [thus] attain Buddhahood
and compare them to the standard (thai) theravada forest idea of
QUOTE
read your heart not the book
and you'll see there's not much difference.
This post has been edited by Upsaka JC: Jul 21 2009, 11:04 PM
______________________________________
__________ M
post Jul 22 2009, 07:39 AM
Post #37
Group: Snr Member
QUOTE(eijo @ Jul 21 2009, 05:00 PM)
Let
me expand on the issue of "authentic teachings." I have studied Dogen,
in the original. Also several Chinese masters. These are all authentic
teachings. I would call authentic any Zen teachings based on (1) the
four seals, and (2) such texts. You perhaps have made an assumption
about what I think authentic Zen is which was not fully informed. It is
not based on what another sect teaches, but on Zen's own classical
texts and on the most core and common teachings of Buddhism.
Good
point about the Four Dharma Seals and "such texts". If someone
sincerely tries to teach based on these two, then it's fair to say it's
an authentic (read: Buddhist) teaching. It's easy for someone like me
to forget since one gets into conundrums about lineage, practice and
such, but it's good to orient any such questions to how they fit with
the Four Dharma Seals.
This post has been edited by _____________ M: Jul 22 2009, 07:39 AM
______________________________________
Zennist
post Jul 22 2009, 03:52 PM
Post #38
Group: Snr Member
QUOTE(eijo @ Jul 21 2009, 04:00 PM)
Based
on the above, do you still think that "many Zen monks and teachers,
very many respected modern Zen teachers, who would disagree with both
of you strongly"? If so, I hope you will expand on what you mean as
well.
*
Hello Rev. Eijo.
Thank you for all you
do. Well, since you ask me for my comment, I will give it honestly. It
makes me uncomfortable to do so, and I am happy to be a lurker most
times. You have asked me to expand, so I will do so and trust it will
be allowed to be said.
I am sorry, but I know that several
highly respected Zen teachers, including one priest who is an old and
highly thought of student of Katagiri Roshi, are banned from this
E-Sangha site for teaching about Zen Buddhism which you disagree with.
So, your view of "authentic" Zen is not the same as theirs. They are
recognized by Soto sect in Japan, the Soto Zen Buddhist Teachers
Association and the like, and are often quoted in magazines like
Tricycle and Buddhadharma, but they are not allowed to teach here. So,
your view of "authentic" Zen is not the same as what the Zen teachers
see as "authentic" Zen. Since you are not a Zen teacher, it is very
strange that you are substituting your opinion of Zen for theirs while
keeping them silenced.
QUOTE(Astus @ Jul 21 2009, 10:31 AM)
Zen
is nobody's privilege, no single person or organisation has authority
on what Zen is or is not. Thus disagreements are possible. But there's
another thing.
Similarly, there are Zen teachers who don't
accept crucial principles of Buddhism. That makes those teachings false
and harmful to those who accept it as an authentic transmission of the
Dharma. Consequently they cannot be called teachers of the Zen of
Bodhidharma either.
So, in other words, "Zen" is not
owned by anybody, and thus while some Zen priests cannot teach Zen
here, you who are not Zen priests can teach Zen here. But "Buddhism" is
"somebody's privilege" and only you can determine who is and is not
teachings the "Zen of Bodhidharma"
That is clear.
I am
sorry, but you asked for my opinion and I did not want to speak it.
This is more than I have written on this or any internet forum in a
long time. Iam usually somebody of few words, but I think this smells
funny. I think many think so.
I only spoke because you asked.
Thank you for all you do otherwise. Tuck
This post has been edited by Zennist: Jul 22 2009, 03:55 PM
______________________________________
eijo
post Jul 22 2009, 05:14 PM
Post #39
Group: Global Moderator
QUOTE(Zennist @ Jul 23 2009, 08:52 AM)
QUOTE(eijo @ Jul 21 2009, 04:00 PM)
Based
on the above, do you still think that "many Zen monks and teachers,
very many respected modern Zen teachers, who would disagree with both
of you strongly"? If so, I hope you will expand on what you mean as
well.
*
Hello Rev. Eijo.
Thank you for all you
do. Well, since you ask me for my comment, I will give it honestly. It
makes me uncomfortable to do so, and I am happy to be a lurker most
times. You have asked me to expand, so I will do so and trust it will
be allowed to be said.
I am sorry, but I know that several
highly respected Zen teachers, including one priest who is an old and
highly thought of student of Katagiri Roshi, are banned from this
E-Sangha site for teaching about Zen Buddhism which you disagree with.
So, your view of "authentic" Zen is not the same as theirs. They are
recognized by Soto sect in Japan, the Soto Zen Buddhist Teachers
Association and the like, and are often quoted in magazines like
Tricycle and Buddhadharma, but they are not allowed to teach here. So,
your view of "authentic" Zen is not the same as what the Zen teachers
see as "authentic" Zen. Since you are not a Zen teacher, it is very
strange that you are substituting your opinion of Zen for theirs while
keeping them silenced.
*
Thanks for your
comments. Looking them over, I can't help but notice that you seem to
be assuming that I am banning members because I think their teachings
are not authentic. You should know first of all that no moderator can
ban anyone, including me. Only administrators can do that. If you want
to know why a member was banned, you need to contact an administrator
by PM. By E-Sangha rules, such details cannot be discussed in forum
posts, so please be aware of that.
But that is not what the present discussion is about.
(1)
Are you saying that authentic Zen teachings are not necessarily in
conformance with what I suggested, the four seals and the writings of
the Zen masters? I find that hard to believe, but perhaps from your
background you can explain if this is not so, with specific examples?
How would you define authentic Zen? You see, you are mentioning only
credentials above, but I am talking about doctrines and teachings. That
is what my question to you here is about.
(2) I don't understand
why the issue of my not being a Zen teacher is so significant, other
than because it has been seized upon on your site. I have never said or
implied I am a Zen anything. More significantly, what I think is
authentic Zen has nothing to do with the policies of E-sangha, which I
do not make. You have perhaps been misinformed by your associates? You
will note that all I said above is:
QUOTE(eijo @ Jul 15 2009, 12:06 PM)
I have the deepest respect for Zen, its authentic teachings, and its great masters.
*
That
is my personal opinion, not E-sangha policy, which I cannot decide at
any rate. And this topic is specifically to tell people again that I am
not a Zen teacher because this matter is somehow seen as significant on
that site. So when you say:
QUOTE
Since you are not a Zen
teacher, it is very strange that you are substituting your opinion of
Zen for theirs while keeping them silenced.
you are not
making much sense, because I am not substituting my opinion for
anyone's, and I am not personally keeping anyone silenced. You lack
significant details here as well. I am not E-sangha, and I don't have
the power to do any of the things you are saying I do. And I have told
people over and over that I am not a Zen teacher, so they can ignore my
personal opinion about Zen if they want to. If people want to demonize
me, go right ahead, but I hope that first they get the facts in order.
This post has been edited by eijo: Jul 22 2009, 05:16 PM
______________________________________
caritas
post Jul 22 2009, 09:38 PM
Post #40
Group: Moderator
QUOTE(Zennist @ Jul 22 2009, 07:52 PM)
QUOTE(Astus @ Jul 21 2009, 10:31 AM)
Zen
is nobody's privilege, no single person or organisation has authority
on what Zen is or is not. Thus disagreements are possible. But there's
another thing.
Similarly, there are Zen teachers who don't
accept crucial principles of Buddhism. That makes those teachings false
and harmful to those who accept it as an authentic transmission of the
Dharma. Consequently they cannot be called teachers of the Zen of
Bodhidharma either.
So, in other words, "Zen" is not owned by
anybody, and thus while some Zen priests cannot teach Zen here, you who
are not Zen priests can teach Zen here. But "Buddhism" is "somebody's
privilege" and only you can determine who is and is not teachings the
"Zen of Bodhidharma"
That is clear.
Zen as a word is supposed
to trace back through Ch'an as a word, and even back to Dhyana as a
word, meaning the activity of sustaining Dharana, concentration, into
Samadhi, meaning absorption. The movement of the practise into Japan
comes from China, brought by Bodhidharma, who was a Buddhist teacher.
So when we say that Zen is nobody's privilege, it should be clear that
sustained concentration is nobody's privilege. This is quite simple
isn't it? Disagreements are always coming up when some activity is not
privileged or clear. This is why peace requires some dominance, some
conquering, some truthful accord.
Dhyana precedes Gautama,
historically, and can be pursued as an activity outside of Buddha
Dharma. But this forum is a Buddhist forum. Here we sustain activity
promoting the insight of Gautama, and teachers within the lineage of
Gautama, descending through a great many years, whose words and
doctrines are recorded, widely known, and available.
When Zen
teachers, teachers of sustained concentration, teach their students
doctrines that contradict what Gautama taught, thus what Bodhidharma
taught, and thus what Dogen taught (in their various wonderful words),
they cannot be Buddhist teachers. This is also quite simple isn't it?
When
such a person claims to be a teacher within a lineage, and that lineage
is held to go back to Gautama, one should expect the teachings of such
a teacher to be consistent with what Gautama taught. When such a person
claims to be a teacher within a lineage, one should expect that teacher
to be qualified to teach what Gautama taught, without contradiction.
Straightforward I think.
Yet regardless of what such a person
actually teaches, it seems quite possible that they will consistently
advocate the activity of sustained concentration, Dhyana, Ch'an, or
Zen. And why not - it has been the recommended activity of Yogis for
millennia. Yet there is Dhyana in many distinct doctrinal groups - any
faith influenced by Patanjali's Yoga Sutras will have some kind of
sustained concentration.
But one looks to see who the teacher of
the teacher is, and what the teacher of the teacher taught, and whether
what is taught agrees with the words of the lineage, for hundreds and
thousands of years. And when these words do not match, what does it
mean.
Either something is wrong with the words of history, or
something is wrong with the teacher who claims to have a lineage. On
this forum we rely upon the words of history, and the various living
masters who teach the words of history, and the various living examples
of the results of the words of history. We call it Buddhism, treat
these words as Dharma, and maintain respect for the Sangha who maintain
them for us and despite us.
We intend to wake up, for your sake and ours, and hope that what we do is understood.
QUOTE
I
am sorry, but you asked for my opinion and I did not want to speak it.
This is more than I have written on this or any internet forum in a
long time. I am usually somebody of few words, but I think this smells
funny. I think many think so.
*
It is definitely better to state
your opinion when asked, and you've been very respectful in doing so.
Everybody has a slightly different nose, a slightly different brain,
and will smell different things for very different reasons. When it
comes to Buddhism: study, practise, and follow the path. Please sustain
your concentration, practise Zen, and wake up.
I really don't
care too much who you take as a teacher while doing so. Where you go is
your responsibility. But when such persons are unqualified,
misrepresent themselves, or what they teach does not agree with the
words of history, Gautama the Buddha's Dharma, which are recorded,
widely known, and available, such persons will not be appearing here.
Neither will their teachings be disseminated. This seems quite
straightforward, I hope you agree.
And as it turns out there is one thing more:
QUOTE(Zennist @ Jul 22 2009, 07:52 PM)
while some Zen priests cannot teach Zen here, you who are not Zen priests can teach Zen here.
*
Some
Zen priests do not have the training to teach Zen doctrine. Some Zen
priests do have the training to teach Zen doctrine. Some Zen priests
apparently try to teach Zen doctrine without having the training to
teach Zen doctrine. What this means is up to you, but temples are for
training in ritual, not for qualifying to teach doctrine. There are
schools for that.
______________________________________
_______________D
post Yesterday, 05:57 PM
Post #43
Group: Snr Member
QUOTE(thegiantalbion @ Jul 21 2009, 08:39 AM)
If
I'm reading his biography properly, I understand him to have attained
the first bhumi (path of seeing) around age 13 before he made it to Mt
Hiei. And so on.
*
Wow, I didn't know, thanks. I only knew he's a patriarch. And at 13 he reached the first bhumi!
______________________________________
__________________ D
post Yesterday, 06:12 PM
Post #45
Group: Snr Member
Sheesh, all Eijo is writing is that he's not a Zen practitioner. I'm not either.
But no one needs defending from me.
______________________________________
Zennist
post Yesterday, 08:45 PM
Post #48
Group: Snr Member
QUOTE(caritas @ Jul 22 2009, 09:48 PM)
And as it turns out there is one thing more:
QUOTE(Zennist @ Jul 22 2009, 07:52 PM)
while some Zen priests cannot teach Zen here, you who are not Zen priests can teach Zen here.
*
Some
Zen priests do not have the training to teach Zen doctrine. Some Zen
priests do have the training to teach Zen doctrine. Some Zen priests
apparently try to teach Zen doctrine without having the training to
teach Zen doctrine. What this means is up to you, but temples are for
training in ritual, not for qualifying to teach doctrine. There are
schools for that.
*
Happy Birthday Rev. Eijo
I
also want to say how thankful I am that all of you are here to tell us
what Zen and Buddhism is and is not. Otherwise, I might be listening to
the Zen Buddhist priests about what Zen and Buddhism is and is not.
I
also have an evangelical Christian friend who tells me what
Christianity is and is not. I am thankful for him too. He is very clear
that it is not Catholicism.
It is his birthday soon too.
Thank you for all you do. Tuck
______________________________________
eijo
post Yesterday, 09:01 PM
Post #49
Group: Global Moderator
QUOTE(Zennist @ Jul 24 2009, 01:45 PM)
Happy Birthday Rev. Eijo
I
also want to say how thankful I am that all of you are here to tell us
what Zen and Buddhism is and is not. Otherwise, I might be listening to
the Zen Buddhist priests about what Zen and Buddhism is and is not.
I
also have an evangelical Christian friend who tells me what
Christianity is and is not. I am thankful for him too. He is very clear
that it is not Catholicism.
It is his birthday soon too.
Thank you for all you do. Tuck
*
Your sarcasm is not welcome.
I've said it many times, and I'll say it again since you are not reading it.
I am not telling you what Zen is and is not.
All I said is that I respect authentic Zen.
When
asked, I said authentic Zen conforms to basic and common Buddhist
teachings like the four seals, and follows what is taught in the Zen
classics.
If you disagree, I don't really care.
If you want to discuss civilly why you think your authentic Zen is different from my authentic Japan, that would be great.
You are free to ignore me and listen to anyone you like. I am not preaching to you or anyone about anything.
My points, one more time now.
All I said, when asked, is that I respect authentic Zen.
I defined what I personally think authentic Zen is.
I am not a Zen teacher.
I do not practice Zen.
Anyone can post in the Zen forum.
Anyone can ignore me.
______________________________________
___________ D
post Yesterday, 09:07 PM
Post #50
Group: Snr Member
The job of a moderator is to moderate a discussion forum blink.gif
There's
no reason to think that someone has assumed you're their student
because they're able to edit these boards. A lot of us have moderated
sites and it's an unpaid job that people usually do because they're
committed to dharma or whatever the forum subject is.
Sorry to
get involved in something that doesn't involve me, but this is clearly
just a grudge of some kind and Zennist is making straw man arguments
all over the place to pick a fight. It's not right. I'm not even very
familiar with Eijo, but I don't think this is right.
______________________________________
eijo
post Yesterday, 09:14 PM
Post #51
Group: Global Moderator
QUOTE(__________D @ Jul 24 2009, 02:07 PM)
The job of a moderator is to moderate a discussion forum blink.gif
There's
no reason to think that someone has assumed you're their student
because they're able to edit these boards. A lot of us have moderated
sites and it's an unpaid job that people usually do because they're
committed to dharma or whatever the forum subject is.
Sorry to
get involved in something that doesn't involve me, but this is clearly
just a grudge of some kind and Zennist is making straw man arguments
all over the place to pick a fight. It's not right. I'm not even very
familiar with Eijo, but I don't think this is right.
*
Thanks for your comments. I think you have summed this matter up very well.
And thanks to all of you for your birthday greetings. bow.gif
______________________________________
lm____________________
post Yesterday, 09:45 PM
Post #52
Group: Snr Member
QUOTE(Zennist @ Jul 24 2009, 06:45 AM)
QUOTE(caritas @ Jul 22 2009, 09:48 PM)
And as it turns out there is one thing more:
QUOTE(Zennist @ Jul 22 2009, 07:52 PM)
while some Zen priests cannot teach Zen here, you who are not Zen priests can teach Zen here.
*
Some
Zen priests do not have the training to teach Zen doctrine. Some Zen
priests do have the training to teach Zen doctrine. Some Zen priests
apparently try to teach Zen doctrine without having the training to
teach Zen doctrine. What this means is up to you, but temples are for
training in ritual, not for qualifying to teach doctrine. There are
schools for that.
*
Happy Birthday Rev. Eijo
I
also want to say how thankful I am that all of you are here to tell us
what Zen and Buddhism is and is not. Otherwise, I might be listening to
the Zen Buddhist priests about what Zen and Buddhism is and is not.
I
also have an evangelical Christian friend who tells me what
Christianity is and is not. I am thankful for him too. He is very clear
that it is not Catholicism.
It is his birthday soon too.
Thank you for all you do. Tuck
*
l
Tuck, you're quoting caritas to blame eijo. In technical terms that's called 'making a fool of yourself'.
Thanks for all you do here.
______________________________________
Zennist
post Yesterday, 11:55 PM
Post #53
Group: Snr Member
Thank
you. I am just wondering why the Japanese Zen Buddhist teachers are not
allowed to say here, in the Japanese Zen Buddhism forum, what they
believe Japanese Zen and Buddhism to be,
I do not think that
several of you actually hear yourselves, or realize what you are
saying. I am someone of few words, but I know religious bigotry and
sanctimony when I smell it.
Thank you, Tuck
This post has been edited by Zennist: Today, 12:03 AM
______________________________________
Namdrol [Note: past and de facto present administrator]
post Today, 12:13 AM
Post #54
Group: Founding Member
QUOTE(Zennist @ Jul 24 2009, 03:55 AM)
Thank
you. I am just wondering why the Japanese Zen Buddhist teachers are not
allowed to say here, in the Japanese Zen Buddhism forum, what they
believe Japanese Zen and Buddhism to be,
I do not think that
several of you actually hear yourselves, or realize what you are
saying. I am someone of few words, but I know religious bigotry and
sanctimony when I smell it.
Thank you, Tuck
*
Native Japanese Zen Buddhists, like matylda, have frequently shared their understanding of what Japanese Zen Buddhism is. These opinions have been frequently contested by some Americans
calling themselves "Zen Buddhists" who seem to have largely forgot
there is a connection with Buddhism in Japanese Zen Buddhism.
Other
Americans, in particular one rather famous American Zen master in the
states with whom I have had the good fortune if discussing at length
some of the more contentious issues raised at E-Sangha, feel that those
"Zen Buddhists" who feel that such things as rebirth, karma, Buddha's
complete awakening and so on are dispensable or interpretable have
virtually no understanding of Zen Buddhism as it is practiced in Japan and as it should be practiced here in the United States and Europe, etc.
Now,
since you seem unhappy, you should vamoose and go to some other board
where you will feel more comfortable and less challenged.
N
______________________________________
Zennist
post Today, 12:24 AM
Post #55
Group: Snr Member
QUOTE(Namdrol @ Jul 24 2009, 12:13 AM)
Native
Japanese Zen Buddhists, like matylda, have frequently shared their
understanding of what Japanese Zen Buddhism is. These opinions have
been frequently contested by some Americans calling themselves "Zen
Buddhists" who seem to have largely forgot there is a connection with
Buddhism in Japanese Zen Buddhism.
Other Americans, in
particular one rather famous American Zen master in the states with
whom I have had the good fortune if discussing at length some of the
more contentious issues raised at E-Sangha, feel that those "Zen
Buddhists" who feel that such things as rebirth, karma, Buddha's
complete awakening and so on are dispensable or interpretable have
virtually no understanding of Zen Buddhism as it is practiced in Japan and as it should be practiced here in the United States and Europe, etc.
Now,
since you seem unhappy, you should vamoose and go to some other board
where you will feel more comfortable and less challenged.
N
*
Your
opinion is just the opinion of one person. There is no reason to heed
it. Certainly, I do not think you have any particular grasp of Zen
Buddhism, Japanese Zen or the like. Whether you have a grasp of Tibetan Buddhism is also open to debate.
Who is the "rather famous American Zen master" you reference?
Thank you, Tuck
______________________________________
Namdrol
post Today, 12:31 AM
Post #56
Group: Founding Member
QUOTE(Zennist @ Jul 24 2009, 04:24 AM)
QUOTE(Namdrol @ Jul 24 2009, 12:13 AM)
Native
Japanese Zen Buddhists, like matylda, have frequently shared their
understanding of what Japanese Zen Buddhism is. These opinions have
been frequently contested by some Americans calling themselves "Zen
Buddhists" who seem to have largely forgot there is a connection with
Buddhism in Japanese Zen Buddhism.
Other Americans, in
particular one rather famous American Zen master in the states with
whom I have had the good fortune if discussing at length some of the
more contentious issues raised at E-Sangha, feel that those "Zen
Buddhists" who feel that such things as rebirth, karma, Buddha's
complete awakening and so on are dispensable or interpretable have
virtually no understanding of Zen Buddhism as it is practiced in Japan
and as it should be practiced here in the United States and Europe, etc.
Now,
since you seem unhappy, you should vamoose and go to some other board
where you will feel more comfortable and less challenged.
N
*
Your opinion is just the opinion of one person. There is no reason to heed it.
There is also no reason to heed your opinion-- in this respect, our opinions are the same.
QUOTE
Certainly,
I do not think you have any particular grasp of Zen Buddhism, Japanese
Zen or the like. Whether you have a grasp of Tibetan Buddhism is also
open to debate.
Funny, coming from someone yet to demonstrate any grasp of Buddhism at all.
QUOTE
Who is the "rather famous American Zen master" you reference?
Someone
who is famous, American, and who is qualified Zen master in a real
sense. This person's name is none of your business save that this
person is published, studied both here and in Japan, has many students
around the world, and is highly respected.
N
______________________________________
__________a
post Today, 12:48 AM
Post #57
Group: Snr Member
QUOTE(Namdrol @ Jul 24 2009, 09:31 AM)
Someone
who is famous, American, and who is qualified Zen master in a real
sense. This person's name is none of your business save that this
person is published, studied both here and in Japan, has many students
around the world, and is highly respected.
N
*
What
do you mean by "in a real sense"? Is there some other mechanism besides
transmission that makes you a qualified Zen master? An academic program
maybe? Or is it endorsement by the e-sangha?
As to the other points, I can quote a highly respected, published and famous Tibetan teacher who did two three year retreats, has studied under Kalu Rinpoche since 1970, and has received permission to teach by him.
This teacher thinks concepts like rebirth, the six realms, etc are very open to interpretation.
So, all in all, your arguments fail to impress me as more than just a reiteration of your personal preferences.
______________________________________
__________ m
post Today, 12:55 AM
Post #58
Group: Snr Member
QUOTE(Zennist @ Jul 24 2009, 09:55 AM)
Thank
you. I am just wondering why the Japanese Zen Buddhist teachers are not
allowed to say here, in the Japanese Zen Buddhism forum, what they
believe Japanese Zen and Buddhism to be,
I do not think that
several of you actually hear yourselves, or realize what you are
saying. I am someone of few words, but I know religious bigotry and
sanctimony when I smell it.
Thank you, Tuck
*
Tuck,
the situation you reference arose from application of the terms of
service of the forum. As far as adherence to the TOS goes, it makes no
difference whether someone's recognised in their lineage or not. To
argue that is to argue from non-sequiturs and *************, whom you
champion, knows that too.
Your finally bringing your agenda into
the open makes a mockery of your previous posts, and indicates clearly
that you've been attacking eijo for no real reason, and your wholly
pre-conceived notions make a mockery of your pretense at dialogue.
Since
you're so big on criteria for authentic Buddhism, I'll suggest one:
agreed to be spoken by the Buddha. In this vein, you should look at
what's regarded as right speech (Pali canon, spoken by the Buddha).
Hint:
Deceptive speech, speech saying one thing and meaning another, speech
that conceals a viper's strike, speech that flatters, and speech that
attempts to cast others in a bad light is all NOT right.
______________________________________
Zennist
post Today, 01:00 AM
Post #59
Group: Snr Member
QUOTE(_____________lm @ Jul 24 2009, 12:55 AM)
QUOTE(Zennist @ Jul 24 2009, 09:55 AM)
Thank
you. I am just wondering why the Japanese Zen Buddhist teachers are not
allowed to say here, in the Japanese Zen Buddhism forum, what they
believe Japanese Zen and Buddhism to be,
I do not think that
several of you actually hear yourselves, or realize what you are
saying. I am someone of few words, but I know religious bigotry and
sanctimony when I smell it.
Thank you, Tuck
*
Tuck,
the situation you reference arose from application of the terms of
service of the forum. As far as adherence to the TOS goes, it makes no
difference whether someone's recognised in their lineage or not. To
argue that is to argue from non-sequiturs ad ************* knows that
too.
Your finally bringing your agenda into the open makes a
mockery of your previous posts, and indicates clearly that you've been
attacking eijo for no real reason, and your wholly pre-conceived
notions make a mockery of your pretense at dialogue.
Since
you're so big on criteria for authentic Buddhism, I'll suggest one:
agreed to be spoken by the Buddha. In this vein, you should look at
what's regarded as right speech (Pali canon, spoken by the Buddha).
Hint:
Deceptive speech, speech saying one thing and meaning another, speech
that conceals a viper's strike, speech that flatters, and speech that
attempts to cast others in a bad light is all NOT right.
*
I
am someone who is usually of few words, and I have little time for
posting on the internet. However, there is a time to speak up when
something is very wrong.
I am confident that the Buddha would think my words "Right Speech."
Tuck
______________________________________
D___________ M
post Today, 03:02 AM
Post #62
Group: Snr Member
QUOTE(Zennist @ Jul 24 2009, 02:00 AM)
I
am someone who is usually of few words, and I have little time for
posting on the internet. However, there is a time to speak up when
something is very wrong.
I am confident that the Buddha would think my words "Right Speech."
While
I have no inclination one way or another in the discussion, it's
helpful to point out that confidence is a dangerous thing in any person.
______________________________________
Zennist
post Today, 03:46 AM
Post #63
Group: Snr Member
QUOTE(D _______ M @ Jul 24 2009, 03:02 AM)
While
I have no inclination one way or another in the discussion, it's
helpful to point out that confidence is a dangerous thing in any person.
*
Well,
tell that to some of the "moderators" so confident that only they
understand what is and is not Buddhism, and that they understand Zen
better than the Zen teachers (the ones they don't approve as
"authentic").
You know, I was not so moved by this topic when I
started posted, but some of the excuse making, sanctimonious responses
by moderators and others really got me going.
The situation is
much like having a Forum thread, supposedly giving information of
Judaism and Jewish beliefs, run by a bunch of evangelical Christian
mods. Not a Rabbi in sight. I am sure that the evangelical mods could
say much the same about their "limited role", even as they proceeded to
offer their own personal Christian interpretations of Judaism and the
Old Testament. They too could argue that no Rabbi need be heard unless
those accepting Jesus because, by not accepting Jesus, the purported
Jews are not real Jews! (They might even claim to know a "rather
famous" Rabbi who backs up their case)
It is a terrible
situation. I knew about it before but, since I started posting on this,
I have looked into the situation more. Fortunately, it seems that a
large number of people around the internet know about it.
Thank you again. Tuck
This post has been edited by Zennist: Today, 03:50 AM
______________________________________
eijo
post Today, 04:13 AM
Post #64
Group: Global Moderator
QUOTE(_______m @ Jul 24 2009, 06:09 PM)
with that in mind, i'll be ignoring this thread going forward.
regards
*
Thank you _______m, you've summarized the little drama unfolding here.
I
started this bizarre little topic to tell those who are keenly
interested for their own reasons that I do not practice Zen, and am not
trying to mislead people into thinking I am.
I think that has sunk in by now, yes? Does anyone need to hear it again?
I
have made all my points in short, clear sentences, so there should be
no trouble grasping what I want to say if people care to. I see no
reason to attempt further dialogue with a member who is displaying
obvious troll-like activity. So I'll not be posting to this topic
anymore along with you.
______________________________________
yo_____________
post Today, 04:21 AM
Post #65
Group: Snr Member
I know it's off topic, but I just wanted to first say Eijoさん お誕生日 おめでとうございます！ (Happy Birthday)
And
I really think we should get back to the point of the original post.
Rev. Eijo is just stating that he doesn't practice Zen, and that he is
not an authority in Zen. He does however respect the tradition and he
is just giving his opinions based on his own studies in Zen and
Buddhism in general.
Tuck, I think we are all trying to
understand what you are saying. We understand that a teacher of yours,
someone you respect, was banned from the forum, but as we all have
learned it wasn't because of Rev. Eijo or any of the moderators. It was
because that person violated the terms of service. That's all there is
to it. Remember the key thing here, is that the moderators have no
power in removing users from the forum. It's not up to them.
I
understand that you have a deep respect for your teacher. That's really
great. Follow what your teacher has to say. If there's something that
your teacher has taught you, and you come across a contradiction on the
forum, feel free to post a response. I'm not going to say I know
anything on the authentic teachings of Zen or on the Zen classics. I
have studied a little Zen and Chan Buddhism when I was a university
student, but not enough to really say anything authoritative on
anything. Although I would feel inclined to state my own opinions based
on my experience with Buddhism in general, based on my own knowledge of
Japanese culture and language, and also my experience living and
working in Japan.
Remember these are people's opinions on Zen.
Rev. Eijo is not claiming to be an authority on Zen. He stated that he
is just reflecting his opinion on what he has learned in his studies in
Zen and his knowledge in Buddhism in general. Is there anything wrong
with that? Many other Zen practitioners and teachers on this forum
often encourage and direct people to go find a qualified teacher if one
seriously wants to make the commitment to a serious practice. Even Rev.
Eijo has encouraged people to find a teacher in whatever practice they
are interested in. And this is the best advice ever.
Is it wrong
for someone to post in a forum when they don’t practice that tradition?
We should remember that Zen Buddhism comes from Buddhism, and there are
general foundations and principles that are in all forms of Buddhism.
I
am not here to make attacks at you or anyone on this forum. That's not
the point in having a forum. Lets us remember why we are all here on
this forum. To discuss and learn and to help others learn.
If
you find that you don't agree with something someone says, then post a
reply and give your opinion. Provide evidence to support your opinion.
And remember, that we can't change other people's opinions unless they
want to change. And remember, you don't always have to agree with what
someone says.
Lastly, with all that being said, let's remember
something called attachment. We should probably just let small grudges
go. I know I am always guilty of this, I hold on to my feelings for a
very long time, and it's hard for me to just let go...even the smallest
things I have found myself holding on to for a long time. But it's
totally worth it in the end to just let go of such things. It is very
liberating.
So, if you have anything else to say, just say all you feel you need to say and clear the air and move on.
______________________________________
caritas
post Today, 06:00 AM
Post #68
Group: Moderator
QUOTE(Zennist @ Jul 24 2009, 07:46 AM)
The
situation is much like having a Forum thread, supposedly giving
information of Judaism and Jewish beliefs, run by a bunch of
evangelical Christian mods. Not a Rabbi in sight. I am sure that the
evangelical mods could say much the same about their "limited role",
even as they proceeded to offer their own personal Christian
interpretations of Judaism and the Old Testament. They too could argue
that no Rabbi need be heard unless those accepting Jesus because, by
not accepting Jesus, the purported Jews are not real Jews! (They might
even claim to know a "rather famous" Rabbi who backs up their case)
*
"The
situation is much like having a Forum, supposedly giving information
about Zen and Japanese beliefs, run by a bunch of reformist American
mods. Not a Japanese Roshi in sight. I am sure that the reformist mods
could say much the same about their "limited role," even as they
proceeded to offer their own personal American interpretations of Zen
and Dogen's writings. They too could argue that no Roshi need be heard
unless those accepting Reform because, by not accepting Reform, the
purported Zen teachers are not real Zen teachers! (They might even
claim to know a "rather famous" Roshi who backs up their case)"
and so on tongue.gif
rofl.gif
______________________________________
______________la
post Today, 06:29 AM
Post #70
Group: Snr Member
QUOTE(caritas @ Jul 24 2009, 03:00 PM)
"The
situation is much like having a Forum, supposedly giving information
about Zen and Japanese beliefs, run by a bunch of reformist American
mods. Not a Japanese Roshi in sight. I am sure that the reformist mods
could say much the same about their "limited role," even as they
proceeded to offer their own personal American interpretations of Zen
and Dogen's writings. They too could argue that no Roshi need be heard
unless those accepting Reform because, by not accepting Reform, the
purported Zen teachers are not real Zen teachers! (They might even
claim to know a "rather famous" Roshi who backs up their case)"
and so on tongue.gif
rofl.gif
*
Thing is, they don't. That's the joke. upsidedwnsmiley.gif
tiphat2.gif
______________________________________
caritas
post Today, 07:50 AM
Post #71
Group: Moderator
QUOTE(___________la @ Jul 24 2009, 10:29 AM)
Thing is, they don't. That's the joke.
*
So
you propose that such people wish to teach some contrived controversy
rather than a denial of Buddhist doctrines? On what basis would you
differentiate between the two options, contrived controversy and denial
of Buddhist doctrine?
Unless perhaps you're trying to establish some subsidiary point.
______________________________________
______________ la
post Today, 08:24 AM
Post #72
Group: Snr Member
QUOTE(caritas @ Jul 24 2009, 04:50 PM)
QUOTE(Fruitzilla @ Jul 24 2009, 10:29 AM)
Thing is, they don't. That's the joke.
*
So
you propose that such people wish to teach some contrived controversy
rather than a denial of Buddhist doctrines? On what basis would you
differentiate between the two options, contrived controversy and denial
of Buddhist doctrine?
Unless perhaps you're trying to establish some subsidiary point.
*
I'm afraid I fail to get your point, could you be a bit more clear?
______________________________________
caritas
post Today, 09:22 AM
Post #73
Group: Moderator
QUOTE(________la @ Jul 24 2009, 12:24 PM)
QUOTE(caritas @ Jul 24 2009, 04:50 PM)
QUOTE(________la @ Jul 24 2009, 10:29 AM)
Thing is, they don't. That's the joke.
*
So
you propose that such people wish to teach some contrived controversy
rather than a denial of Buddhist doctrines? On what basis would you
differentiate between the two options, contrived controversy and denial
of Buddhist doctrine?
Unless perhaps you're trying to establish some subsidiary point.
*
I'm afraid I fail to get your point, could you be a bit more clear?
*
Okay, but you asked for it. biggrin.gif
Such
people certainly do "argue that no Roshi need be heard unless those
(sic) accepting Reform because, by not accepting Reform, the purported
Zen teachers are not real Zen teachers," given that such people seem to
assert that the contrivance of some controversies do not constitute
denials of very plain and straightforward Buddhist doctrines, i.e. by
implicitly asserting that confusion and disingenuous ambiguity
regarding content are as legitimate to discourse as clarity and
forthright precision regarding content, and do not inherently obfuscate
these qualities, implicitly de-legitimizing them. In fact such people
seem to promote some need for confusion and disingenuous ambiguity
within doctrinal discourse as a traditional virtue. Thus by promoting
confusion and disingenuous ambiguity as a traditional virtue, teachers
or venues can be dismissed as not adhering to the definitive qualities
of the tradition as promoted. It does not have to be an explicit
statement, crafted to be precise - such a means of expression and
enforcement would not be consistent with what is taught by such a
person.
On the basis of confusion and disingenuous ambiguity,
teachers or venues can apparently be publicly criticized for clarity
and forthright precision, promoting a culture with distorted criteria
and standards for valuation, e.g. producing the problems some have had
in this thread with the acceptance of very simple, straightforward
explanations. It has been a very useful thread due to its display of
the results of such a culture, despite some occasionally unfortunate
content.
So, on what basis would you differentiate between the two options, contrived controversy and denial of Buddhist doctrine?
Or, please clarify your position.
______________________________________
Zennist
post Today, 11:31 AM
Post #74
Group: Snr Member
QUOTE(caritas @ Jul 24 2009, 06:00 AM)
QUOTE(Zennist @ Jul 24 2009, 07:46 AM)
The
situation is much like having a Forum thread, supposedly giving
information of Judaism and Jewish beliefs, run by a bunch of
evangelical Christian mods. Not a Rabbi in sight. I am sure that the
evangelical mods could say much the same about their "limited role",
even as they proceeded to offer their own personal Christian
interpretations of Judaism and the Old Testament. They too could argue
that no Rabbi need be heard unless those accepting Jesus because, by
not accepting Jesus, the purported Jews are not real Jews! (They might
even claim to know a "rather famous" Rabbi who backs up their case)
*
"The
situation is much like having a Forum, supposedly giving information
about Zen and Japanese beliefs, run by a bunch of reformist American
mods. Not a Japanese Roshi in sight. I am sure that the reformist mods
could say much the same about their "limited role," even as they
proceeded to offer their own personal American interpretations of Zen
and Dogen's writings. They too could argue that no Roshi need be heard
unless those accepting Reform because, by not accepting Reform, the
purported Zen teachers are not real Zen teachers! (They might even
claim to know a "rather famous" Roshi who backs up their case)"
and so on tongue.gif
rofl.gif
*
I
do not wish to violate the TOS by mentioning this, but you raised the
point, Mr. Caritas. The difference at Zen Forum International is that
anyone is welcome to post any view on Zen and Buddhist, and there are
priests and lay people who are members (and non-Zen clergy and lay
folks too). Nobody shuts up anyone for expressing a view of Buddhism
... so long as they are not rude about it. The open scholarship and
insights of others and many voices prevails over censorship and a fear
of "dangerous ideas". That is the difference, that it is possible to
hear all view points without censorship. You and Rev. Eijo are welcome
and free to post there.
I wonder if this post will be censored? I only raised the issue as a moderator raised it.
Thank you for the idea, however. Tuck
This post has been edited by Zennist: Today, 11:35 AM
______________________________________
HERE IS AN EXAMPLE FROM ANOTHER RECENT THREAD OF "NON-JAPANESE ZEN" MODERATORS PROVIDING GUIDANCE TO A NEWCOMER TO ZEN (on the "Japanese Zen" forum) HAVING NO RELATIONSHIP TO "JAPANESE ZEN" ...
THREAD NAME : Beginning Zen Buddhism (August 15th, 2009)
ah___NEWCOMER)
post Yesterday, 11:16 AM
Post #1
Group: Member
I have just begun practicing Zen Buddhism Woo_Hoo.gif , and I need
guidance. I've started with short periods of zazen (with limited
materials... a blanket for a pad and a pillow(doesn't work well) as a
zafu) of 15-20 minutes in length, and I intend to add 5 minutes every
few days until I reach one isshin. and I've memorized om mani padme
hum, however, that's the only sutra I know. I need a sutra resource, a
book if possible, and I need recommendations on where to buy zafus and
such.
L_____
*******************
thegiantalbion
post Yesterday, 11:25 AM
Post #2
Group: East Asian Moderator
Are you working with a teacher or a sangha or a center?
Book advice:
The Compass of Zen by Seung Sahn
*******************
Astus
post Yesterday, 12:38 PM
Post #3
Group: East Asian Moderator
Something good for the start: Orthodox Chinese Buddhism (PDF) by Ven. Sheng-yen
Otherwise check out the Mahayana Links for collections of sutras and other materials online.
*******************
Zennist
post Today, 04:16 PM
Post #4
Group: Snr Member
QUOTE(Astus @ Aug 14 2009, 12:38 PM)
Something good for the start: Orthodox Chinese Buddhism (PDF) by Ven. Sheng-yen
Otherwise check out the Mahayana Links for collections of sutras and other materials online.
*
Hello Astus,
May I offer a friendly reminder that this thread concerns Zen practice.
I have noticed recently your critique of how many Zen teachers are not
Mahayana or Chan enough for your taste. A newcomer to Zen may not
realize that you, Giantalbion, Rev. Eijo and other moderators here are
not Zen practitioners or clergy, and practice other faiths, so they may
be misguided. Pointing them to Chan literature on the Japanese Zen
thread is also confusing, not that there is anything wrong with either
path.
I hope you do not mind the caution. I know you have your own ideas of
what is proper "Mahayana Buddhism", but that is not shared by everyone.
I hope the person writing will seek out a real Zen teacher near where they reside.
Tuck