Luke wrote:Does Zen view them as only being symbols of the enlightened mind? Does Zen ever view them partially as separate, heavenly beings, as well?
Huifeng wrote:Maybe time to move past the notion of a "Zen view" -- and I don't mean that in the flippant Zen smarty pants kind of way. This is a tradition that spans 1000+ years, over perhaps the populated part of the planet. There are lots of different people who may say this or that, but there is no standard "Zen view" on this, or almost any other matter. People may point to their favorite ancient or modern Zen master, and say "Zen says ...". But really, that's just Master X, and not the whole of the Zen tradition.
Maybe you have to work it out for yourself.
Luke wrote:I understand what you are saying, Ven. Huifeng. But would you please share with us some of your views regarding sambhogakaya bodhisattvas? I'm sure that many of us here would benefit from your knowledge.
Luke wrote:Although one general thing I have realized lately is that I should just try to understand Mahayana Buddhism better as whole, rather than simply trying to find a particular sect to assimilate into.
JamyangTashi wrote:Does understanding Mahayana Buddhism as a whole mean understanding all the nuances and differences between various sects, or does it mean syncretizing or ignoring those differences as unimportant?
Astus wrote:If you look at current Chinese Buddhism, most organisations are not centred around a specific doctrine or practice, thus they often claim - in line with the idea of Humanistic Buddhism - that they embrace all eight schools of Chinese Buddhism (i.e. Vinaya, Madhyamaka, Pure Land, Chan, Tiantai, Huayan, Yogacara, Tantra).
Astus wrote:For instance, in the Fo Guang Shan's school customs (佛光山的宗風), defining their approach, it is stated:
"To propagate all eight schools of Buddhism, and promote the coexistence of monastics and laity."(八宗兼弘，僧信共有。) (also in "The Buddha's Light Philosophy", p 139)
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 10 guests