Re: Zen the Literary Movement
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:46 pm
At least on paper in theory.Astus wrote:The huatou practice is an obvious combination of literary works and meditation in daily activities.
A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
https://www.dharmawheel.net:443/
At least on paper in theory.Astus wrote:The huatou practice is an obvious combination of literary works and meditation in daily activities.
There are plenty of records of Chan masters engaging in various activities, but as some scholars have pointed out these are most likely fictional accounts. For example in the citation above Damei Fachang is said to have become a hermit out in the mountains. Sounds like a solid practitioner, but did it really happen?Anders Honore wrote: Historically, let's get this one out of the way: The communities of the reknowned chan masters meditated. We have many records of it, it's not hard to find and it's not hard to find plenty of examples of this in modern times either.
Again, how reliable are the records? I'm not denying that Hanshan Deqing probably was an adept, but just that records of holy saints and sages often become distorted, even fabricated. The whole story of Bodhidharma demonstrates this well. In the earliest accounts he was a Persian, but then the later records had him as an Indian.Hanshan Deqing was one of the most proliferate writers as Chan Buddhists go, but he was also the type who would sit down for two weeks in samadhi without rising.
I could argue the opposite: if you look at the prescriptive you'll get the internal projected image of a Buddhist tradition and not how things really are. Ideally things should be one way, but in reality they are another. I mean take both into account, but I say recognize that the prescriptive side only goes so far in understanding a tradition.But most of all, the premise is flawed. Buddhism is prescriptive. If you analyse it descriptively, you aren't likely to get a proper picture of it.
Ideally Chan is about meditation, enlightenment in this life and profound encounters between master and disciple, but that's just how things work on paper, not necessarily in reality through the complex web of human interaction over the last number of centuries. That's what I'm saying here.Basically, this means Buddhism is defined by its adepts and those who master and apply the teachings, not by the dilettantes or so-so's who only applied the teachings in half measure.
I'd say that we look to the Buddha for what Buddadharma is and look to the scores of disciples to see how the religion Buddhism is. I think there is a difference.We look to the Buddha for our definitions of what Buddhism is, not the scores who might have considered themselves his disciples but had more fun reciting his teachings than they did meditating.
How do we know they were great masters other than the lineage saying so? The obvious response would be to look at their words rather than the purported accounts of their great awakenings. The reason we know the Buddha was great and profound is not because people said so, but because his teachings are profound. In the case of historical records on great masters we don't always know what exactly they taught.Chan is not a literary movement. It's a meditative movement. We can know this because all its great masters across the ages have said so and testified to the results of it.
From my understanding, there are many Zen monks in Japan who are living alone in temples. And since there is a shortage of Zen monks in Japan, many of these monks are moved to temples maybe only a couple years after ordination. If no one is watching over them they could get slack in their practice if they are not earnest. How do you know that most don't meditate regularly?Huseng wrote: .....The reality in Japan is that most Soto Zen priests do not meditate beyond what is required of them.
There are some who do zazen everyday, but they're not exactly common.
That's probably true for Zen and it's probably also true for all other forms of Buddhism.Astus wrote:I'm sure there were Zen teachers (abbots) without insight into the depths of Buddhism....
What sort of zen buddhist practice are you doing?Huseng wrote:After spending two years taking some classes on Zen, reading Chan records in the original Chinese and reading Chan / Zen history for many more years I've concluded that Zen really has little to do with meditation and is actually just a literary movement within East Asian Buddhism.
Zen Master Dogen wrote copious amounts of material and evidently was not spending that time in meditation. He was also occupied in his later life building Eihei-ji.
The purported dialogues between Chinese Chan masters and their disciples (they are fictional according to Dr. John McRae) sometimes see someone meditating, but not often. It is more about a on-the-spot dialogue and teaching.
There is a lot of literature in Chan / Zen that draws on earlier generations of sayings, quotes, experiences and literary devices. To learn even a fraction of it takes at least a year or two assuming you already read basic Literary Chinese. Again, that isn't time spent in the meditation hall.
I simply get the sense that historically, as is the case even today, not a lot of people meditate as we would be told by modern day authors like Sawaki Kodo Roshi or various American Zen teachers. Most Zen priests I know in Japan only meditate when they have to (part of basic training). When they study Zen it is usually reading archaic Chinese literature and trying to interpret the meaning of those vague passages.
So, again, Zen has little to do with meditation. It is just a literary movement. It is even a cultural affiliation one can immerse oneself in.
If sitting practice werent needed it wouldnt have been emphasized so strongly for more than a thousand years. If you go to a zendo you sit, if you go on the internet you read. One has nothing to do with the other. Reading about zen means nothing and just takes you farther away from the point of the practice.Kyosan wrote:There is a misconception that Chan/Zen is about meditation but that is not the case. Some of the techniques are different from other forms of Buddhism and Zen focuses more on meditation than most other forms of Buddhism. But, one could sit in meditation with a deluded mind and that wouldn't help much. Zen is about the internal practice of Buddhism and persons can do that while sitting in meditation or walking, or cutting vegetables or taking a shower.
If you look at McRae he himself provides plenty of examples among these early groups as being meditation specialists. In fact, according to his characterisation of the 4th ancestor and the group around him. that was pretty much what defined them more so than any specific teaching.Huseng wrote: As John McRae has pointed out, when the old rural Chan groups migrated to the capital Chang'an they drafted an image of themselves and their former masters as being rustic yogis in the mountains. This was a fashionable image that some poets from the aristocracy enjoyed making use of as well. Some would portray themselves as Daoist hermits away from society, when in reality they were educated elite.
I'm not saying nobody in Chan meditates, but just that it is far less about meditation and far more about the common literature and shared culture that comes with lineage. You don't have to be affiliated with Chan or Zen to engage in serious meditation.
Hanshan was ming dynasty and we know this from his own autobiography. This should make it fairly reliable. And it's not so uncommon. Hsu Yun recorded similar such 'sessions' in his autobiography as well.Again, how reliable are the records? I'm not denying that Hanshan Deqing probably was an adept, but just that records of holy saints and sages often become distorted, even fabricated. The whole story of Bodhidharma demonstrates this well. In the earliest accounts he was a Persian, but then the later records had him as an Indian.
Not if you are a Buddhist. If you are an academic looking to make a anthropological analysis of Chan Buddhism, the descriptive becomes more relevant. If you are a Buddhist, you take your ques from the prescriptive side, because to do otherwise gives you straight up Wrong View of practise.I could argue the opposite: if you look at the prescriptive you'll get the internal projected image of a Buddhist tradition and not how things really are. Ideally things should be one way, but in reality they are another. I mean take both into account, but I say recognize that the prescriptive side only goes so far in understanding a tradition.
Not in this forum. When you are addressing Buddhists saying 'Chan is a literary tradition', you are misleading practitioners. And it's not as if you are saying something new either. The difference really is that the classical Chan masters simply denounced the spread of such practices as watering down the Dharma and even corrupting it. Whereas you present it as something having an air of legitimacy.Ideally Chan is about meditation, enlightenment in this life and profound encounters between master and disciple, but that's just how things work on paper, not necessarily in reality through the complex web of human interaction over the last number of centuries. That's what I'm saying here.
Yes it does. If we go by numbers as normative for Buddhism, we end up with conclusions like "right mindfulness is being mindful a couple of times a day. This is what the majority does and thus how we should define mindfulness."I still stand by my original assertion. I think Chan is a literary movement. Yes, I agree that we have modern and past adepts within the school meditated and attained awakenings which they utilized to teach others the dharma, but then that doesn't define how the tradition actually was or is.
Taintai and Huayan as living traditions have not survived in significant numbers for us to characterise them much as a distinct tradition.What makes Chan anymore of a meditative movement than Tiantai or Huayan? The majority of the latter two are not adepts, but monks, scholars and laypeople. The majority of those affiliated with Chan are likewise not meditation adepts, but monks, scholars and laypeople. Chan can't be seen as a meditative movement when it really doesn't have anymore people doing meditation than one would find in another tradition.
Huseng wrote:After spending two years taking some classes on Zen, reading Chan records in the original Chinese and reading Chan / Zen history for many more years I've concluded that Zen really has little to do with meditation and is actually just a literary movement within East Asian Buddhism.
I don't mean that sitting practice isn't important. If properly done, it helps persons rid themselves of delusion and be able to concentrate. I'm just saying that the crucial thing is the internal practice. In Zen, sitting mediation is an important part of that.the salt in the soup wrote:If sitting practice werent needed it wouldnt have been emphasized so strongly for more than a thousand years. If you go to a zendo you sit, if you go on the internet you read. One has nothing to do with the other. Reading about zen means nothing and just takes you farther away from the point of the practice.Kyosan wrote:There is a misconception that Chan/Zen is about meditation but that is not the case. Some of the techniques are different from other forms of Buddhism and Zen focuses more on meditation than most other forms of Buddhism. But, one could sit in meditation with a deluded mind and that wouldn't help much. Zen is about the internal practice of Buddhism and persons can do that while sitting in meditation or walking, or cutting vegetables or taking a shower.
Most Zen priests in Japan inherit ownership of a temple from their father.Kyosan wrote:From my understanding, there are many Zen monks in Japan who are living alone in temples. And since there is a shortage of Zen monks in Japan, many of these monks are moved to temples maybe only a couple years after ordination. If no one is watching over them they could get slack in their practice if they are not earnest. How do you know that most don't meditate regularly?Huseng wrote: .....The reality in Japan is that most Soto Zen priests do not meditate beyond what is required of them.
There are some who do zazen everyday, but they're not exactly common.
It goes beyond words and not even a finger pointing at the moon is sufficient to taste its ultimate single flavour.the salt in the soup wrote: What sort of zen buddhist practice are you doing?
Again prescriptive versus descriptive.the salt in the soup wrote:Huseng wrote:After spending two years taking some classes on Zen, reading Chan records in the original Chinese and reading Chan / Zen history for many more years I've concluded that Zen really has little to do with meditation and is actually just a literary movement within East Asian Buddhism.
If you would have spent all that time practicing instead of reading you would probably feel that zen was about practice
There are meditation specialists in a lot of monasteries. It doesn't mean everyone is seriously engaged in meditation.Anders Honore wrote: If you look at McRae he himself provides plenty of examples among these early groups as being meditation specialists. In fact, according to his characterisation of the 4th ancestor and the group around him. that was pretty much what defined them more so than any specific teaching.
I don't see any problems with seeing both sides of the coin.Not if you are a Buddhist. If you are an academic looking to make a anthropological analysis of Chan Buddhism, the descriptive becomes more relevant. If you are a Buddhist, you take your ques from the prescriptive side, because to do otherwise gives you straight up Wrong View of practise.
It has an air of legitimacy because this is how things really are. Zen and Chan practitioners spend a lot of time studying and reading literature, and not meditating. Nobody would get far pointing out to them that they're watering down the dharma and corrupting it. An outsider saying such things would be ignored.Not in this forum. When you are addressing Buddhists saying 'Chan is a literary tradition', you are misleading practitioners. And it's not as if you are saying something new either. The difference really is that the classical Chan masters simply denounced the spread of such practices as watering down the Dharma and even corrupting it. Whereas you present it as something having an air of legitimacy.
There are fictional accounts of hermits meditating, yes. Where there is smoke, there is fire. That doesn't mean the Chan phenomenon was made up by majority of hermit yogis.Even as I take your point about Zen as a literary phenomena being widespread, I think you are getting your measurements far off, in terms of how much meditation generally weighs vs literati. Casting doubt on the credibility of sources documenting meditation to then conjure up a new theory of study being the defining feature of chan, which no one really has documented, seems like a halfbaked argument to my mind.
This is indeed what I have concluded to be the case. It is not what Chan is supposed to be, but nevertheless it is."So Chan is a tradition that likes to read about meditating all the time?"
That's not what I'm asserting. I'm advocating recognizing how things really are while acknowledging the way they are supposed to be.Yes it does. If we go by numbers as normative for Buddhism, we end up with conclusions like "right mindfulness is being mindful a couple of times a day. This is what the majority does and thus how we should define mindfulness."
They've survived in Japan. Tendai in particular. Their lineages go all the way back to the Tang Dynasty.Taintai and Huayan as living traditions have not survived in significant numbers for us to characterise them much as a distinct tradition.