Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
[N.B. This is the forum that was called ‘Exploring Buddhism’. The new name simply describes it better.]
User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 18344
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:43 pm

Beatzen wrote:
Actually, it isn't. I know from my studies of history that the Zen philosopher Mo Ho Yen was banished from Tibet by the "buddhist" government there for exactly this difference.


If you wish to be more informed, read the blog "Early Tibet" -- it will add layers of nuance to your understanding.

N
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


So called “sentient beings” are merely delusions self-appearing from the dhātu of luminosity.

-- Ju Mipham

User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
Posts: 11417
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:23 pm

Beatzen wrote:This might sound rather sectarian, but Chinese Buddhism usually constitutes a "religion" of self-awareness or self-knowledge (however you like).

It's my opinion that Tibetan Buddhism places less emphasis on self-knowing and more on moral/ethical self-edification, and so IMO is more of a cult of self-perfection.
So what (ultimately) is the difference between self-knowledge and self-perfection then?
Image
I mean, can one exist without the other?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

User avatar
Sönam
Posts: 1999
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Sönam » Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:46 pm

Beatzen wrote:
It's my opinion that Tibetan Buddhism places less emphasis on self-knowing and more on moral/ethical self-edification


then you maybe quite isolated having such an opinion ...

Sönam
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 5607
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Astus » Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:28 pm

Huifeng wrote:It's kind of interesting in one way. But what is perhaps more interesting in my mind is how many conceive of Chinese and Tibetan Buddhism as distinction from each other in the first place, and that a combination is therefore "ecumenial". :)

In many ways, these two traditions have been intersecting for 1000 yrs or so. In many cases, it is difficult to make any clear distinction between the two in the PRoC (inc. HK), Taiwan, etc.


From far away everything seems different. Just thing about how Chinese Buddhism is regularly separated into different sects based on incorrect comparison with the Japanese situation. It happens every time when one is stuck in mere labels.

"One" refers to the one true reality that there are not three, five, seven, or nine vehicles. Therefore it is "one."
(Gishin: The Collected Teachings of the Tendai Lotus School, 1.3, p. 51)
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

User avatar
Adamantine
Former staff member
Posts: 3457
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Location: Space is the Place

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Adamantine » Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:07 pm

Beatzen wrote:
It's my opinion that Tibetan Buddhism places less emphasis on self-knowing and more on moral/ethical self-edification, and so IMO is more of a cult of self-perfection.



I think you're wrong on both counts. There's way too much of an emphasis on "self" in either analysis.

Also, it is clear you have spent zero time open-mindedly studying any tradition within the vast umbrella you call "Tibetan Buddhism". Why do you feel like such an expert then that you can make a far-reaching judgment?

This is a type of sophistry that will quickly lead you astray from the path. It is like the analogy of the types of student one should avoid being, in reference to "pots": in this case, like the full pot that nothing can be poured into because it is already full. If you really want to understand anything about Tibetan traditions of Buddhism, why would you show up on a forum with an already disdainful judgment based on some gossip from another forum, and a single possibly faulty historical reference? I suggest as a Zen practitioner you take Suzuki Roshi's wonderful phrase as a starting point: "In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few". May we all have a harmonious and joyful inquiry based on having open-minds: this will be the essence of any true ecumenical approach.
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha

User avatar
Huifeng
Posts: 1476
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Huifeng » Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:08 am

Namdrol wrote:
Beatzen wrote:
Huifeng wrote:It's kind of interesting in one way. But what is perhaps more interesting in my mind is how many conceive of Chinese and Tibetan Buddhism as distinction from each other in the first place, and that a combination is therefore "ecumenial". :)



This might sound rather sectarian...


No, it just sounds rather uninformed about Tibetan Buddhism.

N


Yes, I am fairly uninformed about Tibetan Buddhism.
So, please feel free to add, the relationship during the Yuan and Qing
would be particularly interesting to look into.

I merely wished to emphasize that Yogi Chen's approach is not at all uncommon,
and such approaches have been seen in China for hundreds of years.
(But since the comments on Chen have since disappeared from the
quoted text, it's starting to look a bit out of context.)

I don't mean to go as far as saying that there is no difference,
that would be the other extreme.

~~ Huifeng

User avatar
Huifeng
Posts: 1476
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Huifeng » Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:11 am

Namdrol wrote:
Beatzen wrote:
Actually, it isn't. I know from my studies of history that the Zen philosopher Mo Ho Yen was banished from Tibet by the "buddhist" government there for exactly this difference.


If you wish to be more informed, read the blog "Early Tibet" -- it will add layers of nuance to your understanding.

N


Yeah, that is a fairly complicated issue. Reading Hvasang Mohoyen as somehow representative of Chinese Buddhism as a whole is highly problematic. But, we've already discussed this one to death before ...

~~ Huifeng

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 18344
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Malcolm » Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:25 am

Huifeng wrote:Yes, I am fairly uninformed about Tibetan Buddhism.


~~ Huifeng


I was talking to Beatzen actually.
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


So called “sentient beings” are merely delusions self-appearing from the dhātu of luminosity.

-- Ju Mipham

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 18344
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Malcolm » Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:38 am

Huifeng wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
Beatzen wrote:
Actually, it isn't. I know from my studies of history that the Zen philosopher Mo Ho Yen was banished from Tibet by the "buddhist" government there for exactly this difference.


If you wish to be more informed, read the blog "Early Tibet" -- it will add layers of nuance to your understanding.

N


Yeah, that is a fairly complicated issue. Reading Hvasang Mohoyen as somehow representative of Chinese Buddhism as a whole is highly problematic. But, we've already discussed this one to death before ...

~~ Huifeng


Right, Hasahang only represented a strand of Northern Chan, now extinct.
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


So called “sentient beings” are merely delusions self-appearing from the dhātu of luminosity.

-- Ju Mipham

User avatar
Huifeng
Posts: 1476
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Huifeng » Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:22 am

Namdrol wrote:
Huifeng wrote:Yes, I am fairly uninformed about Tibetan Buddhism.


~~ Huifeng


I was talking to Beatzen actually.


...

Well, I still am fairly uninformed about Tibetan Buddhism ... :thinking:

~~ Huifeng


Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gad rgyangs, Mr. G, pael, Sherab Dorje and 15 guests