Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

[Malcolm]

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

[Grigoris]

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?

I mean, can one exist without the other?

[Sönam]

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

[Astus]

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)

[Adamantine]

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.

[Huifeng]

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

[Huifeng]

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

[Malcolm]

Yes, I am fairly uninformed about Tibetan Buddhism.


~~ Huifeng

I was talking to Beatzen actually.

[Malcolm]

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.

[Huifeng]

Yes, I am fairly uninformed about Tibetan Buddhism.


~~ Huifeng

I was talking to Beatzen actually.

...

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

~~ Huifeng