I recently had the experience of sharing some quotes and a video of a teacher I'm really fond of, Venerable Master Sheng-Yen of the Dharma Drum tradition.
In sharing these posts I found that I was quickly engaged in discussion but rather than having a discussion focused around what this Master was saying or the legitimacy of their lineage the focus seemed to be on Polemic Discourse circling around calling the Master a fraud and religious cult leader rather than discussing the merits or lack thereof of what they taught and were sharing.
What's the point of this?
Whats the justification for Polemic Discourse?
Whatever it is, it doesn't stand up to Contemplative inquiry
What is Contemplative inquiry you may ask?
Well, it's what Zen Masters teach.
At once Master Yunmen was asked. How about the place of non-thinking? The Master replied, "Cognition can hardly fathom it."
How much less so can one rigidly respond to points of discussion with Polemic Discourse and claim to be representing the 4 Statements of Zen as proudly displayed on the sidebar
The separate transmission outside the teachings, Not based on the written word, Points directly at the human mind— You see your nature and become a buddha.
In what way does this represent Polemic Discourse? The lowest level of discussion based totally around false authority and discrimination.
What we in the modern era often call Trolling.
For me personally when someone gets into Polemics I immediate recognize that they are not representing maturity, the 4 Statements of Zen or the teachings of the Masters
Again Master Yunmen was asked
"What is the fundamental teaching?" The Master replied "No Question, No answer"
Yet we are led to believe Polemics embodies this teaching?
I think not.
So than what is ~Contemplative inquiry~ contemplative inquiry is looking at a case a situation an experience not at it's grossest level of action and reaction or self-propagation or self-correctness but rather. Inquiry, questioning, examining ones direct experience in that moment not relying upon self/other name/form?
Is this in line with What Zen Masters teach?
Yes, yes it is.
What does the Great and Venerable Master Hongzhi have to say about the ~Zen Experience~ well he speaks directly and clearly,
"When you are empty and spontaneously aware, clean and spontaneously clear, you are capable of panoramic consciousness without making an effort to grasp perception, and you are capable of discerning understanding without the burden of conditioned thought. You go beyond being and nothingness, and transcend concievable feelings. This is only experienced by union with it-- it is not gotten from another."
Where is this is the mind or the encouragement for Polemic Discourse?
Rather it is an argument and a direct teaching of approaching the way according to Contemplative Inquiry.
How is one to find in the teachings this kind of encouragement of maintaining polemics?
Where is this understood to be What Zen Masters teach?
I for one find the case to be that the masters taught through and embodied the ideals of Contemplative inquiry in their discussions and teachings.
So in this same vein we should do similar.
Casting out Polemics and embracing an actual discussion of the texts and teachers.
I see no place here for Polemics.
If even the eye of a seagull cannot grasp it how much less so can Polemy be the source of the how we interact with one another.
Case closed
Submitted June 09, 2020 at 04:07PM by Heretical_Shavepate https://ift.tt/2Uqocih
No comments:
Post a Comment