As of late my studies of Zen history have been rather expansive. Much of which I'd love to share in time, but it is hard to imagine doing so here. Forums are generally not suited for the length of posts it would take to address the matters. I have been considering the idea of working on a book with others here to detail some of it. But that is a far off vision at this time.
Recently there has been some discussion here about Zen and Buddhism, and as I was studying the Dazu Huike to Niutou Farong period I happened upon an interesting article which hits on some of the points made recently.
I had watched a video some time ago about the history of Zen by Atsushi IBUKI, and today I happened upon a more in-depth article he published. Atsushi IBUKI is a professor of Eastern philosophy and culture at Toyo University Tokyo, Japan with research focus on Chinese Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, Chan Buddhism and Chinese history, among many others.
The research paper he published in 2015 is entitled: "Vinaya and the Chan School: Hīnayāna precepts and bodhisattva precepts, Buddhism in the city and Buddhism in the mountains, religion and the state"
It can be found here, and here.
Since being here in r/zen I have been confronted with a few views of Zen history. One that seem fairly lazy, and makes claims that Zen is this that or the other, without any real backing to the claims. And another which appears to be based on at least some degree of study.
I will say upfront I am not interested in arguments, though fair debate is often useful. The difference between the two is one is established in mere claims and often personal attacks, whereas the other is based in facts, research, and at least some degree of professionalism.
In measuring the various claims, facts have started to surface that demonstrate the validity of some of the claims, while deconstructing other claims.
In the article published by Atsushi IBUKI he describes the following in the section titled "Huike":
"When Buddhism first entered China, not only did those holding the reins of power gradually begin to have faith in and practice this religion, they also tried to control it. .... What served as the basic method for controlling the Buddhist clergy was the system of ordination certificates. Having been granted an ordination certificate, one was recognized as an official member of the clergy and was protected as such. ... Those monks and nuns who did not have ordination certificates, in contrast, were considered to be ‘privately ordained clergy’. Seen as potential troublemakers, they became the object of periodic government suppression. ... However at the same time ordination also came to have the character of a tool by which the government could control Buddhism. ... In this respect Buddhism and the Buddhist clergy came to play a role within the governing structure of China, and Buddhism’s unequivocal status as a religion aimed solely at the pursuit of awakening could not help but be diminished by this."
While this article primarily focuses on the precepts and Vinaya [rules and procedures that govern the Sangha] it also details much of the historical relationship Zen had with the culture and society in which it developed.
After the above quotations, Atsushi IBUKI continues to describe how early Zen masters were considered "privately ordained clergy" and "seen as potential troublemakers, they became the object of periodic government suppression". He further describes them as follows:
"Those various people who were unsatisfied with this kind of existence for Buddhism tended to relocate to the mountains and forests outside of the major cities, where government power was concentrated, so as to devote themselves to religious practice. Such people did not have much concern with the special status that went along with official ordination certificates. They zealously pursued austere practices with the aim of realizing awakening, and they were the kinds of religious practitioners who with burning passion tried to transmit their own level of attainment to their followers. The monk Huike, regarded by the Chan School as one of its early patriarchs, seems to have been just this kind of person."
I find a richness to the historical honesty that Atsushi IBUKI presents in this article and elsewhere. There are so many gems there which relate directly to the debate about Buddhism and Zen it is impractical to consider listing them all here. So I encourage others to read the article themselves.
In my view what this shows, is what has been discussed here in r/zen a number of times. A historic struggle between those who sincerely study reality, and those who utilize a religion for power, manipulation, control and profit.
Those influences still echo to this day between what is traditionally considered "Buddhism" as established through ordination and strict practices, and what the Zen masters taught. Few if any in their right mind, would argue that a clearly corrupt system, willing to use deception and manipulation, even murdering so called "privately ordained" monks is compatible with Zen.
Thus in my view, if one believes that sort of system to be Buddhism, it has nothing to do with Zen. If one considers what is Zen to be Buddhism, oppressed by such a system, then it has nothing to do with any official sense of "Buddhism". Either way, in my personal view, why not just call it Zen?
Submitted May 02, 2023 at 11:50PM by InfinityOracle https://ift.tt/GokiRrh
No comments:
Post a Comment