7
8

Zazen instructions. (self.zen)

transgresionoverflow が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]songhill 7ポイント8ポイント  (14子コメント)

Zazen or a form of it is taught in virtually all Buddhism tranditions. In Zen this is one of the specific instructions:

While still alive, be therefore assiduous in practising Dhyana. The practice consists in abandonments. ‘The abandonment of what?’ you may ask. Abandon your four elements (bhuta), abandon your five aggregates (skandha), abandon all the workings of your relative consciousness (karmavijnana), which you have been cherishing since eternity; retire within your inner being and see into the reason of it. As your self-reflection grows deeper and deeper, the moment will surely come upon you when the spiritual flower will suddenly burst into bloom, illuminating the entire universe. The experience is incommunicable, though you yourselves know perfectly well what it is. ~ Sixin Wuxin 死心悟新 (1044–1115)

[–]ewk -8ポイント-7ポイント  (13子コメント)

Zen is not a branch of Buddhism.

If it was, you would have the courage to say what "Buddhists believe."

[–][deleted] 3ポイント4ポイント  (12子コメント)

Zen is not a branch of Buddhism.

Hahaha

[–]ewk -2ポイント-1ポイント  (11子コメント)

  1. Here's what Mahayana and Theravada believe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_points_unifying_Therav%C4%81da_and_Mah%C4%81y%C4%81na, Zen Masters reject that stuff.

  2. Soto Buddhism, Secular, Mahayana and Theravada Buddhists all preach the eightfold path and the four noble truths. Zen Masters don't teach that stuff.

  3. If you ask any religious person who really is sincerely Buddhist to define "Buddhism" and say what "Buddhists believe", it will be instantly recognizable that they won't tolerate Zen.

[–][deleted] 1ポイント2ポイント  (10子コメント)

Thanks, you're free to believe or interpret whatever you want however you want. I just found that line pretty humorous.

[–]ewk -3ポイント-2ポイント  (9子コメント)

Disagree.

Facts are facts.

People don't get to make up stuff and pretend other people said it.

That's called fraud.

[–][deleted] 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

You disagree with me that I found it humorous? Or that you are free to believe and interpret what you want? You're right, facts are facts and these are facts.

Lol

edit: I became interested which may very well bite me in the ass but I wanted to look up the history of this lineage

The idea of a patriarchal lineage in Chan dates back to the epitaph for Fărú (法如 638–689), a disciple of the 5th patriarch, Daman Hongren (弘忍 601–674). In the Long Scroll of the Treatise on the Two Entrances and Four Practices and the Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks, Daoyu and Dazu Huike are the only explicitly identified disciples of Bodhidharma. The epitaph gives a line of descent identifying Bodhidharma as the first patriarch.[3][4]

In the 6th century biographies of famous monks were collected. From this genre the typical Chan lineage was developed:

These famous biographies were non-sectarian. The Ch'an biographical works, however, aimed to establish Ch'an as a legitimate school of Buddhism traceable to its Indian origins, and at the same time championed a particular form of Ch'an. Historical accuracy was of little concern to the compilers; old legends were repeated, new stories were invented and reiterated until they too became legends.[5]

Huh. So doesn't this lineage of Zen masters just trace right back to Buddha himself?

[–]ewk -2ポイント-1ポイント  (7子コメント)

As it turns out, not really. Here's some of the problems that arise from poor scholarship.

  1. There is no one "Buddha". The name refers to several conflicting myths centered around some illiterate country hick who's father had an army.

  2. The scholarship on Bodhidharma and the Patriarchs is about where the scholarship on Jesus was in the 1700's. Do the math on that one.

  3. "Buddhism" is a colonial-era term for indigenous religions, much like "Indian" was a colonial-era term for Native Americans. In both cases the terms "Buddhism" and "Indian" inaccurately conflated disparate groups into a single broad label as if there were an underlying commonality based on the content of the groups... when the only real commonality was in the perception of the colonial powers that geography is a basis for label indigenous culture.

It might have been funny a hundred years ago to say "The Sioux are not Indians"... because people thought Native Americans were from India! Haha!

[–][deleted] 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

Again, thanks but you failed to elaborate on the piece I quoted but succeeded in commenting on my ignorance on the matter which is your strong suit it seems.

Replace Buddhism with dharma/dhamma for all I care, it doesn't change the idea behind a lineage.

[–]ewk -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

There isn't any one "dharma". You are still in the same boat with no paddle.

Somebody around here suggested something like replacing Buddhism with "Indianism", meaning "related to the many different cultures of ancient India".

Huangbo says that Bodhidharma dharma is the only valid dharma. He clearly didn't associate himself with Mahayana and Theravada religions.

[–]-Nagarjuna- 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

There is no one "Buddha". The name refers to several conflicting myths centered around some illiterate country hick who's father had an army.

If there was anything further needed to discredit your viewpoint this is it.

I mean if it was based in a serious scholarly interest then it would be worth the time, but you've betrayed your true feelings here - you have some personal vendetta against Buddhists and their religion.

Also yes, he was illiterate, because there was no writing at the time... its not exactly an insult.

[–]ewk -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

ZeroDay account alt_trolls like you keep showing up here announcing that I've been discredited... lol.

I'm not claiming any credit to begin with.

I'm pointing out that the faux Buddhists in this forum can't define Buddhism, don't represent mainstream Buddhists in their views, and refuse to acknowledge that Zen Masters http://www.reddit.com/r/zen/wiki/lineagetexts don't teach the Buddha myths that churches preach.

This is the Zen forum. There is no vendetta in pointing out that faux Buddhists lying about Zen is a reflection on the failures of their faith and have nothing to do with Zen study.

Read a book. Not a magazine, not a sutra bible, read a @#$%#@#$ book.