From tyagi@bjt.net Sat Dec 28 16:43:39 1996 Return-Path: tyagi@bjt.net Received: from kudonet.com (kudonet.com [165.227.52.1]) by bitsy.hollyfeld.org (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA25405 for ; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 16:43:35 -0500 Received: from kudo20.kudonet.com by kudonet.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA26607; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 12:27:46 -0800 Received: by kudo20.kudonet.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA05935; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 12:19:26 -0800 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 12:19:26 -0800 Message-Id: <199612282019.MAA05935@kudo20.kudonet.com> To: tyagi@hollyfeld.org Subject: Zen/9612.modstra.do From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nagasiva) Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nagasiva) X-Status: Status: O >Path: kudonet.com!news.scruz.net!miwok!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!worldnet.att.net!ix.netcom.com!news >From: David Oller >Newsgroups: alt.zen,alt.philosophy.zen >Subject: Re: ch'an and mahayana (was 'Final Question') >Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 00:39:45 -0700 >Organization: Netcom >Lines: 119 >Message-ID: <32C22BC1.39C9@ix.netcom.com> >References: <32B8B74B.39E@mail.idt.net> <59afh9$cgj@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <32BAB46B.2CA4@mail.idt.net> <59stan$15r@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> >NNTP-Posting-Host: alb-nm1-20.ix.netcom.com >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Dec 26 1:39:22 AM CST 1996 >X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02Gold (Win95; I) >Xref: kudonet.com alt.zen:38648 alt.philosophy.zen:9034 Ned Ludd wrote: > > In > weaseltrax@earthlink.net.x-this (Weasel Tracks) writes: > > > >Our friend Master Zenmar seems to have accidently deleted alt.zen from > >this thread, so I have reinstated it and quoted the message in full. I think Mark would like to avoid alt.zen. Too much resistance! > Many thanks, O perspicacious Weasel! > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >In article <32BAB46B.2CA4@mail.idt.net>, ardent19@mail.idt.net wrote: > > > >> Ned Ludd wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > So where did modern Zen go wrong? > >> > >> It began to go off course when it decided to use the 'psychological > >> interpretation' of Zen doing away with the original gnostical I don't believe Zen was ever gnostical. This implies (from the greeks) a gift of direct knowlege of god or gods. Mark seems to lean in this direction himself, even going past the Yogachara notion--which was never mainstream Zen or Buddhism. It also appears that Mark's rebukes are centered towards American and Japanese Soto and Hybrid sects. He seems to be totally unaware of Modern Rinzai in America and Japan. > >> Rather than ignoring the Sutras, most all Tang dynasty Zen masters > >> were well versed in the Sutras. In Hui Neng's *Platform Scripture*, > >> for example, there are quotes from Sutras such as the *Nirvana*, > >> *Vajracchedika*, *Lankavatara*, *Saddharmapundarika*, *Vimalakirti*, > >> *Amitabha* and *Bodhisattvashila*. > >> > > Hui Neng had to have the Lotus Sutra read to him by a questioner > in order for him to answer the man's question. And that's the point > about the sixth patriarch and the Platform Sutra: The truth isn't > inside of books, nor is it outside of them. Actually, it was the Diamond that was supposed to have been read to him, and all of this Platform Sutra biz is really pretty irrelevent since it was a fabricated story by the Ox Head school to make a point about sudden vs gradual enlightenment. > > ...Let me bluntly say, that when modern Zen masters preach the > > deprecation of the Sutras they are betraying there foolishness > > and proving to the general Buddhist public that they are teaching > > "Wild Fox Zen". Utter nonsense. . .Lighten the fuck up Mark. . .rigid, literal, and fundie perversion of the dharma was exactly what the stories of Bodhidarma and "Not dependent on words and doctrine were about" Also, you are very misinformed if you think America's Zennies are ignorant of the sutras. Now, Mark, you ran in the middle of the debate on the Diamond. I think, because you could not address the issue of ". . .leaving nothing behind" It contradicts your mystical Yogacara notion and Gnostic appeal. At one time, you did a lot of yakity yak about Bodhidharma and the Lankavatara Sutra. So, why don't we look at Bodhi D? What do we really know about BD? 1. There is alot of controversy about what he did and didn't write. 2. There is very little evidence of him using the Lankavatara in any of the writings ascribed to him, and of those only the "Outline Of The Practice" has drawn any consensus as to his probable authorship. The fact that this piece is very consistant with basic buddhism and consistant with Zen Buddhism and Buddhism in general to this day--combined with a preface from Hui-k'o makes it the ideal representation of what he taught. Although we cannot accuratetly ascribe even this to him, we can say it is by far the best and most reliable document in respect to both him and the beginnings of Zen in China. Hui-k'o also wrote and confirmed the "Four Practices" taught in the "Outline." These four practices are: 1. Suffering Injustice 2. Adapting to conditions 3. Seeking Nothing 4. Practicing the Dharma a. Suffering injustice deals with the nature of Karma. b. Adapt.. .to conditions deals with dependent origination and impermanence. c. Seeking nothing deals with Emptiness and Non Attachment. d. Practicing. . .deals with truth, delusion, and NO Being! "The dharma includes No Being because it's free of the impurity of being" --Bodhi D These concepts are consistant with both the Buddhism of 2500 years ago, and the Buddhism taught by both Rinzai and Soto teachers today. Upaya may vary-- these haven't changed. There is not a trace of Gnostic or Mystical pounding around the notion of a supreme being or consciousness in them--this is just the western baggage you haven't been able to let go of. This is not nihilism either, but you have to see for yourself why its not. David