In general, I am very glad that we've managed to
pinpoint the issue of quietism vs. active, dynamic
Buddhist practice (i.e. silent illumination that
nevertheless may very easily get confused with
quietism).
This is the very essence of the issue, especially with
regards to the 'fence sitters', that is, people who
would like to immerse themselves in the Buddhist
practice, but are for now still merely kicking tires.
My biggest concern, as an educator, is how to deal
with the 'cafeteria mentality' that is so prevalent
today. What I mean by this is candidates who approach
the practice, observe it from a distance for a while,
and then engage in picking and choosing: this I like,
this I don't care too much about, this you can keep
for yourself, etc.
In my opinion, the Buddhist practice is always and
inevitably an all-or-nothing affair -- either you give
it your best, or don't even bother. In other words,
this practice demands an entire person.
The danger I perceive in the lines from the Platform
sutra I've posted earlier is that novices and
intermediate, or even advanced practitioners, may get
discouraged from practicing just sitting upon reading
these lines. Granted, not everyone automatically knows
the difference between quietism and silent
illumination. And furthermore, that difference is a
very subtle one, especially for the uninitiated
fence-sitters.
For some strange reason, Hui-neng himself didn't feel
the need to elucidate on this distinction (i.e.
quietism vs. just sitting), and left his words to be
open to misinterpretation.
Education in these matters is always extremely useful.
This is why I was happy to see that the discussion on
these issues focused on these distinctions, instead of
turning into another spitting duel.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Yet I think to be fair and honest with alex's
> objections has not soto
> zen fallen into a posture fetish? ie. a tendency to
> identify awakened
> activity with the external points of formal
> practice. needing to sit
> 2x as long as others because you use the half lotus?
> (In japanese
> training monastery) being told you can't practice
> zazen because of
> physical limitations? what happened to the universal
> religion? only
> the physically fit need apply? yes we can dismiss
> these tendencies as
> invalid but don't they arise from a not so hidden
> bias in the
> practice/teachings? Dare i say it? a certain
> japanese formalism.
But we don't really have to concern ourselves with
this, since most of us don't live in Japan. I'm mostly
concerned with the North American bias in the
practice. Granted, I am being very self-serving here,
but that's my daily reality, having to deal with North
American practitioners on a daily basis. Such
practitioners are in a certain way diametrically
opposite of the Japanese mentality, in that they
cannot stand any trace of authoritarianism, and that
no one can tell them what to do. So, a different
strategy is required (it's all grist for the upaya
mill).
> Compare this with either Chan style of Hongzhi or
> with a similar
> teaching in the tibetan tradition Dzogchen/mahamudra
> (both of which
> I've practiced) where the practice is
> "looser"--posture, etiquette,
> sitting rounds, etc as the emphasis is clearly on
> the state of Being
> not the physical form (after all za does mean to
> sit) nor is sitting
> exalted as THE practice. I say this not just to be
> questioning but
> because it is (at least for me) a real concern.
> perhaps this concern
> is behind alex's thoughts however much his position
> can be refuted by
> text based arguement? maybe it merits further
> reflection? Is there a
> tendency in the practice and by teachers and
> students to make zazen
> into a fetish at the expense of Unborn Buddha Mind?
Again, I'd like to demolish the tendency to focus on
personalitites here (although that seems impossible,
such is the power of the gossip mind). But, I don't
think there is any merit to be found in equating this
dilemma with my personal predicament. I have been
practicing silent illumination in earnestness and have
derived nothing but immense spiritual merit from it (I
compare it to having the wind in one's sail). I can't
say enough good things about it. It certainly does
appear as a completely perfect practice, and I'd
wholeheartedly recommend it to everybody.
However, I wouldn't do it to the exclusion of
everything else. Different beings have different
capacities, have different spiritual range. Applying a
generic, accros the board formula to everyone is not
the wisest thing to do, in my deluded opinion.
Telling all your students "just sit there and shut
up!" isn't going to necessarily work for every one of
them. It smacks of dogmatism (even if it isn't
dogmatism), and that doesn't sit well with most North
American candidates.
I'd rather engage them in a discussion on the
differences between mere quietism and the real silent
illumination, than assume the all-knowing posture and
snottily proclaim: "Because I say so! Your lack of
understanding is appalling, and you must now obey my
authority!"
Alex
No karma was produced during the composition of this letter
__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/UwRTUD/UOnJAA/i1hLAA/S27xlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Noble Eightfold Path: Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action,
Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration, Right Livelihood
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZenForum/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
