I was struck by a comment Meido sensei made in a different thread...
http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f= ... 60#p299172
...about the perception of being perceived as a "rigid traditionalist." This surprised me, because very, very little of what I see in the Zen forum at DW looks like traditionalism to me, including the content of the discussion in that thread. I suppose this means there is a different set of expectations for what makes one a traditionalist or a non-traditionalist, or a full-on rigid traditionalist among Zen practitioners overall (which is a pretty big umbrella), than might obtain elsewhere in the English-speaking Dharma world.
Please help this arthritic fool get a handle on this. What is meant by traditionalism in these parts? If someone is perceived to be a traditionalist in his or her approach to practice, what does that perception mean? And in contrast to what--that is, how is someone who is *not* a traditionalist understood? What difference does it make in terms of practice?
What does it mean to be a "traditionalist"?
Re: What does it mean to be a "traditionalist"?
i'm not sure what this particular forum culture deems it to be, but based on this and other boards, i'd be confident saying it usually means something like:
- accepts the truth of karma, within the range of variation for explaining karma seen in the Mahayana
- accepts the truth of rebirth, within the range of variation for explaining the mechanism and nature of rebirth
- accepts the truth of full enlightenment, without dilution, as being the complete cessation of suffering and the unequivocal, irrevocable immersion in the nature of reality, with all that entails.
these seem to be the facets of dharma that people try to modify, re-interpret or abandon the most. while the first two are often the sticking point for many western Buddhists, i find the the third the strangest, and the most damaging. someone who thinks rebirth is junk might still understand and engage with the mechanism by means of which delusion is created and still practice, but someone who thinks that enlightenment is achieved when they're less neurotic will not practice further. i've seen the goal of practice be equated to a range of things, including "feeling better", "mental health", "more kindness", "general morality", "compassion" and "calm" in multiple forums and modern schools.
it might also have meant, in context of Meido Sensei's quip, someone who's orthodox in their adherence to the forms of a particular practice. there's usually a lot of bitching about that, often by people who want to replace that form with some or other version of their own.
- accepts the truth of karma, within the range of variation for explaining karma seen in the Mahayana
- accepts the truth of rebirth, within the range of variation for explaining the mechanism and nature of rebirth
- accepts the truth of full enlightenment, without dilution, as being the complete cessation of suffering and the unequivocal, irrevocable immersion in the nature of reality, with all that entails.
these seem to be the facets of dharma that people try to modify, re-interpret or abandon the most. while the first two are often the sticking point for many western Buddhists, i find the the third the strangest, and the most damaging. someone who thinks rebirth is junk might still understand and engage with the mechanism by means of which delusion is created and still practice, but someone who thinks that enlightenment is achieved when they're less neurotic will not practice further. i've seen the goal of practice be equated to a range of things, including "feeling better", "mental health", "more kindness", "general morality", "compassion" and "calm" in multiple forums and modern schools.
it might also have meant, in context of Meido Sensei's quip, someone who's orthodox in their adherence to the forms of a particular practice. there's usually a lot of bitching about that, often by people who want to replace that form with some or other version of their own.
Re: What does it mean to be a "traditionalist"?
I hope I didn't put Meido sensei on the spot with the way I wrote that first post. I don't mean to generalize from his experience; his comments just provoked a question about the idea of being a traditionalist overall, or rather being perceived as one.
I agree completely with daelm's post, particularly with regard to the objective of practice. If one's objective is stress relief or lower blood pressure, then you're not practicing Buddha Dharma, you're practicing mindful-health-outcomes-a-yana. If that's what it means to be a traditionalist, then mark me down as one.
I agree completely with daelm's post, particularly with regard to the objective of practice. If one's objective is stress relief or lower blood pressure, then you're not practicing Buddha Dharma, you're practicing mindful-health-outcomes-a-yana. If that's what it means to be a traditionalist, then mark me down as one.
Re: What does it mean to be a "traditionalist"?
No worries, i dont feel put on the spot...and I agree with daelm' s post as well.
I primarily had in mind my habit of asserting the importance of entering into personal teacher-student relationship, and of practicing according to instructions received within that context. On the other hand, i would by no means negate all self-guided practice, since there are obviously foundational things one can learn and do (in Zen, this includes some zazen practices). Recognizing that I may not always give that impression, I made the comment i did.
Meido
I primarily had in mind my habit of asserting the importance of entering into personal teacher-student relationship, and of practicing according to instructions received within that context. On the other hand, i would by no means negate all self-guided practice, since there are obviously foundational things one can learn and do (in Zen, this includes some zazen practices). Recognizing that I may not always give that impression, I made the comment i did.
Meido
Re: What does it mean to be a "traditionalist"?
I guess people who are attracted to Zen but for whatever reason don't practice in a sangha under a teacher, often find their spiritual home in an internet forum. Hence the difference in culture.
I am glad we are here for all kinds of people attracted to the Dharma and glad that Meido and other knowledgeable people can share their experience and insight. So it's all good, IMO.
_/|\_
I am glad we are here for all kinds of people attracted to the Dharma and glad that Meido and other knowledgeable people can share their experience and insight. So it's all good, IMO.
_/|\_
- Thomas Amundsen
- Posts: 2034
- Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:50 am
- Location: Helena, MT
- Contact:
Re: What does it mean to be a "traditionalist"?
How would a "traditional" student-teacher relationship in Zen differ from a student-guru relationship in Vajrayana? This was never clear to me.Meido wrote:
I primarily had in mind my habit of asserting the importance of entering into personal teacher-student relationship, and of practicing according to instructions received within that context.
Re: What does it mean to be a "traditionalist"?
I guess for starters there's no guru yoga.tomamundsen wrote:How would a "traditional" student-teacher relationship in Zen differ from a student-guru relationship in Vajrayana? This was never clear to me.Meido wrote:
I primarily had in mind my habit of asserting the importance of entering into personal teacher-student relationship, and of practicing according to instructions received within that context.
Then again, 'traditional' student-teacher relationship varies across Chan, Zen and Seon and also within.
There is also inka, or dharma-transmission, shiho, dharma-heirs, etc. Again this varies. For instance, Seung Sahn who was not exactly a typical Korean Zen teacher, had many dharma heirs. Another very prominent teacher, Kusan Sunim, had none, though he ran one of the largest temples (Chinul's old temple) and had many disciples both from Korea and abroad. So there is no one rule.
_/|\_
Re: What does it mean to be a "traditionalist"?
For example, James Ishmael Ford (Zeno Myoun, Roshi) calls himself a Liberal Buddhist. You can read one of his latest posts here on karma and rebirth.
Since the realisation of either a stream-enterer or a bodhisattva necessarily includes the understanding and acceptance of rebirth, what kind of transmission is it that authorises annihilationists/materialists to appear as Zen teachers? From a "traditionalist" perspective they are more like manifestations of Mara.
Since the realisation of either a stream-enterer or a bodhisattva necessarily includes the understanding and acceptance of rebirth, what kind of transmission is it that authorises annihilationists/materialists to appear as Zen teachers? From a "traditionalist" perspective they are more like manifestations of Mara.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?
2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.
3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.
4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.
1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?
2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.
3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.
4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.
1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Re: What does it mean to be a "traditionalist"?
The protocols are different, but I can say that in a granular way, relating to someone who has realization by means of Zen feels indistinguishable from relating to someone who has realization by means of Vajrayana. Realization is realization. It's almost as though a master of this capacity can't really help but have a certain presence; it doesn't seem intentional or contrived.tomamundsen wrote:How would a "traditional" student-teacher relationship in Zen differ from a student-guru relationship in Vajrayana? This was never clear to me.Meido wrote:
I primarily had in mind my habit of asserting the importance of entering into personal teacher-student relationship, and of practicing according to instructions received within that context.
All that said, I don't have a relationship to a Zen teacher, so don't take my mumblings as authoritative. My point is merely that the difference is in the methods used, the repertoire of methods at hand I should say, and the norms and conventions of the temple you may be in.
Re: What does it mean to be a "traditionalist"?
Astus wrote:For example, James Ishmael Ford (Zeno Myoun, Roshi) calls himself a Liberal Buddhist. You can read one of his latest posts here on karma and rebirth.
Since the realisation of either a stream-enterer or a bodhisattva necessarily includes the understanding and acceptance of rebirth, what kind of transmission is it that authorises annihilationists/materialists to appear as Zen teachers? From a "traditionalist" perspective they are more like manifestations of Mara.
Some of the ideas raised in this post are discussed here:
http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=20616
perhaps of interest.