Page 1 of 1

If Mahakashyapa was first Zen/Chan patriarch..

Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 8:43 pm
by himalayanspirit
If Mahakashyapa was the first Chan/Zen patriarch, then isn't Chan/Zen a Sravakayana school considering that all the disciples of historical Buddha were Arhats?

Re: If Mahakashyapa was first Zen/Chan patriarch..

Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:36 pm
by Astus
Besides that the whole succession of patriarchs, especially the Indian part, is a fiction, one of the Mahayana interpretation of the major disciples of the Buddha is that they were actually bodhisattvas under cover.

Re: If Mahakashyapa was first Zen/Chan patriarch..

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:04 am
by Jinzang
The point of the list of patriarchs was not that each patriarch in the list was a Zen Buddhist, but that there was an unbroken succession of enlightened teachers from the Zen teachers of China back to Buddha. This was important in Chinese culture, where filial respect for one's ancestors was so emphasized.

Re: If Mahakashyapa was first Zen/Chan patriarch..

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:41 am
by LastLegend
Zen is Buddhism and Buddhism is Zen. You cannot meditate without understanding Buddhist teachings.

Re: If Mahakashyapa was first Zen/Chan patriarch..

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:00 am
by booker
himalayanspirit wrote: then isn't Chan/Zen a Sravakayana school
Nope it's not. 1) Sravakas know no buddha nature concept 2) Sravakas do not meditate, method is to listen to teachings and reflect upon them and that creates conditions for sati to arise and with it, they can have an insigth into the reality directly.

In Zen 1) introduction to buddha nature 2) meditation / enquiry into it.

Re: If Mahakashyapa was first Zen/Chan patriarch..

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:24 pm
by Kare
booker wrote:
himalayanspirit wrote: then isn't Chan/Zen a Sravakayana school
Nope it's not. 1) Sravakas know no buddha nature concept 2) Sravakas do not meditate, method is to listen to teachings and reflect upon them and that creates conditions for sati to arise and with it, they can have an insigth into the reality directly.

In Zen 1) introduction to buddha nature 2) meditation / enquiry into it.
Sravakas do not meditate?!!!!!

Re: If Mahakashyapa was first Zen/Chan patriarch..

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:25 pm
by Kare
Astus wrote:Besides that the whole succession of patriarchs, especially the Indian part, is a fiction, one of the Mahayana interpretation of the major disciples of the Buddha is that they were actually bodhisattvas under cover.
I love this concept of the major disciples as undercover agents! :spy:

Re: If Mahakashyapa was first Zen/Chan patriarch..

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 1:26 pm
by Kai
himalayanspirit wrote:If Mahakashyapa was the first Chan/Zen patriarch, then isn't Chan/Zen a Sravakayana school considering that all the disciples of historical Buddha were Arhats?
He was not...........really.....although many Chan and Zen practitioners prefer to think that He was so as to increase their personal faith in Zen methods. If anything, the founder of Chan or Zen was Bodhidharma, before Him, no such school or method existed......

Re: If Mahakashyapa was first Zen/Chan patriarch..

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 1:31 pm
by booker
Kare wrote:Sravakas do not meditate?!!!!!
Perhaps I was overgeneralising, there are streams where meditation is performed but is regarded as a method for a very advanced practitioners only.

If you read some modern interpretations, like from Sujin Boriharnwanaket clearly the base is on listening and reflecting only.

Re: If Mahakashyapa was first Zen/Chan patriarch..

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 1:38 pm
by Kai
Kare wrote:Sravakas do not meditate?!!!!!
They do but the Zen methods differ a lot from the Thervadins' one........