Robin Beck

Hi Robin,

Patriarchal Zen and its assumption of a mind-to-mind transmission (which is actually more of a mutual recognition) is common to all Zen schools and not just the Daruma Shu. In other words it is the claim made by them all. In Dogen's case, he insisted that this Patriarchal Zen did not contradict and in fact was consistent with the sutras, but as far as I recall he also supported this idea. The problem with the Daruma Shu was that they took this to such an extreme that they claimed to be able to dispense with the sutras entirely.

There is a book out now called "Sitting with Koans" by John Daido Loori. It is an anthology of articles about koan practice giving both the Rinzai and Soto perspectives. I think that book goes a long way in explaining koan practice in Zen. I would also recommend Thich Nhat Hanh's book "Zen Keys" which really demystifies Zen and reveals the underlying basis for many "Zen teachings" which turn out to be the common basis for all of East Asian Buddhism (including Nichiren Buddhism).

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

I think I was reading in too much by camparing the three Zens; Tathagata Zen, doctrinal Zen, and patriarchal Zen; with other "threes", as in

Initiation = Kai/Sila = Sangha = Body = Mudra = Kaidan

Samatha = Jo/Samadhi = Buddha = Mind = Mandala = Gohonzon

Vipassana = E/Prajna = Dharma = Mouth = Mantra = Daimoku

I revised that out.

Hi Robin,

The gosho is the Nyosetsu Shugyo Sho, "On Practicing the Buddha's Teachings":

http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/Nichiren/Gosho/PracticingBuddhasTeachings.htm

Specifically the fourth paragraph from the end, which says: "Now when the true and provisional teachings are utterly confused, it would be equally unnatural for one to seclude himself in the mountains, carrying out the easy practice of shoju, and avoid refuting the enemies of the Lotus Sutra. He would lose all chance to practice the Lotus Sutra."

I have often wondered if that was a critique of Dogen or perhaps those like him, who left the corruption of Kyoto and Kamakura to practice meditation in mountain hermitages.

I think there may be other references in other gosho that equate meditation and solitude with shoju. I will have to look for those later, or perhaps others will find them first.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

I think I am done editing. I wanted to add a pic of a Zen Shaka Triad, but don't have a kewl one.

I read your comments, Ryuei, after I finished editing; still a bit unclear on Nichiren's take.

The Gosho is getting easier to read as I learn more context. American Buddhists love to exhort others to prectice. Actually, I think that is unecessary. We tend to be inclined that way; toward pragmatism; while avoiding study at all costs. Complaints about Mental Master Debating strike me as sour grapes. :)

If you return Ryuei, I am seeking Nichiren's reference to teachers who retreated to the mountains to do the peaceful practice of Shoju. Or anyone who knows what I mean.

robin

Hi Robin,

I think I can clear some of this up for you. In Rinzai Zen the disciple who is working on a koan must not only present the "answer" but also a matching jakugo or "capping verse" drawn from other Zen stories or Chinese literature which best expresses the spirit of the particular koan. The Zen monk charicatured in in Shogu Mondo Sho sounds like he is just presenting a capping verse (though in this case it is a non-sequitor). There probably were many irresponsible hippy monks like this wandering about - the Dainichi Nyonin types. The actual Rinzai training methods used today is actually much more systematic and rigorous (if not occasionally done by rote rather than spontaneously - which is its own scandal). There is a book called "The Sound of One Hand" which is now out of print but can be found in used bookstores which actually provides the entire Rinzai koan curriculum with the supposed answers and occasionally capping verses that were used in the early 20th century in Japan. There is another book out now by Victor Hori called "Zen Sand" which is a collection of capping verses that would be used by Rinzai students in responding to koans.

As for Patriarchal Zen and Tathagata Zen (I am pretty sure Doctrinal Zen is just another name for the latter) these are things I have actually spoken about at Hartford Street Zen Center and at the Atlanta Zen Center. Tathagata Zen actually refers to the Zen (in this case encompassing the practice and teaching) that derives from the sutras. In other words it is the teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha, and these teachings were supposedly the province of the "doctrinal schools" like T'ien-t'ai or Hua-yen. Also, this Tathagata Zen was tied in with the faith that one can become a Budhda.

Patriarchal Zen, on the other hand, was the teaching and practice handed down by the Zen patriarchs and was not dependent on words and letters. In other words, it was a live transmission of enlightenment as opposed to a "dead letter" transmission of teaching and practice. Also, this Patriarchal Zen was supposed to be the faith that we already are buddha.

These categories are of course polemical constructs to priviledge the Zen school and relegate the other schools to merely being "doctrinal." The so-called "doctrinal" schools were never merely doctrinal, but always had a practice component - esp. T'ien-t'ai. And for that matter, the great Zen Masters of the past were themselves well-versed in the sutras and precept traditions. So this supposed dichotomy is mostly propaganda, esp. when you consider that koan study (and its related jakugo) and commentary became quite a literary endeavor in its own right to the point where some Zen Masters who otherwise highly advocated koans actually burned koan collections to prevent literary fetishes being made of them. I will grant that the Zen tradition did refine and emphasize the practice of silent sitting and/or koan introspection in a way that others would do well to learn from. But Zen can become unbalanced and too often assumed a uniqueness for its school that is unjustified.

In addition, Tathagata and Patriarchal faith that one can become or that one is a buddha, can be correlated with the Shakumon (Trace Gate) and Honmon (Original Gate) of the Lotus Sutra according to T'ien-t'ai and Nichiren interpretations of the sutra. So there is nothing there either in the idea that one can have faith either in becoming or in being a buddha.

Now as for transmission itself - In Zen there is no transmission in the sense of one person giving some secret knowledge or realization to another person. It is more like the master helps direct the disciple in their practice to the point where they can see for themselves the true meaning of Buddhism (aka The True Nature of Reality aka Shoho Jisso). When the master and disciple are both on the same wavelength, so to speak, the master recognizes this and then grants his seal of approval (known as Inka). This is the "transmission." It might more accurately be called training and mutual recognition.

My understanding of Nichiren Buddhism is that Nichiren believed that in the Latter Age it is presumptious to set oneself up as a teacher in this sense or to believe that one could even find such a teacher. Nichiren himself had no such capable mentor. Certainly Dozen-bo was his master, but in the end it was Nichiren who criticized and exhorted his master. There are certainly masters and disciples in Nichiren Buddhism today among the clergy, but we do not speak of transmitting the Dharma in that way. Rather, in Nichiren Buddhism we are all (clergy or lay) supposed to inherit the Dharma directly from the rolls of the Lotus Sutra. Zen might criticize this as elevating dead words, but we see the practice of Odaimoku as a living engagement with the true spirit of the Lotus Sutra. Rather than entrust ourselves to some master's subjective views, we trust in the Dharma rather than the person as Nichiren did. This does not mean that we can't or shouldn't learn from others. Certainly we can and should. But when it comes to enlightenment itself, that is something that we come to directly without intermediaries through faith in Namu Myoho Renge Kyo. The Sangha is still a part of this - but only as a facilitator and not as an intermediary.

I will add that I have done koan study with two Zen Masters (who were both in the Soto tradition though one had Rinzai training) and I found it to be very helpful in deepening my own understanding and practice. It really helped me to relate more directly and in a more grounded way with Buddhist principles and (what is more to the point) with my own life here and now. In many ways I have discovered that the Odaimoku itself operates in some ways like a koan, or it can anyway, in bringing about an immediate and intensive inquiry into what our life really is. That's all I'll say here, as I will write about this on my own blog. But in any case, to test the depths of one's understanding and practice of Odaimoku by reading the koan collections or even working on a few with someone who is trained to guide that kind of practice can be very beneficial. It causes one to questions one's assumptions, push beyond one's boundaries, and to get a kind of reality check as well as a more grounded practice. This may not be enlightenment, but it is certainly rewarding.

The only thing I would be wary of (and I have actually not encountered this among the teachers I have worked with) is those who are dismissive of the Odaimoku, who would see it as just an meaningless phrase or a magic spell, or as a concentration device interchangeable with any other phrase. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Odaimoku, and one that would inevitably lead to further misunderstanding or even conflicts of interest.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei