As a bit of a follow-up on the previous question about violence ...
How is a contemporary practitioner to understand Buddhist stories that include extreme violence and self-harm, such as the transmission of the dharma from Bodhidharma to Huike, the second patriarch? In that story, Huike must demonstrate his dedication to the path by using extreme violence against himself (cutting off his arm) before being recognized by Bodhidharma and being allowed to learn from him.

Furyu
sat-lah
How is a contemporary practitioner to understand Buddhist stories that include extreme violence and self-harm, such as the transmission of the dharma from Bodhidharma to Huike, the second patriarch? In that story, Huike must demonstrate his dedication to the path by using extreme violence against himself (cutting off his arm) before being recognized by Bodhidharma and being allowed to learn from him.

Furyu
sat-lah
From about page 137 here ...
"Nonsense and trickery" play no role. It is simply that Zen/Mahayana "logic" is not our usual way of seeing the world, and is to be experienced and "grocked" rather than just understood intellectually, so sometimes needs to be expressed in poetic, symbolic or superficially "illogical" ways, often using physical demonstration, popular references (well known poems or slang from back in ancient China, so hard for us to get the reference) or even humor. For example, in ordinary logic, a mountain is not a tea cup. For the Zen fellow, the mountain is brewing, while the tea cup fully holds the mountain within. The Zen fellow might try to express this by smashing the cup! (Or with a popular slogan like "good to the last drop" or "just drink your tea" or dancing "tea for two" or something like that. "Tea for two, and two for tea, that's me for you and you for me ... "
) As to the violence, there should be no REAL violence in Buddhism, including Zen. Sometimes people get carried away, but the slaps are more friendly "wake up" slaps than actual violence. I think that expressions like "I give you 30 slaps" are figurative, not literal. I would say that it is actually quite like some of the "transgressive" practices of Tantra in that way.
In truth, we are all Living Buddhas, and just need to realize so and act accordingly.) I think that, when Zen first came to the West in the mid-20th Century, there was some misunderstanding and romanticism (thanks to the idealized writings of D.T. Suzuki and such) that Zen Masters are some perfectly enlightened, infallible beings, rather than the perfectly enlightened fallible beings that Zen Masters are.
. Obviously, I am not worried about historical accuracy - I wanted to see whether Emi Jido would steer away from a literal reading of the story and offer a symbolic interpretation, which she has
.
Comment