Japanese Monk?

[Jinyo]

Re: Japanese Monk?

... this is probably for another thread, but in the Thurman interview he mentioned bringing together Catholicism
and Buddhism because of the celibate nature of Catholic priests (have only listened to interview once - but think I heard
this right).
In a recent talk by Thich Nhat Hanh he mentions 'the kingdom of God' equating it with inner peace and our higher selves.
I need to read again his book 'The Energy of Prayer' but there does seem to be a move towards inter-faith understanding within it.

I don't have a problem with inter-faith at all - very necessary in a troubled world where fundamentalism undermines unity - but what drew
me to Buddhism is its nontheistic nature so I can't quite visualize Thurman's intent?

Sorry - this is definately for another thread - and a bit muddled.

[SoR]

Re: Japanese Monk?

For those of you who would like to watch the whole interview, I actually have it saved on YouTube as a playlist here.

[RichardH]

Re: Japanese Monk?

Forgive me for not listening to Thurman talk about stuff.

In Theravadin Buddhism there is celibacy for a good reason, because it is not about "not picking samsara over Nirvana`.. it is definitely about picking Nirvana (Nibbana) over samsara and being no more born into this world. Lots of folk try and spin this in interesting ways, but if you have seriously practiced in the company of Theravadin monastics you`ll know that is what it is about... uprooting, greed, hatred and delusion and being done with it. Practice as taught by the monastics to the laity is different that than taught among monastics. ..and that is just that path, which is fine.

It makes sense to be celibate for any reason one wants to be, and it makes sense to be celibate for a period of intensive practice, but generally I do not see the point in renouncing ordinary human intimacy if your practice is seeing Samsara and Nirvana as two sides of one coin, realizing that, and living that.

[Jinyu]

Re: Japanese Monk?

Hi!
I was going to say a few words on this but I've seen that Jundo just said it wonderfully so...
Anyway, status of "non-married clergy" as always been quite a tricky situation to deal with, and each society and culture gave different rights, status, "definitions of the life" for these people, It exist in every place and time nothing specific to Buddhism.

As, to say that "Japanese monks" just took the Bodhisattva vows and thus they didn't took all the 250 precepts... I know some people from Theravada tradition for whom this is very important, but honestly these are story of "I do better than you do"... We could also argue because Northern Buddhist wear Kimonos and Koromos and Buddha's first disciples didn't... what is the point?

I remember the teacher who gave me ordination, Ming Zhen Shakya, told me that the first time that she received ordination with some Chinese monks in Nan-Hua, they all recited the all 250 precepts ... in Sanskrit! No one understood what the vows where exactly! And she said to herself, well it is simple: "in Rome do what Romans do, if others do it... I can too", and that is how she manage the situation.

So, is it better to have taken a lot of vows without knowing them or just taking a few vows and penetrate them fully, making them shine in your life? :roll:

Have a very nice day everyone!
gassho,
Jinyu

[Jinyo]

Re: Japanese Monk?

Hi - I have just found the threads 'Bad Buddhist Vibes' and 'Help'.

There is a lot of discussion there regarding the difficulty I'm having after listening to Thurman.

Seems like this area of 'inter-faith' goes much wider than I'd understood - and my understanding of Buddhism is clearly
very limited.

In the 'Help' thread the only postings that I could really connect to were Hans - as he was seriously questioning the overlap between Christian doctrine
and Buddhism.

Need to think this through and start a new thread because I suddenly feel on shaky ground concerning my understanding of things.

[RichardH]

Re: Japanese Monk?

Hi - I have just found the threads 'Bad Buddhist Vibes' and 'Help'.

There is a lot of discussion there regarding the difficulty I'm having after listening to Thurman.

Seems like this area of 'inter-faith' goes much wider than I'd understood - and my understanding of Buddhism is clearly
very limited.

In the 'Help' thread the only postings that I could really connect to were Hans - as he was seriously questioning the overlap between Christian doctrine
and Buddhism.

Need to think this through and start a new thread because I suddenly feel on shaky ground concerning my understanding of things.

Hi Willow.

Aside from iffy comparisons between Buddhism and other traditions, and differences between traditions within Buddhism, universal basic Buddhism is very straightforward and does not require mental gymnastics or the grasping of difficult concepts. There looks to be some good material here (this site) on basic Buddhism, The Four Noble Truths, seeing Dukkha, the cause and nature of Dukkha, and through seeing and letting go, knowing cessation of Dukkha. This isn't just starter Buddhism, it is always in play. ..and If I may say, even with the kaleidoscope of different Buddhist traditions, and all the "advanced" dialectics of Madhyamaka and so forth, there is really nothing more than these simple basics in the end, ...and the tradition represented by this Sangha puts things in even more direct and simple terms. That's why I'm here, having had a belly full of Big Theory in Buddhism. Just sayin.

[Jundo]

Re: Japanese Monk?

Forgive me for not listening to Thurman talk about stuff.

In Theravadin Buddhism there is celibacy for a good reason, because it is not about "not picking samsara over Nirvana`.. it is definitely about picking Nirvana (Nibbana) over samsara and being no more born into this world. Lots of folk try and spin this in interesting ways, but if you have seriously practiced in the company of Theravadin monastics you`ll know that is what it is about... uprooting, greed, hatred and delusion and being done with it. Practice as taught by the monastics to the laity is different that than taught among monastics. ..and that is just that path, which is fine.

It makes sense to be celibate for any reason one wants to be, and it makes sense to be celibate for a period of intensive practice, but generally I do not see the point in renouncing ordinary human intimacy if your practice is seeing Samsara and Nirvana as two sides of one coin, realizing that, and living that.

Hi,

By the way, my understanding of the original Pali term "Bikkhu" is that it refers to the Buddha's original vision of a community of mendicants, beggers, wandering on rounds to gather alms. It is not really a term that applies to the settled, institutional living, non-alms round going monks of places like China, Korea, Tibet and Japan.

http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=dHWH ... &q&f=false

There, for reasons of culture, the monks largely abandoned alms rounds in town in favor of receiving donations to the monastery, including land, serfs and sometimes (yes) slaves! (Granted, as in Europe and America of the past, "slavery" was not 'frowned upon as it is now! :?) Their economic base was agricultural fields ... sometimes worked by them, more often by others. In fact, look closely to the realities of social structure in India and China, Tibet and Japan and you literally had monasteries being supported on the backs of serfs and slaves growing rice on lands run by the monasteries, often owned by the monasteries with monks managing the serfs directly. Or financed by soliciting donations, or selling funeral and other ceremonies to lay people. "Begging in the streets" was probably rarely, if ever, the main source of financial resources for the Buddhist clergy. The social and economic context for Buddhist practice changed as it moved from southern to northern Asia, just as it is changing again in the move from east to west.

http://nozeninthewest.wordpress.com/201 ... no-really/

So, I wonder if most north Asian Buddhist clergy are right in calling themselves Bikkhu! :| It is even questionable whether the Buddha would have approved of monasteries as such, as opposed to the sometime short term gathering of monks for a few weeks during the rainy season as he practiced during his lifetime ... otherwise encouraging his students to wander the countryside.

Anyway ... a name is a name, and where one lives and works is where one lives and works. What matters is the substance behind the name.

By the way, Japanese Zen monks still do go out on begging rounds, but as a special sometime ritual ... not as a daily event ...

viewtopic.php?p=63517#p63517

Also, on another thread I posted a Sutra section I came across, in keeping with Kojip's observations ... it is a taste of how the Vinaya Precepts are sometimes treated in Mahayana literature ... a doctrinal basis for what has developed in Japan, with its married clergy and all ...

By the way, just read an interesting passage of a Mahayana Sutra that applies here (called "The Definitive Vinaya", translated by Garma Chang). Read a bit from where it says "Now, Upali, you should know that the pure precepts observed by Bodhisattvas and those observed by Sravakas are different both in aim and practice" from the middle of page 268 here.

http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=isX- ... &q&f=false

It is a shame that page 270 is not available, as that is about how one might break Precepts and live among the passions if the point is to help sentient beings.

[The Buddha said], "If, while practicing the Mahayana, a Bodhisattva continues to break precepts out of desire for kalpas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, his offence is still minor, If a Bodhisattva breaks precepts out of hatred, even just once, his offence is very serious. Why? Because a Bodhisattva who breaks precepts out of desire [still] holds sentient beings in his embrace, whereas a Bodhisattva who breaks precepts out of hatred forsakes sentient beings altogether. Upali, a Bodhisattva should not be afraid of the passions which can help him hold sentient beings in his embrace, but should fear the passions which can cause him to forsake sentient beings."

Gassho, J

[Kyonin]

Re: Japanese Monk?

Wonderful thread.

I have a lot of problems with the words priest and monk because of all the different context there might be.

While I understand those words are some sort of rank or certificates that someone is qualified to talk about the dharma, I have seen a lot of people misuse the title and abuse others.

Also, I have met wonderful people who are compassionate, know and live by the dharma and even if the haven't ever set foot on a monastery or temple, they are extraordinary teachers.

A name is just a name. I think what counts is wisdom and right intention.

[Jundo]

Re: Japanese Monk?

A good place to drop this old post too ...

And what about Master, Reverend, Osho, Roshi (and "Sensei" too)?

In Japanese Soto, "Roshi" does not imply any particular rank or attainment beyond being a fully ordained priest who one wants to refer to with some respect due to age or the like (the Rinzai folks use the term in a more specific way ... see this article for more details).

http://archive.thebuddhadharma.com/issu ... nter02.htm

Soko Morinaga, a well respected Japanese Soto Zen teacher, once famously said, "A roshi is anyone who calls himself a roshi and can get other people to do the same."

A "Sensei" in Japan is a general title that can be applied to anyone from a school teacher, to a lawyer or doctor, to a politician. It is NOT a common title in the Zen world in Japan to denote some particular rank or attainment, and its use in the West for Zen teachers is pretty much a complete Western invention. There is no sense in Japan or China that "Sensei" is a lower rank, or less attained than a "Roshi". From a Japanese language/cultural point of view, it is rather amusing that in the West teachers are making artificial ranks based on those terms.

In the rules of the Soto-shu in Japan, an "Osho" is anyone who has received Dharma Transmission (plus has done all the proper paperwork, ceremonies, and paid the needed fees to Soto-shu). Again, the Rinzai folks define the term a little differently. The term "Osho" comes from the Indian "acharya", which is a guide or instructor in religious matters.

In my view, "master" is someone with some "mastery" in an art or tradition to pass on and pass down ... from carpentry to medicine to martial arts to Zen Buddhary. It need not mean the "master" is perfect (one can be a "master carpenter", yet not every corner will always be smooth; a "master surgeon" cannot cure every patient, and even the most gifted may sometimes make a bad cut). However, one should be pretty darn skilled.

"Reverend" is a nice general term to refer to clergy or a minister.

In my case (I think Taigu feels the same way), just call me Jundo or or Rev. Jundo (or Rabbi) or Cap'n Jundo. Maybe, in a few years, you can start calling me Admiral Jundo. Call me Roshi or Sensei. My father from Brooklyn used to say, "Call me whatever, just don't call me late for dinner"

A rose by any other name is still a rose. A lemon by another name is still a lemon.

Gassho, Jundo (a name)

[Omoi Otoshi]

Japanese Monk?

Very useful! Thx Cap'n Jundo!

[Rev R]

Re: Japanese Monk?

There is something about the "X is not a REAL Y" claim that gets my hackles up. Could be that whole mucking about with a string of quasi-legitimate ordinations of my own makes it seem a little more personal (but also much fun).

Seems to me that application is much more important than appellation. If one sees, one sees. It doesn't matter all that much if you are a monk, priest, minister, Jedi knight, butcher, baker or candlestick maker. However, there is a degree of responsibility to take on a title and with it a solemn vow- so how one handles the role appears to be more important than exactly how one acquired the role.

On a more personal note, I am rather glad Bob did not remain celibate.

[Omoi Otoshi]

Japanese Monk?

there is a degree of responsibility to take on a title and with it a solemn vow- so how one handles the role appears to be more important than exactly how one acquired the role.

This I very much agree with. You have to mean it, make the vow. If you do, don't let anyone say you're not a monk. In your heart you are, and that's what matters.

Gassho,
Pontus

[Rev R]

Re: Japanese Monk?

there is a degree of responsibility to take on a title and with it a solemn vow- so how one handles the role appears to be more important than exactly how one acquired the role.

This I very much agree with. You have to mean it, make the vow. If you do, don't let anyone say you're not a monk. In your heart you are, and that's what matters.

Hey Pontus,

+5

[Jundo]

Re: Japanese Monk?

there is a degree of responsibility to take on a title and with it a solemn vow- so how one handles the role appears to be more important than exactly how one acquired the role.

This I very much agree with. You have to mean it, make the vow. If you do, don't let anyone say you're not a monk. In your heart you are, and that's what matters.

Gassho,
Pontus

But the other hand (there's frequently is one, and ever the 'one hand clap' too 8) ) ...

... one has the risk of all the folks who tie on a bed sheet, call themselves "Guru" or "Zen Master" and start spouting whatever Dharma-dribble comes into their mind (usually for a fee). Harmless at best, hurtful to the dribbled on students at worst. There are so many folks like that, in the Zen world (like that Barry fellow), Buddhism and other "Eastern practices" ... not much different from a conman who sticks on a white coat without having medical training and starts doing open heart surgery! :shock:

There is a MIDDLE WAY on this (as there usually is) ...

I once wrote this (part of a longer essay on Lineage) ...

viewtopic.php?p=43252#p43252

...

That does not mean, of course, that every product of a "recognized Lineage" will necessarily end up a shining diamond ... certainly not (there are a lot of questionable folks out there with a "robe and a piece of paper certifying their enlightenment"). However, one is more likely to end up with a well formed "teacher" when the "teacher's teacher" was a gifted teacher who knew how to pass on those teachings, and who had an eye for his students ... could sift out among them the special ones ... could be a good judge of character who could see which students manifested wisdom and compassion and which did not ... all to insure (just a little bit) that things would be left in good hands for the next generation.

I believe there is great value in having some recognized and respected teacher or institution (in modern Dharma Transmission, it is usually a combination of multiple teachers and institutions) approve someone else as a teacher. It is the same reason that you don't want to turn over your heart surgery to anyone with a white coat, but would like to see that the doctor graduated from medical school. It does not mean that the Harvard Graduate doctor will not also screw up your heart transplant, but there is a little level of confidence there that the guy knows what he is doing more than turning your heart surgery over to the butcher in the super market.

Many lineages may have cheapened Dharma Transmission, the more serious lineages tend to take its passing on seriously.

Now, there are many licensed doctors with white coats and fancy degrees who are just butchers, and will do real harm. But there are far more butchers who are just butchers.

I think that there are many, many experienced practitioners alive today who, although not certified by a teacher or even ordained, are wonderful full or part time teachers. But, far more common is the fellow who has had a little insight into "oneness" or "one beyond one", and can dish out a few Zenny fortune cookies (even some beautifully written and composed fortune cookies), conundrums and bits of cheap philosophy ... and thus thinks he should immediately be qualified as the One True Heir of Shakyamuni. ...

Yes, people take someone more seriously when they see the robes, a shaved head, and that someone has had "Dharma Transmission", like when they see a white coat on a doctor or a shiny diploma on the wall. As I said, there are many bad doctors out there despite the clothing, and degree, and same with priests. But, I feel there is a better chance of getting good care if the fellow went to medical school or had formal Buddhist training.

So, Dharma Transmission is a fiction and bullsh*t.

The way it is handed out as easily as newspaper shopping coupons by some sects of Buddhism these days in Asia (I refer to the Japanese wing of my own Soto sect among others)** cheapens it. It is passed on from father to son so that the latter may inherit the family temple funeral business, and with about as much procedure and difficulty as getting a driver's license. It is bullsh*t. (**The western branch of Soto is actually doing a MUCH better job of taking Transmission seriously)

And Dharma Transmission is a jewel, everything (while, of course, nothing at all).

Let me close with this ...

...

...

No, there is nothing to stop someone from hanging out their Zen shingle, wrapping him self in a white bed blanket, and just starting to teach. Nothing at all. And the person could be better than any fellow with a fancy robe. The -ONLY- test is whether the person speaks wisdom, and is a true aid to his/her students. That is the only real test, I think.. As a teacher myself, I expect that new students who do not know me will gain some confidence by the fact that I have "Dharma Transmission", was recognized by an older established teacher, that I practiced for 25 years, and belong to the SZBA, etc. However, that trust should last for no more than a few weeks or months.** After that, I hope a student judges me ONLY for what I say and do, and for whether the philosophy I advocate is having some positive effects on their life and Practice.PERIOD. If anyone feels that I, or any other teacher, is full of bull crap ... RUN, DON'T WALK, FOR THE EXITS (and get full refund of your admission fee).

** Note: The reason some trust is necessary at the start is because the teacher is usually having to tell the new student some pretty wild stuff about how their "common sense" view of life is kind of a dream, and many things that the student does not want to hear, finds illogical or unpleasant. So, you need the white coat until the medicine starts to work.

Anyway, enough about that. I have work to do in the garden.

Gassho, Jundo

[Rev R]

Re: Japanese Monk?

Hey Jundo,

I can certainly understand the sentiment of being extremely cautious of folks who present themselves as teachers, but do the terms "monk", "priest", or "minister" automatically equate to "teacher"? Can a person be one without being the other?