[Buddha-l] Chen Yen survival or revival?

[Jeff Wilson]

Dear Kate, Stephen, and the list,
 I'm intrigued by the recent exchange on Chen Yen's survival, and am
wondering if differing opinions arise from differing ways of
conceiving/perceiving Chinese Buddhism past and present, or if someone
(probably me) is simply misinformed. Could you provide some more information
about modern-day Chen Yen groups? Kate, you said that they "went underground
in China for many years but survived quite easily." Do you mean they went
underground recently during the Community period? I didn't think Chen Yen
was alive at the start of the revolution.
 Also, you said there are over 110 Chen Yen temples in California. Do you
primarily mean temples in recently created Buddhist New Religious Movements,
like the Purple Lotus Society?
 China isn't my area of research so I'm intrigued to learn if I've been
misinstructed about the history of esoteric Buddhism there. My understanding
is that for centuries Chan has been the only Chinese monastic lineage, and
that therefore technically all Chinese monks have been Chan monks. Chan
itself absorbed most of the earlier currents within Chinese Buddhism, such
that any given Chan monk might have a ritual specialty/philosophical
preference for Pure Land, esoteric, or other elements which in earlier times
(and later Japan) constituted relatively independent movements.
 Drawing on this situation, my understanding then is that Chen Yen died out
as a viable school a long time ago, but, as I said in my initial post,
esoteric rituals, texts, and ideas continued to circulate widely within
"Chan" Buddhism and are common today. Among the various implications of this
conceptualization is the understanding that the Chinese esoteric temples
which has sprung up lately on the American West Coast (and elsewhere--I've
visited a half dozen in New York City alone, and others in unlikely places
such as the western mountains of North Carolina) are not the direct lineal
descendants of Chen Yen orders which somehow managed to remain intact and
healthy through the Sung and following periods, but rather are recent
innovations that draw heavily on Tibetan Buddhism and fall under the
catagory of Buddhist New Religious Movements, much like Falun Dafa, Agon
Shu, Soka Gakkai, etc.
 If I am incorrect in general or in particulars here, would listmembers
please disabuse (or, as often happens to Buddha-l discussants, abuse) me? As
I said, China is not my area of expertise, and I'm happy to be corrected and
set right. What I'm not happy to do is hold incorrect notions about Chinese
Buddhist history, for while I'm not called to teach on it, I do regularly
get asked general questions about things outside my expertise. Many thanks
in advance.
 Sincerely,
Jeff Wilson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051021/2ad0c522/attachment.html