[Buddha-l] Pai-chang Huai-hai (was Re: there hegoesagain(samharris))

[Joy Vriens]

Hi Vicente,

>"Entretiens..." it's frequently cited. I can read french with some 
>limitations but if this book it's recommendable I will get it. 
>Maybe you can give me some comments around that. 

Well, the French translation was good enough to show me that this is a book I find interesting for various reasons. The dialogues have a pretty genuin "dialogue" feel to them. They could have been noted down the day before yesterday and everything seems to be questionable. The questions are not only opportunities for the master to expose his view, although this tends to be the case for most of the time. But I would like to have seen more footnotes, background information, precise indications of the quotes etc. I loved Huai-hai idea of the first paramita, generosity, being the basis for all the others. IMO it links up to the idea of no-property (Not yours) and I agree with that view. 
 
>JV> What we call "thought" is too vast and vague. For a start we 
>JV> could distinguish between "active" and "passive" thoughts, 
>JV> thoughts in which we engage or are engaged or not.   
 
>yes, it is vague. I said that just because in practical terms one can 
>try to observe his mind contents in a general way. Of course one can 
>analyze them if he wants. Although there is an attachment implicit in 
>the development of the analysis. Or probably I don't have enough 
>progress to appreciate these characteristics in a natural way and 
>without mediating intellection. 

It that were true than it would be a question of conditioning oneself to appreciate these things, which is still a possibility, but Ch'an and perhaps Mahayana Buddhism in general tend to go for what is natural and spontaneous, assuming that is possible. If seeing is the essence, then it's all there. One may want to analyse it as a hobby or compare one's experience to a sort of reference (and conclude it is sufficient or not), but that would be one's decision. I am just playing with ideas here.

>JV> Yes, very refreshing. A pity that Zen went so terribly wrong 
>JV> afterwards... ;-)  
 
>However, these modern masters indicate this method it's difficult 
>and it only can be understood by few people.

That's a dangerous thing to say, because it sets perhaps wrong expectations and assumptions. One can only say a method is difficult if one knows the method, the objective and the capacities of the "student" properly oneself. 

> So they teaches a 
>preeminence for tso-chan. I ignore until where this idea can be an 
>historical inheritance or arises by previous experience with pupils. 
>I don't know the reason. To me, this practice and contemplation is 
>easier to understand and quicker to apply than any other. Or maybe 
>combining both can be a good option and probably what Buddha really 
>taught. Or at least I believe that. For that reason I was interested 
>in knowing more about the early division in the Buddhist Sangha, which 
>despite the L.Cousins comments, still I'm not convinced about the 
>practice of those Dhamma monks. 

Lance's observations are based on an analysis of the Pali canon, in which Buddhagosha's views seem to be somehow determinating.  I am still convinced that there were many conflicts/diverging views right from the start that played a very important role on the further development of Buddhism. I am not even sure the Buddha was the only "leader" of what would grow into Buddhism, but don't ask me for evidence. :-)