[Buddha-l] Query--forest tradition monks in Japan today?

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Franz M wrote:

FM> So what they *really*  taught and practiced I'm not sure of. What
FM> I do know, is they were a  very early Zen school in Japan, with
FM> temples and all that jazz, and  that both Dogen and
FM> Yosai/Eisei--in other words both mainline Soto and  Rinzai
FM> founders--excoriated them and anathematized them for
FM> antinomianism. Whether they were really antinomian, I'm not sure, but 
FM> they did argue that the precepts were not fundamentally important, as 
FM> the original mind was pure and unstained by afflictions.

I'm not really sure if you are talking about the Daruma school leaded
by Nonin. If this is the case, that people were accused of not
maintaining precepts and social disorder. It seems their teaching was
similar to some of the early Chinese Chan.  As in the case of the
famous Lhasa debate in Tibet, it seems the Nonin's teaching was not
welcomed as a religious standard for the Japanese society.
 
Nonin had the Dharma transmission from a Chinese master named
Te-kuang. Nonin followers had temples in Settsu, Kyoto and many other
places. However, many years later, groups of militant monks from Mount
Hiei destroyed all them, except Hajakji, in where the Nonin
descendants took refuge.

As you points, the conflict with Tendai and Soto schools it seems
was around morality and the social order of Religion.

Somebody asked to Eisai about Dharuma school:
'Some people recklessly refer to the Daruma sect School as the Zen
school. But these Dharuma adherents say, "There are not precepts to
follow, no practices to engage in. From the outset there are not
passions; from the beginning we are enlightened. Therefore we do not
practice, do not follow precepts. We eat when we are hungry, rest when
we are tired. Why recite's the Buddha's name, why make offerings, why
give vegetarian feasts, why curtail eating?" How can this be?'

It is from "The Development of Japanese Zen", P. Yampolsky. Inside
"Zen, tradition and Transition", Grove Press. 

Eisai replied that those people maintained a false view about
emptiness. Although maybe it can be really questionable, unless
one can think the right view of emptiness must include the social
survive of the emptiness teaching.

This conflict it's similar of the Lhasa debate, in where even today
some contemporary scholars like Luis O. Gomez seem to be scared in
front those radical interpretations of the religious live.
Despite that probably, those radical positions are so old as the same
religion.


best regards,