[Buddha-l] Dharmapala

[Franz Metcalf]

Gang,

Lance replied to Dan thus,

On Jul 14, 2010, at 4:25 AM, L.S. Cousins wrote:

>> It is not important whether or not that story is historically
>> true or merely legend. Either way, it tells us something
>> about the ethos of Chan temples long before Brian Victoria
>> noticed a problem.
>
> It is very important that this story is legendary and almost
> certainly has no historical basis at all.

In my usual mode of trying to find a middle ground, a few comments. I  
agree with Lance that the fact the story is non-historical is  
certainly important. We ignore history "wie es eigentlich gewesen" at  
our peril. And yet this murderous fictive narrative remains pivotal in  
what many consider *the central* text establishing Chan identity and  
authority. Surely this is important, too. It is not from historicity  
that the Platform Sutra derives its stature; precisely the opposite.  
We know we shall never arrive at history "as it really was," and the  
Platform's narrative is, I would argue, more important--in a sense  
more historical--than the actual events in the transmission of any  
actual robe from the Fifth to the the Patriarch.

I'm not so confident this establishes an ethos of violence at Chan  
temples, but I would also note it is not alone in depicting violence.  
Dan mentioned Nanquan's gory felicide. What about Juzhi cutting off  
the finger of a serving boy? (Imagine how *that* would fly in the  
contemporary Catholic Church. And for good reason, but when I was  
younger and more naive [I turn 50 today], I really liked that koan.)  
Stories of Japanese Zen teachers killing their students are common  
(though likely unprovable). Yet these examples are of violence  
*within* the structure of the sangha. This strikes me as quite  
different from violence by the sangha against what is defined as  
inimical to it.

But of course, these bleed into each other, so to speak.

Franz