Reforming "Zengjue Buddhism"

[Isha]

We got to work on this one too

[LhasaLhamo]

Please define "Zhengjue Buddhism", and explain why this wouldn't fit in under the "Reforming Chinese Buddhism" thread, for those of us who are unfamiliar with the term "Zhengjue Buddhism". Is that what some refer to as "folk Buddhism"? And what about it needs reforming, in your view?

[Isha]

This is the scandalous Organisation which is after Tibetian Buddhism.

[adikarmika]

By taking the stance that they have with respect to Tibetan Buddhism, Zhengjue probably already considers itself in some sense to be an already reformed sect of Chan, whose other, unrefomed, sects may have adopted a more tolerant stance.

But Zhengjue's anti Tibetan Buddhism campaign just erects a wall between Chan and Tibetan Buddhism, which is unfortunate, since it prevents any philosophical dialogue from taking place.

I think the "Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism" thread is a good example.
Just look at how much time is wasted on just trying to get buddhism to accept that Tibetan Buddhists are also Buddhists.
If that wall weren't there, I could imagine myself having an interesting and fruitful philosophical debate about the intriguing doctrine of Buddha-nature. (OK, not with buddhism, but with some other Zhengjue Buddhist perhaps.) Tibetan Buddhists do generally accept the notion of Buddha-nature, but their interpretation is complex. Nevertheless, I believe there is some overlap between the intepretations of the Tibetan non-sectarian ("ri-mey") movement and that of Chan Buddhism. It's a pity that any dialogue between the two traditions becomes virtually impossible when Chan Buddhists like buddhism adopt the self-righteious and exclusivistic stance that they do. What's wrong with simply saying to Tibetans, "We accept you as Buddhists, although we don't share your view on Buddha-nature. Let's talk about why we hold the view we do, and then you can respond."? Same thing could be done with respect to tantra.

Either Zhengjue is extremely insecure and defensive about its own doctrines (which may just be a result of not understanding them well), or there's some political objective to the campaign. I doubt however whether we'll ever know the truth.

[SauLan]

By taking the stance that they have with respect to Tibetan Buddhism, Zhengjue probably already considers itself in some sense to be an already reformed sect of Chan, whose other, unrefomed, sects may have adopted a more tolerant stance.

But Zhengjue's anti Tibetan Buddhism campaign just erects a wall between Chan and Tibetan Buddhism, which is unfortunate, since it prevents any philosophical dialogue from taking place.

I think the "Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism" thread is a good example.
Just look at how much time is wasted on just trying to get buddhism to accept that Tibetan Buddhists are also Buddhists.
If that wall weren't there, I could imagine myself having an interesting and fruitful philosophical debate about the intriguing doctrine of Buddha-nature. (OK, not with buddhism, but with some other Zhengjue Buddhist perhaps.) Tibetan Buddhists do generally accept the notion of Buddha-nature, but their interpretation is complex. Nevertheless, I believe there is some overlap between the intepretations of the Tibetan non-sectarian ("ri-mey") movement and that of Chan Buddhism. It's a pity that any dialogue between the two traditions becomes virtually impossible when Chan Buddhists like buddhism adopt the self-righteious and exclusivistic stance that they do. What's wrong with simply saying to Tibetans, "We accept you as Buddhists, although we don't share your view on Buddha-nature. Let's talk about why we hold the view we do, and then you can respond."? Same thing could be done with respect to tantra.

Either Zhengjue is extremely insecure and defensive about its own doctrines (which may just be a result of not understanding them well), or there's some political objective to the campaign. I doubt however whether we'll ever know the truth.

I would go a step further and say that any school of Buddhism which defines itself by trying to wipe out another school of Buddhism has got something other than Buddhism going on in its home office.

[Isha]

I would go a step further and say that any school of Buddhism which defines itself by trying to wipe out another school of Buddhism has got something other than Buddhism going on in its home office.

Not only another school of Buddhism but other religions too. I have met some Buddhists at different occasions who claim that Buddhism is the only true religion and others are worth nothing. They are like Extremist of Buddhist religion, destroying the essence of a beautiful religion. The softness, kindness and knowledge we hope for is no where to be found with such people.

[SauLan]

I would go a step further and say that any school of Buddhism which defines itself by trying to wipe out another school of Buddhism has got something other than Buddhism going on in its home office.

Not only another school of Buddhism but other religions too. I have met some Buddhists at different occasions who claim that Buddhism is the only true religion and others are worth nothing. They are like Extremist of Buddhist religion, destroying the essence of a beautiful religion. The softness, kindness and knowledge we hope for is no where to be found with such people.

Is Zhengjue really a Buddhist school? Or is it a political organization dressing itself as spiritual? Zhengjue seems geared toward the single purpose of eradicating Tibetan Buddhism. Isn't this a bit hard to pass off in Taiwan as being a genuine school?

[Isha]

It is. I have come to believe they have crappy written all over them