Buddhism

Question 1

Nagarjuna

Answer 1

Madhyamaka and Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras

Question 2

Madhyamaka

Answer 2

Madhyamaka (Sanskrit: मध्यमक, Madhyamaka, Chinese: 中觀派; pinyin: Zhōngguān Pài; also known as Śūnyavāda) refers primarily to a Mahāyāna Buddhist school of philosophy[1] founded by Nāgārjuna. The school of thought and its subsidiaries are called “Madhyamaka”; those who follow it are called “Mādhyamikas”. According to Madhyamaka all phenomena are empty of “substance” or “essence” (Sanskrit: svabhāva) because they are dependently co-arisen. Likewise it is because they are dependently co-arisen that they have no intrinsic, independent reality of their own.

Question 3

Dōgen Zenji

Answer 3

Dōgen often stressed the critical importance of zazen, or sitting meditation as the central practice of Buddhism. He considered zazen to be identical to studying Zen. For Dōgen, Buddha-nature or Busshō (佛性) is the nature of reality and all Being. In the Shōbōgenzō, Dōgen writes that “whole-being is the Buddha-nature” and that even inanimate things (grass, trees, etc.) are an expression of Buddha-nature. He rejected any view that saw Buddha-nature as a permanent, substantial inner self or ground. Dōgen held that Buddha-nature was “vast emptiness”, “the world of becoming” and that “impermanence is in itself Buddha-nature”.[19] According to Dōgen: Dōgen was sometimes critical of the Rinzai school for their formulaic and intellectual koan practice (such as the practice of the Shiryoken or “Four Discernments”)[23] as well as for their disregard for the sutras:

Question 4

Rasayana

Answer 4

Rasāyana, रसायन is a Sanskrit word, with literal meaning: Path (āyana) of essence (rasa). It is a term that in early ayurvedic medicine means the science of lengthening lifespan, and in later (post 8th-century) works sometimes refers to Indian alchemy.
The name of the science of Indian alchemy or proto-chemistry, is more generally “The Science of Mercury”, or Rasaśāstra, रसशास्त्र in Sanskrit, Nepali, Marathi, Hindi, Kannada and several other languages. Early Indian alchemical texts discuss the use of prepared forms of mercury or cinnabar (see samskaras). However, there is also ample mention of the preparation of medical tinctures in the early science of Indian alchemy.

Question 5

Dharma

Answer 5

In Buddhism dharma means “cosmic law and order”,[10] but is also applied to the teachings of the Buddha.[10] In Buddhist philosophy, dhamma/dharma is also the term for “phenomena”.

Question 6

Sangha

Answer 6

Sangha (Pali: सङ्घ saṅgha; Sanskrit: संघ saṃgha; Chinese: 僧伽; pinyin: Sēngjiā[1]; Tibetan: དགེ་འདུན་ dge ‘dun[2]) is a word in Pali and Sanskrit meaning “association”, “assembly,” “company” or “community” and most commonly refers in Buddhism to the monastic community of ordained Buddhist monks or nuns. This community is traditionally referred to as the bhikkhu-sangha or bhikkhuni-sangha. Within this community those who have attained a higher level of realisation are referred to as the ariya-sangha or “noble Sangha”.

Question 7

Nirvana

Answer 7

In the Buddhist tradition, nirvana is described as the extinguishing of the fires that cause suffering. These fires are typically identified as the fires of attachment (raga), aversion (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidya). When the fires are extinguished, suffering (dukkha) comes to an end. The cessation of suffering is described as complete peace.
Bhikkhu Bodhi states:[28]
The state of perfect peace that comes when craving is eliminated is Nibbāna (nirvāṇa), the unconditioned state experienced while alive with the extinguishing of the flames of greed, aversion, and delusion.

Question 8

Three Marks of Existence (anatman, anitya, duhkha)

Answer 8

The Three marks of existence, within Buddhism, are three characteristics (Pali: tilakkhaṇa; Sanskrit: trilakṣaṇa) shared by all sentient beings, namely: impermanence (anicca); suffering or unsatisfactoriness (dukkha); non-self (Anatta).
According to Buddhist tradition, a full understanding of these three can bring an end to suffering (dukkha nirodha, 苦滅). The Buddha taught that all beings conditioned by causes (saṅkhāra) are impermanent (anicca) and suffering (dukkhā) while he said not-self (anattā) characterises all dhammas meaning there is no “I” or “mine” in the conditioned as well as the unconditioned (i.e. Nibbāna).[1][2] The central figure of Buddhism, Siddhartha is believed to have achieved Nirvana and awakening after much meditation, thus becoming the Buddha Shakyamuni. With the faculty of wisdom the Buddha directly perceived that all sentient beings (everything in the phenomenology of psychology) are marked by these three characteristics:

Question 9

Karma

Answer 9

In Buddhism, karma (Pāli kamma) is strictly distinguished from vipāka, meaning “fruit” or “result”. Karma is categorized within the group or groups of cause (Pāli hetu) in the chain of cause and effect, where it comprises the elements of “volitional activities” (Pali sankhara) and “action” (Pali bhava). Any action is understood as creating “seeds” in the mind that will sprout into the appropriate result (Pāli vipaka) when met with the right conditions. Most types of karmas, with good or bad results, will keep one within the wheel of saṃsāra, while others will liberate one to nirvāna.[citation needed]
Karma is one of five categories of causation, known collectively as niyama dhammas, the first being kamma, and the other four being utu (seasons and weather), bīja (heredity, lit. “seed”), chitta (mind) and dhamma (law, in the sense of nature’s tendency to perfect).

Question 10

Four Noble Truths

Answer 10

The Four Noble Truths (Sanskrit: catvāri āryasatyāni; Pali: cattāri ariyasaccāni) are regarded as the central doctrine of the Buddhist tradition, and are said to provide a conceptual framework for all of Buddhist thought. These four truths explain the nature of dukkha (Pali; commonly translated as “suffering”, “anxiety”, “unsatisfactoriness”[a]), its causes, its cessation, and the path leading to its cessation.
The four noble truths are:[b]
The truth of dukkha (suffering, anxiety, unsatisfactoriness[a])
The truth of the origin of dukkha
The truth of the cessation of dukkha
The truth of the path leading to the cessation of dukkha
The first noble truth explains the nature of dukkha. Dukkha is commonly translated as “suffering”, “anxiety”, “unsatisfactoriness”, “unease”, etc., and it is said to have the following three aspects:[c]
The obvious physical and mental suffering associated with birth, growing old, illness and dying.
The anxiety or stress of trying to hold onto things that are constantly changing.
A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of existence, due to the fact that all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance. On this level, the term indicates a lack of satisfaction, a sense that things never measure up to our expectations or standards.
The central importance of dukkha in Buddhist philosophy has caused some observers to consider Buddhism to be a pessimistic philosophy. However, the emphasis on dukkha is not intended to present a pessimistic view of life, but rather to present a realistic practical assessment of the human condition—that all beings must experience suffering and pain at some point in their lives, including the inevitable sufferings of illness, aging, and death.[6] Contemporary Buddhist teachers and translators emphasize that while the central message of Buddhism is optimistic, the Buddhist view of our situation in life (the conditions that we live in) is neither pessimistic nor optimistic, but realistic.[d]

Question 11

Five Moral Precepts

Answer 11

The following are the five precepts (pañca-sikkhāpada)[3] or five virtues (pañca-sīla) rendered in English and Pali:[4][5]

1. I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing. Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.
2. I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given. Adinnādānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.
3. I undertake the training rule to avoid sexual misconduct. Kāmesumicchācāra veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.
4. I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech. Musāvādā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.
5. I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that causes heedlessness.

Question 12

Bodhisattva

Answer 12

In Buddhism, a bodhisattva (Sanskrit: बोधिसत्त्व bodhisattva; Pali: बोधिसत्त bodhisatta) is an enlightenment (bodhi) being (sattva). Traditionally, a bodhisattva is anyone who, motivated by great compassion, has generated bodhicitta, which is a spontaneous wish to attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings.[1] According to Tibetan Buddhism, a Bodhisattva is one of the four sublime states a human can achieve in life (the others being an Arhat, Buddha, or Pratyekabuddha).[2]

Question 13

Avalokiteshvara

Answer 13

Avalokiteśvara (Sanskrit: अवलोकितेश्वर lit. “Lord who looks down”) is a bodhisattva who embodies the compassion of all Buddhas. Portrayed in different cultures as either male or female, Avalokiteśvara is one of the more widely revered bodhisattvas in mainstream Mahayana Buddhism, as well as unofficially in Theravada Buddhism.
The original name for this bodhisattva was Avalokitasvara. The Chinese name Guānshìyīn Púsà (觀世音菩薩) is a translation of the earlier name “Avalokitasvara Bodhisattva.” This bodhisattva is variably depicted as male or female, and may also be referred to simply as Guānyīn.
In Sanskrit, Avalokitesvara is also referred to as Padmapāni (“Holder of the Lotus”) or Lokeśvara (“Lord of the World”). In Tibetan, Avalokiteśvara is known as Chenrezig, སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (Wylie: spyan ras gzigs) and is said to emanate as the Dalai Lama,[1] the Karmapa[2][3] and other high lamas. The Lotus Sūtra (Skt. Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra) is generally accepted to be the earliest literature teaching about the doctrines of Avalokiteśvara.[9]

Question 14

Manjushri

Answer 14

Mañjuśrī (Skt: मञ्जुश्री) is a bodhisattva associated with transcendent wisdom (Skt. prajñā) in Mahāyāna Buddhism. In Esoteric Buddhism he is also taken as a meditational deity. The Sanskrit name Mañjuśrī can be translated as “Gentle Glory”.[1] Mañjuśrī is also known by the fuller Sanskrit name of Mañjuśrīkumārabhūta.[2] Scholars have identified Mañjuśrī as the oldest and most significant bodhisattva in Mahāyāna literature.[3] Mañjuśrī is first referred to in early Mahāyāna texts such as the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras and through this association very early in the tradition he came to symbolize the embodiment of prajñā (transcendent wisdom).[2] The Lotus Sūtra assigns him a pure land called Vimala, which according to the Avataṃsaka Sūtra is located in the East. His pure land is predicted to be one of the two best pure lands in all of existence in all the past, present and future. When he attains buddhahood his name will be Universal Sight. In the Lotus Sūtra, Mañjuśrī also leads the Nāga King’s daughter to enlightenment. He also figures in the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra in a debate with Vimalakīrti Bodhisattva.

Question 15

shunyata

Answer 15

Śūnyatā, (Sanskrit, also shunyata; Pali: suññatā), in Buddhism, translated into English as emptiness, voidness,[1] openness,[2] spaciousness, vacuity, is a Buddhist concept which has multiple meanings depending on its doctrinal context. In Theravada Buddhism, suññatā often refers to the not-self (Pāli: anatta, Sanskrit: anātman)[note 1] nature of the five aggregates of experience and the six sense spheres. Suññatā is also often used to refer to a meditative state or experience.

Question 16

Three Bodies of a Buddha

Answer 16

The doctrine says that a Buddha has three kāyas or bodies:
The Dharmakāya or Truth body which embodies the very principle of enlightenment and knows no limits or boundaries;
The Sambhogakāya or body of mutual enjoyment which is a body of bliss or clear light manifestation;
The Nirmāṇakāya or created body which manifests in time and space.[1]
The Dharmakāya-doctrine was possibly first expounded in the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñā-pāramitā (The Perfection of Insight In Eight Thousand Verses), composed in the 1st century BCE.
Mahayan Buddhism introduced the Sambhogakāya, which conceptually fits between the Nirmāṇakāya (the manifestations of enlightenment in the physical world).[note 1] and the Dharmakaya. The Sambhogakaya is that aspect of the Buddha, or the Dharma, that one meets in visions and in deep meditation. It could be considered an interface with the Dharmakaya.
The Trikaya-doctrine and the Tathagatagarbha bring the transcendental within reach, by placing the transcendental within the plane of immanence.
Around 300 CE, the Yogacara school systematized the prevalent ideas on the nature of the Buddha in the Trikaya or three-body doctrine.[5]

Question 17

Tathagata-garbha

Answer 17

Buddha-nature, Buddha-dhatu or Buddha Principle (Skt: Buddha-dhātu, Tathāgatagarbha; Jap: Bussho), is taught differently in various Mahayana Buddhism traditions. Broadly speaking Buddha-nature is concerned with ascertaining what allows sentient beings to become Buddhas.[1] The term, Buddha nature, is a translation of the Sanskrit coinage, ‘Buddha-dhātu’, which seems first to have appeared in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra,[2] where it refers to ‘a sacred nature that is the basis for [beings’] becoming buddhas.’[3]
The founder of the Sōtō school of Zen Buddhism, Dōgen Zenji, held that Buddha-nature was simply the true nature of reality and Being. This true nature was just impermanence, becoming and ‘vast emptiness’. Because he saw the whole universe as an expression of Buddha-nature, he held that even grass and trees are Buddha nature.
Therefore, the very impermanency of grass and tree, thicket and forest is the Buddha nature. The very impermanency of men and things, body and mind, is the Buddha nature. Nature and lands, mountains and rivers, are impermanent because they are the Buddha nature. Supreme and complete enlightenment, because it is impermanent, is the Buddha nature.[79]
The Sōtō Zen teacher, Hakuun Yasutani also defined Buddha-nature in terms of the emptiness and impermanence of all dharmas:
Everything by its very nature is subject to the process of infinite transformation - this is its Buddha- or Dharma-nature.
What is the substance of this Buddha- or Dharma-nature? In Buddhism it is called ku (shunyata). Now, ku is not mere emptiness. It is that which is living, dynamic, devoic of mass, unfixed, beyond individuality or personality–the matrix of all phenomena.[80]

Question 18

Nagarjuna and Madhyamaka philosophy

Answer 18

Nāgārjuna’s primary contribution to Buddhist philosophy is in the use of the concept of śūnyatā, or “emptiness,” which brings together other key Buddhist doctrines, particularly anātman (no-self) and pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination), to refute the metaphysics of Sarvastivāda and Sautrāntika (extinct non-Mahayana schools). For Nāgārjuna, as for the Buddha in the early texts, it is not merely sentient beings that are “selfless” or non-substantial; all phenomena are without any svabhāva, literally “own-being” or “self-nature”, and thus without any underlying essence. They are empty of being independently existent; thus the heterodox theories of svabhāva circulating at the time were refuted on the basis of the doctrines of early Buddhism. This is so because all things arise always dependently: not by their own power, but by depending on conditions leading to their coming into existence, as opposed to being.
Two truths[edit]
Nāgārjuna was also instrumental in the development of the two-truths doctrine, which claims that there are two levels of truth or reality in Buddhist teaching, the ultimate reality (paramārtha satya) and the conventionally or superficial reality (saṃvṛtisatya).
In articulating this notion, Nāgārjuna drew on an early source in the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta, which distinguishes definitive meaning (nītārtha) from interpretable meaning (neyārtha):
By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one reads the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, ‘non-existence’ with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one reads the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, ‘existence’ with reference to the world does not occur to one.
By and large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), and biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on ‘my self.’ He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It’s to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.
“‘Everything exists’: That is one extreme. ‘Everything doesn’t exist’: That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle…“[13][a]
Relativity[edit]
Nagarjuna also taught the idea of relativity; in the Ratnāvalī, he gives the example that shortness exists only in relation to the idea of length. The determination of a thing or object is only possible in relation to other things or objects, especially by way of contrast. He held that the relationship between the ideas of “short” and “long” is not due to intrinsic nature (svabhāva). This idea is also found in the Pali Nikāyas and Chinese Āgamas, in which the idea of relativity is expressed similarly: “That which is the element of light … is seen to exist on account of [in relation to] darkness; that which is the element of good is seen to exist on account of bad; that which is the element of space is seen to exist on account of form.”[14]

Question 19

Tiantai

Answer 19

Tiantai (Chinese and Japanese: 天台宗; pinyin: tiāntái zōng; ) is an important school of Buddhism in China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, revering the Lotus Sutra as the highest teaching in Buddhism.[1] In Japan the school is known as Tendai-shū, in Korea it is known as Cheontae, and in Vietnam it is called Thiên Thai tông.
The name is derived from the fact that Chih-i, the fourth patriarch, lived on Mount Tiantai.[2] Tiantai is sometimes also called “The Lotus School”, after the central role of the Lotus Sutra in its teachings.[3]
During the Tang Dynasty, the Tiantai school became one of the leading schools of Chinese Buddhism, with numerous large temples supported by emperors and wealthy patrons, with many thousands of monks and millions of followers. Due to the use of Nāgārjuna’s philosophy of the Middle Way, Nagarjuna is traditionally taken to be the first patriarch of the Tiantai school.[6][7]

Question 20

The Threefold Truth

Answer 20

The Tiantai school took up the principle of The Threefold Truth, derived from Nāgārjuna:
Phenomena are empty of self-nature,
Phenomena exist provisionally from a worldly perspective,
Phenomena are both empty of existence and exist provisionally at once.[5]
The transient world of phenomena is thus seen as one with the unchanging, undifferentiated substratum of existence. This doctrine of interpenetration is reflected in the Tiantai teaching of three thousand realms in a single moment of thought.[5]
The Threefold Truth has its basis in Nāgārjuna:
All things arise through causes and conditions.
That I declare as emptiness.
It is also a provisional designation.
It is also the meaning of the Middle Path.

Question 21

Huayan school

Answer 21

The Hua-yen school was established during the period of the end of the Sui and beginning of Tang Dynasty (c. 600-700 C.E.). The Tiantai-school, which was favoured by the Sui Dynasty, fell in digrace. The Tang rulers favoured Taoism, but under Emperor Taizong (627–650) interest in Buddhism, especially Yogacara, relived at the court. Empress Wu Zetian (684–705) supported the Hua-yen school of Fazang.[1]

Question 22

Avatamsaka Sutra

Answer 22

The Avatamsaka Sutra is a compilation of sutras of various length. The earliest of these texts, the Daśabhūmika Sūtra, maybe dates from the first century CE.[4] The Daśabhūmika Sūtra describes the ten stages on the Bodhisattva-path. The various sutras were probably joined together shortly before its translation into Chinese, at the beginning of the 5th century CE.[4]
The Avatamsaka (“garland”, string of flowers) sutra integrates the teachings on sunyata and vijnaptimatra (mind-only).[4]
The basic idea of the Avatamsaka Sutra is the unity of the absolute and the relative:
All in One, One in All. The All melts into a single whole. There are no divisions in the totality of reality […] [I]t views the cosmos as holy, as “one bright pearl,” the universal reality of the Buddha. The universal Buddhahood of all reality is the religious message of the Avatamsaka-sutra.[5]
Each part of the world reflects the totality of the cosmos:
In each dust-mote of these worlds
Are countless worlds and Buddhas…
From the tip of each hair of Buddha’s body
Are revealed the indescribable Pure Lands…
The indescribable infinite Lands
All ensemble in a hair’s tip [of Buddha].[6]
All levels of reality are related and interpenetrated. This is depicted in the image of Indra’s net. This “unity in totality allows every individual entity of the phenomenal world its uniqueness without attributing an inherent nature to anything”.[6]

Question 23

Indra’s net

Answer 23

Indra’s net (also called Indra’s jewels or Indra’s pearls, from इंद्रजाल in Sanskrit) is a metaphor used to illustrate the concepts of emptiness,[2] dependent origination,[3] and interpenetration[4] in Buddhist philosophy.
The metaphor of Indra’s net was developed by the Mahayana school in the 3rd century scriptures of the Avatamsaka Sutra and later by the Huayan school between the 6th and 8th centuries.[2]
During the Upaniṣadic period (c. 1000 BCE – 200 AD), the Vedic god, Indra, was semiotically displaced by Viṣṇu (often translated as “the all-pervading one”) and Śiva (the “auspicious one”),[citation needed] likely owing to the former’s early associations with both the cyclical year (the felly of the world-wheel of Time) and its central axis, probably owing to the latter’s early associations with Mt. Kailāśa, a beautiful, but virtually unscalable mountain in the Himalayan region thought to be the world-pillar.[citation needed]
But as Buddhism branched off and developed its sectarian form about halfway through this period, later Buddhists, such as those living in the 3rd century CE, tended to identify more so with the older elements than with any that rose up afterward.[citation needed] This is, of course, not universally true, and numerous other elements of Hindu/Buddhist philosophy continued to interpenetrate throughout the course of South Asian history even up to the contemporary period.[citation needed]
The “vertical” element of Time (kāla) emerges from the tendency to regard the north as identical to the celestial north (uttara, literally, “upper”).[citation needed] For Indians, living in the lower half of the Northern hemisphere, the world was regarded as a mountain, around which the sun traveled on its daily course.[citation needed] This revolution constituted one of the fellies of the wheel of Time, and designated the northern axis as the universal axis, sometimes called the world column, or “spine” (skambha).[citation needed] This vertical direction was at some point associated with the pinnacle (kūṭa) of reality, a motif that can be seen again in the Tibetan Buddhist kāla-cakra-tantra, the “loom of the wheel of time”.[citation needed]
As Time is here regarded in its psychological sense, that of having a notion of past, present, and future, and as “persistently standing in the present”, this vertical column was also associated with consciousness (the Sāṃkha system uses the term, kṣetra-jña (knower of the field), or just jña (knower)).[citation needed] In effect, this allowed for the identification of psychological time with World-Time (mahākāla). For South Asian metaphysicians, this explained how the soul (ātman) was able to live eternally, being but one of the measureless strands of eternal Time.[citation needed] Yet in Buddhist metaphysics, Time’s non-phenomenality, along with its role as a limiting, destructive factor with respect to all spatial entities implied that the ātman itself was “empty of any permanent phenomenal content” (śūnyata).[citation needed]
Conceptually, the “vertical world axis”, understood previously as the un-fatiguable, eternal master of mortality, gave way to “Time, the emptiness of all phenomenality”.[citation needed]

Question 24

Daodejing

Answer 24

The Tao Te Ching, Daodejing, or Dao De Jing (simplified Chinese: 道德经; traditional Chinese: 道德經; pinyin: Dàodéjīng), also simply referred to as the Laozi,[1][2] is a Chinese classic text. According to tradition, it was written around 6th century BC by the sage Laozi (or Lao Tzu, “Old Master”), a record-keeper at the Zhou dynasty court, by whose name the text is known in China. The text’s true authorship and date of composition or compilation are still debated,[3] although the oldest excavated text dates back to the late 4th century BC.[1]
The text is fundamental to both philosophical and religious Taoism and strongly influenced other schools, such as Legalism, Confucianism and Chinese Buddhism, which when first introduced into China was largely interpreted through the use of Daoist words and concepts. Many Chinese artists, including poets, painters, calligraphers, and even gardeners have used the Daodejing as a source of inspiration. Its influence has also spread widely outside East Asia, and is amongst the most translated works in world literature.[1]
The Wade–Giles romanization “Tao Te Ching” dates back to early English transliterations in the late 19th century; its influence can be seen in words and phrases that have become well-established in English. “Daodejing” is the pinyin romanization.

Question 25

Laozi

Answer 25

Laozi (also spelled Lao-Tzu; ; Lao-tze) was a philosopher and poet of ancient China. He is best known as the reputed author of the Tao Te Ching[1] and the founder of philosophical Taoism, but he is also revered as a deity in religious Taoism and traditional Chinese religions. Although a legendary figure, he is usually dated to around the 6th century BC and reckoned a contemporary of Confucius, but some historians contend that he actually lived during the Warring States period of the 5th or 4th century BC.[2] A central figure in Chinese culture, Laozi is claimed by both the emperors of the Tang dynasty and modern commonfolk of the Li family as a founder of their lineage. Throughout history, Laozi’s work has been embraced by various anti-authoritarian movements.

Question 26

Wu wei

Answer 26

Wu wei (Chinese: 無爲; a variant and derivatives: traditional Chinese: 無為; simplified Chinese: 无为; pinyin: wú wéi; Japanese: 無為; Korean: 무위; Vietnamese: Vô vi; English, lit. non-doing) is an important concept in Taoism that literally means non-action or non-doing. In the Tao te Ching, Laozi explains that beings (or phenomena) that are wholly in harmony with the Tao behave in a completely natural, uncontrived way. In a sense that when the planets revolve around the sun, they effortlessly do this revolving without any sort of control, force, or as an attempt to revolve themselves, instead the planets just revolve around the sun in an effortless and spontaneous movement. Just like how fighters blocked punches without conscious thought merely through body reflex. The goal of spiritual practice for the human being is, according to Laozi, the attainment of this natural way of behaving.

Question 27

Shakyamuni’s “Flower Sermon”

Answer 27

Among adherents of Zen, the origin of Zen Buddhism is ascribed to a story, known in English as the Flower Sermon, in which Śākyamuni Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) transmits direct prajñā (wisdom) to the disciple Mahākāśyapa. In the original Sino-Japanese, the story is called nengemishō (拈花微笑, literally “pick up flower, subtle smile”). In the story, Śākyamuni gives a wordless sermon to his disciples (sangha) by holding up a white flower. No one in the audience understands the Flower Sermon except Mahākāśyapa, who smiles. Within Zen, the Flower Sermon communicates the ineffable nature of tathātā (suchness) and Mahākāśyapa’s smile signifies the direct transmission of wisdom without words. Śākyamuni affirmed this by saying:
I possess the true Dharma eye, the marvelous mind of Nirvana, the true form of the formless, the subtle [D]harma [G]ate that does not rest on words or letters but is a special transmission outside of the scriptures. This I entrust to Mahākāśyapa.[1]
Zen developed as a form of Buddhism that concentrated on direct experience rather than creeds, doctrines, or intellectual analysis. Zen is essentially an exploratory methodology for mapping consciousness, a meditative tradition that foregrounds direct experience of tathātā which may only be afforded by the entrance of the “gateless” Dharma Gate.[2]
Jung and Kerényi (2002: p. 179) demonstrate a possible commonality in intent between the Flower Sermon and the Eleusinian Mysteries:
One day the Buddha silently held up a flower before the assembled throng of his disciples. This was the famous “Flower Sermon.” Formally speaking, much the same thing happened in Eleusis when a mown ear of grain was silently shown. Even if our interpretation of this symbol is erroneous, the fact remains that a mown ear was shown in the course of the mysteries and that this kind of “wordless sermon” was the sole form of instruction in Eleusis which we may assume with certainty.[3]
The story of the Flower Sermon may have been created by Chinese Chán Buddhists.[4]

Question 28

Bodhidharma

Answer 28

Bodhidharma was a Buddhist monk who lived during the 5th/6th century CE. He is traditionally credited as the transmitter of Ch’an (Sanskrit: Dhyāna, Japanese: Zen) to China, and regarded as its first Chinese patriarch. According to Chinese legend, he also began the physical training of the Shaolin monks that led to the creation of Shaolinquan. He was father of Zen Buddhism.
Little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend.[1][note 1] The principle Chinese sources vary on their account of Bodhidharma’s origins.[4][5][note 2] Aside from the Chinese accounts, several popular traditions also exist regarding Bodhidharma’s origins.[note 4]
The accounts also differ on the date of his arrival, with one early account claiming that he arrived during the Liú Sòng Dynasty (420–479) and later accounts dating his arrival to the Liáng Dynasty (502–557). Bodhidharma was primarily active in the lands of the Northern Wèi Dynasty (386–534). Modern scholarship dates him to about the early 5th century.[15]
Several stories about Bodhidharma have become popular legends, which are still being used in the Ch’an and Zen-tradition.
Bodhidharma’s teachings and practice centered on meditation and the Lankavatara Sutra.
The Anthology of the Patriarchal Hall (952) identifies Bodhidharma as the 28th Patriarch of Buddhism in an uninterrupted line that extends all the way back to the Buddha himself.
Throughout Buddhist art, Bodhidharma is depicted as a rather ill-tempered, profusely bearded and wide-eyed barbarian. He is referred as “The Blue-Eyed Barbarian” (碧眼胡) in Chinese Chan texts.[16]

Question 29

Huineng and the Platform Sutra

Answer 29

The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch (Chinese: 六祖壇經; pinyin: Liùzǔ Tánjīng or simply: 壇經 Tánjīng) is a Chan Buddhist scripture that was composed in China during the 8th to 13th century.[1] The “platform” (施法壇) refers to the podium on which a Buddhist teacher speaks. Its key theme are the direct perception of one’s true nature, and the unity in essence of śīla (conduct), dhyāna (meditation) and prajñā (wisdom).
The text centers around teachings and stories ascribed to the sixth Chan patriarch Huineng. It contains the well-known story of the contest for the succession of Hongren (enlightenment by the non-abiding), and discourses and dialogues attributed to Huineng.
The text attributes its recollection to Fa-hai, but was probably written within the so-called Oxhead School, which existed along with the East Mountain School and Shenhui’s Southern School. The text attempts to reconcile the so-called Northern School with its alleged gradual enlightenment teachings, and the so-called Southern School with its alleged sudden enlightenment teachings. In effect, the text incorporates the “rhetorical purity” which originated with Shenhui’s attack on Shenxiu, while effectively “writing him out of the story”.[2]

Question 30

Soto Zen and Dogen

Answer 30

Sōtō Zen or the Sōtō school (曹洞宗 Sōtō-shū?) is the largest of the three traditional sects of Zen in Japanese Buddhism (the others being Rinzai and Ōbaku). It emphasizes Shikantaza, meditation with no objects, anchors, or content. The meditator strives to be aware of the stream of thoughts, allowing them to arise and pass away without interference.
The Japanese brand of the sect was imported in the 13th century by Dōgen Zenji, who studied Caodong Buddhism (Chinese: 曹洞宗; pinyin: Cáodòng Zōng) abroad in China. Dōgen is remembered today as the co-patriarch of Sōtō Zen in Japan along with Keizan Jōkin.[1][2]
With about 14,000 temples, Sōtō is one of the largest Japanese Buddhist organizations.[3][a] Sōtō Zen is now also popular in the West, and in 1996 priests of the Sōtō Zen tradition formed the Soto Zen Buddhist Association based in North America.
The Caodong-teachings were brought to Japan in 1227, when Dōgen returned to Japan after studying Ch’an in China and settled at Kennin-ji in Kyoto. Dōgen had received Dharma transmission from Tiantong Rujing at Qìngdé Temple, where Hongzhi Zhengjue once was abbot. Hongzhi’s writings on “silent illumination” had greatly influenced Dōgen’s own conception of shikantaza.[8]
Dogen did return from China with various koan anthologies and other texts, contributing to the transmission of the koan tradition to Japan.[9] In the first works he wrote he emphasised the practice of zazen, which brought him into trouble at Kennin-ji:
This assertion of the primacy of Zen aroused the anger of the Enryaku-ji monks, who succeeded in driving Dōgen from the Kennin-ji where he had settled after his return to the capital.[10]
In 1243 Dogen founded Eihei-ji,[11] one of the two head temples of Sōtō-shū today, choosing…
… to create new monastic institutions based on the Chinese model and risk incurring the open hostility and opposition of the established schools.[12]
Daily routine was copied from Chinese practices, which went back to the Indian tradition:
The elements of Soto practice that contributed most to the success of the school in medieval Japan were precisely the generic Buddhist monastic practices inherited from Sung China, and ultimately from India. The Soto Zen style of group meditation on long platforms in a sangha hall, where the monks also took meals and slept at night, was the same as that prescribed in Indian Vinaya texts. The etiquette followed in Soto monasteries can also be traced back to the Indian Vinaya.[12]

Question 31

Shikantaza

Answer 31

Shikantaza (只管打坐?) is a Japanese translation of a Chinese term for zazen introduced by Rujing, a monk of the Caodong school of Zen Buddhism. In Japan, it is associated with the Soto school.

The term is believed to have been first used by Dōgen’s teacher Tiantong Rujing, and it literally means, “nothing but (shikan) precisely (da) sitting (za).”[1] In other words Dōgen means by this, “doing only zazen whole-heartedly” or “single-minded sitting.”[2][3] Shikantaza implies “just sitting”, and according to author James Ishmael Ford, “Some trace the root of this word to the pronunciation of the Pāli vipassana, though this is far from certain.”[4] Author Steve Hagen describes the Japanese word in four parts: shi means tranquility, kan means awareness, ta means hitting exactly the right spot (not one atom off), and za means to sit.[5]
A translation of “shikantaza” offered by Kobun Chino Otogawa[6] provides some additional insight into the literal meaning of the components of the Japanese word:
Shikan means pure, one, only for it. Ta is a very strong word. It shows moving activity. When you hit, that movement is called ta, so strike is ta. Za is the same as in the word zazen, sitting.[7]

Silent illumination[edit]
Silent illumination may be understood as the integrated practice of shamatha (calming the mind) and vipashyana (insightful contemplation), and was the hallmark of the Chinese Caodong school of Chan. However, it is not merely just the union of calming and insight, which has already been developed within the Tiantai Buddhist tradition in medieval China. Rather, it is a description of the natural essence and function of the mind. In this sense, it can be traced back to the earliest Chan teachings of Bodhidharma.[8]
The first Chan master to articulate silent illumination was the Caodong master Hongzhi Zhengjue (1091—1157), who wrote an inscription entitled “silent illumination” (默照禪;[9] Chinese: Mòzhào chán Japanese: Mokusho Zen).
Shikantaza’s origins can also be traced back to silent illumination. However, it is different from the teachings of Hongzhi Zhengjue in terms of practice and theory.[10]
Dogen[edit]
In the thirteenth century, Dōgen Zenji (the founder of the Soto school) used much of Hongzhi’s writings on silent illumination to help shed light on what he termed shikantaza. From thereafter the practice of shikantaza has been primarily associated with the Soto school. While silent illumination is in theory a “methodless method” — it is also important to realize that, “his (Dogen) practice of shikantaza took a somewhat different approach.”[11]
Even still, Chan Master Shengyen states that shikantaza is similar to silent illumination.[8][12]

Question 32

Obaku

Answer 32

Aside from Rinzai and Sōtō, there is a third tradition of Zen present in Japan, the Ōbaku Zen sect. It was brought to Japan in the 17th century, and shows significant influence from the Pure Land school. This reflects the syncretistic tendencies that developed in Chinese Buddhism in the centuries after the earlier Rinzai lines had been transmitted to Japan.
Ōbaku is also descended from the Chinese Linji school, and so technically may be considered a part of the Japanese Rinzai movement; further, its abbots are now part of the same Ōtōkan lineage as Rinzai branches, though they were not so originally (instead following a more recent Chinese lineage). While Manpuku-ji, the Ōbaku headquarters temple, is considered one of the 15 Rinzai branches mentioned above, Ōbaku Zen is administratively separate from the other 14 branches and continues to maintain its own distinct identity.

Question 33

Rinzai

Answer 33

Rinzai Zen is marked by the emphasis it places on kensho (“seeing one’s true nature”) as the gateway to authentic Buddhist practice, and for its insistence on many years of exhaustive post-kensho training to embody the free functioning of wisdom within the activities of daily life.
Training focuses on zazen (seated meditation), kōan, and samu (physical work done with mindfulness).[web 3][web 4]
When engaged in zazen, kōans are frequently the object of meditation, while shikantaza (“just sitting”) is less emphasized, but shikantaza in Rinzai is used. This contrasts with Sōtō practice, which has de-emphasized kōans since Gentō Sokuchū (circa 1800), and instead emphasizes shikantaza. In general, the Rinzai school is known for the rigor and severity of its training methods.
The Rinzai style of Zen practice may be characterized as somewhat martial or sharp (following in the spirit of Linji Yixuan). In this regard, Rinzai is often contrasted with another sect of Zen deeply established in Japan, Sōtō, which has been called more gentle and even rustic in spirit. A Japanese saying reflects these perceptions: “Rinzai for the Shōgun, Sōtō for the peasants” (臨済将軍、曹洞土民, Rinzai Shōgun, Sōtō Domin).

Question 34

Soto

Answer 34

Sōtō Zen or the Sōtō school (曹洞宗 Sōtō-shū?) is the largest of the three traditional sects of Zen in Japanese Buddhism (the others being Rinzai and Ōbaku). It emphasizes Shikantaza, meditation with no objects, anchors, or content. The meditator strives to be aware of the stream of thoughts, allowing them to arise and pass away without interference.
The Japanese brand of the sect was imported in the 13th century by Dōgen Zenji, who studied Caodong Buddhism (Chinese: 曹洞宗; pinyin: Cáodòng Zōng) abroad in China. Dōgen is remembered today as the co-patriarch of Sōtō Zen in Japan along with Keizan Jōkin.[1][2]
With about 14,000 temples, Sōtō is one of the largest Japanese Buddhist organizations.[3][a] Sōtō Zen is now also popular in the West, and in 1996 priests of the Sōtō Zen tradition formed the Soto Zen Buddhist Association based in North America.

Question 35

Hakuin

Answer 35

Hakuin Ekaku (白隠 慧鶴?, January 19, 1686 - January 18, 1768) was one of the most influential figures in Japanese Zen Buddhism. He revived the Rinzai school from a moribund period of stagnation, refocusing it on its traditionally rigorous training methods integrating meditation and koan practice. Hakuin's influence was such that all Rinzai Zen masters today trace their lineage through him (and thus through the Ōtōkan lineage), and all modern practitioners of Rinzai Zen use practices directly derived from his teachings.
The most important and influential teaching of Hakuin was his emphasis on, and systematization of, koan practice. Hakuin deeply believed that the most effective way for a student to achieve insight was through extensive meditation on a koan. Only with incessant investigation of his koan will a student be able to become one with the koan, and attain enlightenment. The psychological pressure and doubt that comes when one struggles with a koan is meant to create tension that leads to awakening. Hakuin called this the "great doubt", writing, "At the bottom of great doubt lies great awakening. If you doubt fully, you will awaken fully".[citation needed]
Hakuin used a fivefold classification system:[4] 1. Hosshin, dharma-body koans, are used to awaken the first insight into sunyata.[4] They reveal the dharmakaya, or Fundamental.[5] They introduce "the undifferentiated and the unconditional".[6]
2. Kikan, dynamic action koans, help to understand the phenomenal world as seen from the awakened point of view;[7] Where hosshin koans represent tai, substance, kikan koans represent yu, function.[8]
3. Gonsen, explication of word koans, aid to the understanding of the recorded sayings of the old masters.[9] They show how the Fundamental, though not depending on words, is nevertheless expressd in words, without getting stuck to words.[10]
4. Hachi Nanto, eight "difficult to pass" koans.[11] There are various explanations for this category, one being that these koans cut off clinging to the previous attainment. They create another Great Doubt, which shatters the self attained through satori. [12] It is uncertain which are exactly those eight koans.[13] Hori gives various sources, which altogether give ten hachi nanto koans.[14] 5. Goi jujukin koans, the Five Ranks of Tozan and the Ten Grave Precepts.[15][11]
Hakuin's systematization of koan practice brought about a major revolution in Zen teaching. In the system developed by Hakuin and his followers, students are assigned koans by their teacher and then meditate on them. Once they have broken through, they must demonstrate their insight in private interview with the teacher. If the teacher feels the student has indeed attained a satisfactory insight into the koan, then another is assigned. Hakuin's main role in the development of this koan system was most likely the selection and creation of koans to be used. In this he didn't limit himself to the classic koan collections inherited from China; he himself originated one of the best-known koans, "You know the sound of two hands clapping; tell me, what is the sound of one hand?". Hakuin preferred this new koan to the most commonly assigned first koan from the Chinese tradition, the Mu koan. He believed his "Sound of One Hand" to be more effective in generating the great doubt, and remarked that "its superiority to the former methods is like the difference between cloud and mud".

Question 36

Relationship of Zen to Japanese arts (chado, wabi sabi, martial arts)

Answer 36

Wabi-sabi (侘寂?) represents a comprehensive Japanese world view or aesthetic centered on the acceptance of transience and imperfection. The aesthetic is sometimes described as one of beauty that is “imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete”.[1] It is a concept derived from the Buddhist teaching of the three marks of existence (三法印 sanbōin?), specifically impermanence (無常 mujō?), the other two being suffering (苦 ku?) and emptiness or absence of self-nature (空 kū?).
Characteristics of the wabi-sabi aesthetic include asymmetry, asperity (roughness or irregularity), simplicity, economy, austerity, modesty, intimacy and appreciation of the ingenuous integrity of natural objects and processes.
The Japanese tea ceremony, also called the Way of Tea, is a Japanese cultural activity involving the ceremonial preparation and presentation of matcha, powdered green tea. In Japanese, it is called chanoyu (茶の湯?) or sadō, chadō (茶道?). The manner in which it is performed, or the art of its performance, is called (o)temae ([お]手前; [お]点前?). Zen Buddhism was a primary influence in the development of the tea ceremony. Much less commonly, it uses leaf tea, primarily sencha; see sencha tea ceremony, below.
Tea gatherings are classified as an informal tea gathering chakai (茶会?, tea gathering) and a formal tea gathering chaji (茶事?, tea event). A chakai is a relatively simple course of hospitality that includes confections, thin tea, and perhaps a light meal. A chaji is a much more formal gathering, usually including a full-course kaiseki meal followed by confections, thick tea, and thin tea. A chaji can last up to four hours.

Question 37

Parliament of the World’s Religions

Answer 37

In 1893, the city of Chicago hosted the World Columbian Exposition, an early world’s fair. So many people were coming to Chicago from all over the world that many smaller conferences, called Congresses and Parliaments, were scheduled to take advantage of this unprecedented gathering. A number of congresses were held in conjunction with the exposition, including those dealing with anthropology (one of the major themes of Exposition exhibits), labor, medicine, temperance, commerce and finance, literature, history, art, philosophy, and science. One of these was the World’s Parliament of Religions. The Parliament of Religions was by far the largest of the congresses held in conjunction with the Exposition.[1] Rev. Dr. John Henry Barrows, a clergyman, was the first Chairman of the General Committee on ‘1893 World’s Parliament of Religions’. John Henry Barrows was appointed as chairman by Charles Carroll Bonney to administer General Committee.[2]
The 1893 Parliament, which ran from 11 to 27 September, had marked the first formal gathering of representatives of Eastern and Western spiritual traditions. Today it is recognized as the occasion of the birth of formal interreligious dialogue worldwide.
Absent from this event were Native American religious figures, Sikhs and other Indigenous and Earth centered religionists. (It would not be until the 1993 Parliament that these religions and spiritual traditions would be represented.) The conference did include new religious movements of the time, such as Spiritualism and Christian Science. The latter was represented by Septimus J. Hanna, who read an address written by its founder Mary Baker Eddy.[3] Rev. Henry Jessup addressing the World Parliament of Religions was the first to mention the Bahá’í Faith in the United States (it had previously been known in Europe[4]). Since then Bahá’ís have become active participants.[5]
The Parliament of Religions opened on 11 September 1893 at the World’s Congress Auxiliary Building which is now The Art Institute of Chicago.
Islam was represented by Mohammed Alexander Russell Webb an Anglo-American convert to Islam.
Soyen Shaku, the “First American Ancestor” of Zen, made the trip.[6]
In 1893, the Buddhist preacher Anagarika Dharmapala was invited there as a representative of “Southern Buddhism” – which was the term applied at that time to the Theravada. He was a great success and by his early thirties he was already a global figure, continuing to travel and give lectures and establish viharas around the world during the next forty years. An essay by the Japanese Pure Land master Kiyozawa Manshi, “Skeleton of the philosophy of religion” was read in his absence. The Jain preacher Virchand Gandhi was invited there as representative of Jainism and his defending speech was admired. And Dharampala and Virchand Gandhi captivated western public.[7]
Swami Vivekananda (12 January 1863 – 4 July 1902), a wandering Hindu monk (Parivrâjaka) represented India as a delegate. He is perhaps best known for his inspiring speech beginning with “Sisters and Brothers of America,”[8] through which he introduced Hinduism at the opening session of the Parliament on 11 September. Thereafter he conducted hundreds of public and private lectures and classes, disseminating tenets of Hindu philosophy in America, England and Europe. In America Vivekananda became India’s spiritual ambassador. His mission there was the interpretation of India’s spiritual culture and heritage. He also tried to enrich the religious consciousness of Americans through the teachings of the Vedanta philosophy. He established the Vedanta societies in America and England. He was a key figure in the introduction of Indian philosophies of Vedanta and Yoga to the western world and was credited with raising interfaith awareness, bringing Hinduism to the status of a major world religion in the late 19th century.[9] After a comprehensive tour of four years in the West he returned to India in 1897. Later he became a major force in the revival of Hinduism in India and contributed to the notion of nationalism in colonial India.[10] In Swami Vivekananda’s own words, he was “condensed India”. William James, the Harvard philosopher, called Vivekananda the “paragon of Vedantists”. Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore’s suggestion (to Nobel Laureate Romain Rolland) was– “If you want to know India, study Vivekananda. In him everything is positive and nothing negative.”[11]

Question 38

Soyen Shaku

Answer 38

Soyen Shaku (釈 宗演, January 10, 1860 – October 29, 1919; written in modern Japanese Sōen Shaku or Kōgaku Sōen Shaku) was the first Zen Buddhist master to teach in the United States. He was a Roshi of the Rinzai school and was abbot of both Kenchō-ji and Engaku-ji temples in Kamakura, Japan. Shaku was a disciple of Imakita Kosen.

Soyen Shaku was an exceptional Zen monk. He studied for three years at Keio University.[1] In his youth, his master, Kosen, and others had recognized him to be naturally advantaged. He received dharma transmission from Kosen at age 25, and subsequently became the superior overseer of religious teaching at the Educational Bureau, and patriarch of Engaku temple at Kamakura.[2] In 1887, Soyen traveled to Ceylon to study Pali and Theravada Buddhism and lived the wandering life of the bhikkhu for three years.[2] Upon his return to Japan in 1890, he taught at the Nagata Zendo. In 1892, upon Kosen’s death, Soyen became Zen master of Engaku-ji.[3]
In 1893 Shaku was one of four priests and two laymen, representing Rinzai Zen, Jōdo Shinshū, Nichirin, Tendai, and Esoteric schools,[4] composing the Japanese delegation that participated in the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago organized by John Henry Barrows and Paul Carus. He had prepared a speech in Japan, and had it translated into English by his (then young and unknown) student D. T. Suzuki. It was read to the conference by Barrows. The subject was “The Law of Cause and Effect, as Taught by Buddha”. Subsequently, Shaku delivered “Arbitration Instead of War”.[5]
At this conference he met Dr. Paul Carus, a publisher from Open Court Publishing Company in La Salle, Illinois. Before Shaku returned to Japan, Carus asked him to send an English-speaker knowledgeable about Zen Buddhism to the United States. Shaku, upon returning to Japan asked his student and Tokyo University scholar D. T. Suzuki to go to the United States, where he would eventually become the leading academic on Zen Buddhism in the West, and translator for Carus’s publishing company.[6]
Soyen served as a chaplain to the Japanese army during the Russo-Japanese War. In 1904, the Russian author Leo Tolstoy wrote Shaku to join him in denouncing the war. Shaku refused, concluding that “…sometimes killing and war becomes necessary to defend the values and harmony of any innocent country, race or individual.” (quoted in Victoria, 1997) After the war, Shaku attributed Japan’s victory to its samurai culture.
In 1905, Soyen Shaku returned to America as a guest of Mr. and Mrs. Alexander Russell. He spent nine months at their house outside San Francisco, teaching the entire household Zen. Mrs. Russell was the first American to study koans. Shortly after arriving, he was joined by his student Nyogen Senzaki.[7] During this time he also gave lectures, some to Japanese immigrants and some translated by D. T. Suzuki for English speaking audiences, around California.[8] Following a March 1906 train trip across the United States, giving talks on Mahayana translated by Suzuki, Soyen returned to Japan via Europe, India and Ceylon.[9]
Soyen Shaku died peacefully on 29 October 1919 in Kamakura. His message of peace, honour and respect for self and others is still cherished by his followers in USA, Japan and other places.

Question 39

D. T. Suzuki

Answer 39

Daisetsu Teitaro Suzuki (鈴木 大拙 貞太郎 Suzuki Daisetsu Teitarō; he rendered his name “Daisetz” in 1894;[1] 18 October 1870 – 12 July 1966[2]) was a Japanese author of books and essays on Buddhism, Zen and Shin that were instrumental in spreading interest in both Zen and Shin (and Far Eastern philosophy in general) to the West. Suzuki was also a prolific translator of Chinese, Japanese, and Sanskrit literature. Suzuki spent several lengthy stretches teaching or lecturing at Western universities, and devoted many years to a professorship at Otani University, a Japanese Buddhist school.

Besides living in the United States, Suzuki traveled through Europe before taking up a professorship back in Japan. Suzuki and his wife dedicated themselves to spreading an understanding of Mahayana Buddhism. Until 1919 they lived in a cottage on the Engaku-ji grounds, then moved to Kyoto, where Suzuki began professorship at Otani University in 1921. While he was in Kyoto, he visited Dr. Hoseki Shinichi Hisamatsu, a famous Zen Buddhist scholar, and discussed Zen Buddhism together at Shunkō-in temple in the Myōshin-ji temple complex.
In 1921, the same year he joined Otani University, he and his wife founded the Eastern Buddhist Society.[9] The Society is focused on Mahayana Buddhism and offers lectures and seminars, and publishes a scholarly journal, The Eastern Buddhist.[10] Suzuki maintained connections in the West and, for instance, delivered a paper at the World Congress of Faiths in 1936, at the University of London (he was an exchange professor during this year).
Besides teaching about Zen practice and the history of Zen Buddhism, Suzuki was an expert scholar on the related philosophy called, in Japanese, Kegon, which he thought of as the intellectual explication of Zen experience.
Suzuki received numerous honors, including Japan’s national National Medal of Culture.

Suzuki’s Zen master, Soyen Shaku, who also wrote a book published in the United States (English translation by Suzuki), had emphasized the Mahayana Buddhist roots of the Zen tradition. Suzuki’s contrasting view was that, in its centuries of development in China, Zen (or Chan) had absorbed much from indigenous Chinese Taoism. Suzuki believed that the Far Eastern peoples were more sensitive, or attuned, to nature than either the people of Europe or those of Northern India.[citation needed]
Suzuki subscribed to the idea that religions are each a sort of organism, which is (through time) subject to “irritation” and having a capacity to change or evolve.[citation needed]
It was Suzuki’s contention that a Zen satori (awakening) was the goal of the tradition’s training, but that what distinguished the tradition as it developed through the centuries in China was a way of life radically different from that of Indian Buddhists. In India, the tradition of the mendicant (holy beggar, bhikku in Pali) prevailed, but in China social circumstances led to the development of a temple and training-center system in which the abbot and the monks all performed mundane tasks. These included food gardening or farming, carpentry, architecture, housekeeping, administration (or community direction), and the practice of folk medicine. Consequently, the enlightenment sought in Zen had to stand up well to the demands and potential frustrations of everyday life.[12][13]
Suzuki is often linked to the Kyoto School of philosophy, but he is not considered one of its official members. Suzuki took an interest in other traditions besides Zen. His book Zen and Japanese Buddhism delved into the history and scope of interest of all the major Japanese Buddhist sects.

Question 40

Shunryu Suzuki, San Francisco Zen Center, and Zen Mind Beginner’s Mind

Answer 40

Shunryu Suzuki (鈴木 俊隆 Suzuki Shunryū, dharma name Shōgaku Shunryū 祥岳俊隆, often called Suzuki Roshi) (born May 18, 1904, Kanagawa Prefecture of Japan; died December 4, 1971 in San Francisco, CA, USA) was a Sōtō Zen monk and teacher who helped popularize Zen Buddhism in the United States, and is renowned for founding the first Buddhist monastery outside Asia (Tassajara Zen Mountain Center). Suzuki founded San Francisco Zen Center, which along with its affiliate temples, comprises one of the most influential Zen organizations in the United States. A book of his teachings, Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind, is one of the most popular books on Zen and Buddhism in the West.[1][2][3]

On May 23, 1959 Shunryu Suzuki arrived in San Francisco to attend to Soko-ji, at that time the sole Soto Zen temple in San Francisco. He was 55.[4] Suzuki took over for the interim priest, Wako Kazumitsu Kato. Suzuki was taken aback by the Americanized and watered down Buddhism practiced at the Temple, mostly by older immigrant Japanese. He found American culture interesting and not too difficult to adjust to, even commenting once that "if I knew it would be like this, I would have come here sooner!" He was surprised to see that Sokoji was previously a Jewish synagogue (at 1881 Bush Street, now a historic landmark). His sleeping quarters were located upstairs, a windowless room with an adjoining office.
At the time of Suzuki's arrival, Zen had become a hot topic amongst some groups in the United States, especially beatniks. Particularly influential were several books on Zen and Buddhism by Alan Watts. Word began to spread about Suzuki among the beatniks through places like The San Francisco Art Institute and The American Academy of Asian Studies, where Alan Watts was once director. Kato had done some presentations at the Academy and asked Suzuki to come join a class he was giving there on Buddhism. This sparked Suzuki's long held desire to teach Zen to Westerners, something he had thought about ever since an encounter he had had with a British woman in Japan as a young man.
The class was filled with those wanting to learn more about Buddhism, and the presence of a Zen master was inspiring for them. Suzuki had the class do zazen for 20 minutes, sitting on the floor without a zafu and staring forward at the white wall. In closing, Suzuki invited everyone to stop in at Sokoji for morning zazen. Little by little more and more people would show up each week to sit zazen for 40 minutes with Suzuki on mornings. The students were improvising, using cushions borrowed from wherever they could find them.
The predominantly Caucasian group that joined Suzuki to sit eventually formed the San Francisco Zen Center with Suzuki. The Zen Center flourished so that in 1966, at the behest and guidance of Suzuki, Zentatsu Richard Baker helped seal the purchase of Tassajara Hot Springs in Los Padres National Forest which they called Tassajara Zen Mountain Center. In the fall of 1969, they bought a building at 300 Page Street near San Francisco's Lower Haight neighborhood and turned it into a Zen temple. Suzuki left his post at Sokoji to become the first abbot of the first or one of the first Buddhist training monasteries outside of Asia. Suzuki's departure from Sokoji was thought to be inspired by his dissatisfaction with the superficial Buddhist practice of the Japanese immigrant community, and Suzuki's preference for the American students who were more seriously interested in Zen meditation, but was more at the insistence of the Sokoji board which asked him to choose one or the other. He had tried to keep both roles. Although Suzuki thought there was much to learn from the study of Zen in Japan, he said that it had grown moss on its branches and saw his American Students as a means to reform Zen, and return it to its pure, zazen (meditation) and practice centered roots.

Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind is a book of teachings by the late Shunryu Suzuki, a compilation of talks given to his satellite Zen center in Los Altos, California. Published in 1970 by Weatherhill, the book is not academic. These are frank and direct transcriptions of Suzuki’s talks recorded by his student Marian Derby.[1] Trudy Dixon and Richard Baker—Baker was Suzuki’s successor—edited the talks by choosing those most relevant, arranging them into chapters.[1] According to some, it has become a spiritual classic,[1][2][3] helping readers to steer clear from the trappings of intellectualism.[4]
The book also exists as a 180-minute audiobook read by Peter Coyote and originally released on cassette by Audio Literataure in March 1992.[5]