Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Killing the Buddha

One of the things that I love about Buddhism is the emphasis on personal responsibility, and the urging of practitioners to make up their own mind on issues.

“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”
― Siddhārtha Gautama

I have recently come across a saying about "killing the Buddha".

A teaching ascribed to the Chinese Ch'an master Lin-chi I-hsüan (d. 866). In full, his teaching reads, ‘If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha; if you meet the patriarchs, kill the patriarchs; if you meet an Arhat, kill the Arhat; if you meet your parents, kill your parents… in this way, you attain liberation.’ (Taishō, vol. 47, p. 500b). According to the Ch'an tradition, his intention was to shock students into realizing that they themselves were Buddhas, patriarchs, Arhats, and so on, and that they had no need to depend upon, mistakenly objectify, or inordinately revere figures external to themselves.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/kill-the-buddha#ixzz2AQGDst2Q

When I first heard the phrase "kill the Buddha", I was shocked that anyone would say that... but it came to make more sense to me after a person with zen leanings explained it, and I've used the phrase a few times in other internet discussions. I'm here asking the wise members of this internet Sangha their opinion on this Koan... and to ask if me using this phrase is unskillful. I recently received an e-mail that I was a white Buddhist hippie and slandering the dharma, among other things.

"We are now organizing a MASSIVE CAMPAIGN where every author and scholar who said "Kill the Buddha" may be persecuted for hate crimes".

"WHITE PEOPLE ARE THE LOWEST BUDDHISTS OF ALL AND INCAPABLE OF GRASPING TRUE DHARMA. THIS KILL THE BUDDHA NONSENSE HAS NOT ONE MENTION IN THE SUTRAS - NOT ONE. IT CANNOT BE TRACED TO A SINGLE SUTRA. YET STUPID WHITE RACIST HIPPY BUDDHISTS SAY IT ALL THE TIME...READ THE LOTUS SUTRA & REPENT ASAP"

Is a little shakabuku OK in this situation? I know I should look to myself, but if I'm not speaking truth or if I am slandering the dharma I do want to change my ways. :)

Gassho
lobster

Comments

  • Oh, there are some strident Buddhists who see the entire Zen branch as blasphemy. It begins with arguing that the Flower Sermon never happened, that it is a lie that Buddha ever silently held out a flower to Mahakasyapa and thus began the transmission outside of words.

    However, a reasoned debate about the mythological stories that underpin all schools of Buddhism is different from the hate filled diatribe you copied. That is an email from a disturbed mind.
  • I was debating even putting up her comments here but, I just wanted to give people some context to where I was coming from.

    I don't agree with the entirety of Zen, but I think it's interesting and important none the less. In Nichiren-Shu my own order, our founder wrote that we should cut the heads off of Zen priests and do horrible things to the followers of Amida Buddha. Why would he say that? I think the reasoning in both these cases has less to do with literal will to do violence, than employing skillful? means. I try to understand where others are coming from, even those that are crazy and disturbed. :)
  • zombiegirlzombiegirl beating the drum of the lifeless in a dry wasteland Veteran
    I like that in the second email (the one all in caps), he begins with a racist generalization and ends by calling you a racist, lol.

    I wouldn't worry about those emails... seriously... some people can find offense in anything. I don't think you've done anything wrong but I am confused about where you wrote this to receive such emails. Are these just people on another message board?

    If by shakubuku, you mean, explaining the actual meaning behind the phrase and why it can be relevant to all Buddhists... then I don't see anything wrong with that.

    Ejou, your name seems familiar. Did you used to post on the Nichiren boards at E-Sangha? Maybe I'm just crazy... lol... at any rate, welcome. :)
    Jeffrey
  • zenffzenff Veteran
    edited October 2012
    In a way I like that rant in capitals.
    It has some spirit; some aliveness.

    If the poster could see the irony in his own words I would bow to him.
  • genkakugenkaku Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
    edited October 2012
    My limited understanding is that Zen -- the persuasion that describes itself as the 'teaching outside the scriptures' -- is regarded by many as an entirely false school, disrespectful, apostate and in no way in line with 'authentic' teachings... a kind of Jim Jones cult that pretends to have links to Buddhism.

    Those with this point of view can get pretty nasty when the Zennies -- or even just their sayings -- roll into town.

    As to using or parroting sayings or encouragements whose experience has not yet sunk in, well, I think most students have done that at one time or another. No harm, no foul ... unless of course you find yourself in unreceptive company or insist that Buddhism consists of nothing more than parroting the sayings of others.

    As to the "kill the Buddha" encouragement, I hardly think it could be called a koan. Rinzai was a pretty tough customer, but like any other decent teacher, he merely spoke the truth ... and let others catch up with him. "Kill the Buddha" is no different from saying "cut the crap -- duality is a myth." I don't know any Buddhist who does not agree with this experiential point of view, though often they aren't quite as straightforward about it.

    Zen sayings of this sort are not mere theological arguments that clean-scrubbed students argue about over tea or on Internet bulletin boards. They aren't some written-in-stone commandments that everyone must agree with if they don't want to go to hell or get burned at the stake. They are simply encouragements that individuals either choose or refuse to find out about. Everybody picks his or her Dharma door and then, with luck, actually walks through it. I like "kill the Buddha" but I can see where others might not, just as others may love anchovies and I find them ick-ick-ick.

    All in all, it's not something anyone needs to get his knickers in a twist about.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited October 2012
    Master Linji is the subject of one of Thich Nhat Hanh's (TNH) books. TNH calls the Linji teaching a spiritual laxative. With that he is saying that all of our concocting in discussions as we trot out arguments can derail us from the present moment. That's all this tired brain can relay; I just remember TNH saying master Linji gave a spiritual laxative. The book by TNH is quite good as with his other efforts. It shows teacher student exchanges which gave me a window into Zen as I experienced as a student in solitude from a sangha.
  • howhow Veteran Veteran
    edited October 2012
    In 40 years of Zen and I can't remember once finding a situation that called for quoting that little ditty. A practioners attachments to spiritual constructs usually require more skilfull means to address it than "Shock!
    In some places of training where folks practise seemed very compartmentalized, it was given lip service but it never really seemed to touch anyone's sacred cows.





    lobster
  • genkakugenkaku Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
    "Shock!
    @How -- And here I thought the Zen school was known for its Shock and Awe. :)
  • I think I've actually talked about this koan before on the board. It goes "If you meet Buddha on the road to enlightenment, kill him." and is actually a fairly straightforward, for zen, metaphorical statement. Koans are never literal, you know. They have a language all their own. Since there is only mind (Buddha-nature) and the road to enlightenment is zazen, then any Buddha you meet on this road is yourself. There is only you and your Buddha-nature. So to kill the Buddha is to kill your own self, to destroy the illusion of Buddha being anything but an empty mirror.

    And all this talks about the koan, but to penetrate it, you must meet your own Buddha on the mat and kill it.
    JeffreyCaptain_America
  • howhow Veteran Veteran
    @genkaku
    I think Zen's shock & awe is actually owned by disciple collecters and who ever has the latest Zen book to sell. It's pretty uncommon in any circles I travelled in..
  • lobsterlobster Crusty Veteran
    I love the idea of killing the already dead.
    The only thing alive seems to be mind followers.

    Q: Why did the Buddha cross the road?
    A: To be killed
  • I always interpreted this saying as, among other things, a remedy for a practicing monk who has become entrenched with an image of the buddha, and it is binding them.I always remember that sakyamuni said, 'do not seek me in terms of physical characteristics.'
    I think that buddha, perfect wisdom, unexcelled enlightenment, the Law, these things cannot die.. if you kill something on the path to enlightenment, then it was only an illusion.
    I have read a lot of the Lin-Chi Lu, I think that he was a master, in a sublime state, his words, a profound manifestation of silence.
    SO, personally I wouldnt put much stock in that email... im sure that most people here will agree. I think this little e-sangha is great, because people here are not extremists, they are mostly still just genuine seekers, from all walks of life, and if you say something that they do not agree with, almost always they will discuss it with you, instead of attacking wildly. Maybe the name of this site should be true buddhist instead of new buddhist
    ;)

  • Ejou, your name seems familiar. Did you used to post on the Nichiren boards at E-Sangha? Maybe I'm just crazy... lol... at any rate, welcome. :)

    I'm pretty new to Buddhism, this is actually the first Buddhist BBS I've posted to... I hardly feel qualified to argue a Buddhist view-point but I figured I'm not going to get any better if I don't start somewhere. I've been hanging out on Yahoo Answers in the Religion section... I like playing middle path in the debate between the atheists and the Christians. I know I need a better hobby.

    I actually first hear this while watching an interview with the director of the Assassination of Jesse James. I made the mistake of assuming it was OK and common because I hear a director use the phrase. I can't find the post that this girl was talking about... but I brought it up because I was confused by it and thought that it was stupid.There's a really nice zennie at Y!A and he explained it. Later I used it as an example in a comparison post about Christianity... something along the lines of you wouldn't be able to say the same thing about Jesus and have it (Christianity) make sense.

    Zen is so popular here in the states, I had no idea that some find it to be heretical. I used to be that person you called to scream at when the cable wasn't working, so I can take a lot. I was more worried that I was out of line to use the statement at all and/or she was correct in saying that it had no basis in Buddhist doctrine. I'll be more careful about bringing it up again in the future.
  • Ejou said:


    Zen is so popular here in the states, I had no idea that some find it to be heretical. I used to be that person you called to scream at when the cable wasn't working, so I can take a lot. I was more worried that I was out of line to use the statement at all and/or she was correct in saying that it had no basis in Buddhist doctrine. I'll be more careful about bringing it up again in the future.

    I kind of hinted to it before, but basically I think that this saying was really meant for dedicated, practicing monks. I really really don't think that it is fundamentally wrong... i just think it has a specific purpose.

  • The Buddha in the Pali Canon never encouraged killing or destruction except in the case of greed, hatred and delusion. It is especially delusion that one has to destroy.
    "Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles:[4] as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them. But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play."

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html
  • Ejou:
    “Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”
    ― Siddhārtha Gautama
    The Buddha never said this.
    seeker242Citta
  • It is in kalama sutta.
  • ::whew:: I use that quote so often, I don't know what I'd do with out it. ;)
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    edited October 2012
    music said:

    It is in kalama sutta.


    Not exactly, that is a common misinterpretation of the kalama sutta. No where does it actually say to go by your own reasoning. It actually says to be wary of going by your own reasoning, because the reasoning of a deluded mind is prone to be specious, via conjecture, via inference, via probability, via axiom, etc. So it says also not to go by any of these things too. :)
    "It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias toward a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them.
    Alternate translation:
    "Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.
    This here is a good commentary on this sutta and how it is frequently misunderstood.
    Although this discourse is often cited as the Buddha's carte blanche for following one's own sense of right and wrong, it actually says something much more rigorous than that. Traditions are not to be followed simply because they are traditions. Reports (such as historical accounts or news) are not to be followed simply because the source seems reliable. One's own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings. Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise. The ability to question and test one's beliefs in an appropriate way is called appropriate attention. The ability to recognize and choose wise people as mentors is called having admirable friends. According to Iti 16-17, these are, respectively, the most important internal and external factors for attaining the goal of the practice. For further thoughts on how to test a belief in practice, see MN 61, MN 95, AN 7.79, and AN 8.53. For thoughts on how to judge whether another person is wise, see MN 110, AN 4.192, and AN 8.54.

    As for the OP, the quote is more than just "kill the Buddha". The first part is very important IMO. You have to meet him first before you kill him. Hence "If you meet the Buddha, Kill the Buddha". To kill him before you actually meet him, is not that appropriate! Before you kill the patriarchs, you must first meet them, etc, etc. :)


    RebeccaS
  • edited October 2012
    This is the longer version of the above quote that I also use:

    “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

    I can see the subtle difference here between my interpretation and the one that you are suggesting. It makes sense that we can not trust our own minds 100%, but our own reasoning surely still has a solid place in the practice? I have never thought of this as a "do what you will" card. That seems to be traipsing off into satanist territory with the self as the center of everything. I have also used this quote to compare Buddhism with Christianity on the difference that is accorded to trust in yourself.

    Proverbs 3:5-7
    5 Lean on, trust in, and be confident in the Lord with all your heart and mind and do not rely on your own insight or understanding.
    6 In all your ways know, recognize, and acknowledge Him, and He will direct and make straight and plain your paths.
    7 Be not wise in your own eyes; reverently fear and worship the Lord and turn [entirely] away from evil.
  • genkakugenkaku Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
    As for the OP, the quote is more than just "kill the Buddha". The first part is very important IMO. You have to meet him first before you kill him. Hence "If you meet the Buddha, Kill the Buddha". To kill him before you actually meet him, is not that appropriate! Before you kill the patriarchs, you must first meet them, etc, etc.
    @seeker242 -- Of course if you do 'meet' the Buddha, Patriarch, etc., you've already screwed the pooch. :)
  • You cant kill him .Hes already dead.
    music
  • Ejou:

    The Buddha's true body is spiritual as is the Bodhisattva's body. A worldling (prithagjana) can't see it let alone kill it. If you envision a Buddha, yes, by all means kill that mental image. That's not the real Buddha.
  • I know it's not literal... because one of the greatest sins is to cause a Buddha to Bleed, or to kill him physically.
  • genkakugenkaku Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
    "Buddha" means "awake." Only those who are asleep could imagine it meant something or someone else.
    zenff
  • music said:

    It is in kalama sutta.

    Actually it isnt. That is a gross distortion of what the Buddha said as recorded in the Kalama Sutta.
    The context of the KS is almost always forgotten.
    Unusually he not addressing his own followers. He is addressing followers of another teacher and telling them not to believe things because they are received knowledge in that tradition etc.
  • The Kalama Sutta (A.i.188) is not trying to sanction discursive knowledge or knowlede unique to a person’s prejudices and fancies. The standard it rests upon is self-knowledge (attanava janeyya/atma-jñâna). This is knowledge that does not rely on the transitory—and certainly not on what the fish nets of the five aggregates drag in.
Sign In or Register to comment.