..續本文上一頁 story of apocryphal tradition. One day, while preaching to the assembly on the Vulture Peak (Grdhrakuta), the Buddha held up a golden lotus flower. None in the assembly understood the meaning of his act except Maha-Kasyapa, the great elder, who looked at the Buddha and smiled. Then the Buddha said: ”I have the True Dharma Eye, marvellous mind of Nirvana. This now I transmit to you, Maha-Kasyapa.” Thus Maha-Kasyapa was considered to be the first in the line of the Indian patriarchs of Zen. The whole episode is of doubtful origin. However this may be, the very idea that the realisation of truth can be transmitted and handed down in pupilary succession like an oral tradition of teaching and that a custodian of Truth can be appointed in a line of hierarchy is absolutely repugnant to the spirit of the Buddha”s teaching. A patriarch of a sect or a line or an order may certainly be appointed, but this belongs to the domain of institutional organised religion, and not to the realm of Truth. One should be extremely careful not to confuse the realm of Truth with the institutional side of a religion or a system.

　　It is popularly believed that Zen is different from all other systems of Buddhism. This erroneous impression probably has been created by later developments in China and Japan. Japanese Zen comes from Chinese Ch”an, which is derived from the Sanskrit ”dhyana” (Pali ”jhana”), meaning ”meditation”. This was introduced from India to China about the sixth century A.C., probably by Bodhidharma. But in China, and later in Japan, its practice went through such tremendous transformations, almost beyond recognition, on account of the character and culture of those countries that it is now generally regarded as Chinese, or almost Japanese. Nevertheless, the spirit of the original Buddhism from India still remains as the life of Zen. Its fundamental tenets are all based on the teachings and ideas found in the original Canonical texts.

　　Some important axioms, considered particularly Zen, are quite in keeping with the original Theravada teaching and tradition. For instance, Zen maintains that the attainment of satori (enlightenment or awakening) lies outside the scriptures and that it is impossible to attain the satori experience by mere study of sutras on a scholastic level and that one should not be attached to the letter of the Law. This does not mean at all that one should not study sutras or texts. Almost all Zen masters were, and are well-versed in their texts. As Dr.D.T.Suzuki humorously observed: ”Zen claims to be "a specific transmission outside the scripture and to be altogether independent of verbalism", but it is Zen masters who are most talkative and most addicted to writings of all sorts.

　　That the realisation of Truth (Nirvana) cannot be attained by mere study of the Dhamma without practice, is a fundamental tenet of Theravada. But a knowledge of the Dhamma (pariyatti) is a necessary help. However, this knowledge alone will not do. It should be put into practice in life (patipatti). As the Dhammapada (vv.19,20) says, a person who knows a great deal of the texts but does not put his knowledge into practice is like a man who counts another”s cows. Another person may know only a little, but he practices this and enjoys the results. If a person studied the texts without applying his knowledge for spiritual attainments, it was, according to the Theravada tradition, considered better for him to sleep than waste his time in study. The Dhamma (the teaching) is compared by the Buddha to a raft (boat) (Kullupama), for the purpose of crossing over to the other shore, and not to be got hold of with attachment (nittharantthaya no gahanatthaya). If you just sit on the raft holding fast to it without rowing it properly, you will never get to th…

《Zen and the Ten Ox-herding Pictures》全文未完，請進入下頁繼續閱讀…