Hua Yen Buddhism.

[adept]

Inspired by this post I thought I'd dig a little deeper.

I've always had an interest in the influence of Taoism on Buddhism. I actually thought it started and ended with Ch'an and that was the only form of Taoist influenced Buddhism.

But much earlier than Ch'an there were other forms of Chinese Buddhism, most notably, Huayen. It's absolutely mind-boggling and worth further investigation.

I found an article that sheds some light on this.

Enjoy.

Edited January 11, 2011 by adept

[sweeney]

Excellent bit of digging. Peace

 

Sweeney

[Aaron]

Hello adept,

 

I wanted to elaborate a bit on Hua-Yen Buddhism. In the Buddhist Handbook by John Snelling, Snelling explains that the school actually dates from as early as the 6th century AD. It was founded under the premise that immediately after reaching enlightenment Buddha had preached the Avatamsaka Sutra, but those people present couldn't understand it, so instead he taught a simpler teaching, what eventually evolved into the Hinayana Sutra. As time grew and his followers began to understand more, he was eventually able to teach them increasingly advanced teachings, but the Avatamasaka Sutra was the summation of his teachings.

 

Snelling continues to explain that Edward Conze describes Hua-Yen as a link between Yogacara and Tantra. Although it shares a cosmic interpretation of the ontological ideas of the Yogacarin's it also shared a fascination with the cosmic play of things that is held by Tantra. The difference is that rather than focusing on the liberation of one's self by manipulating these cosmic forces through magic, it believed that they could be understood and experienced through contemplation and an appreciation of them.

 

With that said, perhaps the link that you see is the similar ideas between this cosmic view and the Taoist cosmic view, that there is an order to things, a way that things work, and that true enlightenment come from understanding this.

 

Aaron

 

edit- As a side note, Ch'an seems to have come about around the same time as Hua-Yen, but there is little evidence to link them together. Also Hua-Yen is very much a Buddhist school with similarities to Taoism, whereas Ch'an was actually founded by Taoist converts.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Twinner

[exorcist_1699]

The importance of Chinese Buddhism is always overlooked by the westerners,there are several points I have to raise:

 

1) When the westerners arrived India and came across Buddhism in 18th century, Buddhism as a great philosophical and religion system , her dominant position already receded in India. In fact, her magnificent legacy had shifted to Chine more than 1,000 years before. However, Many people even can't differentiate what are Hindu , what are Buddhist.

 

2) Many Sutra, while their original Sankrit copies were lost, it is only their Chinese translated copies that are left and preserved so that people know about them . A little similar to Arabic rescue of the Greeks' legacy during the medieval times of Europe .

 

3) There were many new schools of Buddhist thoughts rose in China during her 2,000-year history of development ; many different, original Buddhist ideas were being debated , clarified and developed because of such a history .

 

4) Taoist influence on Buddhism ,which gives rise to Zen, is undeniable . It is unlikely to refute the simplicity of Zen , comparing to mountainous preaching from the Buddha, not coming from the influence of Taoism .

 

5) TCM influence on Buddhism which gives rise Kung fu and Buddhist medicine.

 

6) Tibetan culture , her rise and development was motivated by the Chinese culture. Tibetan Buddhist practice is unlikely to be higher than the Chinese ones..The repeated re-coming of the lama after his death , to me , can't be anything higher than the Taoist ability of manipulating of qi ( our physical body is just one of its forms ) at our free will .

Edited January 18, 2011 by exorcist_1699

[Aaron]

Hello Exorcist,

 

You are absolutely right about Buddhism's decline in India over the last few centuries, but I would point out that many other cultures, besides India, kept alive the tradition of Buddhism and that many of the original sutras still remain in these nations. Mahayana Buddhism is still alive and well in South East Asia, in particular Thailand. Theravada has been practiced, virtually unchanged in Sri Lanka, since the first century AD.

 

Yo compare Chinese Buddhism to Indian Buddhism isn't quite as simple as it may seem, in particular the Chinese, being a very nationalistic people, never embraced Buddhism until they were able to adapt it to the Chinese mindset. With that in mind, what is practiced in China isn't necessarily the same practice that was taught by the Buddha, although Kumarajiva and many other early translators did go to extensive lengths to ensure what was being translated was as authentic as it could be. But even then, the Chinese attitude about translation was that it should not only be authentic but also enjoyable to read, hence many liberties were taken in translation to adapt concepts of Indian Buddhism in a way that was palatable to the Chinese.

 

I hope that helps to clarify the history a bit. Honestly, you can't sum up 2,000 years of history in a single post, but if one is truly interested in finding information regarding this topic, there are several good books one can read. The Buddhist Handbook, which was the source of my first post in this thread is an excellent resource.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Many of the later Chinese translators happened upon the suppression of Buddhism by the muslims. Muslims burnt many of the important monasteries and temples to the ground, destroying much of the texts and artwork that was present. Even then many monks went to great lengths to hide these texts and keep them safe and it was those monks that risked their own lives to maintain this legacy that allowed many of the Chinese translators to keep alive much of the Mahayana tradition.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Twinner

[forestofclarity]

Garma CC Chang, who studied Chan and Hua Yen, says that Hua Yen provides the philosophical basis for Chan.

 

As for the connection, Zongmi was both a Hua Yen and a Chan Master.

 

edit- As a side note, Ch'an seems to have come about around the same time as Hua-Yen, but there is little evidence to link them together. Also Hua-Yen is very much a Buddhist school with similarities to Taoism, whereas Ch'an was actually founded by Taoist converts.

[Aaron]

Garma CC Chang, who studied Chan and Hua Yen, says that Hua Yen provides the philosophical basis for Chan.

 

As for the connection, Zongmi was both a Hua Yen and a Chan Master.

 

Hello FOF,

 

I wasn't aware of that, but it does bear more examination. I do know that the basic philosophies seem to be dissimilar, and from my own understanding of Ch'an and Zen the major influence on Ch'an wasn't really Buddhism at all, but Taoism. As I had stated earlier, Buddhism never gained real popularity until Ch'an came about. It was only after it adapted the basic Chinese ideals that the Chinese people seemed to be able to accept it.

 

There seems to be an abundant supply of information that supports this idea, one book that I've recently read that goes into great detail on this topic is The Tao of Zen, but I believe if one looks at Wikipedia they can find various other sources that seem to support this idea as well.

 

Aaron

 

edit- I haven't actually looked into detail into either practice, so I am only basing my commentary on literary discourse, rather than actual experience, so perhaps I have missed something along the way.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Twinner

[adept]

Another interesting piece on the influence of Taoist philosophy on Buddhism. Taoist ancestry of Ch'an.

[Vajrahridaya]

Another interesting piece on the influence of Taoist philosophy on Buddhism. Taoist ancestry of Ch'an.

 

Interesting, though the person writing the article makes a few mis-assumptions, including the idea that you have to leave your family to become a Buddha. That's only one of the many paths available in Buddhism and the Buddhas teaching as he also teaches lay-practitioners as well who can just as easily realize Buddhahood through renunciation of ignorance even while partaking in a regular family life with a job. Mahayana and Vajrayana especially go into detail that even a renunciate has to renounce renunciation.

[sweeney]

I wrote another post where I posited if there was an Occidental drift of philosopohy during the time of Sakyamuni's enlightenment. From China into the Subcontinent (through Burma (Myanmar) and Assam)Perhaps Daoist ideas/philosophy was being digested/contemplated in north east India at that time?

[adept]

Interesting, though the person writing the article makes a few mis-assumptions, including the idea that you have to leave your family to become a Buddha. That's only one of the many paths available in Buddhism and the Buddhas teaching as he also teaches lay-practitioners as well who can just as easily realize Buddhahood through renunciation of ignorance even while partaking in a regular family life with a job. Mahayana and Vajrayana especially go into detail that even a renunciate has to renounce renunciation.

 

I agree with this 100%.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[adept]

[sweeney]

If you can evidence some great Chinese Buddhist poetry from that time please let me know. There's Mr Han Shan of course, but was he strictly just a Buddhist? A solitary sage?* There's a lot of Daoism in his poetry. And we can't ignore the fact that he lived up a mountain which is a very Daoist act. Cold Mountain is the only work I can think of that you could term Buddhist however loosely. All the other great works were Daoist. Please be aware that even Sino-Muslims have been known to study the Dao De Jing without feeling that it compromises their submission to the one god, thus many so called Buddhists would have actively used the teachings of the three masters even while being orthodox Buddhists. The fact that both Indian and Chinese mysticism share many facets may reveal that there has been a constant cyclic drift between both cultures for millenia. Where does the east become the west? And vice versa?

[Aaron]

Hi Simple Jack,

 

I would have to disagree and I could go into detail regarding my disagreements, but I will lay it down to one commonality between Ch'an Buddhism (and Zen) and Taoism, the identical nature of Zen and Tao. If one can distinguish one from the other, I can't see how.

 

Aaron

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[adept]

More Huayen books:

This

and this.

 

Both these look really good.

Edited February 16, 2011 by adept

[adept]

Introduction to Huayen Buddhism

Huayan

Edited February 27, 2011 by adept

[adept]

Snelling continues to explain that Edward Conze describes Hua-Yen as a link between Yogacara and Tantra.

 

This is interesting.

Does anyone know if there's a Hindu/Tantric/Vedic equivalent of the Avatamsaka ?

[C T]

This is interesting.

Does anyone know if there's a Hindu/Tantric/Vedic equivalent of the Avatamsaka ?

The Dzogchen tantras contain many commentaries based on Mahayana scripts, the Avatamsaka being one of the principle ones. Some of the others are the Arya-ratnakara Sutra, Arya-samadhinirmocana Sutra, Lankavatara Sutra, Arya-ratnamegha Sutra, Ratnakuta Sutra, Arya-maitreyapariprccha Sutra, and the Prajnaparamitahrdaya Sutra.

 

I am not a completely certain, but i think there are no Vedic/Hindu equivalent of this Sutra, as the very basis of the two philosophies are very different. Some religious scholars might argue otherwise, but this is to be expected.

[deci belle]

[Aaron]

The Dzogchen tantras contain many commentaries based on Mahayana scripts, the Avatamsaka being one of the principle ones. Some of the others are the Arya-ratnakara Sutra, Arya-samadhinirmocana Sutra, Lankavatara Sutra, Arya-ratnamegha Sutra, Ratnakuta Sutra, Arya-maitreyapariprccha Sutra, and the Prajnaparamitahrdaya Sutra.

 

I am not a completely certain, but i think there are no Vedic/Hindu equivalent of this Sutra, as the very basis of the two philosophies are very different. Some religious scholars might argue otherwise, but this is to be expected.

 

I would say that Hau Yen is one the most Hindu of all the Chinese Buddhist traditions. It's vision of the cosmos (very similar to the Vedanta cosmos), of the idea of universal goodness (Shiva ala Brahman), and the revelation of Sudhana, that he was and wasn't the cosmos (in other words we are all Brahman) almost feels like a Buddhist apologetic to the Hindus.

 

Aaron

[adept]

Has anyone here actually read the Flower Ornament Scripture in its totality? Though it has been referred to by its Indian buddhist name in this thread, I have not recognized any of its content brought to bear.

 

Namely, that Universal Goodness is the source of civilization and does not abide in a country. Let us talk about the point of that ten kilogram book and not waste yet more time of our short lives intellectually differentiating what truly is moot.

 

I have only read about the scripture and the opinions of the scholars and Buddhists who have studied it.

Until I can afford to get my hands on it, and then of course the mammoth task of reading and trying to understand it, I will reserve judgement.

Have you read the sutra ?

Has anyone here ?

I'd like to hear peoples thoughts on it.

Is it the summation of Buddhist thought, as described ? Or are there other sutras worthy of that title ?

[Vajrahridaya]

I would say that Hau Yen is one the most Hindu of all the Chinese Buddhist traditions. It's vision of the cosmos (very similar to the Vedanta cosmos), of the idea of universal goodness (Shiva ala Brahman), and the revelation of Sudhana, that he was and wasn't the cosmos (in other words we are all Brahman) almost feels like a Buddhist apologetic to the Hindus.

 

Aaron

 

It's not... it isn't saying the same thing. The Buddha didn't deny Hindu cosmology, he said that the cosmos was like this, multidimensional with different heavens and god realms, etc. He just took it further and he denied the Hindu conclusions about it's nature. Also, the multicolored elaborations of the cosmos that one finds in Advaita Vedanta come after Buddhisms multifarious elaborations that are shown in the Abhidhamma (Theravada), Abhidharma, Abhidharmakosha (Mahayana)... and on and on, which all happened long before the advent of Advaita Vedanta and the subsequent Hinduising of Buddhist concepts.

 

Even Dzogchen cosmology pre-dates Advaita Vedanta which is the major Hindu interpretation of any Hindu text in India thanks to Adi Shankaracharya who was the biggest Buddhist basher of them all, LOL! "tongue in cheek." Shankara established 4 "Mathas" (Monasteries), or schools of Vedantin learning in all four corners of India in around the 8th century C.E. and created different orders of monks for each one, and he spent his time turning Buddhist teachings into Hindu ones, digesting the information and writing his commentary on older Hindu texts using this information. I'm not saying he was without attainment, obviously he was, but his Advaita Vedanta is a melding of all sorts of different views from his Guru's who were Buddha inspired. Gaudapada, Adi Shankaras' main Guru "is one of the most important figures in (Hindu) Indian philosophy. He shows the deepest respect for the Buddha whom he salutes repeatedly, and quotes freely from Vaasubandhu and Nagarjuna" who are Buddhas in the Mahayana system. The views of Nagarjuna (Madhyamaka = "middle way"), Vasubandhu and Asanga (Yogacara or sometimes called the Chittamatra = "Mind only school") inspired Adi Shankaras' Guru even though Adi Shankara took his Guru's teachings and used them to debate with Buddhists during Buddhisms decline in India.

 

Anyway... what most people without scholarship think is Hindu inspiring Buddhism is actually Buddhism inspired Hinduism. If you read the links you can see the dates and the information and see who inspired who.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Aaron]

It's not... it isn't saying the same thing. The Buddha didn't deny Hindu cosmology, he said that the cosmos was like this, multidimensional with different heavens and god realms, etc. He just took it further and he denied the Hindu conclusions about it's nature. Also, the multicolored elaborations of the cosmos that one finds in Advaita Vedanta come after Buddhisms multifarious elaborations that are shown in the Abhidhamma (Theravada), Abhidharma, Abhidharmakosha (Mahayana)... and on and on, which all happened long before the advent of Advaita Vedanta and the subsequent Hinduising of Buddhist concepts.

 

Even Dzogchen cosmology pre-dates Advaita Vedanta which is the major Hindu interpretation of any Hindu text in India thanks to Adi Shankaracharya who was the biggest Buddhist basher of them all, LOL! "tongue in cheek." Shankara established 4 "Mathas" (Monasteries), or schools of Vedantin learning in all four corners of India in around the 8th century C.E. and created different orders of monks for each one, and he spent his time turning Buddhist teachings into Hindu ones, digesting the information and writing his commentary on older Hindu texts using this information. I'm not saying he was without attainment, obviously he was, but his Advaita Vedanta is a melding of all sorts of different views from his Guru's who were Buddha inspired. Gaudapada, Adi Shankaras' main Guru "is one of the most important figures in (Hindu) Indian philosophy. He shows the deepest respect for the Buddha whom he salutes repeatedly, and quotes freely from Vaasubandhu and Nagarjuna" who are Buddhas in the Mahayana system. The views of Nagarjuna (Madhyamaka = "middle way"), Vasubandhu and Asanga (Yogacara or sometimes called the Chittamatra = "Mind only school") inspired Adi Shankaras' Guru even though Adi Shankara took his Guru's teachings and used them to debate with Buddhists during Buddhisms decline in India.

 

Anyway... what most people without scholarship think is Hindu inspiring Buddhism is actually Buddhism inspired Hinduism. If you read the links you can see the dates and the information and see who inspired who.

 

Hello Vaj,

 

My point was that it was the most Hindu, not that it was Hindu. I agree that both religions influenced each other, it would be hard not to see that.

 

Aaron

 

edit- And just to clarify, I'm not a Buddhist basher, just a firm believer that there is no truth, nor should one advocate truths.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Twinner