Boddidharma and his transmission

[Trash Filter]

Boddidharma a supposed Indian monk of warrior caste who migrated to teach Chinese special lessons, was one of few who had achieved a full awakened state of the opening of the crown chakra.

Supposedly Boddidharma had told his students that the lessons should be transmitted with oral tradition, as opposed to written format.

 

What I don't understand is why would this be? If you have ever played Chinese whispers the message changes greatly with new listeners. So why was it preferential?

 

Written can be altered and inaccurate too but still...

[Mal]

Supposedly Boddidharma had told his students that the lessons should be transmitted with oral tradition, as opposed to written format.

What I don't understand is why would this be?

 

Perhaps it wasn't "just words" that were being passed on from teacher to student

[WhiteTiger]

Perhaps it wasn't "just words" that were being passed on from teacher to student

 

nice answer. I would definately agree!

 

I also think that there the specific person (student) should be kept a special eye on from the teacher to see how he acts and responds to each particular thing. All teachers should be aware to some degree of the students propensities to tailor oral tradition in such a way that problems don't arise.

 

Everyone is different although they may be same transmitions and same teachings... the way that it is taught and presented may alter a little.

 

Thats my personal thoughts on the matter.

[Dainin]

The line of transmission started when the Shakyamuni Buddha held up a flower to his students and said nothing. The disciple Kasyapa smiled, thus becoming the first link in the chain.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Everybody is different. Everyone learns differently, thinks differently, lives differently, etc. Everyone is on a different path, although the end result may be the same.

 

I can say something a certain way. Then someone else can convey the same meaning, but with different words, and someone else will understand his post and have an "ah ha!" moment. Then a year later some OTHER person may come back and read my words, and have an "ah ha!" moment.

 

I can read something in the Bible, or other religious book, and go "ah ha!" while someone else may see something in real life and go "ah ha!"

 

The words that convey your own understanding, or, should I say, the words you THINK convey your understanding in the best possible way probably won't. The tao that can be explained is not the true tao, right?

 

Words on a scroll may make sense to one person, or maybe a certain type of person, but that doesn't help in creating a universally accessible system, now does it? How can you claim to be able to reach enlightenment when it relies on you being able to comprehend things from a certain way?

 

Hence, learn the way you learn best, in whatever form that is.

[Long Yun]

Well, Socrates taught stricktly in oral form as well. He believed that reading something left it too much up to the reader to infer what it meant. But I happen to think that if someone writes specifically, there is no guessing on the reader's part.

 

I guess the reason to pass things on orally, is that once you truly understand something, you can help someone else understand it too, regardless of the words you use. If the same understanding is being reached, then there is no mistake (as in Chinese whispers, where all you do is memorize the words instead of understanding something).

[goldisheavy]

Boddidharma a supposed Indian monk of warrior caste who migrated to teach Chinese special lessons, was one of few who had achieved a full awakened state of the opening of the crown chakra.

Supposedly Boddidharma had told his students that the lessons should be transmitted with oral tradition, as opposed to written format.

 

Never heard anything about crown chakra. Bodhidharma was a Buddhist monk, and Buddhists don't bother with the chakras at all. The only exception are Tibetan tantric Buddhists who are kind of mixing things. Remember that Buddhism does not originally have deities like Tara in it either. So Tibetans are definitely mixing things in their practice. (It's kind of ironic that many Tibetan Buddhists that come to USA preach against mixing of traditions).

 

Chakra as a concept is not helpful in Buddhism. That's because Buddhism is focused on the idea of emptiness and chakra is just one more empty phenomenon that doesn't help from a Buddhist POV. At best, it's ornamental and fun, but definitely not necessary for the purpose of wisdom.

 

What I don't understand is why would this be? If you have ever played Chinese whispers the message changes greatly with new listeners. So why was it preferential?

 

You don't understand why people have preferences? Look, preferences are not always rational. Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are still regular fallible people in some sense. In some sense they have gone beyond being a person, but in some sense they are still a person with all that this implies. For example, there is a Sutta in Pali canon that describes Buddha running away from the monastery one time, because he was bothered by the monks. He ran away to the forest where he met an elephant who also ran away from his kin to find solitude. So this shows you that a post-enlightenment Buddha could get annoyed, lose patience, etc. In other words, he was still a human being.

 

So human beings have preferences. Sometimes they are logical and sometimes not.

 

A preference for oral teaching is simply a preference for person to person contact and also a preference for control. If you print something and let it spread, you have less control over the teaching. However, if you give the teaching orally, you can bind the person with your words and also bind the entire line of transmission. You can say something like "you may not share this with anyone except blah blah, and then when you do share, you must impart the same binding onto them as I impart on you." It's basically a control freak attitude. As well it's a belief that you are special and that if someone will see your words without seeing your divine visage, they'll miss something. It's an example of lack of faith in humanity.

 

Written can be altered and inaccurate too but still...

 

Everything has been altered. Oral teachings have been altered. Written too. The bindings have all been broken. It's all bullshit basically. There is no rational reason for any of it. It has more to do with the fancy than anything.

Edited March 31, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Trash Filter]

I agree that the information that has come through is indeed mostly as you put it "bullshit".

Why i ask about these preferences is not so much because of ignorance that maybe your type tone suggests, but to express how i wish could understand the extent in which things are kept from the public mind, and that even just releasing just a fraction of it could help humanity.

[DaoChild]

The reason for many oral traditions (at least one reason) is that you get to ensure secrecy. When you write down teachings, obviously they are more easily disseminated. Additionally, it ensures that you learn only what you are supposed to - when you are supposed to. Finally, it makes sure that you don't just take down the lessons and try them out before you are skilled enough.

 

There are probably many more.

 

The importance of the oral tradition lies in the fact that there will always be a teacher to help guide the student.

Edited April 1, 2009 by DaoChild

[Sunya]

Never heard anything about crown chakra. Bodhidharma was a Buddhist monk, and Buddhists don't bother with the chakras at all. The only exception are Tibetan tantric Buddhists who are kind of mixing things. Remember that Buddhism does not originally have deities like Tara in it either. So Tibetans are definitely mixing things in their practice. (It's kind of ironic that many Tibetan Buddhists that come to USA preach against mixing of traditions).

 

Chakra as a concept is not helpful in Buddhism. That's because Buddhism is focused on the idea of emptiness and chakra is just one more empty phenomenon that doesn't help from a Buddhist POV. At best, it's ornamental and fun, but definitely not necessary for the purpose of wisdom.

 

 

Tibetans aren't mixing anything. Tantra was introduced to Tibet in the 8th century onward by enlightened yogis from India. remember Buddhism came from India. Tantra is not restricted to any specific tradition, but the Tibetans have done a great job in preserving Tantra.. where its pretty much lost in India (the highest teachings)

 

The Tibetans still uphold that its the quickest path. and those who I've talked to who have practiced Zen and switched to Vajrayana agree that working with these "fun and ornate" things as you say has helped tremendously.

 

I agree though that there is no evidence that Bodhidharma ever talked about chakras.

Edited April 1, 2009 by mikaelz

[AugustLeo]

.

[goldisheavy]

I agree that the information that has come through is indeed mostly as you put it "bullshit".

Why i ask about these preferences is not so much because of ignorance that maybe your type tone suggests, but to express how i wish could understand the extent in which things are kept from the public mind, and that even just releasing just a fraction of it could help humanity.

 

Actually I think I feel very similarly to you. That said, a lot of secret information is actually trash that if released, would only hinder the public and not help at all. There is some secret information that could actually help too. People try to keep shiny things secret, and some shiny things are just glass and some are diamonds. So, not everything secret is all that great.

 

A big reason why I think secrets are bad is because secrets enable bad information to remain in circulation past the expiration date. If you release low quality information, it will be shown to be low quality. That's the principle of peer review. Peer review can be wrong too, but it helps to at least think about what you have to say. So information that circulates at least somewhat, is on average a higher quality information than the information that stays secret and therefore stagnant. It's all too easy to keep some profoundly useless or dangerous delusion secret.

 

In general secrecy is a bad quality. Just think of how secrets are used in real life. Are they ever positive? Almost always, 99% of the time, they are bad.

 

There is something that has all the advantages of a secret with none of the drawbacks. It's called a policy of non-advertisement. That way, if someone asks, you answer. But you don't have to advertise. And that's fine and that's fair too. However what many people do is precisely the opposite. First they DO advertise, and then when you try to find out, you learn it's a secret. This is bass ackwards from the more sensible approach of non-advertisement. Obviously if you are running a business you won't go far on a policy of non-advertisement. So from a business point of view, you need to have advertisement to lure the customer and you need to have secrecy so that the customers don't just share the information among themselves, in other words, in order to maintain artificial scarcity.

Edited April 1, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Sunya]

the other side of secrets is that you are preventing people from knowing that which they can not handle. you are assuming everyone is equal, everyone is like you and is 'ready'. an example is teaching a 2 year old about safe sex.

[goldisheavy]

the other side of secrets is that you are preventing people from knowing that which they can not handle. you are assuming everyone is equal, everyone is like you and is 'ready'. an example is teaching a 2 year old about safe sex.

 

I can't stand this nonsense. 2 year old will be oblivious to the issues of sex even if you make an attempt to teach it.

 

Look. People get hurt, seriously hurt, doing weight lifting. And yet weight lifting is not secret. Weight lifting injuries are vastly more severe and life changing than the energetic ones. There are pictures of guys with no toes. There are people with broken backs, torn ligaments, people who retired from sport completely due to one accident. In recent olympic games one lifter injured himself tremendously.

 

So, is that used as an excuse to keep weight lifting secret? Of course not. Of course it's dangerous! You keep it open. You explain the process of weight lifting. You explain the danger. AND you assume that people are responsible and exercise sound judgment. You must assume that. If you don't assume it, then you cannot open your mouth about anything. Anything whatsoever can be interpreted in a harmful way. A glance. A word. A kitchen knife can be used to kill as much as it can be used for cooking. Guitar strings can be dangerous. I'm not even talking about a garrote, I mean, an overtightened string can snap and poke out your eye, leaving you blind. Does this mean we keep guitars secret? Sewing needles. Chain saws. Glass bottles. Paper. Rail roads. Cars. Airplanes.

 

Our world is full of dangerous things. We don't keep any of them secret. We keep them open. Openness helps to educate everyone as to the proper use and how to avoid danger. Openness is what informs people of the danger in the first place.

 

Preventing danger is a piss poor excuse for secrecy.

[Mal]

I'm not a fan of secrecy either.

 

But there are some things people in general can't cope with and telling them about it is just not helpful. The problem arrises because the people deciding what to keep secret and what to share are not able to make the correct decisions.

 

Still secrecy is not the "best" reason for oral transmission, AugustLeo explained it very well.

 

oral transmission is a real-time, bi-directional, multi-sensory channel of communication. There is much additional information transmitted beyond the words, sub-textual information is transmitted/received in the tone, body language, touch, etc. And the teacher can alter his oral presentation based on real-time multi-sensory feedback (conscious or unconscious) from the student.

[goldisheavy]

This is dangerous:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgxv5UReFlY

 

WARNING: do not watch if you just ate lunch.

 

Yea, it's dangerous, but it's not a secret. In fact, videos like these help to keep the activity safe.

 

But there are some things people in general can't cope with and telling them about it is just not helpful.

 

Yes, those things are called "unconventional". So the idea there is not to preserve the people from harm, but to preserve yourself! It's basically fear! In other words, if I go around saying what is considered a heresy in a mentally inflexible society, I risk execution. There will be no real danger to the people in that society though! People just won't believe anything you say, and they'll brand you a heretic and possibly execute you or do other harm to you.

 

This has been a real risk for a long time in many countries and still remains a risk in some countries around the world.

 

So the purpose of secrecy in an environment like that is self-preservation. There is no need to make an attempt to sell it as something "for your own good". No. It's for the safety and good of the secret-keeper, and not really for the good of anyone else.

 

I believe our current environment does not warrant secrecy. Maybe a little bit of non-advertisement? Sure. Don't go to a church and tell them about Buddhist wrathful deities. That's not wise. At the same time, there is no need to keep it a secret either. Churches really hate Harry Potter too, and some think it's demonic, but that's not a secret, is it? And it's OK. And that's good! I think we want to promote openness further so that more and more things can be discussed in the open.

[Mal]

[Lantsberger]

I think we are approaching this as computer age people where information is a commodity and knowledge is power -- with limits of access to knowledge as a form of control.

 

By oral transmission we are thinking mere information dissemination as opposed to initiation, camaraderie, and human bonding.

 

I wish I could think of a better example, maybe there isnt......I remember reading an interview years ago by Rickson Gracie, Jiu-Jitsu instructor and acknowledged to have been one of the best practicioners of his era by peers in the art.

 

In response to the question of why he did not make instructional videos ( I paraphrase), he responded that this was not how he would teach his art. He received it from his father, and if you wanted to learn it from him, you had to come to him and spend the hours with him on the mat. It was something that needed to go from him to you as a legacy , and not as a collection of technical information from a training video.

 

I look at the Bodhidharma question in the same way....its fellowship with the source and stream of the knowledge as much as the information itself.

[goldisheavy]

[goldisheavy]

I wish I could think of a better example, maybe there isnt......I remember reading an interview years ago by Rickson Gracie, Jiu-Jitsu instructor and acknowledged to have been one of the best practicioners of his era by peers in the art.

 

In response to the question of why he did not make instructional videos ( I paraphrase), he responded that this was not how he would teach his art. He received it from his father, and if you wanted to learn it from him, you had to come to him and spend the hours with him on the mat. It was something that needed to go from him to you as a legacy , and not as a collection of technical information from a training video.

 

I look at the Bodhidharma question in the same way....its fellowship with the source and stream of the knowledge as much as the information itself.

 

This is kind of wrong. Let me explain why. First, wrestling is a conventional art. You perform it within convention. There are rules. You need a human body to do it. You need 2 people. That's a lot of constraining conditions! But even then, it's good to take an inclusive approach. Release those videos AND teach one on one, and don't put people who buy the videos down. Don't tell them they are getting something watered down. If your video is very good and if two people want to learn very badly, they can learn very well from a video. They will then travel to some competition and get a reality check. Then back to training. In other words, even if the path of the master-less practitioner is harder, don't spit on them. Respect them. Don't tell them they cannot do it. Don't disempower them. Don't tell them they have to see you in person. You can explain the advantages of personal instruction, and that's part of the inclusive approach. But don't do so at a cost of cutting off and disempowering those who are distant learners.

 

Wisdom, transcendent wisdom is very different. It doesn't need 2 people. It doesn't come from an external source. It is beyond convention. It doesn't require a body. It is not constrained in any way. Etc. So it's different enough that I don't think Bodhidharma would be worried about doing it one on one.

Edited April 2, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Trash Filter]

To all- thanks for the responses. They have been really good for me, for thinking about and helping my mind understand.

 

To be myself more honest and less secretive, i wished to bring this sort of topic in a hope to increase awareness of the issue; the secrecy regarding human potentials.

 

Like many of you other energy practitioners, I also wanted to put forth my dislike of the will to secrecy thus far. I believe when we are dealing with innate, human potential it should be accessible to all, with the relevant precautionary measures, much like so many other things people do that can be dangerous.

 

I believe the secrecy (much like Boddidharma's decision), has become so out of control, that much of the hard earned Earth knowledge has completely wiped out...Or the CURRENT individuals with the hoarded knowledge, and sometimes prejudice, have been for a great time, ultimately irresponsible.

 

So i implore masters out there to ponder not only themselves but the fate of humankind and the generations to come.

[Sunya]

i'm not really sure what this "secrecy" is that all of you are talking about? who said there is secrecy in Bodhidharma's transmission? transmission means transfer, a transfer of energy.. of wisdom.. could it be possible that this transmission isn't possible through words?

 

all of the Buddha's teachings in all 3 vehicles are out in the open, the only exception are the secret teachings of Vajrayana and some methods of Chan/Zen and this is simply because it wouldn't be prudent to teach a beginner these methods until he is ready, just like you don't teach a kid how to play guitar with his teeth and smash it on the floor until he's learned his chords and scales. this is called skillful means. the secrecy is just in the method, and its only secret until you are ready to receive it.

Edited April 2, 2009 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

I can't stand this nonsense. 2 year old will be oblivious to the issues of sex even if you make an attempt to teach it.

 

 

Our world is full of dangerous things. We don't keep any of them secret. We keep them open. Openness helps to educate everyone as to the proper use and how to avoid danger. Openness is what informs people of the danger in the first place.

 

Preventing danger is a piss poor excuse for secrecy.

 

 

Ok, not so much danger.. more like is this prudent at this certain situation in this persons life?

 

teach a 2 year old safe sex and what happens? he will try to awkwardly have sex with some other girl and it will just be very...strange. completely out of place advice that will just confuse the child and if anything waste his time, and yours. likewise teaching advanced methods to everyone will have the same effect. you think everyone desires truth? 99% of people have no interest in transpersonal method. but when a person does have interest, when they have the past experience, the karma, to drive them forward toward practicing these "secret teachings" then, they will naturally gravitate towards the opportunity to practice them.

 

i'm just playing devils advocate, i'm in the middle on this one. I think highly realized people should be more open with their experiences and if you are psychic or can project energy, show your gifts to people that you trust so they know it is real. openness is necessary, but when it comes to "secret methods" that will do nothing but confuse, or even harm, people if they are open, i think there is a reason for the hesitance of teachers to be open about them. your example of weight lifting is good, but weight lifting just makes your muscles big. if a really secret, powerful technique that can give you telekinetic powers but has serious consequences if you do it wrong was introduced to the masses then any 10 year old after watching Xmen will try it and probably fuck themselves up.

[Trash Filter]

Hate to break it to you, but secrecy is exactly what it is. And i don't think it is wise to naively believe that what is known is being provided. I guess for some it is hard to believe that it is possible. For example Qi gong as we know it, is not even scrapping the surface.

 

 

As for the whole safe sex analogy.

What they know is always appropriate for a beginner as they work themselves up sequentially. Much like lifting weights or learning gymnastics.

[goldisheavy]

I believe the secrecy (much like Boddidharma's decision), has become so out of control, that much of the hard earned Earth knowledge has completely wiped out...

 

This is not exactly esoteric, but as examples of this "secret knowledge dying out" phenomenon, Stradivarius violins and Damscus steel come to mind, and I am sure there are many more.