現代佛教 Contemporary Buddhism

智慧法師與翁靜晶:當今漢傳佛教流弊的冰山一角

翁女士揭發定慧寺事件後,以正信佛教徒的身份,視破邪顯正為己任,到處打擊本地佛教界各種流弊,引起各界對佛教現狀的關注。就打擊本地佛教流弊,像翁女士的做法,對佛教究竟是利還是弊?

這個問題本來是沒有值得爭議的地方。因為錯就是錯,犯法就是犯法。像定慧寺女住持釋智定假結婚和對骨灰龕處理的不妥行徑,根本就是違法行為,所以根本沒有情有可原的說法。

女主持跟信徒爭吵,還惡形惡相的說出什麼「你們欺負出家人,欺負大陸人。。。正義去哪裡?」的話,言下之意就是我是法師,我還是中國大陸的人,有理無理都不是你們在家眾,或是香港人可以欺負的!

犯了法的女主持被窮追猛打,逼進窮巷,唯有以亂語自辯,本來不用理會。但她說話的語氣,多少表現出佛教界裡,甚至社會上的一些潛在矛盾,值得我們思考。

中國人,香港人,不管什麼背景,犯法就是犯法。這樣「你們」「我們」的說法是分化僧俗二眾,兼破壞中港關係的無賴行為。這種敗類,就算不是佛教徒也必須嚴懲,何況是穿著僧服的,實在有毀佛門尊嚴。

佛陀的教化本來就是主張「一切如是觀」。處理問題的第一步就是要認識問題,問題認識便要嚴正處理,以後才能解決。佛聯會發出聲明說有關人士「並非其會員」,「事前事後沒有其相關資料」,言下之意就是事不關己。不過涉事人都是寶蓮寺出家的,還有過去都有跟寶蓮寺公開來往,一句沒有關係就算,實在難以服眾。就算沒有正式的法律關係,也得做個果斷明確,與其一刀兩斷,執行家法,逐出佛門的聲明。隱瞞、淡化等做法並不是慈悲,只會讓事情留下尾巴。

網上流傳智慧法師與翁靜晶的一段影片,看來應該是在智慧法師沒有同意下記錄下來的。其實就是偷拍。談到定慧寺和當事人時,智慧法師說「自己已經傻了,不能分別真假」。這先不說,但法師接著跟翁居士說一句,「你是佛弟子嗎?是佛弟子的話就不要做這種有損佛門的事情。」法師說這番話意思無非是以長輩身分,告誡翁居士揭發佛門醜事的舉動,其實有損佛教顏面。家醜不出外傳嘛。本地佛教本來要面對的挑戰已經夠多了,現在佛教徒還給自己添負面消息,豈非添亂?

智慧法師的說法,相信也是老一輩本地佛教徒的立場,就是閒事不管,各自修行,反正因果業報都不是別人管得來的,做好本分就好了,佛教主張慈悲圓融,不走激進路線,大事化小,小事化無云云。不過,作為一個長輩甚至扮演領導角色的人,團體問題出現,卻沒有在其能力範圍內把問題解決,其實就是一種畏懼、怕事懦弱和不承擔的表現。現在本地佛教出現各種流弊,本地佛教領導階層責無旁貸。不把問題及時解決,就是為問題繼續惡化製造條件。要解決這些複雜的問題,當然會惹出牽連,所以執行人必須膽色過人,秉正嚴明。沒有這份勇氣和眼光,最後不要當領導。

作為本地佛教界的領導,因為各種原因沒有帶頭把問題解決,反而只是關心「佛祖顏面」,難怪有人終於忍無可忍,像翁居士直腸直肚的人跑出來為民請命,給正信佛教徒還個公道。

翁居士能夠做的,也許僅此而已。不過破而不立,在現實生活中是行不通的。亂象橫生,歸根到底都是正信佛教底氣不足。本來佛教教育就是一個大問題。甚麼是正信佛教?若是其他宗教,是正是邪,都有個權威的說法。不明之處,總有權威人士主持大局,總不會亂,這才算是個成熟的宗教團體。像梵蒂岡就敏感話題上要舉辦會議,為廣大天主教徒發表澄清,達賴喇嘛也經常要出來為藏傳佛教說句公道話一樣。試問漢傳佛教有什麼標準?哪個山頭的算是權威?佛學院的高僧給大家解說,還是隨便讓個熱心人引經據典?沒有正式皈依三寶的也算佛教徒嗎?皈依了三寶,但是不屬於任何佛教團體的也算佛教徒嗎?擁有什麼知識的佛教徒才算是正信的佛教徒?以漢傳佛教而言,懂得念心經,念大悲咒就算是個正信佛教徒嗎?再說出家眾,穿了袈裟,拿著戒牒的就都是高僧大德嗎?在家眾都要無條件服從,頂禮並叩頭三拜出家眾嗎?僧侶需要具備什麼條件才能當法師?法師和寺院的事情,誰來監管?出了問題,誰來撥亂反正?

出了像定慧寺這樣的事情,大家才意識到問題只是冰山一角。衝破問題的第一道關口,發現當今漢傳佛教在制度上和實踐層面上的各種弊病,這才是當今佛教徒需要認真思考之處。

Simran (smaraṇa), Sati (smṛti) and the effect of mental repetition

This is a subject that ought to be studied more carefully from a comparative point of view. The Buddhists have developed a complete science based on various techniques – from Ānāpānasati (mindfulness of breathing) to Nianfo (repetition of names of Buddha) ; in most religions, there are often sacred words or prayers believers repeat, not for understanding but for entering into a peaceful, meditative state. In most situations when the mind is severely disrupted or traumatized, these techniques help to calm the mind and prevent the person from spiraling down into depression or even psychosis. These days we all hear so much about physical health, but so little about mental health. Regular practice on such mental repetition is like building up an immune system against sudden mental or emotional onslaughts. Even if you have no spiritual beliefs, don’t lose your cool, just count “one, two, three”.

Reflections on Confession of a Buddhist Atheist (Stephen Batchelor)

 

confession-of-a-buddhist-atheistBatchelor’s 2010 work is an autobiographical work composed of two parts which recounted his Buddhist experience as a monk and a layman. In this work, as with his previous work Buddhism Without Beliefs, has raised a lot of contentious issues especially amongst Western Buddhists. Essentially, labeling himself as a “Buddhist failure”, Batchelor expressed his great disillusionment against the institutionalism of Tibetan and Zen Buddhism which he devoted decades of his life practicing.

As many reviews have been written on this work already, I will try not to repeat what others have said, either in praise or in blame, except that the work was indeed brilliantly written with many audacious comments and fine insights that will be worth the time of any serious Buddhist practitioner, regardless of school or background. My main interest in this work is largely personal as I am keen to see whether his observations would apply to someone without his Western background like myself or others not in the “West”.

 

To fully appreciate Batchelor’s overwhelmingly negative stance toward certain aspects of institutionalized Buddhism, one should be aware of the history as well as current position of Buddhism in the West. Even before Nietzsche’s declaration “Gott ist tot” (God is dead), Western society had undergone a long process of secularization that led to a new alternative worldview stemming from the Renaissance, the Reformation, and Darwin’s work on evolution. But it was in the 20th century after the two World Wars when the “society” at large lost faith in Christianity. The churches had lost trust and respect from the public. Those who felt disillusioned by the religious institutes found themselves other forms of beliefs – New Age, Eastern religions or simply no beliefs. The various forms of Buddhism which spread to the West, most notably Tibetan Buddhism and Japanese Zen, were merely some of the many alternatives available in the postmodern age of spiritual consumerism. Thus as Batchelor himself described in great details at the beginning part of the book, he turned from hippie to monk in an age when anything alternative was in vogue. But Batchelor was not just a simple rebel, he was genuinely asking for answers to those big questions about life, which both Tibetan and Zen Buddhism failed to give; instead, to his dismay he found the religious institution plagued by dogma and rituals of very dubious nature. At the end, Batchelor found it necessary to construct his own understanding of what Buddha’s true teaching was based on his reading of the Pāli Canon.

 

One observation on “disillusionment” should be made. Disillusionment results when we have expectations; when our expectations are not met, we feel disillusioned. In Batchelor’s case, what was he expecting when he decided to shave his head and dress in exotic robe which made him feel like “the visual equivalent of screaming”? His decisions from taking the ordination to disrobing must be equally driven his religious conviction and his pursuit for truth. But what remained unclear to me is what he expected from the “institutions” and personally I feel that his disillusionment cannot be fully justified unless this issue is sufficiently clarified. Perhaps after all he was looking for the wrong thing, and possibly in the wrong place (though not necessarily with the wrong outcome)?

 

Just as Batchelor had attempted to interpret the Buddha’s teaching from the cultural and societal context of Buddha’s time, one may understand the teachings of the various schools contextually. Unless we do so, Batchelor’s work leaves us the impression that the millions of Buddhists who belong to various institutionalized forms of Buddhism are utterly unenlightened, ensnared in meaningless rituals and dogma with no chance of salvation. My personal view of the role of religion is honestly quite different. Rather than seeing any Buddhist school, or for that matter, any religion, as something monolithic, I see religious intuitions as transient groups who strive for different religious goals. Within each group there are members who are closer to the goals they set for themselves; while others may be further away and could even be going the opposite way. Religious institutions are amoebic in nature and they take on different shapes in response to both external and internal needs, ultimately with the goal of preserving their own survival. Bearing this in mind, one should not have too high an expectation of the religious institutions or any groups that are involved with people in general, but should rather approach them in a more skillful and gentle way.

 

Of course, what I just described does not translate well in Western terms since religious matters have too often been clear-cut, black-and-white and confrontational in much of Western history. In the case of traditional Chinese society, religious values have never been so clearly defined – thus often accused for being indecisive and vague by the West. However, such misjudgment of Eastern spiritual values would resolve itself if one consider religions as merely sources where one may find inspiration and opportunities for positive transformation. Joining a religion is not pledging allegiance to a force but, rather, embarking on a journey of self-cultivation. Not only is it an ongoing process, but one needs to adapt existing religious values to oneself and respond to them accordingly.

 

In Batchelor’s case, the values supplied by Tibetan and Zen Buddhism were clearly incompatible to his own, such as his negative view on celibacy in the modern context. But for others who do not see Buddhism as a foreign religion or seek Enlightenment through exotic means, some of the apparently anachronistic values of institutionalized Buddhism may in fact represent some of the best and most inspiring values their adopted cultures can offer to the people. During my earlier years, I used to be affected by a certain view to see Chinese Buddhism as a form of corrupted Buddhism; as I grow older, I begin to appreciate its gentler approach, striving constantly to harmonize and balance between discipline and personal freedom, tradition and creativity. Perhaps Chinese Buddhism evolved in such a way to cater to the needs of Chinese society. The question of dogma and rituals never generated much heated debates amongst Chinese Buddhists as no Chinese Buddhists have ever been coerced to subscribe to them. Dogma and rituals which lost their meanings and appeal were continuously let go of which accounted for the ongoing transformation of Chinese Buddhism. Perhaps for the same reason, the idea of a Buddhist atheist never strikes me as an imperative nor a necessary premise for a Buddhist of the modern age.

 

New Lotus, Buddhistdoor
Dr. Bill M. Mak