What is the Order of Buddhist Contemplative's Tradition?

I had posted these questions on a different topic and thought it might deserve its own thread.  My questions posted before:

"What is our Tradition?"  The Order is not Soto Zen and looks very different than SZBA's current practice.  The Order is not associated through any lineage other than through the Kyojukaimon, which has thousands, if not millions, of strands.  Is our tradition the teachings of a British woman (whom I've never met) and the various music and translations that she created to try to teach in her own way?  Would she have changed things radically if she were still living, to such an extent that any notion of "our tradition" would be wildly different?  Should the legacy change as life changes?  What will hold the Order together ultimately?

I realize that is a lot to chew on but I wondered these things often while a monk when trying to learn what it is that the Order "is", how to vest in it and how to transmit it.  As RM Jiyu is an ancestor whom most will never meet, what is the Order actually transmitting?"

I am hoping we can get more of a conversation going here about it if possible.  Maybe there is no real answer to this?????

I look forward to other's thoughts.

Enida, wonderful questions! I have a number of thoughts in response, most connected to several articles that I've been working on.

(Actually, I have a fair number of thoughts in response to many discussion threads on the Forum. Most of the responses that I would like to make however, would require posting at least one of the (not yet finished) articles. In consequence, I've been fairly quiet recently).

I will try to respond to at least some of your questions in a day or two. I think I can do so without having to complete and post the full article.  

H Enida wrote:

The Order is not associated through any lineage other than through the Kyojukaimon, which has thousands, if not millions, of strands. 

.
As a practical matter I thought Shasta Abbey/OBC had affiliated with the "Malaysian Sangha"...?  I don't know who they are, but I thought the purpose was to establish a formal link/lineage since Jiyu Kennett had distanced the order from Japanese Zen.  I'm repeating hearsay though and will appreciate someone clarifying.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7liFzsZxeZY&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7liFzsZxeZY

Isan,

Above is a link to Ven. Seck Kim Seng's temple, Cheng Hoon Teng Temple in Malaysia.  The Abbey kept their connection with The temple while I was there, visiting every so often back and forth.  From what I remember, the last of the lineage are women and can't formally teach or ordain others, so I am not sure what will come of a family connection in the future.  The temple itself has a very different focus from OBC practice as you can see from the film.

To me, its the Church of Kennett.  They live in the shadow and adoration of Kennett, so that's what they do - what they say is not so relevant.  Words mean next to nothing.

I see your point Josh, and did experience a lot of seniors often referring to her in their talks, celebrating her at morning service and ceremonies, etc.  It all seemed fine on many levels, but it again begs my question, since I and many of the new monks never met her, what will ultimately be the tradition that carries forth in the OBC?  Many of the younger monks do not know each other and train under very different masters.  The continuity of the older Masters through reverence of their teacher will be gone before too many years.  What will the OBC be then?

H Enida wrote:

It all seemed fine on many levels, but it again begs my question, since I and many of the new monks never met her, what will ultimately be the tradition that carries forth in the OBC?  Many of the younger monks do not know each other and train under very different masters.  The continuity of the older Masters through reverence of their teacher will be gone before too many years.  What will the OBC be then?

.
From what I've been told the OBC is already quite fragmented.  The temples are mostly autonomous.  As you say Jiyu Kennett is the unifying factor and as time goes by she will become less so.  As the practices evolve the teachers/temples may grow further apart.  Some temples may thrive while others close, etc.  That all seems normal to me given how decentralized the OBC is.  Is there a concern?

Enida, you bring a good question. I haven't visited or contributed to this forum in many moons. But for myself, the answer to your question has to do with the integrity and wholeness of a practice itself. Is it life-giving and transforming? Does it matter through what institutional or historical means, what personalities from whom we received it? Each of us has a lineage of those ancestors who have gone before and have transmitted the teaching and wisdom of their lives. My Italian immigrant grandmother was my most important spiritual ancestor in this life. It is an innate aspect of our make-up. I know that religious institutions and persons make claims to truth and authority through lineage, too often for unworthy reasons. And we may complicate our journey by buying into it by creating more layers of self-identity through our affiliation with institutional lineage. But my view is that it is the actualization of the truth of life itself that is the true transmission. Our wise brother on this forum, Kozan, calls it, the healing of little consciousness into Big Consciousness that is the authentic teaching and transmission we actualize in our own life that matters. Thank you for helping me to reflect more upon it.

Kennett's legacy - it may fade somewhat - but not necessarily.  Many religions are based on the continued veneration of the founder - for centuries - in fact, the myths can become stronger over time since the followers never saw the original shadows.  Scientology, Mormons, the Moonies, not to mention that more established religions - most of which are based on mostly myths.  But, it is also possible that aspects of Kennett's presence will fade or at least be pushed to the side.  In that case, the group - should it survive -  will try to find its way back to some more traditional version of Soto / Dogen Zen - even while that tradition fades away in Japan.

I just attended the Wisdom 2.0 conference - fascinating.  This really is a new chapter in Dharma in the West - even though much of it is more secular and definitely not monastic.  As this movement becomes much bigger and mainstream, Buddhist groups will be adapting and changing.  Complex terrain and will see how it unfolds.  More on this later......

A secular vision for dharma in the west? This doesn't sound particularly tough. Somehow it doesn't sound particularly promising either though. There's something impressive about the fact that some people are able to live with few material encumbrances in the west and focus just on interpreting living Buddhist wisdom. It all depends whether or not one thinks dharma is religious, sacred, or spiritual to begin with. What are the original assumptions one has in becoming interested in investigating life and death stuff? How much time is there to find out?

What are the "original assumptions one has in investigating life and death stuff" ?

The original assumption that one is somehow incomplete and lacking.  The assumption that `worldly`
persuits don`t bring lasting satisfaction.  The assumption that being endlessly driven to repeat the
persuits  doesn`t work and is painful and causes suffering.  The assumption that there has to be a
way out of this suffering and re-discovering our wholeness.

"How much time is there to find out ?"     ...........As long as it takes.