Given that the prevailing subjective and objective conditions have not proven favourable for this otherwise interesting, groundbreaking and self-empowering opportunity, the International Ch'an Buddhist Institute (ICBI) is a) rescinding and abolishing the project of the 'Open Transmission' of the associated Master Xu Yun (1840-1959) lineage - effective immediately, b) Cancelling any subsequent lineage transmissions - either 'implied' or 'conformed' - through the use of this initiative, and c) clarify that the ICBI does not recognise, endorse or support any subsequent, assumed or further transmissions made by current ICBI Members using this agency to other (unknown) individuals outside the ICBI.
Lineage transmission is a grave and serious undertaking and although much emphasis is placed in the West upon 'effort', 'determination' and 'respect' - this appears not to yet apply to matters of a non-material or non-acquisitioned nature. In this matter of realising the empty mind ground there will be no supporting of any type of greed, hatred or delusion. The 'Great Doubting mind' will be re-emphasised time and time again to keep the genuine Chinese Ch'an Lineage of Master Xu Yun (1840-1959) both 'pure' and free from 'corruption'. if you experience 'agitation' in your mind at this announcement - 'good' as you will not pass through this 'Gate' a second time in this lifetime whilst I guard it. Set your mind on realising genuine Enlightenment and all barriers will instantly melt away!
Prior to the 1950s, the world Buddhist community more or less agreed with the traditional Chinese dating of the Buddha. This dating is still used in ‘New’ China and stems from Indian Buddhist monks arriving in China and transmitting the Dharma. The best text explaining this in my opinion, is that included in the Chinese-language biography of Master Xu Yun (1840-1959) edited my Cen Xue Lu (between 1952-1961 in various editions) - but which is omitted from the English-language translation rendered by Charles Luk (copyrighted to ‘1960’ as ‘extracts’ of Xu Yun’s Dharma Words appearing in Ch’an and Zen Teachings First Series – but not published until 1974 as a separate book under the guidance of Roshi Philip Kapleau). I tracked-down the Chinese-language original of this text and translated it a few years ago. This can be found in the relevant section of the original Chinese language chapter of Xu Yun’s autobiography (虛雲和尚年譜), covering the year ‘1953/54’, which is entitled ‘末法僧徒之衰相’ – this translates as ‘Degeneration of the Sangha in the Dharma-ending Age’. Within this text, Master Xu Yun explains the following:
‘Two years ago, I attended the inaugural meeting of the Chinese Buddhist Association, where everyone present discussed the Dharma. The main issues concerned included the corrupt Dharma practices of certain Buddhists that were destroying the Buddha’s teachings from within, and the attitude of the government towards Buddhism in the light of this distorted practice – this is why the government sent representatives to attend. At this conference many devout followers of the Buddha attended and were encouraged to give their views and opinions. It was suggested that the Bodhisattva Precepts as taught in the Brahmajala Sutra (梵網經– Fan Wang Jing), the Vows contained in the Vinaya Discipline in Four Parts (四分律 – Si Fen Lu), the Pure Regulations of Ch’an Master Baizhang (百丈清規 – Bai Zhang Qing Gui) and all such established Buddhist laws should be abolished, because they cause harm to young people, and are detrimental to the wellbeing of men and women. Furthermore, it was also suggested that the ordained Sangha should be reformed and no longer wear the traditional robes associated with monks and nuns. The justification for these suggestions was premised upon the belief that traditional Buddhist practice was merely a form of backward feudalistic conservativism, and that the issue was actually about religious freedom. It was proposed that monks and nuns should be allowed to get married, drink alcohol and eat meat, and be free of any disciplinary requirements. As soon as I heard these words, I instantly had a strong reaction against them, and thoroughly disagreed with their content. I treated these suggestions with contempt. The idea of abandoning the celebration of the Buddha’s birthday stemmed from the observation that different Buddhist traditions celebrate this event at different times. As far as I am concerned, this tradition is a legitimate Dharma-practice in China that is based upon the teachings of Indian Dharma-teacher Kasyapa-Matanga (摩騰法師 – Mo Teng Fa Shi) who travelled to China during the 1st century CE, met with, and instructed Emperor Ming (明帝 – Ming Di) of the Latter Han (r. 58-75 CE). Matanga taught that the Buddha was born during the 51st year (of the 60-year cyclical sequence found within the traditional Chinese lunar calendar) in the year of tiger, which is represented by the Chinese astrological symbols of the heavenly stem ‘Jin’ (甲) and the earthly branch ‘Yin’ (寅). Matanga further stated that the Buddha’s birth correlates to the 8th day of the 4th lunar month.
(Translator’s Note: In the Western year 2015 CE – the traditional Chinese Buddhist Calendar stood at 3042/43 years since the birth of the Buddha – this means that according to Chinese Buddhist tradition, the Buddha was born around the year 1029/28 BCE. If it is agreed that he lived around 80 years – then the Buddha entered nirvana in the year 949/48 BCE.)
The exact date of the Buddha’s birth occurred in the 24th year of the rule of the Zhou Dynasty monarch – King Zhao (昭王) – who reigned 1052-1002 BCE. Therefore the Buddha’s birth occurred in the year 1028/29 BCE according to Matanga. The shramana (沙門 – Sha Men) – or Buddhist monk known as Tan Mo Zui (曇謨最) – is recorded in the Wei Dynasty (386-557 CE) Book of History (魏書 – Wei Shu) as stating that the Buddha was born on the 8th day of the 4th lunar month, which was during the 24th year of the reign of the Zhou Dynasty monarch – King Zhao. The Buddha entered nirvana on the 15th day of the 2nd lunar month, which occurred in the 52nd year of the rule of the Zhou Dynasty monarch – Mu Wang (穆王) – who reigned 1001-947 BCE). This means that the Buddha died around 949/48 BCE. Throughout all of the subsequent Chinese dynasties, this tradition has been preserved and upheld. From the time of the Zhou Dynasty’s King Wang until now (1952/53) – it is agreed that 2981/82 years have passed since the time of the Buddha’s birth.’
The modern dating suggesting the Buddha lived roughly around 563-483 BCE (or even later) stems from the first reliable dating of an event in India – which is taken (by Western scholars) as the 327 BCE invasion of India by Alexander the Great. When this is used as a chronological anchor it can be cross-referenced with the stone stele associated with Emperor Ashoka (r. 268-232 BCE) - which record sections of the Buddha’s teachings together with dynastic dating – Western scholars proposed what seemed to be a logical assessment of the available data. This led to the Theravada schools adopting tis new Western dating in the 1950s and removing 500 years of off the previously held dating about the Buddha. This is to say that prior to 4th World Buddhist Conference of 1956 (held in Nepal) - most of the Buddhist world held an opinion that mirrored the dating held in China. Even today, modern Chinese scholarship still upholds the original dating of the Buddha as correct and the Western dating as flawed (that is an opinion that appears logical but which ignores certain facts whilst lacking concrete knowledge about other facts). Interestingly, a number of modern Indian academics also reject the ‘new’ Western dating and state that the old Chinese dating is correct.
The Chinese scholar-sage – known as ‘Confucius’ in the West – lived between 551-479 BCE and with these dates would have been a contemporary of the Buddha (according to Western reconning). Whereas Confucius and his disciples were highly literate (as representatives of the Chinese nobility) - the Buddha, although very well educated as a high-caste Hindu, nevertheless was illiterate and could not read and write! Although educated in armed and unarmed martial arts, yoga, State-craft, love-making and scripture recollection, etc, the Buddha did not have to learn how to read and write. Furthermore, none of the Buddha’s disciples (regardless of caste) could read or write. The onus was to use the facility of ‘memory’ to store, recall and pass-on the long and complex spiritual and secular texts that defined ancient Indian culture. Education within Indian society was aural and practical. Reading and writing was known – but was only reserved for use in the royal court. Here, a specially trained Minister of State would ‘write down’ all the decisions taken by the ruler and all the laws passed so that a permanent record of the law of the State could be made. When required, this Minister would access the record and remind the ruler (who could not read) what the establish law was.
I am of the opinion that the epoch of the Buddha and the epoch of Confucius are two different historical periods. This can be discerned by the attitude toward the art of reading and writing and upon how the two different societies related to the concept of literacy. It is important to remember that at this time Chinese rulers and scholars maintained a high level of respect for Indian culture and were quite happy to import it for their own enrichment. Given this is the case, I doubt that India would have been essentially ‘illiterate’ whilst China was ‘literate’. How can this disparity be explained? I suspect the Buddhist context in India dates to around 1000 BCE – with a similar situation existing within Zhou dynasty China (with both cultures first developing literacy amongst the ruling elites via superstition, mythology and divine oracles, etc. I suspect that by around 500 BCE, both cultures had developed, solidified and expanded literacy amongst a much larger social elite, with the written word now being associated with the recording and expressing of the highest and most sublime spiritual and secular philosophies! If the Buddha had really lived around 500 BCE (like Confucius) it is likely that reading and writing would have been far-spread and routinely used by all spiritual teachers and their students!
At no time do the Chinese records talk of Indian culture as being less advanced or backward when compared to Chinese culture. On the contrary, the Chinese attitude is always one of respect and in many respects ‘awe’! It is doubtful that such an attitude would have existed if Indian culture was found to be ‘illiterate’ whilst China’s cultural elite were by comparison – highly literate. Such an idea is counter-intuitive. This being the case, why does the Western dating suggesting the Buddha lived at the same time as Confucius but was illiterate? The Sui Dynasty Records (581-618 CE) state that a number of Brahmanical texts (now lost) had been earlier transmitted to China (date unknown). In the early days the flow of progressive culture was definitely from India to China and I find it odd that a culture with no developed literacy tradition would be instructing a society with a fully developed and sophisticated literacy tradition! It is far more likely that the historical Buddha lived around 1000 BCE and at that time India and China were at a similar state of cultural development regarding the use of literacy. India’s genius lay in its developed use of the human-mind which it was willing to share with the world! By 500 BCE, again India and China were at similar stages of cultural development and literacy usage – and yet China still acknowledged India as the bedrock of progressive and advanced thinking and culture!
Whilst Easterners are too busy modernising too be that bothered with Ch’an lineage transmissions – many Westerners, by way of contrast, attempt to ‘collect’ transmissions as if they are badges denoting rank or promotions signifying success! This is a complete cultural misreading and is usually accomplished by a huge psychological and physical barrier of ‘dishonesty’ which they feel cannot be seen. On the contrary, those trained in authentic Ch’an Buddhism are able to immediately ‘see through’ this disguise the moment it is made apparent. Many such people who have approached me cannot get pass, over or around me – as I sit like a heavy boulder in their path. I am not going anywhere and have no interest in banal conversation – show me your insight or go away. I do not care what you think (or do not think) as it is all a creation in your own head dependent upon your own conditioning in life – come to me when you have cleared it up and attained ‘stillness’ of mind, expansion of mind or integration of ‘form’ and ‘void’.
Other than that, we have nothing to talk about unless I deem it worthwhile and to the benefit of your own development. All this hold doubly-true for those who still decide to follow fake spiritual teachers in the West and support fraudulent lineages after I have explained the genuine Ch’an Dharma to them. This is why it makes no difference if we maintain an ‘open’ transmission as an act of ‘compassion’ on the ICBI site – as it is each individual’s behaviour that either validates or invalidates such an initiative – and the ICBI can withdraw such a fluid transmission if an individual concerned acts in a disrespectful, dishonourable, dishonest or disruptive manner.
Such individuals cannot uphold the ICBI lineage and claim to still support fake teachers and false transmissions! Furthermore, it is not the place of the ICBI to confirm or deny to individuals which lineages are ‘fake’ or ‘fraudulent’ as this is your own responsibility. The ICBI is a spiritual platform with its historical roots in China and it is Chinese culture which defines its everyday functioning. The ICBI colleagues in Beijing chose the UK as its first non-China base as a springboard into the West. As there are no plans for any further expansion – the UK is considered the cradle of genuine Ch’an outside of China. I will guard this gate for my Chinese colleagues for as long as my life will last and I will assist all and sundry to realise the empty mind ground – but for your own sakes – I certainly will not indulge anyone’s ego!
ACW – SDD (13.8.2021)
Dear ICBI Members
I experienced this practice and found it sharpens the mind and clears the senses. The incense cones burn at a very high temperature and the searing pain is immense - but also highly localised. Beneath the skin of the scalp is the hard bone of the skull so damage is mostly skin-related, although the pain can continue for some time. Within Chinese medicine, however, moxibustion is very well-known as a method for clearing qi-energy channels and preventing or reducing the chance of infection. These cones are placed along the Governing Vessel and the qi, jing (and developing shen) circulate up the back and over the top of the head before descending down through the centre of the face and into the upper mouth. The tongue connects the upper mouth with the lower mouth so that these congealed energies can freely pass down into the Conception Vessel and into the groinal area (this is the circulation of the microcosmic orbit). I suspect Shi Zhide started this practice in 1288 CE as a means to 'unblock' excessive 'yin' energy (or 'negative' qi) trapped in the head area so that the habitual ignorance of humanity could be more easily 'broken' when the Ch'an meditative method is applied. As I was ordained in a 'fighting' order of Cao Dong monks - this practice was also believed to open the energy channels to such an extent that no incoming power from another's martial blow could cause any damage! As the incoming energy connects with the opened energy channels - it is simply 'absorbed' (like water rushing down the drain) and immediately redistributed throughout the system with no blockages being caused. Whatever the case, the mind must be 'stilled' and 'expanded' and this medical ritual assists this process.
Peace in the Dharma
ICBI UK - Admin
Master Xu Yun (1840-1959) certainly understood the paradox of looking into the fabric of our minds – to ‘see’ beyond that which we look with and that which we look at and through. This process, for a Ch’an Master at least, was not considered a contradiction. This Chinese Ch’an method was and still is viewed as the true essence of the message of the historical Buddha (born in India)! Furthermore, the Chinese Ch’an School considers itself unique in preserving the ‘true’ transmission of the historical Buddha free of all the later modifications, distractions and pollutions that entered the various Buddhist communities. Contemporary Western scholars, of course, consider this attitude to be flawed and its assumption to be wrong. According to Western scholarship (which takes its cue from Japanese Buddhism), this ‘Chinese’ attitude is ‘ahistorical’ and nothing but a culturally bias fabrication. According to Japanese researchers (whose work stems from the 1868 Meiji Restoration) - genuine Buddhism ‘died-out’ centuries ago in China and has never recovered!
How strange it must seem to them then, when they encounter Master Xu Yun’s biography (amongst many other eminent Masters) who assert the exact the opposite! Indeed, Master Xu Yun considered many practices associated with Lamaism to be ‘corrupt’, and repeatedly asserted that the immorality and barbarity of the Imperial Japanese Army in China (1931-1945) was the product of the moral corruption of Buddhist practice in Japan. As most Westerners cannot read either the Japanese or Chinese script, they remain unaware of the War Crimes advocated and committed by various Japanese Zen teachers before and during WWII (much of it anti-Western in nature as well as being anti-Chinese) - who later became very famous in the US and lived lives of relative luxury after the War! How strange it seems that very few people have read of how Master Xu Yun heavily criticised a group of Chinese Buddhist monks who had been to Japan and returned home eating meat, drinking alcohol and with wives and children in tow! Although it is true that our minds should be that distracted by worldly matters, at the same time it is equally true that when engaging in worldly matters, the engaging itself must be morally pristine.
Of course, there are people living in Japan who are aware of these contradictions and who do seek to make amends and put historical wrongs right. In the heart of those dojo that teach genuine Zen-Ch'an all of it ‘dissolves’ into irrelevance when the correct Dharma is cultivated. I remember how respectful a delegation of Shaolin monks was treated in Japan a few years ago – particularly when they visited a small dojo whose founding ancestor had visited the Shaolin Temple on Song Mountain many hundreds of years ago! The visiting Shaolin Master studied the Chinese Transmission Documents carefully stored away and guarded in Japan – and finally declared them entirely genuine! The name and location of the dojo – together with its historical details – were taken back to the Shaolin Temple and entered in the Records of Genuine Transmission! Although truth maybe difficult to attain at times, this does not mean that we give-up the task of pursuing it. Truth must prevail over falsehood and that is all there is to it!
The best transmissions of the Dharma happen naturally and unexpectedly. The worst are contrived and actively sought-out. The first example is ‘pure’ whilst the second example is ‘impure’. The problem is that the ego is attracted to transmission – but is entirely unable to meet the demands of such a responsibility! There are no short-cuts to be depended upon by humanity. This can only happen if the principle of humility has been thoroughly embraced, penetrated and integrated with. There is no other way. Transmission cannot be ‘bluffed’ like a business meeting designed to make or encourage material profit. How could it be? As humanity ‘takes’ continuously from those who have inherited the Dharma! Being able to continuously ‘give’ without end, acknowledge or reward is the reality of genuine Ch’an transmission!
Although ‘selling’ the Dharma in the West in fairly normal and to be expected, the historical Buddha never once asked for any type of payment for sharing his wisdom. Indeed, he rejected all forms of commerce and replaced all exchange of goods and services with the simple act of ‘begging’. In China, an emperor outlawed deliberate begging by the Ordained Buddhist Sangha and instead stated that each monastic must be a strict vegetarian and till the ground to grow their own food (as farmers). This is because in the old days, the peasant population of China was already very poor and often had barely enough food for their own survival. Not to be a material burden to the ordinary people, Buddhist monastics had to take care of their own bodily sustenance whilst still providing ‘free’ Dharma-instruction. On occasion, however, Buddhist monastics who are on pilgrimage, are often given food as they walk along the road by the laity they encounter. As it is not expected or demanded – this interaction is tolerated within Chinese culture.
Master Xu Yun (1840-1959) stipulated that all Dharma-instruction should be a) the product of correct understanding, b) correct discipline and c) correct motive. This means that providing an individual has undergone adequate training – then the resultant Dharmic-understanding must be provided ‘free of charge’ (‘correct motivation’). This is to prevent those with money (but no ‘wisdom’) ‘purchasing’ influence over the Dharma-teacher and compromising the integrity of the Dharma. Needless to say, anyone who actively or deliberately ‘charges’ for the Dharma is not a genuine Dharma-teacher and is to be avoided. The accepting of ‘donations’, however, is a different matter but a donation must not be a precursor to teaching the Dharma. If any sense of ‘grasping’ is evident in the mind of the recipient, then he or she is not a true Dharma-teacher.
Author’s Note: As a modern academic who generally sides with logic and reason, but who has specialised in the history and culture of the many spiritual traditions throughout the world, (and who is fluent in the forensic reading, transliterating and translating of ancient and modern Chinese script), I am of the opinion (after decades of research), that the traditions surrounding the history of Chinese Ch’an Buddhism are essentially (and fundamentally) ‘correct’, and have not been subject to the kind of radical (and often dishonest) contextual alteration evident in the religions of the West. Here, the Nan Hua Temple of Northern Guangdong is said to house not only the mummified body of the 6th Patriarch Hui Neng (Still sat upright in meditation for over a thousand years), but also the mummified body of the Indian monk from West India known as Tripitaka Master Jnanabhaisajya!
Within the Chinese language, the Pali name ‘Jnanabhaisajya’ is rendered ‘智樂三藏’ (Zhi Le San Cang) and translates as ‘Wisdom Joy Three Teachings’ or ‘Meditation Happiness Tripitaka’, etc. Within Sanskrit, the Pali term ‘Jnana’ would be ‘Dhyana’ - which is ‘Ch’an’ (禪) in Chinese transliteration. The fact that the Chinese scholars used ‘智樂’ (Zhi Le) instead of ‘禪’ to express the first part of the name of ’Jnanabhaisajya’ (i.e. ‘Jnana’) - suggests a time prior to the arrival of Bodhidharma in China (c. 520 CE) and the founding of the Chinese Ch’an School. Furthermore, Jnanabhaisajya founded the ‘Bao Lin Temple’ (寶林寺 - Bao Lin Si) in 502 CE – which means his prediction of ‘170 years’ would take us to the year ‘672 CE’. This is the year Jnanabhaisajya prophesised that a ‘True Bodhisattva’ would teach the Dharma – referring to Hui Heng (638-713 CE). Hui Neng inherited the Ch’an Dharma when he was 24-years-old in 662 CE. He was ordained at 39-years-old in 677 CE. He dropped his body when he was 76-years-old in 713 CE. However, if Jnanabhaisaiya is correct and Hui Neng delivered the Altar Sutra ‘170’ years after the founding of Bao Lin-Nan Hua Temple in 502 CE – then when this Great Sutra was spoken by Hui Neng in the year 672 CE – five years before he ordained as a monk and at a time when he was still a layman! Master Xu Yun used always say that Hui Neng was a layperson when he delivered the Altar Sutra – a point of fact I have (independently and academically) proven to be correct in the above assessment of the evidence! ACW (21.10.2020)
‘As to the Pao Lin monastery, its construction was decided upon long ago by the Indian Tripitaka Master Jnanabhaisajya who came from India and who, during his journey from Nan Hai (now Canton city), passed through Ts’ao Ch’i where he drank its water which he found pure and fragrant. He was surprised and told his followers: ‘This water is exactly the same as that in West India, there must be at its source someplace of scenic beauty on which to build a monastery.’ Then he followed the stream and saw mountains and rivulets encircling one another with wonderfully beautiful peaks. He exclaimed: ‘It is exactly like the “Precious Wood” on the mountains in West India.’ Then he said to the villagers at Ts’ao Hou: ’You can build a monastery here; some 170 years later, the unsurpassed Dharma treasure will be expounded here and those who will be enlightened will be as many as the trees of these thickets. It should be called “Pao Lin monastery”.’
Charles Luk: Ch’an and Zen Teaching – Third Series – Rider, (1962), Preface: By Ch’an Master Fa Hai, disciple of the Sixth Patriarch – Photograph between Pages 14-15 – Extract Page 17 – this is a Hardback ‘First Edition’ - in later reprints the photograph of Jnanabhaisajya is ‘omitted’.
During a written conversation with long-term ICBI Member - ‘Ben’ - probably around a year or more ago, he suggested that as a spiritual and humanitarian act of compassion, the ICBI should consider ‘universalising’ and ‘internationalising’ the Cao Dong Dharma Lineage as translated from Master Xu Yun (1840-1959) to Charles Luk (1898-1978), and then to Richard Hunn (1949-2006) and his disciple Adrian Chan-Wyles (b. 1967) - that is, myself. I thought this was a very good idea that encompasses the highest elements of both ‘lay’ and ‘monastic’ Buddhism, and which would further benefit the thousands of people who gain much comfort and inspiration from the Chinese Ch’an and Japanese Zen traditions. The Chinese ‘Cao Dong’ lineage, is, of course, the Japanese ‘Soto’ lineage transmitted to Japan from China during the 13th century by Master Dogen. Although I have written elsewhere about the historical, political and military realities manifesting within Mainland China during the 1930s and 1940s, these factual observations are not designed to negate or denigrate the Japanese Zen tradition, which is culturally relevant for the country and culture it serves. This is because the empty mind ground [心地 - Xin Di] (i.e. ‘non-perception’ in the Pali Suttas) underlies ALL reality without exception. When material reality manifests – it is simultaneously ‘perceptible’ (in the Pali Suttas) - bearing in-mind that the Buddha describes reality in the Four Noble Truths as arising from matter, sensation, perception, volitional thought and consciousness. As enlightenment within the Ch’an School is described as ‘being neither attached to void, nor hindered by phenomena’ - reality cannot be limited to the ‘void’ (idealism), or ‘phenomena’ (materialism). This is a reality express in the Five Ranks of Prince and Minister as preserved within the Cao Dong lineage. Therefore, anyone who sincerely puts into practice the Path of the Guild of Hui Neng (which includes and yet transcends the ‘lay’ and ‘monastic’ paths) may consider themselves ongoing inheritors of the ICBI lineage of Cao Dong as discussed and agreed with key lay and monastic Members of the Buddhist Association of China (2020). This transmission is separate and distinct from any ‘private’ arrangements or transmissions conveyed to specific individuals for various and precise reasons of spiritual development. This development depends entirely upon a self-monitoring ‘virtue’, ‘compassion’ and ‘wisdom’ and is only relevant if driven by a pure and pristine spiritual honesty. The mind must be clear and the heart must be all-embracing.
Adrian Chan-Wyles (Shi Da Dao) - (4.10.2020)
Buddhist Association of China
Adrian Chan-Wyles (釋大道 - Shi Da Dao) is permitted to retain his Buddhist Monastic Dharma-Name within Lay-society by decree of the Government of the People’s Republic of China, and the Chinese Buddhist Association (1992). A Buddhist monastic (and devout lay-practitioner) upholds the highest levels of Vinaya Discipline and Bodhisattva Vows. A Genuine Buddhist ‘Venerates’ the ‘Dao’ (道) as he or she penetrates the ‘Empty Mind-Ground' through meditative insight. A genuine Buddhist is humble, wise and peace-loving – and he or she selflessly serves all in existence in the past, present and the future, and residing within the Ten Directions – whilst retaining a vegetarian- vegan diet. Please be kind to animals!
- ICBI Blog: Mind-Ground (心地)
- ICBI China Office (Beijing)
- Master Xu Yun
- Degeneration of the Sangha in the Dharma-ending Age By Ch’an Master Xu Yun
- Ch’an Master Jing Hui - History of Master Xu Yun’s Complete Biographical Text
- Xu Yun’s Humanistic Spirit Transmitted into the Modern Era
- Master Xu Yun & Modern Chinese Politics
- On Why Ch’an Master Xu Yun (1840-1959) Rejected Japanese Zen
- Master Xu Yun Memorial Photographic Library
- Dharma Master Ji Qun (济群) Explains Profound (Dharmic) Happiness
- Chinese Buddhism & Vegetarianism
- Qianfeng Daoism (UK)
Ch'an Guild of Hui Neng (慧能禅宗协会)
- CGHN Membership Certificate
- Master Ti Guang – Karma
- Master Ti Guang – Mind That Does Not Deviate
- Meditation Instrument - Fragrant Board
- Ch’an Daily Work
- Horse Hair Dust-Whisk in Chinese Ch’an Buddhism
- New Shaolin Temple in China
- Master Yuan Chun: Universal Dharma
- Modern Chinese Art and Ch’an Buddhism
- The Huatou and Pain Management
- Martial Virtue (武德–Wu De)
- Seated Transformation (坐化 – Zuo Hua)
- Guiding Principles
- ICBI Projects
- Direction of the ICBI
- Journal of the ICBI
- Contact Us
©opyright: Site design, layout & content International Ch'an Buddhism Institute (ICBI). No part of this site (or information contained herein) unless otherwise stated, may be copied, reproduced, duplicated, or otherwise distributed without prior written permission from email@example.com
Proudly powered by Weebly