How Important is Commitment?

Robyn

Hello all,

I do not post very often (I can be a bit of a lurker...) but I have a question that I have been mulling over a lot.

How important do you guys think commitment is to a particular spiritual path or Buddhist school is for development?

I remember back when I was a Christian, pastors would talk about how you may not necessarily "feel" good about God and Christ all the time - you may not have a "spiritual high" for quite some time, but it doesn't matter. You do not depend on feelings / answers to prayers / results - it is a matter of commitment and faith. In Buddhism, I have found individuals who view people that do not commit as folks "trying to do smorgasburg spirituality", picking and choosing what you like from different religions and philosophies and dropping what you do not like - and they view this as a bad thing.

I have found that if I focus too much on one school / one area, I get less benefit, get less realizations, and get less inspiration. But when I switch around between different schools, philosophies, and religions in my own personal studies, I find realizations/Eureka moments/inspirational moments happen a lot more frequently. Maybe it's that I get bored or something, but I honestly find benefit from switching it up - you get a different perspective and it can sometimes shed light on something that you were confused about.

Do you guys find the same - or do you try to commit to a particular school of Buddhism? How important is commitment? I've read that some folks say "there is only so far you can get" without it.

Note: I pretty much consider myself a Buddhist for the most part and I get most of my benefit from meditation and studying Buddhism, but I study different schools of Mayana Buddhism and Thervada Buddhism and have found benefit from practices from both. Could I be an odd one out?

Jeffrey

Trungpa Rinpoche, I am sure you have heard, wrote about this in his book Spiritual Materialism. All Buddhism is dharma. Maybe now you will sample and later choose. That change will take a eureka moment itself. Or maybe it won't; what do I know?

I think it is obvious that deeper relationships with guru and sangha improve with the growth of the relationship. As far as dharma the problem is that some of the pieces that are your bugaboos might really be of value. Sometimes the hardest lessons help us the most. I hate the parental way people respond to questions so I apologize.

Thich Nhat Hanh said in his commentary that Dharma is not Dharma. Because it has no intrinsic existence. He said that things seemingly not part of the dharma can be part of the teaching just like different parts of the chariot also are the chariot in a way.

how

I too find great worth in studying other Buddhist schools but I do stick to one practice.


Part of a Buddhist practice is coming face to face many things we have spent a life time avoiding.
A dedicated commitment to the school or path of your choice means that when a hard to face situations arises in your practice, you don't have the easy out of just switching practices to avoid it.

This is not the whole story of practice but is an important consideration to keep in mind.

karasti

I study many things, in and out of Buddhism. But my specific practice is committed because it is what i was drawn to do. I follow a path or plan or sorts laid out by my teacher just because it is most helpful to me. Otherwise what happens is that I run across a question, and I start looking for answers. I come here, or elsewhere and get a dozen answers to one question, none of which really help me decide which way to go. But my teacher knows me in a more intimate way (not sexually or anything, lol) and so he usually knows the right things to say to point me in the direction of answers that will make the most sense to me. I personally find having a teacher invaluable, rather than just picking up insight from books. I still get insight from other areas of Buddhism and other religions even. But I get the most out of having a relationship with a teacher who knows me and my challenges and understands my questions in ways I cannot always understand them myself. My Sangha is also part of this, and as time has gone on, they can tell when I'm asking BS questions and they'll call me correctly on it. Those things only come with development of relationships that cannot come solely from books and internet. IMO, of course.

But, this has come over time. I jumped out of Christianity more than 20 years ago and it's taken this long to get to the point I am at. Before I was very much "I know myself and what I need, and if that means cherry picking, then screw what anyone else says." For a time, that worked for me and was necessary for me to let go of hangups and truly research and study various things. But once something felt like home, I had to eventually stop being afraid of what that meant.

misterCope

I find, very often, that when someone insists that you do something (such as stick to one way of thinking), it is wise to consider why that person is so insistent. Why does that person think that it's so important to follow a singular path? You should look for the true reasons, not just the answers provided to you.

Also, I've noticed that the more I learn about different things, the more I realize that vastly different ideas aren't really so different after all. For instance, Lakota Indians have a saying, "mitakuye oyasin," which means "everything is connected." Sound familiar? Or Quakers gather in groups and sit silently together. Or that the vast majority of Muslims believe in peace above all else. Or that Science supports the idea that we are all pieces of a whole.

I agree with @karasti that you will probably eventually settle into something that feels right for you. Religion and philosophy are like medicine in that, while they all have an intended purpose, they will have different effects on different people.

Kundo

But when I switch around between different schools, philosophies, and religions in my own personal studies, I find realizations/Eureka moments/inspirational moments happen a lot more frequently. Maybe it's that I get bored or something, but I honestly find benefit from switching it up - you get a different perspective and it can sometimes shed light on something that you were confused about

Namaste @Robyn,

I think at this point, you _DO_ get bored, but you know what? Tha's not necessarily a BAD thing. Maybe it's your way of recognising what you are doing at that point in time is not for you.

I agree with @karasti that when you find "the right fit" you will stop mixing and matching and settle into the flow. Don't get too worked up about it. I felt like you did too not so long ago. Then things just "clicked" and I don't want to look around anymore

In metta,
Raven

DairyLama

Robyn said:

I have found that if I focus too much on one school / one area, I get less benefit, get less realizations, and get less inspiration. But when I switch around between different schools, philosophies, and religions in my own personal studies, I find realizations/Eureka moments/inspirational moments happen a lot more frequently. Maybe it's that I get bored or something, but I honestly find benefit from switching it up - you get a different perspective and it can sometimes shed light on something that you were confused about.

Yes, I've had a similar experience, though I am easily bored and I'm not sure that's not always a good thing. My solution was to establish a "core practice" which has provided some continuity and perspective over the years.

Citta

No rush..take your time. Then commit and stick. Its a marriage.

Florian

Commitment does not have to mean picking just one method and sticking to it come what may. The commitment may be to the goal and not the means of transport. The Buddha tried out various practices. But leaving aside the details I'd say commitment is everything.

Citta

Commitment is to teacher and /or Sangha. Not method.

riverflow

Robyn said:

I have found that if I focus too much on one school / one area, I get less benefit, get less realizations, and get less inspiration. But when I switch around between different schools, philosophies, and religions in my own personal studies, I find realizations/Eureka moments/inspirational moments happen a lot more frequently. Maybe it's that I get bored or something, but I honestly find benefit from switching it up - you get a different perspective and it can sometimes shed light on something that you were confused about.

I actually operate a lot in the same way. Sometimes other religious traditions or philosophies can shed light on Buddhist practice simply by looking at an issue from a totally different perspective. I learned how to connect more deeply with Buddhism last year by studying Stoic philosophy, which, on the surface, seems very different from Buddhism. Also, I feel a closer connection to my Catholic past in a healthier way as a Buddhist, which I never expected. Likewise, I think exploring other Buddhist schools can have some benefit. I don't think that unusual, but a healthier attitude. Seeing those common connections expressed differently I personally find very beneficial and enriching.

However, all that said, I've kept my primary focus on Chan/Zen, and now I've narrowed that down specifically to Thich Nhat Hanh's tradition. Exploring other avenues simply enhances my own particular practice. That way I can have my cake and eat it too!

DairyLama

Citta said:

Commitment is to teacher and /or Sangha. Not method.

Traditionally people commit to the 3 jewels, ie Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.

DairyLama

riverflow said:

....I've narrowed that down specifically to Thich Nhat Hanh's tradition.

Good tradition.

Florian

riverflow said:

Robyn said:

I have found that if I focus too much on one school / one area, I get less benefit, get less realizations, and get less inspiration. But when I switch around between different schools, philosophies, and religions in my own personal studies, I find realizations/Eureka moments/inspirational moments happen a lot more frequently. Maybe it's that I get bored or something, but I honestly find benefit from switching it up - you get a different perspective and it can sometimes shed light on something that you were confused about.

I actually operate a lot in the same way. Sometimes other religious traditions or philosophies can shed light on Buddhist practice simply by looking at an issue from a totally different perspective. I learned how to connect more deeply with Buddhism last year by studying Stoic philosophy, which, on the surface, seems very different from Buddhism. Also, I feel a closer connection to my Catholic past in a healthier way as a Buddhist, which I never expected. Likewise, I think exploring other Buddhist schools can have some benefit. I don't think that unusual, but a healthier attitude. Seeing those common connections expressed differently I personally find very beneficial and enriching.

However, all that said, I've kept my primary focus on Chan/Zen, and now I've narrowed that down specifically to Thich Nhat Hanh's tradition. Exploring other avenues simply enhances my own particular practice. That way I can have my cake and eat it too!

I'm with you all the way @Riverflow. I learnt about Christianity, which I once rejected as a lot of nonsense, from Buddhism. Stoicism also. Both now seem perfectly consistent with Buddhism.

Oddly I think that practicing Zen, which in a way is a rejection of philosophy and analysis, gives one the freedon to expore and compare all the different doctrines and philosophies, since it is easy to just put them all to one side when necesssary. While if one is committed to a more intellectual method it may be difficult to navigate all the different ideas without disturbing ones own thoughts and practices. It allows one to study the various philosophical ideas without getting bogged down in them.

Citta

SpinyNorman said:

Citta said:

Commitment is to teacher and /or Sangha. Not method.

Traditionally people commit to the 3 jewels, ie Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.

From a Dzogchen pov the teacher is all three plus one. Other views are available.

Victorious

@Robyn.

You should commit to your own Dhamma not somebody elses.

Just like Gotama did study different traditions and teachers (not only what they teach but also how they are and how they behave and think).

Then you must form your own path from the knowleadge and experience you have got.

When you get stuck or need inspiration you go back to your Masters and their traditions and study some more and then back again to your own path.

After doing this for a while you will realise that the people that used to be your masters are in fact just "Elder brothers" now. And they will respect you as well as you respect them.

This is the path to Mastry of the Dhamma or in fact any art at all. Not to commit/submit to others paths and traditions but to take your life into your own hands and make your own path. Your life and enlightenment is your responsibility not your teachers nor any "traditions".

This is what Buddhism teaches. Nobody can make you enlightend they can only point the way and you have got find out for yourself how to walk that path. To, i.e, make it your own path. You got to own it.

This is how I roll.... :om: .

Good Luck.
/Victor

Vastmind

I have found it pretty important. I expose myself to all of Buddhism....
I'm an equal-opportunity lover, hahaha.....but
am currently in a Sangha with @riverflow focusing on Chan/Zen/TNH tradition.
My practice needs the consistancy of hangin' with like minded people. It also
provides a flow to my practice, where 1 teaching leads to another and so on.
It's hard to explain, but it definetly bumps up my responsability and accountability.

lobster

I feel a closer connection to my Catholic past in a healthier way as a Buddhist, which I never expected.

I never understood Christianity until studying dharma . . .

Does a realized person using another system of development become a Buddha, arahat or saint?
Well . . the idea that the realised, saintly or developed are different in their knowing is a concern for those convinced theirs is the 'one way', only way, superior way, top to a different mountain etc. In reality the atheistic Buddhist may become aware of a presence that equates with God. Similarly the theistic mystic may develop an apprehension of a god that disappears into a void or absence of God. This may never happen as the conditioned expressions and modes of thought become meaningless distinctions. So for other people, the Hindu mystic may be revered by Sufi mystics or visited by Buddhists.

Should we stay within our own system?
Largely yes. Confusion is bad enough within any spiritual path, as the doubts and uncertainties become eradicated in the light of experience. One of the signs of maturity is being able to profit from the teaching and the recognition of ones own inaptitude.

We are the beginner. Everyone else is the teacher . . . which I think I read on a fortune cookie . . .
:wave:

karmablues

Here are some excerpts of a talk by Ajahn Sumedho which you may find useful. The full text is available here:
http://www.amaravati.org/documents/cittavivaka/data/15attac.html

......

Our refuges are deliberately set up as Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, rather than as the personality of any teacher.... You could say, 'Ajahn Sumedho is my teacher; Ajahn Tiradhammo is not my teacher. I'll only learn from Venerable Sucitto and not from any other' – along like that. We can create all kinds of problems in this way, can't we? 'I'm a Theravada Buddhist; therefore I can't learn from those Tibetan Buddhists or those Zen Buddhists.' It's very easy for us to become sectarian in this way because, if something is different from what we're used to, we suspect it of not being as good as or as pure as what we've devoted ourselves to. But in meditation, what we are aiming at is truth, full understanding and enlightenment, inclining away from the jungle of selfishness, conceit, pride, and human passions. So it's not very wise to attach to a particular teacher to the point where you refuse to learn from any other.

But some teachers encourage this attitude. They say, 'Once you take me as your teacher, then don't you go to any other teacher! Don't you learn from any other tradition! If you accept me as your teacher, you can't go to any other.' There are a lot of teachers that bind you to themselves in that way, and they have very good reasons sometimes, because people just 'go shopping'. They go from one teacher to another teacher, and another ... and never learn anything. But I think the problem is not so much in 'shopping' as in attaching to a teacher or tradition to the point where you have to exclude all others. That makes for a sect, a sectarian mind, with which people cannot recognise wisdom or learn from anything unless it's in the exact words and conventions that they are used to. That keeps us very limited, narrow and frightened. People become afraid to listen to another teacher because it might cause doubt to arise in their minds, or they might feel that they are not being a loyal student of their particular tradition. The Buddhist Path is to develop wisdom, and loyalty and devotion help in that. But if they are ends in themselves, then they are obstacles.

‘Wisdom' in this sense means using wisdom in our practice of meditation. How do we do that? How do we use wisdom? By recognising our own particular forms of pride, conceit, and the attachments we have to our views and opinions, to the material world, to the tradition and the teacher, and to the friends we have. Now this doesn't mean that we think we shouldn't attach, or that we should get rid of all these. That's not wise either, because wisdom is the ability to observe attachment and understand it and let go – rather than attach to ideas that we shouldn't be attached to anything.

Sometimes you hear monks or nuns or lay people here saying, 'Don't attach to anything.' So we attach to the view that we shouldn't be attached! 'I'm not going to attach to Ajahn Sumedho; I can learn from anybody. I'm going to leave, just to prove I'm not attached to Venerable Sumedho.' Then you're attaching to the idea that you shouldn't be attached to me, or that you've got to go away to prove that you're not attached – which isn't it at all. That's not being wise, is it? You're just attaching to something else.

.......

So we're recognising attachment, and it's wisdom that recognises attachment. This doesn't mean that we have to attach to any other opinion, but to just recognise and know attachment frees us from being deluded by the attachments we do make.

Recognise that attaching does have a certain value. We have to learn to walk first of all by crawling, just by waving our arms and legs. When a baby is young, the mother doesn't say, 'Don't wave your arms and legs like that! Walk!' or 'You'll always be dependent on me, nursing at my breast, clinging to me all the time, you'll just be clinging to your mother all your life!' The baby needs to attach to the mother. But if it's the mother's intention to keep the baby attached to her all the time, then it's not very wise of her. When we can allow people to attach to us in order to give them strength, so that when they have strength they can let go of us, that's compassion.

......

Don't expect any social situation, any society, any organisation or group to be perfect or to be an end in itself. It's only a conventional form, and like anything, it is unsatisfactory if we're expecting to be completely satisfied by it. Any teacher or guru that you attach to will inevitably disappoint you in some respect – even if they are saintly gurus, they still die ... or they disrobe and marry 16-year-old girls.... They might do anything: the history of religious idols can be really disillusioning! I used to consider, when I was a young bhikkhu in Thailand, what would I do if Ajahn Chah suddenly said, 'Buddhism is a farce! I want nothing to do with it! I'm going to disrobe and marry a rich woman'? What would I do if Ajahn Buddhadasa said, 'Studying Buddhism all these years is a farce, it's a waste of time. I'm going to become a Christian!'? What would I do if the Dalai Lama disrobed and married an American lady?

.......

Does my being a monk depend on the support or devotion of all the other people around me, or the pronouncements of Ajahn Chah or the Dalai Lama? Does my practice of meditation depend upon support from others, encouragement, and having everybody live up to my expectations? If it does, it could be easily destroyed, couldn't it?

When I was a junior monk, I used to consider that I must have confidence in my own insight and not depend on everyone around me supporting my particular position. Through the years I've had many chances to be disillusioned in this life ... but I keep reflecting, rather than depending on everything going in a positive way for me. What I'm doing I have confidence in, from my own understanding of it, not because I believe or need the support and approval of others. In your life you must ask these questions: is your becoming a samana – a monk or a nun – dependent upon me encouraging you, upon others, upon hope, expectations for the future, upon rewards and all that? Or are you determined in your own right to realise the truth?

Then stay within the particular conventional form, pushing it to its ultimate just to see how far it can take you, rather than give up when it doesn't, when you begin to be disillusioned with the whole thing. Sometimes at Wat Pah Pong I felt so fed up with things and felt so negative towards the other monks, not because they did anything very wrong, but just because I became depressed and couldn't see anything other than negative views. Then it was necessary to observe it, rather than to believe it, for one endures through the unendurable to find that one can endure anything.

So we're not here to find [one's] teacher, but to be willing to learn from everything – from the rats and the mosquitoes, from the inspired teachers, from the depressed ones, from the ones that disappoint us and the ones that never disappoint us. Because we're not trying to find perfection in conventional forms, or in teachers.

Citta

A very good and characteristically clear statement of the Theravadin view from Luang Por Sumedho.
The Dzogchen/Vajrayana view of course takes its orientation from a different perspective.

karmablues

Robyn said:

I pretty much consider myself a Buddhist for the most part and I get most of my benefit from meditation and studying Buddhism, but I study different schools of Mayana Buddhism and Thervada Buddhism and have found benefit from practices from both. Could I be an odd one out?

You are definitely not the odd one out. Many highly accomplished teachers have studied under teachers of different schools of Buddhism. To name a few:

- Jack Kornfield, studied under Theravada (eg. Ajahn Chah, Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw, Ajahn Buddhadasa) and Tibetan Buddhism (Kalu Rinpoche)

- Sharon Salzberg, studied under Theravada (eg. Goenka, Ven. Sayadaw U Pandita) and Tibetan Buddhism (eg. Kalu Rinpoche, Rigpe Dorje - the 16th Karmapa, Nyoshul Khenpo Rinpoche)

- Joseph Goldstein, studied under Theravada (eg. eg. Goenka, Ven. Sayadaw U Pandita) and Tibetan Buddhism (eg. Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, Nyoshul Khenpo Rinpoche)

-Lama Surya Das (a lineage holder of Nyoshul Khenpo Rinpoche) studied under Theravada (eg. Goenka, Anagarika Munindra), Zen Buddhism (eg. Uchiyama Roshi) and Tibetan Buddhism (eg. Thubten Yeshe, Kalu Rinpoche, Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche)

- Lawrence Kantipalo, studied under Theravada (eg. Ajahn Maha Boowa), Chan Buddhism (eg. Yogi Chen), Tibetan Buddhism (eg. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu)

- Sangharakshita, studied under Theravada (eg. Ven. Jagdish Kashyap), Tibetan Buddhism (eg. Dhardo Rinpoche, Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche), Chan Buddhism (Yogi Chen)

- Lama Anagarika Govinda (founder of the Order of the Arya Maitreya Mandala), studied under Theravada (eg. Nyanatiloka Thera) and Tibetan Buddhism (eg. Ajo Repa Rinpoche, Lama Ngawang Kalzang aka Tomo Geshe Rinpoche)

The school I practice under is the Thai forest tradition but I am also very much influenced by the Burmese tradition of Mahasi Sayadaw, both of which are Theravadan. I would not go as far as to take up studies as a student under the teacher of another school, but I have found it beneficial to read the material of other schools of Buddhism. For example, I have certainly gained a much broader perspective on the meaning of not-self by reading about emptiness from the Mahayana perspective. I have also become more open to the idea of taking up vegetarianism. A lot of this I would attribute to the newbuddhist.com sangha that help me to broaden my views.

David

riverflow said:

Robyn said:

I have found that if I focus too much on one school / one area, I get less benefit, get less realizations, and get less inspiration. But when I switch around between different schools, philosophies, and religions in my own personal studies, I find realizations/Eureka moments/inspirational moments happen a lot more frequently. Maybe it's that I get bored or something, but I honestly find benefit from switching it up - you get a different perspective and it can sometimes shed light on something that you were confused about.

I actually operate a lot in the same way. Sometimes other religious traditions or philosophies can shed light on Buddhist practice simply by looking at an issue from a totally different perspective. I learned how to connect more deeply with Buddhism last year by studying Stoic philosophy, which, on the surface, seems very different from Buddhism. Also, I feel a closer connection to my Catholic past in a healthier way as a Buddhist, which I never expected. Likewise, I think exploring other Buddhist schools can have some benefit. I don't think that unusual, but a healthier attitude. Seeing those common connections expressed differently I personally find very beneficial and enriching.

However, all that said, I've kept my primary focus on Chan/Zen, and now I've narrowed that down specifically to Thich Nhat Hanh's tradition. Exploring other avenues simply enhances my own particular practice. That way I can have my cake and eat it too!

I'm the same way, right down to Thich Nhat Hanh. He is one of the only ones who's teachings hit home every time. He represents a different branch of Zen than his Japanese counterparts but calls himself non-sectarian.

I think the fact there are so many branches and schools within Buddhism is a testament to individual interpretation and so it makes sense to me to gain an individual understanding over a socially accepted one.

Commit to understanding but not to somebody else's understanding.

footiam

Robyn said:

Hello all,

I do not post very often (I can be a bit of a lurker...) but I have a question that I have been mulling over a lot.

How important do you guys think commitment is to a particular spiritual path or Buddhist school is for development?

I remember back when I was a Christian, pastors would talk about how you may not necessarily "feel" good about God and Christ all the time - you may not have a "spiritual high" for quite some time, but it doesn't matter. You do not depend on feelings / answers to prayers / results - it is a matter of commitment and faith. In Buddhism, I have found individuals who view people that do not commit as folks "trying to do smorgasburg spirituality", picking and choosing what you like from different religions and philosophies and dropping what you do not like - and they view this as a bad thing.

I have found that if I focus too much on one school / one area, I get less benefit, get less realizations, and get less inspiration. But when I switch around between different schools, philosophies, and religions in my own personal studies, I find realizations/Eureka moments/inspirational moments happen a lot more frequently. Maybe it's that I get bored or something, but I honestly find benefit from switching it up - you get a different perspective and it can sometimes shed light on something that you were confused about.

Do you guys find the same - or do you try to commit to a particular school of Buddhism? How important is commitment? I've read that some folks say "there is only so far you can get" without it.

Note: I pretty much consider myself a Buddhist for the most part and I get most of my benefit from meditation and studying Buddhism, but I study different schools of Mayana Buddhism and Thervada Buddhism and have found benefit from practices from both. Could I be an odd one out?

Commitment should be more for a husband and a wife. For religions, it is just some ideas which you could use to guide your life. You don't have to use all the ideas there, I suppose. If you become too committed to a religion, Buddhism included, you'd want to marry it.

DairyLama

Victorious said:

You should commit to your own Dhamma not somebody elses.
Then you must form your own path from the knowleadge and experience you have got.
When you get stuck or need inspiration you go back to your Masters and their traditions and study some more and then back again to your own path.

I agree, but I don't think everyone would.