Best Of

Everything in life besides nibbana that we can experience is relative, including what views we are exposed to and adopt. The Buddha tried to make his simple, focusing on how to end suffering and laying out a set of teachings and practices we are encouraged to adopt, on some amount of faith, and test. And if one particular tradition, teachings, or set of teachers appeals more to us, we can say we practice in that particular tradition as a linguistic and conceptual convenience for the sake of communication. Does it matter if the tradition fully accepts us as long as we accept and benefit from a tradition? Not much, in my opinion. I gain a lot from Theravda and the contemplative tradition of Catholicism, for example, and it doesn't matter much to me if everyone in those respective traditions accepts me. These things are ultimately a guide, not the goal themselves. What matters is if I'm benefiting and progressing along the path. Am I causing less suffering? Am I experiencing less suffering? If the answer is yes, the rest is moot. If the answer is no, then I might need to review my views and actions. One doesn't need to completely accept a tradition or vice versa. Worldly conversations and designations are useful, but not ultimately necessary.

@David said:
They may be the only physical branch of the Sangha around. I think if the 4NTs are at the core, then teachings that don't resonate can be sort of put on the back burner. I guess it would depend on how fundamentally different the group is doctrine wise but I've found that some teachers lessons are in their actions more than in their words. Do they move the story forward? Do their actions bear fruit?

That is certainly true as far as finding a physical Sangha is concerned. And even when the 4NT are not at the core — like with Thich Nhat Hanh, who is definitely mindfulness first — it can work out ok. Dip your toe in the water, see what you can learn and where it takes you, but its best not to let it carry you away on a wash of enthusiasm so that you no longer examine the teachings you take on board.

After all, membership of a physical sangha also implies that you stand behind its teachings. And there are some difficult teachings in Buddhism: for example, the Three Poisons view of anger is very different from the psychological view. And do we fully stand behind Cessation, which is not exactly a life-positive philosophy? The whole idea of enlightenment as represented in some traditions is to get off the Wheel of Samsara, to not be reborn, is that not a self-destructive approach? Finding what is the right answer for you specifically is not always easy.

That's basically why I am non-sectarian though Buddhism to me is not a collection of teachings we take on faith but a process of progressive awareness. The 4NTs point out that suffering has a cause and so can be uprooted by addressing the cause. That can be tested and that's the progression.

Which is an admirable way to proceed through buddhism. In practice though, you can come to a place where you don’t really have the feeling of having made progress in a while. Now the standard buddhist answer is, it’s not about progress as such. And that’s fine, the practice goes on forever. And as long as your suffering keeps decreasing, all is well, and when it doesn’t you can go study suttas.

But its good to keep an eye on what is beneficial, and when you notice things are no longer moving in the right direction to have a good chat with yourself about where you really think you are going.

We are all unique aspects of life in various stages so it would be odd to see complete alignment in views. A whole can be divided infinitely and an awareness of self that depends on how another sees is not an authentic expression. Just to use examples we all may know, look at Thich Nhat Hanh as compared to H.H. The Dalai Lama as compared to Ajahn Chah. They end up coming to the same conclusion but take different ways to get there. Sometimes they contradict each other but the teachings themselves are mere pointers to the truth they would represent all too well to an aspect of self in exact alignment.

Indeed, and here too the different paths all go up the mountain. Just as one has to choose a tradition within buddhism to be taught in, it seems to me also sometimes one's alignment in views means one has to look outside buddhism. I wouldn’t want to abandon the lessons taught in buddhism, I think there is a lot of wisdom in learning to deeply look into one’s suffering.

As usual I see a lot of sense in your standpoint @person, gassho

I think blind trust will be difficult to come by for westerners who have not been brought up in a buddhist tradition. Certainly for me there is a lot of resistance to concepts like karma and reincarnation.

But I see what you mean — that people see the inner beauty of the Buddhists, and feel that is possible for them as well, and are willing to set some of these more difficult-to-accept aspects of the tradition to one side. I remember making that compromise too. Its also true that the more you come across things that are true, the more you will be inclined to also believe the things you have set aside, or at least to let them be.

And while I agree it would be a beautiful thing to have confidence in a body of knowledge, I’m not convinced Buddhist knowledge is coherent enough to be considered as one body. Different books, different authors, different times, different levels of advancement. The best buddhist books I have read have been like mines with here and there the odd gem of a statement.

The thing is, my sense of progress in buddhism really levelled off, and I came across some things which made me seriously doubt the end goal. Thats what kicked off my second stage of seeking, casting the net wider for some different approaches.

@FleaMarket said:
What would be an example of natural thought that could not be determined as deliberate thought?

I thought about this and then my head hurt.

The last thing you want to end up as when watching your thoughts in formal meditation is what the Tibetans would liken to "a cat watching a mouse hole".
I know, isn't that a great image.

Our mind has had a lifetime of experience in creating and maintaining a storyline of its dominion over all other presentations of reality. Meditation is a means of weaning us off our habituated support for our minds maintenance program of that storyline. Any direct confrontation against our minds storyline will quickly introduce you to a master opponent so skilled in all the adversarial arts that you will have lost before you started.
This mind state is not something that can be out-thought or convinced to participate in a makeover of any substance.
The only passage I know to address the habituated conditioning of a ruling mind is to stop inadvertently conflicting with it on its home turf.
Because anything you hope to acquire in this process can easily become an attachment and be weaponized against you, I think the less delusive approaches to meditation are more through processes of renunciation.

The description of natural thought, as opposed to deliberate thought, was to present an alternative to the supposition of a need to align your views to someone else's.

I think meditation serves us much better as an acceptance of fluidity or the wider state of chaos itself than as something that can be solidified or codified.