Self Reliance

Kartari

When I began learning about Buddhism many years ago, my studies were broad and focused more on meditation and practice than in reading the suttas and other works. I always related to having a practice rooted in self reliance, and so I focused on those practices.

As I have come to begin studying Buddhism more diligently in more recent days, in terms of not only the suttas and sutras, but of the history and traditions of Buddhism in their varied entirety, I have come to recognize that there are longstanding traditions of Buddhism that ask us to rely on outside help, at least in part, or in some cases, to entirely rely on outside help from higher beings that are wiser than we are.

So I thought I'd start a new discussion with regards to being self reliant vs. relying on superior beings to awaken you. Which of these do you ascribe to? Or which do you value more if you feel that both are needed?

For myself, I adhere to the premise of self reliance entirely. Perhaps it's my modern agnostic/atheistic bent, but I see no reason to rely on certain beings to awaken whom, as far as I can tell, exist only in our imaginations. Not that I'm opposed to help from others, but even if supernatural beings do exist, I think the best another being can do for others is to guide them; none can control others, one must learn to control themselves. Also, I think this was the Buddha's original message, which is a message I agree with, that, as he put it and as recorded in the Dhammapada, "Purity and impurity depend on oneself; noone can purify another."

Cloud

Moving this to Buddhism & World Religions; there is no salvation through superior beings in Buddhism, so it's not "Buddhism for Beginners" thread material. The closest to what you're talking about is Pure Land school, but as it's been explained to me the chanting of Amitabha/Amida is an act of meditation and aligning with Amitabha's character traits rather than a prayer for salvation.

Tradition holds that beings exist on other planes, such as hungry ghosts and devas (gods), but that other than either being in perpetual pain or bliss, they still are born, age and die (are not immortal); and even the devas are delusional, and are not said to have power/influence regarding humans. Some take this as metaphorical, meaning the state of mind one is in. Not even the godly realms are true freedom, we must transcend both pain and pleasure.

Enlightenment is self-salvation, although people are free to believe anything they want if they're just wanting to be "regular" happy like normal.

BuckyG

self reliant vs. relying

i believe this is less of a dichotomy than a dialectic

DhammaDhatu

for me, Pali Buddhism is more towards self-reliance, that is, applying the Dhamma oneself to one's life

Where as Vajrayana is more towards relying on others, that is, if one is the Vajrayana devotee (rather than the Vajrayana Bodhisatva)

Regards

person

Ultimately its up to us to put into practice the teachings no one can do it for us. But relying on a teacher can help us avoid pitfalls and move along the path easier. If you wanted to learn calculus you could probably pick up a book and teach yourself but if you had a tudor that understood calculus they could easily show you where your mistakes are and how to correct them.

Another way to look at it is, following the writen teachings is like following a map through the wilderness, following a qualified teacher is like following a guide who lives in that wilderness and knows the way. If you know how to read a map you can probably get there, but if you have a guide who knows the terrain they'll know all the little pitfalls and shortcuts that don't show up on the map.

genkaku

I once asked my teacher, Kyudo Nakagawa Roshi, who, precisely, the "teacher" was. He replied, "Except for me, everything is the teacher." Everything-is-the-teacher would include, I imagine, so-called superior beings ... like (minus the superiority) me.

zenff

Dogen seemed to have a totalitarian view on this.
I read a little book from him, but I dumped it somewhere because I didn’t like it.
He repeatedly said that monks must abandon all their ideas about the Dharma, the practice and whatever else they think they know something about. And instead they must follow the instructions of the living Buddha in front of them (the teacher that is).

I can imagine a teacher does not wish to lose much time on discussions with his students, but I think this Dogen style of teaching is wrong.
Students have to learn to think (about Buddhism) with their own brains. That’s the only thing they have when they face new questions and real life situations.

Besides, I always hate it when a teacher makes his students look small and stupid.
I’ve seen it too often.
I don’t think it helps people. It’s just a way to attract masochists and clear the way for abusing them.

So I vote for “self-reliance” as the prime factor.

Kartari

Moving this to Buddhism & World Religions; there is no salvation through superior beings in Buddhism, so it's not "Buddhism for Beginners" thread material. The closest to what you're talking about is Pure Land school, but as it's been explained to me the chanting of Amitabha/Amida is an act of meditation and aligning with Amitabha's character traits rather than a prayer for salvation.

Perhaps it is my misunderstanding then. I had thought likewise, but I've been listening to a Great Courses 24-part lecture by Prof. Eckel of Boston University. Cross referencing his other information has proven accurate, but he makes it sound like some Mahayana traditions, like Pure Land, advocate relying in part or even entirely on superior beings like Bodhisattvas for one's own awakening. Prof. Eckel is coming from a Christian background, so maybe he is inadvertently mixing the two up.

Tradition holds that beings exist on other planes, such as hungry ghosts and devas (gods), but that other than either being in perpetual pain or bliss, they still are born, age and die (are not immortal); and even the devas are delusional, and are not said to have power/influence regarding humans. Some take this as metaphorical, meaning the state of mind one is in. Not even the godly realms are true freedom, we must transcend both pain and pleasure.

Enlightenment is self-salvation, although people are free to believe anything they want if they're just wanting to be "regular" happy like normal.

Yes, I'm aware of this and I agree.

Kartari

Ultimately its up to us to put into practice the teachings no one can do it for us. But relying on a teacher can help us avoid pitfalls and move along the path easier. If you wanted to learn calculus you could probably pick up a book and teach yourself but if you had a tudor that understood calculus they could easily show you where your mistakes are and how to correct them.

Another way to look at it is, following the writen teachings is like following a map through the wilderness, following a qualified teacher is like following a guide who lives in that wilderness and knows the way. If you know how to read a map you can probably get there, but if you have a guide who knows the terrain they'll know all the little pitfalls and shortcuts that don't show up on the map.

Agreed. Like I said though, there's a difference between considering and heeding the guidance of those who are wise, and relying on them to, somehow, make us wise. Like I suspect most here agree, if not all, I think the former is valid and the latter is not.

andyZ

Dogen seemed to have a totalitarian view on this.
I read a little book from him, but I dumped it somewhere because I didn’t like it.
He repeatedly said that monks must abandon all their ideas about the Dharma, the practice and whatever else they think they know something about. And instead they must follow the instructions of the living Buddha in front of them (the teacher that is).

I can imagine a teacher does not wish to lose much time on discussions with his students, but I think this Dogen style of teaching is wrong.
Students have to learn to think (about Buddhism) with their own brains. That’s the only thing they have when they face new questions and real life situations.

Besides, I always hate it when a teacher makes his students look small and stupid.
I’ve seen it too often.
I don’t think it helps people. It’s just a way to attract masochists and clear the way for abusing them.

So I vote for “self-reliance” as the prime factor.

I don't think you got the Dogen's message entirely right. He was the one who said the following: "To study the Buddha Way is to study the self, to study the self is to forget the self, and to forget the self is to be enlightened by the ten thousand things."

So it means that there's only the self to be relied upon. So there's no god or buddha that will be able to realize your own self for you. As for the help from outside – sure, in that same question he says that to be truly enlightened is to be enlightened by everything around you. See the Buddha in every single thing around you.