Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Dharmic or Brahmic religions?
Vincenzi
Veteran
historically, Tathagata was opposed to the brahmi caste and the secrecy (and content) of the vedas.
however, after the Buddhism was institutionalized, there was a tendency for some schools to develop a new brahmi class: usually the "highest" monks (lamas, but this happened in basically all schools).
this is, in my opinion, contrarian to what Buddhism is.
who is more important, the Dharma or brahmis?
Buddha, Dharma and Sangha... there's no place for brahmas and brahmis.
however, after the Buddhism was institutionalized, there was a tendency for some schools to develop a new brahmi class: usually the "highest" monks (lamas, but this happened in basically all schools).
this is, in my opinion, contrarian to what Buddhism is.
who is more important, the Dharma or brahmis?
Buddha, Dharma and Sangha... there's no place for brahmas and brahmis.
0
Comments
I don't remember a specific sutra, but Buddhism is basically anti-authoritarian.
It's all quite a bit more complicated than this black and white view of, "Oh, their bad because there's an organization surrounding them." This view is neither wise, nor intelligent.
Of course this situation can set up the possibility of corruption, maybe the teacher is not all that fully realized and is swayed by the money and power that has naturally arisen around him/her. Either that, or the teacher is indeed very realized, but the people that he/she needed to hire in order to maintain the organization fell into corruption? Regardless, I have to look at myself, what I'm in the practice of Buddhism for. What is it that I'm going to focus on? The teachings that help, or the actions of bound and confused people, who even if they have good intentions, are still bound by various habit patterns. Or am I going to use this opportunity to cultivate compassion?
If you look at the historical Buddha, Gotama. He lived in a different time and place, his group could just build a hut in the middle of the forrest and go into a town and just knock on doors, begging for food once a day and get fed. One may still be able to do that in various countries, but not in Western countries, as all land is owned by either an individual, the state, or the federal government. Also, the Buddha didn't have all that many disciples, as the population of the Earth for human beings was not nearly as dense as today, so he didn't have all that much responsibility as compared to some beings in this day and age who do carry the same amount of wisdom and intelligence.
Now, if you look at Thailand for instance, monks are basically government subsidized organizations, receiving money from both government and individuals. Does this make the teaching, "evil?", or "not Buddhist?" No! Of course not. That's just modern life. Within these organizations, there are both corrupt and honest individuals. There are senior monks who are more learned, have more inner experience due to practice and are to be looked up to. None of these organizations are perfect, as they are not all made up of Buddhas. Maybe only a few Monks in Thailand are actually Arhats? The rest... well. They're trying, but making mistakes along the way. What are you going to focus on?
It's the same with Vajrayana in Tibet. @Vincenzi I think your view is really one sided and you are looking for some romanticized ideal. Because Buddhas teachings worked, there are individual Buddhas from all walks of global culture since his time, to now, who are just as realized as the historical Buddha. So, to look merely at the historical Buddha, from 2,500 years ago for answers, especially when pertaining to modern culture, is just silly. The basics are there, yes, the 4 fold noble truth, the 8 fold path, the defining of the Jhanas, the description of dependent origination, the practice of Vipassana, etc. But, somethings will have to evolve, and that's the clothing that these teachings will have to put on to survive in different regions of the planet. This includes the human propensity for creating a hierarchy around the individuals that are deemed worthy to listen to for teachings on the meaning of life. Organizations will naturally arise around those that are powerfully wise and knowledgeable. Does that make them inherently bad? No! Does that make the organizations perfect either? Not by a long shot. The questions is, "do the teachings work to make me more wise and compassionate." If the answer is yes... then what more do you need? We're not in a heaven realm where there is less structural density. We are on a dense Earth plane realm, where structure is dense and prone to friction. So, in order for Buddhism to survive all these years, great Buddha beings since the time of the Buddha, accommodated the nature of this Earth realm when going about the project of disseminating the sacred path to liberation.
Keep on Doubting.
Keep on Illuminating.
keep on keeping on.
He certainly did! But he also established a teaching that allowed space for creative movement, as this is what dependent origination/emptiness means.
To be overly Orthodox and confined by one view or another, would not be, "right view" as right view is best described as "the viewless view." At the same time, this is relative, as each individual needs something, or another that another would not need in order to evolve and progress. Which is why even in the Pali Cannon there are plenty of instances where he taught one thing to one group of people and something else to another, simply due to the capacity of the individuals he was speaking to. Sometimes he was silent concerning a question by one person, but answered the very same question when it was asked from someone else.
Doubt everything be your own light.
It is the only certainty of buddhism.
Who are you? How do you exist? What are your influences for defining what is light and what is not light? Where do you learn the tools to apply to yourself for the sake of self transformation? Who are your living examples of it's truth?
So sorry... no ill intention on my part.
"It's all quite a bit more complicated than this black and white view of, "Oh, their bad because there's an organization surrounding them.""
nice strawman
If you wish to believe the dogma, that is for you. But being dogmatic is unskillful.
How are these empty questions? The whole teaching around Buddhas dissemination of practice, method and psychology/philosophy is geared to help you to get to know yourself better, to unravel the mystery of yourself. Getting to know that you are indeed dependently originated along with everything else and intimately connected to everyone, as well as empty of static nature. Thus you are malleable, and not bound by habit patterns, essentially speaking at least, as most definitely a non-Buddha is bound by habit patterns.
If you read what the Buddha taught as recorded in the Pali Suttas even, it's obvious that he was an Authority figure. Authority is not a bad word. I think this is an emotional definition of the term left over from teenage rebellion. People are by and large their own Authority, their hurt ego delegates to their body information that they use for the sake of self protection, because of this idea of small identity. So, to take up the Buddha, or a living Buddha as a greater authority on the nature of being, is at times the wisest choice a person can make. This is what Buddhas disciples did when it came to following the Buddha around and listening to his teachings.
Now, if you want to take out little quotes here and there, and throw out all the rest that challenges how you define these little quotes, that is your choice, but I wouldn't say it is a wise choice at all and I would say it is not at all the intention behind what the Buddha taught.
If the Buddha was not establishing a religion, why did he teach for 45 years, creating a cohesive Sangham, with rules of conduct for monks and lay practitioners?
Or, do you just like that quote from him that say's to question everything?
Obviously debating the point is not on the table here.
there's nothing wrong with organizations, no one is arguing that. that's just a straw man.
Tathagata may be an authority of the Dharma, but the approach was never authoritarian.
now, undoubting obedience to a lama... that's authoritarian.
We already have a lot of threads discussing Tibetan Buddhism in general banter. I suspect this is more about you, than about the question you asked.
this is thread is not only about vajrayana; it applies to all schools that overemphasize the "master".
I agree, but that's not the point. The point is that you are damning an entire system that works for liberating plenty of individuals, based upon the news of a couple of rotten apples. Of course the Tibetan forms of Buddhism are in the spiritual circle of news a lot due to the situation in Tibet vs. China, and how much attention that garners from the spiritually inclined public. But to blame an entire yogic system that originally comes from India, is practiced in Nepal, Ladakh, China and Japan for the fact of a few corrupt apples in the bunch is unfounded. Also, for you to say that Tibetan Buddhism is just Hinduism in another form, is really an uneducated and under-informed remark. Which you didn't say specifically, but it's what you implied.
...I'm not angry.
an example in all schools is whenever there's an obsession with monkhood as only viable way towards nirvana.
were exactly, those I "damn" the entire school of vajrayana?
Vincenzi,
I think I agree with you on that point. We have a sensitive mind ourselves. We can study and learn from our experiences.
Where I disagree (possibly) would be to say that all environments are equal in the pursuit of the dharma. That is not true. For example if I know someone who has widely studied the sutras for example dharma dhatu, they may be able to help me understand some of the experiences I am having with tools.
That is the example of how someone may bring knowledge of the dharma to us. Another fellow in the dharma can also bring us fellowship. An example of someone who is turning their ear to the dharma. Just texts and intellect is not the same thing as a living breathing person who is passionate. For example a coach on a football team is very passionate to attain victory. By hearing their enthusiasm I may be inspired to work harder. This is different from them show me better tackling technique (dharma knowledge).
Third there is the emobidiment of buddha qualities. These would be wisdom, understanding, and compassion. When we are with somebody who is free. Somebody who is light as a bird and not burdened by negativity. It effects a change in us. For example when we have a problem they do not rush so fast to say we are 'wrong'. Instead they investigate the problem with curiosity and get to see things from our side. A lot of the ego pulls are subsided and thus there is less struggle and the energy naturally burns away the confusion without the samadhi being disrupted by competing 'waves'? Of course that doesn't mean they agree with us ahha.
@Vajraheart
read again:
"usually the "highest" monks (lamas, but this happened in basically all schools)."
@Jeffrey
I concur, except on this:
"Where I disagree (possibly) would be to say that all environments are equal in the pursuit of the dharma. That is not true."
were did I said that?
So anyway, Vincenzi is concerned that the tradition of an authoritarian figure in the higher tantras is being misused in other contexts. IDK, maybe we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but something has to change.
I've met a lot of people in my life, and the majority of people are pretty crazy. Especially in this day in age of over information. Confusion abounds!
So it can be advantageous to be close to a friend or teacher who: knows the dharma, can inspire us to work harder, and is free from the burdens of samsara. Such an environment is not universally enjoyed and thus I have said that I felt such. Not all environments are equal. Having one guru is not the same as having another is not the same as individual practice is not the same as no practice. Thats all I'm saying.
I think you are defining guru for yourself differently how I define it (above). Thus you are defining a guru as corrupt.
This means you are saying no more than a tautology: corrupt gurus are corrupt.
please, show me were I talked about a guru in the OP.
read carefully, I mentioned "highest" monks that act like brahmis.
nice straw man btw.
highest monk is the monk highest in a hierarchical, probably authoritarian, school in any monastic order.
brahmi is non secular members of a society than are considered by themselves and others to be of the highest class in that society.
So you would conclude that you believe the dharma is against: managers, bosses, police chiefs, doctors, leaders of state, CEOs, priests, magistrates, chiefs, book club leaders @dakini
Ok. No I don't agree.
I said:
"lamas, but this happened in basically all schools"
I repeat:
who is more important, the Dharma or brahmis?
The Dharma comes first, the idea of brahmis in the context of VEDIC-like texts, like SECRET PRACTICES only for the "initiated"... is contrarian to the Dharma as explained by Tathagata.
the idea of self-appointed authorities (among the "brahmi" class of each school) as the "preferable" method to attain Nirvana... is contrarian to the Dharma as explained by Tathagata (there should be more openess in practices; for example demystifing jhanas and the four stages).
I expected less straw mans and more understanding of such a basic exposure of an idea by members of this forum... considering how insightful and wise have being the avarage of the posts in this forum.
this is brahmin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmin
from the same article:
"In the Dhammapada, the Buddha mentions Brahmins and Arahats in very different capacities and dedicates an entire chapter to what it means to be a real Brahmin called the Brahmana-vagga."
I'm pointing out that brahmis, as understood by early hinduists... is contrarian to the realisation/merit-based classification of the sangha (as community of buddhists).
I was going from this definition.
lets clarify:
brahmi is the brahmi hindu/indian class.
brahmic is a term I use for the emphasis on such a class in any of the dharmic religions,
in detriment of the actual Dharma.