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.
Your example is wrong because the gurus and masters have their position based upon merit and realisation. I think you are not believing that lineage is transmitted.
I agree that it may or may not be but I don't agree that it is always falsely transmitted. I definately dispute that the idea in best case is not to be based on merit/realization. The notion that it is not based on realization contradicts the experience of the students and also general reason. The reality in the case of a corrupt guru could be more as you suggest.
I dispute both of these extremes: 1) all gurus are corrupt 2) no gurus are corrupt.
A guru is not from a certain class. For example a guru could have grown up in any social strata. They need only have been approved of a teacher. This is how lineage is transmitted. Its an old model but it is like you have a painter and he teaches a student to paint. When that student is declaired competent he gets his own student. In modern days we have 'degrees' where if someone gets a certain percentage on an objective exam and curriculum they receive a degree. Would this be a better way to select gurus? Via acedemia? We could have dharma incorporated interview gurus under the authority ultimately of a CEO. And shareholders. McGuru?
Please propose an alternate way to select gurus than the lineage way.
Or is your proposal to dispose of teachers and to only be solitary learners?
I think the early sangha used the four stages instead of "who was a student of who".
either way, this is the idea: 1) dharma comes first, a buddha discovers it, then a sangha (including monks/gurus) study it 2) first is the dharma, no one within the sangha should obscure the dharma (like the vedic tradition) 3) the emphasis on brahmis (as "high" monks) is detrimental to the development of all the sangha 4) 2 and 3 is a brahmic religion (or school) 5) a dharmic religion should focus more on making the dharma accesible to anyone interested
The wise man tells you Where you have fallen And where you yet may fall - Invaluable secrets! Follow him, follow the way. Let him chasten and teach you and keep you from mischief. The world may hate him. But good men love him. Do not look for bad company Or live with men who do not care. Find friends who love the truth. Drink deeply. Live in serenity and joy. The wise man delights in the truth And follows the law of the awakened. The farmer channels water to his land. The fletcher whittles his arrows. And the carpenter turns his wood. So the wise man directs his mind. The wind cannot shake a mountain. Neither praise nor blame moves the wise man. He is clarity. Hearing the truth, He is like a lake, Pure and tranquil and deep. Want nothing. Where there is desire, Say nothing. Happiness or sorrow - Whatever befalls you, Walk on Untouched, unattached. Do not ask for family or power or wealth, Either for yourself or for another. Can a wise man wish to rise unjustly? Few cross over the river. Most are stranded on this side. On the riverbank they run up and down. But the wise man, following the way, Crosses over, beyond the reach of death.
He leaves the dark way For the way of light. He leaves his home, seeking Happiness on the hard road. Free from desire, Free from possessions, Free from the dark places of the heart. Free from attachment and appetite, Following the seven lights of awakening, And rejoicing greatly in his freedom, In this world the wise man Becomes himself a light, Pure, shining, free.
"the best way of selecting gurus is the actual level of realisation, implying a demystification of nirvana and the four stages (or eight bhumis)."
Isn't this what is done? How can we make this better? The first stage is to criticize. Out of that wasteland we can construct once we let go of what was lost.
No you go to a guru appropriate for you. Most of us go to an ordinary guru.
From the Jewel Ornament of Liberation:
There are three types of ordinary spiritual masters: those who possess eight qualities, those who possess four qualities and those who possess two qualities. Concerning the first one, Bodhisattva Bhumis says:
One should understand that a bodhisattva who has eight qualities is a perfect spiritual master. What are the eight? One who: possesses the moral ethics of a Bodhisattva, is learned in the bodhisattva's teachings, possesses realization, possesses compassion and kindness, possesses fearlessness, possesses patience, possesses an indefatigable mind, and is expert in verbal expression.
The second is described in the Ornament of Mahayana Sutra:
Possessing great scholarship and dispelling doubt, Whatever he says is acceptable, distinguishing the two realities -- This is a perfect bodhissatva spiritual master.
Possessing great scholarship refers to being able to give extensive teachings because of vast wisdom. The spiritual master can dispel doubt because he has profound discriminating awareness. His words are acceptable because his action is pure virtue. He explains the primary characteristics of afflicting emotions and their purification.
The third is portrayed in Engaging in the Conduct of Bodhisattvas:
A spiritual master is always Expert in the Mahayana teachings. He will not abandon the bodhisattva vow Even at the risk of his own life.
In other words the spiritual master is leearned in the Mahayana vehicle and holds the bodhisattva vow.
For a sotapanna that is someone who has attained the first Bhumi of bodhisattva. For that person a nirmanakaya buddha or samboghakaya buddha is the spiritual master appropriate.
For an agami it would most likely be samboghakaya. Attaining jhana does not mean you are an agami.
I think the basis of your argument is that you are not a mahayana buddhist and don't believe in the three kayas
This is basicly a sectarian disagreement. You are not alone in rejecting the kayas. More information here
From the first cited source:
"Because the Buddha's Sambhogakaya and Dharmakaya aspects are not historically situated, we cannot attribute any kind of temporality to them. The Sambhogakaya teachings are not a personal matter, and in some sense they cannot even be said to be Buddhist. The Sambhogakaya has embodied its meanings right from the beginning, before the time of the Buddha. It embodies them now, and it will embody them again in the future, for the auspicious coincidence of time is never ceasing.
The iconographical figure of the Vajradhara in thangkas and elsewhere symbolizes the Sambhogakaya aspect in its primordial sense. Vajradhara means "holder of the vajra scepter," and the vajra signifies the perennial truthfulness of reality that is not subjected to change and that does not need to be updated. Like the vajra, truth cannot be relativized and made into something that is conditional. It is a reality that is perennially true. As the symbol of Sambhogakaya, Vajradhara is an ahistorical phenomenon and is perceptible only to people with extraordinarily lucid and perceptive minds."
Until you know you know, until you know directly, independently and clearly that the belief is wise, good and leads to happiness.
If you read what the Buddha taught as recorded in the Pali Suttas
I have read much, but I doubt it all except that which I cannot doubt. To do soo seems unskillful to me.
even, it's obvious that he was an Authority figure.
In some parts, perhaps. In the Dhammapada and the Kalama Suttra and the MP sutra he is very very clearly anti authoritarian. In the rest of what seem to be agreed as the cerntral scriptures he doesn't discuss it. So I would be sure that out of the 10,000 suttas all kinds of authoritarian principles can be found. I would doubt them, and against the dharmic principles, they would be easy to doubt.
Authority is not a bad word.
To me it is. It suggests many bad things, such as dogma, indoctrination, hegemony,propaganda, subdjugation, control.... but that is not why it is bad dharmically to me:
1) It is in direct opposition to the kalama principles.
2) It suggests the existance of entities that are non empty - ie, authorities.
I think this is an emotional definition of the term left over from teenage rebellion.
Maybe so, that doesn't change thoughts as expressed above.
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?
He wandered, here in the winter, there in the summer. Staying with kings and travellers, teaching the dharma to hoards and individuals.
It is my opinion that all of the sanga aspects - the huge list of laws and rules, the idea split communities - they were all much later additions to buddhism -maybe right after his death, maybe two centuries, we will never know for sure.
All religions grow in similar ways.
Or, do you just like that quote from him that say's to question everything?
It is probably my favourite quote. It certainly is the starting point for my Dhamma. When all is doubted what can be known? "That all things are empty and imp..."
question for you thickpaper. Can you explain the difference between knowing and perceiving?
I can try!:) (It is a much easier question in the confines of analytic - rather than dhamic - philosophy)
There is very little I know, but much I perceive. I know that all things that are now were not, and will not be.
I perceive incidences of change but I do not know directly that there will be change.
I know there is no me, but daily I perceive the "me" (sneaking into my thoughts and trying to take over).
I know the ancient law that negativity is never stopped by negativity but only by positivity, but I cannot perceive this causal interdependence as it connects to my moments (I suspect expert meditators may be able to see this)
I can count the things I know, the things I am certain of, on my fingers.
The rest I cannot know, at best - and this is the perfection of the Kalama Principle - I can be clear.
We sacrifice the pursuit of knowing with certainty for the acceptance of perceiving with clarity. To me, this is right understanding.
So suppose I know that my toothbrush is in the bathroom, but the power is out and I cannot see. I want to brush my teeth. So I go into the bathroom and reach around. My perception is my perception, but no amount of perceiving can overturn the idea that my toothbrush is in the bathroom. As soon as I have a single perception I know in fact that my toothbrush is in the bathroom.
From this example we see that my knowing may or may not be true. But my perception of the toothbrush certainly is what it is. It may be a different toothbrush from what I 'know'. But I can brush my teeth with it as long as I can find toothpaste.
This example contradicts buddha. What we perceive is perceived. What we know may or may not be accurate.
"I know there is no me, but daily I perceive the "me" (sneaking into my thoughts and trying to take over)."
I think you are thinking too much. There is a me. What is negated is the fabrications we paste to 'me'. Permanent or inherent. Most of our stress comes from being hurt or making a mistake. Who wants to be hurt? Who gets hurt? Someone. Some me. Or we wouldn't be having any experience/stress in the first place.
The fabrications are not wrong they are just expressing of our intelligence. We can empathize with the hypothetical me that is hurt. Empathy and intelligence and compassion are very related.
What is unfortunate is how we get angry and so forth and spin out into a dance of anger or greed or whatever.
This self is manifest as a dance though it is ultimately empty.
An ego is like a dance. Each motion of the dance is not a dance. It is just a motion that is moved through the creative rhythms of the sensitivity. That same sensitivity identifies itself as a dance. So too we identify with our emotions "I am angry" and so forth. "it is my toothbrush". Really it is just a sensation in the night.
How do you establish 'positivity'? From one perspective we have devolved from apes.
By the dilligent practice of kindess, honesty, thoughfulness and mindfulness thus to cultivate wisdom and compassion and the extinguishing of attachment?
Vincenzi, Could you describe the characteristics of a ritual as described scripture in Pali Canon as opposed to your own understanding?
a ritual is a ritual. my understanding is that the fetter of attachment to rites and rituals is considering them (rituals) an activity that is conducive to nirvana.
I don't know specifics, but it is like chrstians thinking because you confess you are a better person, or because someone got married it is inherently a better person than one simply living together with a couple. in buddhism, auspicious mahayana practices (prayers for luck and fortune) and tantra will fall under that too... IMO. I don't know specific theravada rituals, maybe requiring one to become a monk?
So the Pali Canon does not describe what a ritual is? In that case we don't know what buddha was thinking about, though we may speculate. I would presume something as important as 'ten fetters' would be defined and described. Did buddha give any rational for why rituals are a fetter?
Could you give some examples of things which you consider rituals? Bowing to buddha statue when you enter a meditation hall? Chanting a sutra? Tea ceremony? Funeral? Wedding? What?
I thought you might be interested in another perspective:
A friend writes (partially paraphrased):
"My first response to this is that non-attachment to anything is not the same as non-engagement. Attachment to anything is likely to cause problems - whether it be people, jobs, reputation,rituals, material things, comfort etc etc. But attachment means clinging, not being able to let go, defining yourself in relation to whatever you're attached to in such a way that losing it threatens your peace of mind, your identity, your security.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't have friends, live in houses, have jobs, do rituals etc etc - just that we need to be able to have a confidence in ourselves, our Buddha Nature, that doesn't rely on them. We may be sad at their loss but our trust in what is indestructible gives us great inner strength. I got this quote from Tricycle today that seems appropriate:
Be Fearless, Be Brave
There’s a sacredness to everyone’s life. In order to relate to it, you have to build confidence. Because of this need to build confidence, we speak of “warriorship.” There’s a tremendous amount of fear in people’s lives. I think it’s based on not wanting to reveal oneself. You’re always protecting yourself. So the journey of meditation and the journey of Shambhala is “One has to be fearless. One has to be brave. One must break out of the world which is comfort-oriented.” -Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche, "A New Place, A New Time"
Being comfort-oriented is the same as attachment."
To me it is. It suggests many bad things, such as dogma, indoctrination, hegemony,propaganda, subdjugation, control.... but that is not why it is bad dharmically to me:
1) It is in direct opposition to the kalama principles.
2) It suggests the existance of entities that are non empty - ie, authorities.
I don't think it suggests non-empty entity, as to be an authority in the Dharma, one must have realized emptiness directly. So, as far as the dharma goes, that should go without saying. If the person is not always in the realization or direct awareness of emptiness and luminosity, that person is not an authority of the Buddha way.
These are definitions from the dictionary that I like and which I think can be applied here. As you are using the term Authority to reflect your own emotional stance on the subject, which is more subjective than objective reality.
4.a. An accepted source of expert information or advice: a noted authority on birds; a reference book often cited as an authority.
7. Power to influence or persuade resulting from knowledge or experience:
8. Confidence derived from experience or practice; firm self-assurance: played the sonata with authority.
For me, what I stated above is what makes a person an Authority worth being respected, but not worshiped like a God of the universe. Vajrayana is very succinct when it comes to this stuff, giving little space for subjective idolizing or emotional projections. That is, if the teaching is understood and of course we are dealing with humans here. We aren't the most enlightened bunch in the cosmos.
Doubt all things, be your own light.
This is how I came to Vajrayana. Through direct experiences that I had while being a Hindu of the Monistic idealism breed. I came to question my experiences from the perspective of Advaita Vedanta under the guidance of a Hindu Guru as this is how I grew up. Then Buddhism came into my life through first reading, then dream states. Then through searching online, I came to debate with very learned and experienced Buddhists, including certified scholars, monks, and a Lappon. And through further experience and contemplation, as well as transmission from a Vajra Master and further self questioning, which was very difficult and disillusioning, I realized that Buddhism is far more succinct in explaining the experiences of the Jhana stages, the chakras, the different realms of reality, the nature of reality as a whole.
Hinduism and Vajrayana most definitely say different things coming from a different view of reality. Buddhism as a whole, including all branches has a different base and path than Vedanta. The entire cosmology is different. The Vedas are thoroughly denied as an Authority.
Buddhist cosmology is far more succinct in my opinion and more deeply reflects my own experiences in meditation and contemplation.
There’s a sacredness to everyone’s life. In order to relate to it, you have to build confidence. Because of this need to build confidence, we speak of “warriorship.” There’s a tremendous amount of fear in people’s lives. I think it’s based on not wanting to reveal oneself. You’re always protecting yourself. So the journey of meditation and the journey of Shambhala is “One has to be fearless. One has to be brave. One must break out of the world which is comfort-oriented.” -Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche, "A New Place, A New Time"
Being comfort-oriented is the same as attachment."
I am really enjoying the things you are saying here @Jeffrey. It's engaging.
I don't know specifics, but it is like chrstians thinking because you confess you are a better person, or because someone got married it is inherently a better person than one simply living together with a couple. in buddhism, auspicious mahayana practices (prayers for luck and fortune) and tantra will fall under that too... IMO. I don't know specific theravada rituals, maybe requiring one to become a monk?
A ritual is something as simple as brushing your teeth at the same time everyday before work. Or sitting on your meditation cushion everyday at the same time.
Vajrayana rituals are more involved and more engaging, yes... as one is doing mantra, pranayama, asana, mudra, visualization as well as samatha and jhana... all for the sake of speeding up the enlightenment process as it is engaging more directly with your entire faculty as a human being. These rituals in Vajrayana have to be understood within the context of Sutra, which is understanding dependent origination and emptiness thoroughly before these rituals can have deep positive effect. So Sutra study, engaging intellectually and emotionally with the teachings of the Buddha and Buddhas in general. Attachment to them is not at all the goal though. But, they are tools, much like a raft is used to cross the wide lake to get to the other side.
What I find interesting, is those here who follow only their own perspective on the historical Buddha, do you think that he's the one and only Buddha... ever? So, that would mean that Buddhas teachings just don't work?
From my perspective, the Buddhas teachings worked, thus new Buddhas came into existence here on Earth and evolved the teachings according to the time, without veering away from the base intention of the historical Gotama the Buddha.
And yes, of course, question, question deeply, even question your questioning, and do not accept a teaching unless it coincides with your contemplations and evolves you towards being a better human being.
I'm glad you don't know what you're talking about. You'll get it someday... just go deeper into the inner meaning of dependent origination/emptiness. There are no fetters outside of your perspective which limits and codifies with absolute certainty, everything is relative. You've created mental dogmas which keep you from understanding the nature of things as inter-dependent and without self existence, nothing binds you but your own idealization.
Noun 1. idealisation - (psychiatry) a defense mechanism that splits something you are ambivalent about into two representations--one good and one bad.
LONGCHENPA- "Since everything is but an apparition, Perfect in being what it is, Having nothing to do with good or bad, Acceptance or rejection, You might as well burst out laughing!"
Sutta Pitaka's list of ten fetters: The Pali canon's Sutta Pitaka identifies ten "fetters of becoming":
belief in a self (Pali: sakkāya-diṭṭhi) doubt or uncertainty, especially about the teachings (vicikicchā) attachment to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāso) sensual desire (kāmacchando) ill will (vyāpādo or byāpādo) lust for material existence, lust for material rebirth (rūparāgo) lust for immaterial existence, lust for rebirth in a formless realm (arūparāgo) conceit (māno) restlessness (uddhaccaŋ) ignorance (avijjā)
If you truly understand dependent origination/emptiness, none of these are issues. It's all relative, nothing is ultimate. No one here is talking about attachment to rites and rituals. Of course, it's all relative, as a positive attachment can help a person out of a negative attachment. For instance, attachment to the dharma teaches one that there is no inherent self to feel attached to a non-inherent teaching to begin with.
It really is all relative. Getting that on a very deep level, is quite liberating! It also allows one to engage with life, and the beauty of it's rituals, without attachment or mental dogmas getting in the way of celebration!
Many rites and rituals are reflections of celebration, especially in the Vajrayana tradition. These practices of yogic postures, and prayers are celebrations, that both enhance life, ones state of intention, as well as celebrate the state of liberation while living. Which is why Vajrayana is considered the path of fruition. Also, the term "Tantra" is not at all original to Vajrayana, as it was never called Tantrayana originally.
From Wiki: Tantric Buddhism:
"The term Tantric Buddhism was not one originally used by those who practiced it. As scholar Isabelle Onians explains: “Tantric Buddhism” . . . is not the transcription of a native term, but a rather modern coinage, if not totally occidental. For the equivalent Sanskrit tāntrika is found, but not in Buddhist texts. Tāntrika is a term denoting someone who follows the teachings of scriptures known as Tantras, but only in Saivism, not Buddhism (although cf. the single known occurrence in a copper-plate inscription from Nālandā made in the name of the Javanese king Devapāla in the ninth century AD:, tāntrikabodhisattvaganasya; SIRCAR 1983:II .37-38; ref. provided by Sanderson). Indeed, Alexis Sanderson has noted that it is usually used of followers of another tradition, by proponents of the Trika of practitioners of the Bhairava tantras, for example, and thus with a slightly pejorative tone, unlike the simple noun tantra (personal communication). Tantric Buddhism is a name for a phenomenon which calls itself, in Sanskrit, Mantranaya, Vajrayāna, Mantrayāna or Mantramahāyāna (and apparently never Tantrayāna). Its practitioners are known as mantrins, yogis, or sādhakas. Thus, our use of the anglicised adjective “Tantric” for the Buddhist religion taught in Tantras is not native to the tradition, but is a borrowed term which serves its purpose."
Also, Phala means "purpose."
Vajrayana serves this purpose as well as fruit. Vajrayana is at times in scriptures called Phalayana.
"Bodhisattvayana is also known as Mahayana. Mahayana is divided into Paramitayana and Mantrayana. If Paramityana is also called Sutryana and Hetuyana Vajrayana is called Mantrayana, Tantrayana, Sahajayana, Upayayana and Phalayana because the fruit, result or outcome of the good deed or performance is taken as a means of vehicle for salvation. It is also called Hetyana because of the emphasis on Hetu (intention). Even though the base and phala (aim) of both Paramitayana and Mantrayana is the same, the means to attain the aim is different."
-Punya Prasad Parajuli
The same could be said of Theravada. The emphasis is on dependent origination and emptiness.
Only after your arrogant statement of, "Why can't you accept it?"
So, I basically said that I do not accept it because I don't trust the source of the statement. Also, I find it interesting that this is the only point that you focused upon.
Basically, I don't accept your interpretation of the Dharma.
Yes, I accept the 10 fetters. I am not attached to rite or ritual. Just as I work on not being attached to a self, even though one is merely apparent and not ultimate. Here I am a self speaking to another self, it has relative importance and necessity, just like meditative ritual, but one should not be attached to it. Just as the 10 fetters state "not to be attached to rite or ritual", and neither "attached to a self", even if it's to be utilized. I am engaged, but not attached, at least as a goal that is. Tell me Vincenzi, do you understand what the term, "relative" means?
One of the definitions is; 3. Dependent on or interconnected with something else; not absolute.
If you are attached to the 10 fetters as ultimate, then in my opinion you don't understand the meaning of the Buddhadharma, making you an unreliable source of it, for me that is.
Since Vajrayana does not accept the rites and rituals of the Vedas, and does not practice them. Your comparison is null and void of having any relation to your points pertaining to Vajrayana.
Yes, which would reflect not having understood non-attachment to a self. As a self, namely Gotama, which states the Ten Fetters to other selves, namely us, as a relative means of attaining focus on the dharma as the Buddha has presented it.
So, one must avoid attachment to rites and rituals, which is a pre-requisite for engaging in Vajrayana practice. One must not be attached to the practices, even if they are being utilized. Just as one should not be attached to a self, even if one is to be utilized.
So, Vajrayana does not go against the 10 fetters, but rather upholds them and exemplifies them very well through the dialectic as expressed in Sutra, as well as in the understanding one should have in practice.
'barriers to enlightenment' it seems quite important for the Pali Canon to have no discussion of why such exist as barriers. Doesn't it?
@Vincenzi, I think we are at an impasse because you don't agree that one may practice a ritual without becoming attached to it. I think mine and Vajraheart's argument rests on this. IF it were impossible than at least we would be going against the historical buddhas word.
Vajrayana never promotes rituals as ultimate. They are always taught as a relative and expedient means.
A definition of Expedient according to the Miram-Webster dictionary:
1. suitable for achieving a particular end in a given circumstance.
That is all, neither are the deities in Vajrayana ultimate, nor are the practices concerning various deities. They're an expedient means only and without a self essence, thus nothing to attach to as ultimate, and thus, in no means breaks any of the 10 fetters which are promoted through Vajrayana.
Hey, no problem! There are a number of living examples, if you can restrain your attachment to a particular view for long enough to see them as they are? The deities are not ultimate, they also were bound sentient beings like us, but they practiced the Buddhadharma and attained Buddhahood, and so they are worthy of veneration relative to their state of Buddhahood, as relative representatives of the ultimate state of liberation from Samsaric mind states. Their teachings are also worthy of practicing, as they're mind state is equal to that of Gotama.
At least you are admitting to the possibility of being wrong in your assessment, this is very "relative" of you.
Everything is relative. That's partially what it means to say that there is no ultimate self and that all things arise dependently. As long as your ethics reflects the expanded realization of inter-subjective relative arising, and the fact that we are all intimately connected beyond appearances, your ethics will arise dependent upon this state of realization, beyond the necessity of an Authoritarian standard, set forth by any doctrine.
Comments
I agree that it may or may not be but I don't agree that it is always falsely transmitted. I definately dispute that the idea in best case is not to be based on merit/realization. The notion that it is not based on realization contradicts the experience of the students and also general reason. The reality in the case of a corrupt guru could be more as you suggest.
I dispute both of these extremes: 1) all gurus are corrupt 2) no gurus are corrupt.
Please propose an alternate way to select gurus than the lineage way.
Or is your proposal to dispose of teachers and to only be solitary learners?
either way, this is the idea:
1) dharma comes first, a buddha discovers it, then a sangha (including monks/gurus) study it
2) first is the dharma, no one within the sangha should obscure the dharma (like the vedic tradition)
3) the emphasis on brahmis (as "high" monks) is detrimental to the development of all the sangha
4) 2 and 3 is a brahmic religion (or school)
5) a dharmic religion should focus more on making the dharma accesible to anyone interested
@Jeffrey
this is about brahmis, not gurus... read the OP, this is not one of the "tibetan under attack" threads.
the best way of selecting gurus is the actual level of realisation, implying a demystification of nirvana and the four stages (or eight bhumis).
Where you have fallen
And where you yet may fall -
Invaluable secrets!
Follow him, follow the way.
Let him chasten and teach you
and keep you from mischief.
The world may hate him.
But good men love him.
Do not look for bad company
Or live with men who do not care.
Find friends who love the truth.
Drink deeply.
Live in serenity and joy.
The wise man delights in the truth
And follows the law of the awakened.
The farmer channels water to his land.
The fletcher whittles his arrows.
And the carpenter turns his wood.
So the wise man directs his mind.
The wind cannot shake a mountain.
Neither praise nor blame moves the wise man.
He is clarity.
Hearing the truth,
He is like a lake,
Pure and tranquil and deep.
Want nothing.
Where there is desire,
Say nothing.
Happiness or sorrow -
Whatever befalls you,
Walk on
Untouched, unattached.
Do not ask for family or power or wealth,
Either for yourself or for another.
Can a wise man wish to rise unjustly?
Few cross over the river.
Most are stranded on this side.
On the riverbank they run up and down.
But the wise man, following the way,
Crosses over, beyond the reach of death.
He leaves the dark way
For the way of light.
He leaves his home, seeking
Happiness on the hard road.
Free from desire,
Free from possessions,
Free from the dark places of the heart.
Free from attachment and appetite,
Following the seven lights of awakening,
And rejoicing greatly in his freedom,
In this world the wise man
Becomes himself a light,
Pure, shining, free.
Isn't this what is done? How can we make this better? The first stage is to criticize. Out of that wasteland we can construct once we let go of what was lost.
I don't think an anagami will follow a guru/brahmi with a 27 generational lineage if he/she isn't even a sotapanna.
From the Jewel Ornament of Liberation:
There are three types of ordinary spiritual masters: those who possess eight qualities, those who possess four qualities and those who possess two qualities. Concerning the first one, Bodhisattva Bhumis says:
One should understand that a bodhisattva who has eight qualities is a perfect spiritual master. What are the eight? One who: possesses the moral ethics of a Bodhisattva, is learned in the bodhisattva's teachings, possesses realization, possesses compassion and kindness, possesses fearlessness, possesses patience, possesses an indefatigable mind, and is expert in verbal expression.
The second is described in the Ornament of Mahayana Sutra:
Possessing great scholarship and dispelling doubt,
Whatever he says is acceptable, distinguishing the two realities --
This is a perfect bodhissatva spiritual master.
Possessing great scholarship refers to being able to give extensive teachings because of vast wisdom. The spiritual master can dispel doubt because he has profound discriminating awareness. His words are acceptable because his action is pure virtue. He explains the primary characteristics of afflicting emotions and their purification.
The third is portrayed in Engaging in the Conduct of Bodhisattvas:
A spiritual master is always
Expert in the Mahayana teachings.
He will not abandon the bodhisattva vow
Even at the risk of his own life.
In other words the spiritual master is leearned in the Mahayana vehicle and holds the bodhisattva vow.
For a sotapanna that is someone who has attained the first Bhumi of bodhisattva. For that person a nirmanakaya buddha or samboghakaya buddha is the spiritual master appropriate.
For an agami it would most likely be samboghakaya. Attaining jhana does not mean you are an agami.
This is basicly a sectarian disagreement. You are not alone in rejecting the kayas. More information here
From the first cited source:
"Because the Buddha's Sambhogakaya and Dharmakaya aspects are not historically situated, we cannot attribute any kind of temporality to them. The Sambhogakaya teachings are not a personal matter, and in some sense they cannot even be said to be Buddhist. The Sambhogakaya has embodied its meanings right from the beginning, before the time of the Buddha. It embodies them now, and it will embody them again in the future, for the auspicious coincidence of time is never ceasing.
The iconographical figure of the Vajradhara in thangkas and elsewhere symbolizes the Sambhogakaya aspect in its primordial sense. Vajradhara means "holder of the vajra scepter," and the vajra signifies the perennial truthfulness of reality that is not subjected to change and that does not need to be updated. Like the vajra, truth cannot be relativized and made into something that is conditional. It is a reality that is perennially true. As the symbol of Sambhogakaya, Vajradhara is an ahistorical phenomenon and is perceptible only to people with extraordinarily lucid and perceptive minds."
The matter is black and whte for me:Do not believe anything that you:
1. Read (Including Scriptures)
2. Hear (Including teachings)
3. Perceive
4. Reason
5. Assume
Until you know you know, until you know directly, independently and clearly that the belief is wise, good and leads to happiness.
I have read much, but I doubt it all except that which I cannot doubt. To do soo seems unskillful to me.
In some parts, perhaps. In the Dhammapada and the Kalama Suttra and the MP sutra he is very very clearly anti authoritarian. In the rest of what seem to be agreed as the cerntral scriptures he doesn't discuss it. So I would be sure that out of the 10,000 suttas all kinds of authoritarian principles can be found. I would doubt them, and against the dharmic principles, they would be easy to doubt.
To me it is. It suggests many bad things, such as dogma, indoctrination, hegemony,propaganda, subdjugation, control.... but that is not why it is bad dharmically to me:
1) It is in direct opposition to the kalama principles.
2) It suggests the existance of entities that are non empty - ie, authorities.
Maybe so, that doesn't change thoughts as expressed above.
He wandered, here in the winter, there in the summer. Staying with kings and travellers, teaching the dharma to hoards and individuals.
It is my opinion that all of the sanga aspects - the huge list of laws and rules, the idea split communities - they were all much later additions to buddhism -maybe right after his death, maybe two centuries, we will never know for sure.
All religions grow in similar ways.
It is probably my favourite quote. It certainly is the starting point for my Dhamma. When all is doubted what can be known? "That all things are empty and imp..."
Doubt all things, be your own light.
There is very little I know, but much I perceive.
I know that all things that are now were not, and will not be.
I perceive incidences of change but I do not know directly that there will be change.
I know there is no me, but daily I perceive the "me" (sneaking into my thoughts and trying to take over).
I know the ancient law that negativity is never stopped by negativity but only by positivity, but I cannot perceive this causal interdependence as it connects to my moments (I suspect expert meditators may be able to see this)
I can count the things I know, the things I am certain of, on my fingers.
The rest I cannot know, at best - and this is the perfection of the Kalama Principle - I can be clear.
We sacrifice the pursuit of knowing with certainty for the acceptance of perceiving with clarity. To me, this is right understanding.
Does that make sense?
From this example we see that my knowing may or may not be true. But my perception of the toothbrush certainly is what it is. It may be a different toothbrush from what I 'know'. But I can brush my teeth with it as long as I can find toothpaste.
This example contradicts buddha. What we perceive is perceived. What we know may or may not be accurate.
"I know there is no me, but daily I perceive the "me" (sneaking into my thoughts and trying to take over)."
I think you are thinking too much. There is a me. What is negated is the fabrications we paste to 'me'. Permanent or inherent. Most of our stress comes from being hurt or making a mistake. Who wants to be hurt? Who gets hurt? Someone. Some me. Or we wouldn't be having any experience/stress in the first place.
The fabrications are not wrong they are just expressing of our intelligence. We can empathize with the hypothetical me that is hurt. Empathy and intelligence and compassion are very related.
What is unfortunate is how we get angry and so forth and spin out into a dance of anger or greed or whatever.
This self is manifest as a dance though it is ultimately empty.
>>>But my perception of the toothbrush certainly is what it is.
Agreed.
>>I think you are thinking too much. There is a me.
There may be a you, to you, but to me, there is no me.
>>>Who gets hurt? Someone. Some me. Or we wouldn't be having any experience/stress in the first place.
There are experiences of hurt, nothing gets hurt.
I don't know specifics, but it is like chrstians thinking because you confess you are a better person, or because someone got married it is inherently a better person than one simply living together with a couple. in buddhism, auspicious mahayana practices (prayers for luck and fortune) and tantra will fall under that too... IMO. I don't know specific theravada rituals, maybe requiring one to become a monk?
Could you give some examples of things which you consider rituals? Bowing to buddha statue when you enter a meditation hall? Chanting a sutra? Tea ceremony? Funeral? Wedding? What?
I thought you might be interested in another perspective:
A friend writes (partially paraphrased):
"My first response to this is that non-attachment to anything is not the same as non-engagement. Attachment to anything is likely to cause problems - whether it be people, jobs, reputation,rituals, material things, comfort etc etc. But attachment means clinging, not being able to let go, defining yourself in relation to whatever you're attached to in such a way that losing it threatens your peace of mind, your identity, your security.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't have friends, live in houses, have jobs, do rituals etc etc - just that we need to be able to have a confidence in ourselves, our Buddha Nature, that doesn't rely on them. We may be sad at their loss but our trust in what is indestructible gives us great inner strength. I got this quote from Tricycle today that seems appropriate:
Be Fearless, Be Brave
There’s a sacredness to everyone’s life. In order to relate to it, you have to build confidence. Because of this need to build confidence, we speak of “warriorship.” There’s a tremendous amount of fear in people’s lives. I think it’s based on not wanting to reveal oneself. You’re always protecting yourself. So the journey of meditation and the journey of Shambhala is “One has to be fearless. One has to be brave. One must break out of the world which is comfort-oriented.”
-Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche, "A New Place, A New Time"
Being comfort-oriented is the same as attachment."
These are definitions from the dictionary that I like and which I think can be applied here. As you are using the term Authority to reflect your own emotional stance on the subject, which is more subjective than objective reality.
4.a. An accepted source of expert information or advice: a noted authority on birds; a reference book often cited as an authority.
7. Power to influence or persuade resulting from knowledge or experience:
8. Confidence derived from experience or practice; firm self-assurance: played the sonata with authority.
For me, what I stated above is what makes a person an Authority worth being respected, but not worshiped like a God of the universe. Vajrayana is very succinct when it comes to this stuff, giving little space for subjective idolizing or emotional projections. That is, if the teaching is understood and of course we are dealing with humans here. We aren't the most enlightened bunch in the cosmos. This is how I came to Vajrayana. Through direct experiences that I had while being a Hindu of the Monistic idealism breed. I came to question my experiences from the perspective of Advaita Vedanta under the guidance of a Hindu Guru as this is how I grew up. Then Buddhism came into my life through first reading, then dream states. Then through searching online, I came to debate with very learned and experienced Buddhists, including certified scholars, monks, and a Lappon. And through further experience and contemplation, as well as transmission from a Vajra Master and further self questioning, which was very difficult and disillusioning, I realized that Buddhism is far more succinct in explaining the experiences of the Jhana stages, the chakras, the different realms of reality, the nature of reality as a whole.
Hinduism and Vajrayana most definitely say different things coming from a different view of reality. Buddhism as a whole, including all branches has a different base and path than Vedanta. The entire cosmology is different. The Vedas are thoroughly denied as an Authority.
Buddhist cosmology is far more succinct in my opinion and more deeply reflects my own experiences in meditation and contemplation.
I like this quote too!
Vajrayana rituals are more involved and more engaging, yes... as one is doing mantra, pranayama, asana, mudra, visualization as well as samatha and jhana... all for the sake of speeding up the enlightenment process as it is engaging more directly with your entire faculty as a human being. These rituals in Vajrayana have to be understood within the context of Sutra, which is understanding dependent origination and emptiness thoroughly before these rituals can have deep positive effect. So Sutra study, engaging intellectually and emotionally with the teachings of the Buddha and Buddhas in general. Attachment to them is not at all the goal though. But, they are tools, much like a raft is used to cross the wide lake to get to the other side.
What I find interesting, is those here who follow only their own perspective on the historical Buddha, do you think that he's the one and only Buddha... ever? So, that would mean that Buddhas teachings just don't work?
From my perspective, the Buddhas teachings worked, thus new Buddhas came into existence here on Earth and evolved the teachings according to the time, without veering away from the base intention of the historical Gotama the Buddha.
And yes, of course, question, question deeply, even question your questioning, and do not accept a teaching unless it coincides with your contemplations and evolves you towards being a better human being.
why you cann't accept it? rituals are one of the ten fetters.
...you should be arguing from an "it isn't my school" perspective. instead, you propose that making any mindless activity with frequency is a ritual.
I'm glad you don't know what you're talking about. You'll get it someday... just go deeper into the inner meaning of dependent origination/emptiness. There are no fetters outside of your perspective which limits and codifies with absolute certainty, everything is relative. You've created mental dogmas which keep you from understanding the nature of things as inter-dependent and without self existence, nothing binds you but your own idealization.
Noun 1. idealisation - (psychiatry) a defense mechanism that splits something you are ambivalent about into two representations--one good and one bad.
LONGCHENPA-
"Since everything is but an apparition,
Perfect in being what it is,
Having nothing to do with good or bad,
Acceptance or rejection,
You might as well burst out laughing!"
Just keep practicing, and keep studying.
Sutta Pitaka's list of ten fetters:
The Pali canon's Sutta Pitaka identifies ten "fetters of becoming":
belief in a self (Pali: sakkāya-diṭṭhi)
doubt or uncertainty, especially about the teachings (vicikicchā)
attachment to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāso)
sensual desire (kāmacchando)
ill will (vyāpādo or byāpādo)
lust for material existence, lust for material rebirth (rūparāgo)
lust for immaterial existence, lust for rebirth in a formless realm (arūparāgo)
conceit (māno)
restlessness (uddhaccaŋ)
ignorance (avijjā)
If you truly understand dependent origination/emptiness, none of these are issues. It's all relative, nothing is ultimate. No one here is talking about attachment to rites and rituals. Of course, it's all relative, as a positive attachment can help a person out of a negative attachment. For instance, attachment to the dharma teaches one that there is no inherent self to feel attached to a non-inherent teaching to begin with.
It really is all relative. Getting that on a very deep level, is quite liberating! It also allows one to engage with life, and the beauty of it's rituals, without attachment or mental dogmas getting in the way of celebration!
Many rites and rituals are reflections of celebration, especially in the Vajrayana tradition. These practices of yogic postures, and prayers are celebrations, that both enhance life, ones state of intention, as well as celebrate the state of liberation while living. Which is why Vajrayana is considered the path of fruition. Also, the term "Tantra" is not at all original to Vajrayana, as it was never called Tantrayana originally.
From Wiki:
Tantric Buddhism:
"The term Tantric Buddhism was not one originally used by those who practiced it. As scholar Isabelle Onians explains:
“Tantric Buddhism” . . . is not the transcription of a native term, but a rather modern coinage, if not totally occidental. For the equivalent Sanskrit tāntrika is found, but not in Buddhist texts. Tāntrika is a term denoting someone who follows the teachings of scriptures known as Tantras, but only in Saivism, not Buddhism (although cf. the single known occurrence in a copper-plate inscription from Nālandā made in the name of the Javanese king Devapāla in the ninth century AD:, tāntrikabodhisattvaganasya; SIRCAR 1983:II .37-38; ref. provided by Sanderson). Indeed, Alexis Sanderson has noted that it is usually used of followers of another tradition, by proponents of the Trika of practitioners of the Bhairava tantras, for example, and thus with a slightly pejorative tone, unlike the simple noun tantra (personal communication). Tantric Buddhism is a name for a phenomenon which calls itself, in Sanskrit, Mantranaya, Vajrayāna, Mantrayāna or Mantramahāyāna (and apparently never Tantrayāna). Its practitioners are known as mantrins, yogis, or sādhakas. Thus, our use of the anglicised adjective “Tantric” for the Buddhist religion taught in Tantras is not native to the tradition, but is a borrowed term which serves its purpose."
Also, Phala means "purpose."
Vajrayana serves this purpose as well as fruit. Vajrayana is at times in scriptures called Phalayana.
"Bodhisattvayana is also known as Mahayana. Mahayana is divided into Paramitayana and Mantrayana. If Paramityana is also called Sutryana and Hetuyana Vajrayana is called Mantrayana, Tantrayana, Sahajayana, Upayayana and Phalayana because the fruit, result or outcome of the good deed or performance is taken as a means of vehicle for salvation. It is also called Hetyana because of the emphasis on Hetu (intention). Even though the base and phala (aim) of both Paramitayana and Mantrayana is the same, the means to attain the aim is different."
-Punya Prasad Parajuli
The same could be said of Theravada. The emphasis is on dependent origination and emptiness.
what arrogant way to write.
Only after your arrogant statement of, "Why can't you accept it?"
So, I basically said that I do not accept it because I don't trust the source of the statement. Also, I find it interesting that this is the only point that you focused upon.
Basically, I don't accept your interpretation of the Dharma.
you don't accept the ten fetters, but you act as if they weren't part of the Dharma (even if only used in one school).
it is based on what the ten fetters mean, why they are fetters and why it is better to not have them.
from wiki:
"this fetter regarding rites and rituals likely refers to some practices of contemporary brahmanic authorities.*
*For instance, see Gethin (1998), pp. 10-13, for a discussion of the Buddha in the context of the sramanic and brahmanic traditions."
Yes, I accept the 10 fetters. I am not attached to rite or ritual. Just as I work on not being attached to a self, even though one is merely apparent and not ultimate. Here I am a self speaking to another self, it has relative importance and necessity, just like meditative ritual, but one should not be attached to it. Just as the 10 fetters state "not to be attached to rite or ritual", and neither "attached to a self", even if it's to be utilized. I am engaged, but not attached, at least as a goal that is. Tell me Vincenzi, do you understand what the term, "relative" means?
One of the definitions is; 3. Dependent on or interconnected with something else; not absolute.
If you are attached to the 10 fetters as ultimate, then in my opinion you don't understand the meaning of the Buddhadharma, making you an unreliable source of it, for me that is.
Since Vajrayana does not accept the rites and rituals of the Vedas, and does not practice them. Your comparison is null and void of having any relation to your points pertaining to Vajrayana.
Yes, which would reflect not having understood non-attachment to a self. As a self, namely Gotama, which states the Ten Fetters to other selves, namely us, as a relative means of attaining focus on the dharma as the Buddha has presented it.
So, one must avoid attachment to rites and rituals, which is a pre-requisite for engaging in Vajrayana practice. One must not be attached to the practices, even if they are being utilized. Just as one should not be attached to a self, even if one is to be utilized.
So, Vajrayana does not go against the 10 fetters, but rather upholds them and exemplifies them very well through the dialectic as expressed in Sutra, as well as in the understanding one should have in practice.
@Vincenzi, I think we are at an impasse because you don't agree that one may practice a ritual without becoming attached to it. I think mine and Vajraheart's argument rests on this. IF it were impossible than at least we would be going against the historical buddhas word.
practice is fine, but not promoting rituals.
you don't want buddhism developing rituals to gain alms do you?
Vajrayana never promotes rituals as ultimate. They are always taught as a relative and expedient means.
A definition of Expedient according to the Miram-Webster dictionary:
1. suitable for achieving a particular end in a given circumstance.
That is all, neither are the deities in Vajrayana ultimate, nor are the practices concerning various deities. They're an expedient means only and without a self essence, thus nothing to attach to as ultimate, and thus, in no means breaks any of the 10 fetters which are promoted through Vajrayana.
by expedient I guess Vajrayana proposes the use of rituals and deities as a way to get closer to nirvana...
I will believe that when I met a Buddha that used that specific practice.
Hey, no problem! There are a number of living examples, if you can restrain your attachment to a particular view for long enough to see them as they are? The deities are not ultimate, they also were bound sentient beings like us, but they practiced the Buddhadharma and attained Buddhahood, and so they are worthy of veneration relative to their state of Buddhahood, as relative representatives of the ultimate state of liberation from Samsaric mind states. Their teachings are also worthy of practicing, as they're mind state is equal to that of Gotama.
At least you are admitting to the possibility of being wrong in your assessment, this is very "relative" of you.
Garchen Rinpoche
what's your point of relative? I'm not, and will never be a relativist (in the ethical sense).
Everything is relative. That's partially what it means to say that there is no ultimate self and that all things arise dependently. As long as your ethics reflects the expanded realization of inter-subjective relative arising, and the fact that we are all intimately connected beyond appearances, your ethics will arise dependent upon this state of realization, beyond the necessity of an Authoritarian standard, set forth by any doctrine.