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.
Clearing the obstructions
SattvaPaul
South Wales, UK Veteran
In Mahayana Buddhism, there is the idea that a fully enlightened Buddha is someone who has removed all the obstructions from their mindstream and developed all positive potential to the fullest.
Then there is the idea of the two truths, absolute and relative. Obviously the obstructions/karmic imprints are placed in the second category. It is precisely because they lack any essence and are adventitious, they can be removed and the mindstream can be purified.
Now connecting this to the different methods employed by different schools and also to Western psychology, I can see there are two "tendencies".
One is that all you need is to realise emptiness and abide in that, and that awareness will eventually dissolve your karmic imprints. I think the danger here is that you may bypass your unresolved issues, thinking they are ultimetaly "unreal". What this may potentially lead to is that you still have many unresolved issues after years of meditating and be unaware of that. And if you start to believe that you "got it", there is a danger of falling into a kind of self-inflation. I would say that potentially most prone to this are people practising "sudden" teachings, such as Zen/Dzogchen/Mahamudra.
The other way is that you have to actively work on your obstructions, doing for example purification practices or engaging in Bodhisattva conduct or even going through psychotherapy. Yet you may get stuck in this approach and never actually realise the relative value of it. No wonder then it takes three incalculable eons!
So the answer would seem to be that there is a need to combine the two.
What do you make of all this? Do you think there is a need for balance? Do you think one approach is more important than others?
I'm posting this as a personal question to some extent. I find the teachings of "sudden" schools most compelling (I started off in Zen), but sometimes I find they may lack this active approach of "countering" the delusions (I know that Zen people would say "zazen is all you need" - that's precisely what I'm talking about. What about practices such as loving-kindness meditation, contemplation of death or Lam Rim meditations?). On the other hand, the other approach may get so complicated and involved, you lose the bigger picture. I am advised to do preliminary practices, for example, but even though I understand reasons for doing them, I kind of see the pointlessness of them at the same time).
So, any thoughts?
I would add at the end that maybe it's good to restrict this discussion to Mahayana schools in order not to make it more complicated than necessary. Of course all perspectives are useful, so if you come from Therevada or Batchelor or other perspective, could you please indicate it in your post.
Then there is the idea of the two truths, absolute and relative. Obviously the obstructions/karmic imprints are placed in the second category. It is precisely because they lack any essence and are adventitious, they can be removed and the mindstream can be purified.
Now connecting this to the different methods employed by different schools and also to Western psychology, I can see there are two "tendencies".
One is that all you need is to realise emptiness and abide in that, and that awareness will eventually dissolve your karmic imprints. I think the danger here is that you may bypass your unresolved issues, thinking they are ultimetaly "unreal". What this may potentially lead to is that you still have many unresolved issues after years of meditating and be unaware of that. And if you start to believe that you "got it", there is a danger of falling into a kind of self-inflation. I would say that potentially most prone to this are people practising "sudden" teachings, such as Zen/Dzogchen/Mahamudra.
The other way is that you have to actively work on your obstructions, doing for example purification practices or engaging in Bodhisattva conduct or even going through psychotherapy. Yet you may get stuck in this approach and never actually realise the relative value of it. No wonder then it takes three incalculable eons!
So the answer would seem to be that there is a need to combine the two.
What do you make of all this? Do you think there is a need for balance? Do you think one approach is more important than others?
I'm posting this as a personal question to some extent. I find the teachings of "sudden" schools most compelling (I started off in Zen), but sometimes I find they may lack this active approach of "countering" the delusions (I know that Zen people would say "zazen is all you need" - that's precisely what I'm talking about. What about practices such as loving-kindness meditation, contemplation of death or Lam Rim meditations?). On the other hand, the other approach may get so complicated and involved, you lose the bigger picture. I am advised to do preliminary practices, for example, but even though I understand reasons for doing them, I kind of see the pointlessness of them at the same time).
So, any thoughts?
I would add at the end that maybe it's good to restrict this discussion to Mahayana schools in order not to make it more complicated than necessary. Of course all perspectives are useful, so if you come from Therevada or Batchelor or other perspective, could you please indicate it in your post.
0
Comments
There is a way these teachings are practiced to help our meditation without an actual experience of the clear light mind.
Emptiness acts as a panacea to all the obscurations as opposed to the Lamrim meditations for specific ones. Its like cutting the root out or cutting the branches off.
The path to enlightenment consists of two branches likened to the wings of a bird, both are needed for it to fly. One is the wisdom branch (emptiness) the other is the skillful means branch (compassion).
Personally, I usually seperate my meditations into one part mindfulness/open presence meditation and one part some form of compassion meditation. So I guess I think both are necessary.
I think you are asking about lam rim versus direct pointing out instructions? My teacher said that you might follow lam rim and get to a point where the upadesha direct instructions are needed. The example she gave was when you realize that your negative karma you have accumulated is infinite. Thus since it is infinite you cannot purify all of it. And so you need to have the direct instruction to cut to the source or root as @person has said (I think).
Goenka focus on removing obstructions only
Mahasi focus on self realiations only and consider the obstructions as things to observe.
So you end up with Mahasi people finishing the paths quickly but full of obstructions which they don't bother clearing(check out the dho and kenneth folk dhamma)
and with goenka people, you end up with people only focussing on the obstructions for their entire lives without ever considering self realization.
I think the key lie in the middle way, self realizations and path makes removing obstructions easier.
but not worrying about obstructions is like realizing you are a river, being able to see the river, but not bothering to clean it up.
and only owrrying about obstructions is cleaning up the river in the dark, you'll miss important stuff...
@patbb - that's very interesting. I kind of always assumed that approaches to contemporary vipassana are more or less the same.
The other issue that I think is closely related to this discussion is the sudden vs. gradual dispute. There was an interesting encounter between HHDL (Gelugpa, emphasis on gradual path), and Master Sheng Yen (Chan, sudden path). In it, HHDL says that Lama Tsongkhapa was very critical of "sudden" approaches. Indeed, there was a lot of hostility in Tibet at some point towards Dzogchen on these grounds.
I actually don't know what Ngondro is though I have heard the word. For obstructions? I believe it's important to notice what our thinking is like. What we are telling ourselves. And to remember that when we feel bad we think it has always been that way. But it's not true it is just confusion. So for obstructions I think it is important to remember the ways of confusion and how it is never the way we think it is. Thus we can be very simple, I guess like pattb says to observe the river. As they say a muddy pool clears naturally when you stop stirring it up.
For me, the question occurs in the context of being presented with some teachings that I question - in particular those of preliminary practices within TB - but it may also apply to other schools as well.
To summarise, I see 2 approaches to practice and I'm still not able to reconcile them.
One is focussed on changing ourselves - we actively develop qualities like compassion, we employ strategies to deal with hindrances (like patience to counter anger etc), we may employ some purification practices. We follow a gradual approach, developing ourselves, and we have our eyes set on a goal (call it Buddhahood, Nibbana, happiness) which we hope will occur in the future. We can also work on a psychological level, doing some psychotherapy or engaging in one self-improvement strategy or another.
The other approach is more to do with accepting how we are NOW, realising the enlightenment that's already here. We work in uncovering our essential goodness and whether we strive for Buddhahood or not, we don't project it into the future. Our "obstructions" have the same nature as enlightenment and we embrace them rather than try to eradicate them.
I don't know. The second approach feels more natural, but the first makes sense intellectually. After all, we are getting somewhere and maybe even actually becoming a better, kinder person. The descriptions and teachings may be very persuasive and make sense, but I can't tell whether my unwillingness to engage in the first approach is a sign of ego making excuses, or not being "ready", or whether it's just a matter of finding something that resonates (in my case, the second one) and disregarding the other and not worrying about it.
Any thoughts anyone?
Totally accepting how we are here and now leads to purification. Someone who totally accepts, has compassion and loving kindness and can't be angry.
The question for me is - who or what are we puryfying/developing if there's no self? But then, sure, if I do say 100.000 prostrations, it is likely I will be affected in some (positive) way.
Everything will be dealt with.
Regardless of renouncing, embracing, transforming, or destroying.
Our shit is the path. Our shit is also the fruit.
There is non-self, but there is still a person, a mindstream. Although nothing is constant in that mindstream, that doesn't mean certain topics return in it more often than others. Topics like anger, greed, but also love, letting go.
So it is from the 'unhelpful' topics that the mindstream is released, from the so-called defilements. There is no self needed for this process. It's not like you clean the dust off off something, like a dusty picture. No, you just dig away a pile of dust, finding there is nothing underneath that dust. But that's ok, the dust is gone anyway.
Hope you catch the drift. It's not easy to put into words and I can understand your confusion. But, you can only find what is under the dust by cleaning it up, at least temporarily. So don't just assume there is no picture under it, no self, and so there is no need to clean up the dust.
This opinion won't be shared by everybody, but I think, sometimes, especially if the sense of no-self is not developed yet, it is better to reflect on things as if there was a self. For example, when there is sadness, it can be shuffed away as 'non-self', or you just say 'ok i am sad'. Although technically untrue maybe, it can be a better way to process the sadness. Maybe in this case, that's what you should do, with respect to the topic we were discussing. Maybe for now assume there is a self to be purified. Little secret: this is what a lot of people do anyway
Metta!
[i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
[ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.
[iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
[iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort."
— SN 45.8
We are purifying the mind. I would say if the 100,000 prostrations leads to more beautiful qualities, carry on. If it doesn't, then don't. There is also such a thing as effortless effort.
Regards
and this, from Mooji: