Two extremes best avoided, or so it seems to me. All things considered.

Citta

The first is the idea that there is one dharma and all expressions of Buddhism are saying the same thing.

This invariably turns out to mean that the holder of the that view is quite sure that they know what the common denominator is and that their tradition is more equal than all others.

The second extreme is the idea that only one school or tradition has the real deal.

The fact is..I think, that there are many schools, because there are many needs.
And we could and should respect all.
But in the end we can only actually practice one..no matter how many we admire.
We might have a couple of false starts..but in the end we need to stick at one...for many years.
At the end of that time we might be in a place where we can genuinely recognise the commonalities.
Before that it is likely to be wishful thinking and good intentions.

karasti

I agree.

Nevermind

Citta said:

But in the end we can only actually practice one..no matter how many we admire.

It appears you've falling victim to your own extreme. Of course if you understand the situation you can explain why "we can only actually practice one" tradition or religion, right?

Sabre

I think another 'extreme' to be avoided is to think in terms of traditions. I prefer to think in terms of individual practitioners. Even if hypothetically one thinks only one tradition is right, you'll eventually get disappointed when you figure out many people within that tradition are 'merely' repeating the words, or I dare say even mistakes, of their teachers. So a tradition will not be right. Or wrong for that matter.

Even in the time of the Buddha, when the sangha was more like one community, it wouldn't be right to say that the group of practitioners back then had the right view, or right ideas. Within the 'tradition' there were people who understood, some who understood a little, and some who didn't. It'll be the same now and those types of people I think you'll find in various places.

Other pitfalls of seeing things of terms of traditions can be attachment to traditions, which I think happens quite a lot. And seeing it like this also avoids practicing 'one tradition'. I do the practices I think are true and helpful for me and I don't see them as part of a tradition necessarily.

It's true that it can be helpful to refer to certain traditions, or groups. But saying things like we can practice only one, or defining right view in terms of entire groups, that I personally don't like to do.

Citta

Ok Sabre lets make that upayas...skillfull means . There are a limited number of upayas that we can practice to any degree of depth. Deep enough to yield the fruit of that upaya. And none of them yield their fruit quickly.
We need to hunker down, and let the Vipassana or the Zazen or the Samatha unfold.

seeker242

Citta said:

The first is the idea that there is one dharma and all expressions of Buddhism are saying the same thing.

This invariably turns out to mean that the holder of the that view is quite sure that they know what the common denominator is and that their tradition is more equal than all others.

It invariably turns out that the view is quite sure in knowing what the common denominator is, yes. However, to say that view invariably turns out also to mean that their tradition is more equal than all others, is not always the case! If one truly holds that there is only one dharma and all expressions of Buddhism are saying the same thing, then there are no real distinctions between traditions to begin with. If there are no real distinctions between traditions to begin with, then it's not possible to hold one tradition more equal or less equal to others. There is only one tradition! The tradition called "Buddhism"!

Citta

And there's the rub.
Within the context of this liberal and broad forum such a conclusion is unremarkable.
Now go to Dhamma Wheel and say the same thing or to Vajracakra and claim that their view is non different to the Theravada and you might well find that there are limits to Buddhist ecumenicism.

seeker242

Limits in other people minds yes. However, to one who holds the view of only one Buddhism, other people's limits are not their limits. One's mind need not be limited by other people's ideas. So in essence, it's doesn't matter what people at dharmawheel believe or don't believe as those are only their limits, not one's own. Unless of course you make them your own. If you don't make them your own, then they're not your own.

Citta

As I said it inevitably turns out that the holder of that view considers that that know what the common denominator is. With an inbuilt implication of superiority that smacks of solipsism.

Sabre

Citta said:

Ok Sabre lets make that upayas...skillfull means . There are a limited number of upayas that we can practice to any degree of depth. Deep enough to yield the fruit of that upaya. And none of them yield their fruit quickly.
We need to hunker down, and let the Vipassana or the Zazen or the Samatha unfold.

Ok, skillful means. Seeing things in terms of traditions can help from a certain point of view, I agree.

But on the level of individuals, I wouldn't generalize much. Some people may indeed benefit from being more focused on a specific technique, but I think many can also benefit from being more free and creative in their meditation, to use a combination of techniques, or to go beyond techniques. I see no need to hunker down on one. The Buddha taught many approaches.

Citta

Actually he didn't. But perhaps its best left there.
My advice remains. Pick a recognised teacher, and a skillful means that suits you. And work with it through thick and thin.
That is what is common to every teacher I have met.

vinlyn

Citta said:

The first is the idea that there is one dharma and all expressions of Buddhism are saying the same thing.

This invariably turns out to mean that the holder of the that view is quite sure that they know what the common denominator is and that their tradition is more equal than all others.

The second extreme is the idea that only one school or tradition has the real deal.

The fact is..I think, that there are many schools, because there are many needs.
And we could and should respect all.
But in the end we can only actually practice one..no matter how many we admire.
We might have a couple of false starts..but in the end we need to stick at one...for many years.
At the end of that time we might be in a place where we can genuinely recognise the commonalities.
Before that it is likely to be wishful thinking and good intentions.

But we should have the same attitude toward other people' religions.

Lazy_eye

I'm in favor of whichever view produces the most insight and the least rancor.

Now if we can only figure out what view that is...

Citta

Lazy_eye said:

I'm in favor of whichever view produces the most insight and the least rancor.

Now if we can only figure out what view that is...

It might be different for different people...in fact I am sure it is.
What causes confusion is attempting to pick and mix. That's a sure recipe for going round in circles.

Citta

vinlyn said:

Citta said:

The first is the idea that there is one dharma and all expressions of Buddhism are saying the same thing.

This invariably turns out to mean that the holder of the that view is quite sure that they know what the common denominator is and that their tradition is more equal than all others.

The second extreme is the idea that only one school or tradition has the real deal.

The fact is..I think, that there are many schools, because there are many needs.


And we could and should respect all.
But in the end we can only actually practice one..no matter how many we admire.
We might have a couple of false starts..but in the end we need to stick at one...for many years.
At the end of that time we might be in a place where we can genuinely recognise the commonalities.
Before that it is likely to be wishful thinking and good intentions.

But we should have the same attitude toward other people' religions.

No doubt, as long as we don't attempt to practice other peoples religions.

Sabre

Citta said:

Actually he didn't. But perhaps its best left there.
My advice remains. Pick a recognised teacher, and a skillful means that suits you. And work with it through thick and thin.
That is what is common to every teacher I have met.

Thank you for saying it's just your advice and I appreciate it. And yes some may benefit. Probably you or you wouldn't say this. But my advice also remains that it's not useful to generalize here. I've used approaches from different teachers/traditions my entire "buddhist career" and it isn't going in circles. I'm sure there are many others who can say the same. And I'm also sure there are many others who are going in circles exactly because they stick to one teacher or approach. In fact that seems like the perfect way to get stuck to me. The way out of a circle is to try something new, not the same thing you already tried.

Jeffrey

It's not a circle if it is a good sangha/guru. It would be spiral learning.

Citta

Then we must agree to differ mustn't we ?
The Dharmic life is not about escape or distraction its about increased depth.
But.. if you can find one teacher that advises chopping and changing approaches in accordance with your own subjective whim, instead of working with the focus on a very few then I would be glad to read any link you can provide.
I have never met even one.

Sabre

Jeffrey said:

It's not a circle if it is a good sangha/guru. It would be spiral learning.

I agree. But if we're going the right way is a thing we can only decide if we're honest with ourselves. I don't think giving the advice "stick with one tradition" really helps with this in general. Sometimes it may be good advice, but certainly not always.

Citta

Actually I said focus on a very few upayas and work with them extensively
This is hardly novel or innovative.
I heard Trungpa Rinpoche say the same thing.
And Tai Situ.
And it is not restricted to Vajrayana teachers . I have heard Luang Por Chah say the same, and Ajahn Sumedho. And just a few weeks ago by Ajahn Amaro.
Find what is workable for you and dig in.
You are in it for the long haul.

Sabre

Citta said:

Then we must agree to differ mustn't we ?
The Dharmic life is not about escape or distraction its about increased depth.
But.. if you can find one teacher that advises chopping and changing approaches in accordance with your own subjective whim, instead of working with the focus on a very few then I would be glad to read any link you can provide.
I have never met even one.

The Buddha seems like a good one to me. But if you think he taught a single approach and think it's best left there, I don't feel like it's useful to clarify. If you or somebody else is sincerely interested, let me know and I'll take the time.

seeker242

Citta said:

As I said it inevitably turns out that the holder of that view considers that that know what the common denominator is. With an inbuilt implication of superiority that smacks of solipsism.

As far as the common denominator goes, are there any Buddhist traditions that don't believe in, teach, etc. the "three dharma seals"? I have never heard of one that doesn't. But then again, I'm not a sutra master. All I know is that I believe in only one dharma and that all expressions of Buddhism are saying the same thing. But at the same time, I don't hold "my tradition" to be more equal or less equal to any other.

Jeffrey

@seeker242, just to explain what you mean by three dharma seals

Impermanence of conditional phenomena
Suffering when grasping to conditional phenomena
non-self

I think that the differences come in how grasping is presented and how non-self is presented. I think you find the same realization in any school, but it may be presented differently.

For example in TB there is the shravaka, cittamatra, svatantrika, prasangika, and shentong views on emptiness and correspondingly the impermanence etc is viewed differently.

pegembara

The disagreements and arguments never end even among spiritual seekers. Why is that?

The brahmin Aramadanda approached the Venerable Mahakaccana, exchanged friendly greetings with him, and asked him:

"Why is it, Master Kaccana, that khattiyas fight with khattiyas, brahmins with brahmins, and householders with householders?"

"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to sensual pleasures, adherence to sensual pleasures, fixation on sensual pleasures, addiction sensual pleasures, obsession with sensual pleasures, holding firmly to sensual pleasures that khattiyas fight with khattiyas, brahmins with brahmins, and householders with householders."

"Why is it, Mater Kaccana, that ascetics fight with ascetics?"

"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views,holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics."

AN 2:iv

Citta

Because finding our truth is more important than being chummy ?
I would far rather someone disagreed with me, even strongly disagreed , than trot out the well rehearsed 'Buddhist' line in passive/aggressive indirectness.

misecmisc1

i like this kind of thread having spice in it, in which people agree to disagree that they agree to what others agree, so that the agreement on the disagreement of what needs to be agreed on is disagreed.

Citta

Erm..I agree...I think.

how

Why should there not be as many Dharmas & Paths as there are folks to take them?.
Why should the knowledge of other Dharmas & paths be a hinderence to your path.
Why, if everything changes and existence is fluidity, pretend that it isn't.

Florian

Citta said:

As I said it inevitably turns out that the holder of that view considers that that know what the common denominator is. With an inbuilt implication of superiority that smacks of solipsism.

Sorry to be argumentative but I feel these things matter. If we cannot interpret the traditions as sharing a common denominator then we are going to have to throw some of them out of Buddhism. Fortunately it is not easy to avoid the conclusion that they are compatible with each other. I'd say the clue is in the name. To be honest, I don't think we have to be superior or solipsistic to reach this compatibilistic view. I'd say it's the opposite view that requires this.

Citta

I didn't say they didn't Florian. I said that they can be a regrettable tendency to assume that one's own tradition has a unique pathway to that common denominator.
For a Zennist ( for example ) to feel that they can best explain the Theravada to the Theravadins by the light of Zen. Or vice versa. ......
I will give you another example that does not concern this Forum and so is less likely to appear merely contentious..
There was and still is a subforum on Dharma Wheel for Dzogchen.
The Dzogchenpas were constantly being told that Dzogchen is another school of Buddhism.
They would reply that although there is much in common ..it wasn't. That it was Dharma, but not necessarily Buddhdharma.
That was anathema to those who insist on a pan-Buddhist interpretation, or who assume that " really " Dzogchen must " deep down "be the same as their tradition.
This became an impasse. So the most learned and experienced of the Dzogchenpas upped sticks and formed Vajracakra.com
Which I think was a great pity all round. I am glad Vajracakra exists, it is a particularly rigorous debating platform..but it was to Dharma Wheel's loss.
The Dzogchenpas were not denying the fact that there is a common denominator. They were saying that it cant be arrived at by conceptual levelling.

Florian

Okay, yes, good point. I see no problem with calling all these traditions different methods, and see the need to keep them fairly pure in order for them to work, and also to practice them in a fairly pure form. On this we seem to agree. The same issues arise when learning a musicial instrument, or perhaps when learning any skill. It's only the idea that these methods lead to different places that bothers me.

Citta

I think we do agree.
And conversely, I think the results for those who go from one method to another in a frenzy of spiritual -supermarket shopping are a clear warning to us all.
It all ends badly.
The desperation becomes palpable.

seeker242

Until you realize that all the supermarkets are selling the same product, just in different packaging! So then, it does not matter which product you buy, because everyone is getting the same thing!

Citta

But thats not what happens. Instead buying becomes an addiction..so there the buyer sits surrounded with packages and hungry for the store to open ..and never actually examining the purchases. The next teacher ,the next mantram , the next book, the next video...all just superficially skimmed.

seeker242

That really only true when one still has not realized they are the same. If one has realized they are the same, then there is no need to go look for "something else". No need to go to another store to begin with. All the stores are the same store, with only superficial differences.

Citta

That might be the case...however for those addicted to the spiritual supermarket, as with any addiction, the first step is to admit that one has a problem.
I think Chogyam Trungpa's " Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism "should be in every western Buddhists Christmas stocking.
It is a spot-on analysis of this phenomenon. In short, using aspects of various and often disparate, spiritual paths to REINFORCE the self sense, instead of seeing the illusory nature of the self sense.

Florian

@Citta - I can agree completely with your point here. As a student of comparative religion I'm well aware of the dangers of becoming a butterfly. I love dodging from the literature of one religion to the next, since they all help to shed light on one another. But to practice in this way would be daft. Still, we are likely to have to do this until we find our own preferred method. I think there's a real value in studying a few different religions to the point where the differences start to seem superficial. It can build confidence and aid understanding. But it's not an alternative to a focused practice. It is, as you say. quite likely to reinforce the ego and to become entertainment rather than work, even an addiction.

Citta

We may well chop and change until we find a good fit...In fact I boggle at those people I know who go straight into Zen say, or Vipassana and stick to it for decades..
BUT if someone after five or ten years is still hopping from practice to another then in my view we cannot be blamed for forming the view that they are a dilettante or hobbyist.

Florian

Yep. We might not be right, but we cannot be blamed.