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.
Cherry picking
I find bits and pieces from the Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana (I hope my spellings are correct) traditions attractive. Is it ok to cherry pick "my" Buddhism like this, or is it best to find a "best-fit" tradition and stick to that? Do others also cherry pick?
0
Comments
When I first came to Buddhism I didn't know enough about all the different traditions to choose one and stick to it, so I looked at all of them and used my gut to choose what was meaningful to me and what wasn't.
After about two years of investigation I found the tradition that most suited my personality, the Thai Forest Tradition, and although I stay pretty close to it I also keep teachings from other traditions and schools in mind, especially Tibetan, as I go about my daily life. I found the Shambhala school of Tibetan Buddhism to be something that really helped me along the way and I'm loathe to give it up.
But I don't worry about it. I choose to call myself a Thai Forest Tradition student and most of what I focus on is from that tradition but I also find the teachings of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche and his students, like Pema Chodron, from the Shambhala school to be very helpful to me. I also just bought a Tibetan singing bowl because I find them very useful in my meditation practice and I love them.
So while you're doing your research into the various forms of Buddhism I think it's a good idea to try different things. As you do this you'll find what practices best suit your personality and eventually you'll find one tradition you feel most at home with and you'll probably want to focus on that one.
So my short answer to your question is, cherry pick to your heart's content while keeping an eye out for the one tradition that will suit you best because focusing on one tradition can be a great help in your practice. When you've found the tradition that most speaks to you remember that you can still benefit from some of the teachings of other traditions at the same time, just as long as they don't completely distract you from the tradition you want to call your own.
Does this make any sense?
We have, for example, supposed that what we might call the spiritual way is different in kind from, say, geometry. Its 'truth' and methods are not fixed and certain. We may, however, have discovered that geometry itself can no longer count on its basic axioms. So we are drawn to the conclusion that there is a significant disparity between Truth and human perception of it.
We go on to suppose that different approaches to the spiritual way all hold some useful understanding.
This leads us to challenge the hierarchical paradigm which would have us believe that this way is 'better' than that one; or, more worryingly, that one specific way is the only way. To the feminists among us, this is, once again, a manifestation of patriarchy at work.
And yet, in music for example, breadth of taste is considered the good thing.
As in music, the individual may find themselves more suited to one particular instrument or style. Similarly, on the spiritual way, using the Ox-Herding poems again, we may more clearly discern the tracks of the ox on one way rather than another.
For some, the whole of a life is spent, casting around all the muddles ox tracks, never finding the way which leads at last to "no ox". Others find a clear set of tracks, follow them and still not find "no ox". Some find "no ox" without so much toil.
Problems only arise when we get stuck into judgment between categories such as "right" and "wrong", or, even, "skillful" and "unskillful". As Edith Sitwell put it:
That sounds nice except that the Buddha himself specifically divided actions into those that are skillful (i.e., rooted in non-greed, non-hatred and non-delusion) and unskillful (i.e., rooted in greed, hatred and delusion) for a reason. In the words of Thanissaro Bhikkhu, skillful actions "point you to freedom, to the total cessation of suffering," while unskillful actions "take you to a dead end, tie you up in knots, and leave you there" (A Question of Skill). Problems only arise when were are unable to differentiate between skillful and unskillful actions.
As such, the practice is said to be a gradual path in that it takes time to develop this skill. In the meantime, the precepts are there to help act as guidelines that protect us from harming ourselves, as well as others, from the results of our unskillful actions. The point is not to not find anything or to not achieve a goal. If that were the case, there would have been no point in teaching the Dhamma in the first place. In fact, the Buddha said the suffering of having a goal that is yet unfulfilled (i.e., nibbana) is better than that of not having a goal at all.
In regard to cherry-picking, the generally adopted methodology of arriving at what is critically important in Buddhism as a whole is to take a given set of teachings as working hypotheses, and then test them through following the Buddha's path of practice, the Noble Eightfold Path. In addition, the Buddha himself said that if something does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to nibbana, then it is not the Dhamma, it is not the Vinaya, and it is not the Teacher's instruction (AN 7.80).
Jason
Palzang
While we continue to have subjective, anecdotal 'descriptions' of enlightenement/salvation/reconciliation/whatever, are you truly saying, Palzang-la, that if one should "Find a path that speaks to you and follow it to the exclusion of all others" it could even be fundamental Christianity? Are the important aspects the "path with heart" and the committed following? Or is there an absolute Truth to be discovered - or which has been revealed?
I would like to know though which brand of Buddhism Thich Nat Han mentions in his books because of all the publications on Buddhism that I have read, his speak to me the most strongly.
There is much knowledge a seeker can acquire from Buddhism. There are notions and ideas which surprise, astonish and excite us. Great languages to study, if one wishes. Centuries of debate and philosophy to pour over and, of course, thousands of opinions. Many teachers we can cleave to and lots of instructions we can try to adopt...
...or perhaps we can just meditate and directly taste what Buddha found for ourselves.
What do you 'need to be' in order to do this? Nothing at all, you are now (with all your shortcomings and imperfections) ready to walk the path. Ignore those who claim you need to be 'whiter than white' or that you 'lack' what you need - however they choose define it and you along with it.
Jhana waits to be unlocked. It's within you, if you want it.
Just my (devaluing) tuppence worth.
Mu
Palzang
I read the Dalai Lama with some interest; coming from the Tibetan tradition, he nevertheless can be said to have adapted many of what he teaches to the Western audiences he speaks to often to be considered as part of that contribution to Buddhism which is non-sectarian. I read plenty of continental philosophy too; and I always like to consider them from Buddhist perspectives. It has become a method to me; an epistemology.
I wouldn't deny what Palzang said though, if nirvana is what you seek, then it be better to stick with an official school; it's reasonable to think that nirvana will be found with something tested, so as to speak, than something untested and personal, if reason buys such a justification. But yes, if otherwise, "cherry picking" looks fine - AFAIK the HHDL does not preach to his audiences, but talks of a common human relation etc. rather than promote a certain religious message.
Hmm...