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.
Consequences of never choosing a school
Are there any consequences for someone who goes through their entire life never dedicating themselves fully to either Mahayana or Theravada?
0
Comments
No bolt of lightning, nuthin'........
Yes. It will go on your permanent record, and there will be severe consequences.
The important thing is to have a consistent practice, and to work the practice for the period of time (usually years) necessary to benefit from the practice. The real problem with not being dedicated to a particular school is that it often means not being dedicated enough to your practice to stick with it when it becomes boring or difficult.
Before the extinction of Buddhism in India, Mahayana and non-Mahayana monks lived in the same monasteries. The line between Mahayana and non-Mahayana was probably more fluid than it is now. I don't know that for certain, but the usual effect of proximity is to encourage heterodoxy.
Those are only two school of many. Within Mahayana there are subsects such as Tibetan, Pure Land, Zen, etc.
Not to confuse things further but... =P
I think RenGalskap should get positive Karma for his post above. : D
Really, think about it. Not only did the various forms of Buddhism derive from one source, but likely ALL religions derived from one source.
*I* say, take wisdom wherever you find it (not necessarily just in Buddhism [!!!])... take what benefits you right now. Leave what doesn't behind. Perhaps at some point you will come back and find it does.
This man is right on the money.
Whilst we are all different, I first studied and practised Buddhism following a certain teacher, who also taught inter-faith. At the time, I was very happy and did not know any better.
However, sometime in the 90's, Wisdom Publications printed the first Majjhima Nikaya, of which I was a first receiver. At that time, I also started reading a few anthology translations of Pali suttas.
I found when I read the Buddha's teachings it was much more authentic and different than the teacher I followed.
So, whilst we are all different, the blurred understanding & priorities I gained from intefaith seemed to drop away and the Buddha's teachings became very distinct in my mind (which lead to greater clarity).
That is just my experience.
Kind regards
DDhatu
He's really funny too!
Yes, as all such decisions and indecisions have consequences. Is such decision or indecision 'negative' or 'positive', let those who would pass judgment say? I suggest that your experience(s) along all paths will be unique. You are the ultimate benefactor of choice. Differentiated teachings are interesting, colorful, and delightful in vigor, spirit and tenacity, yet remain unfortunately divisive. Buddhism certainly doesn't exclude faith, neither in the sense of an intimate and unshakable conviction born from the discovery of an inner truth, nor in the sense of a feeling of wonderment at that discovery. Yet Buddhism is not dogma, as one who professes the discovery of ultimate truth within the teachings of either Mahayana or Theravada should be listened to with but one ear in the absence of personal examination.
The Buddha made it clear that his teachings should be examined and meditated on, but never simply accepted as true out of respect for him. The truth of his teachings has to be discovered by progressing through the successive stages of the path that leads one to spiritual realization. The Buddha's teachings are like travel guides that show the way to enlightenment, to ultimate knowledge of the nature of the mind and of the phenomenal world. Perhaps your concern(s) would be extinguished in this manner of contemplation…
I suggest another way. The Pali Canon is recognized as authentic by both; it contains the full teachings of Siddhattha Gotama. Whatever you choose to do as far as a school, if you study the Pali Canon and put the Buddha's teachings into practice, you will achieve your goal.
Good luck.
That is what i was referring to.
absolutely. there are methods that are taught from teacher to student that you wont find in the Pali canon and I dont think we can say they werent taught by Buddha because of this. The Pali canon is just as susceptible to evolution and tampering as any other ancient text. That said, I am a big fan of the Pali Nikaya's but by no means do I think they contain the "full" teachings of Buddha, nor do I think they are the final word. They may be for some and thats fine but I dont think its a realistic view.
Buddha taught for a long time.
The Pali canon wasnt written until hundreds of years after he died.
Its length can be attributed to both his extensive teaching and later additions by monks like the weird misogyny in the vinaya etc. that i dont think Buddha taught.
They are a great source for foundational teachings but we have to be historically realistic when we consider what might have been left out and what might have been added later.
And if for some reason anything was excluded, we'll never know... so it's a pointless debate. I'm sure though we can agree that if anything _was_ left out, it would've been a very meticulous endeavor; each part of the Canon supports the rest of the Canon. It all meshes together as a symphony masterfully composed and performed.
Well we are just hijacking the thread anyways.
Shortly following the Buddha’s death, a council was held at which his five hundred closest disciples met to compile a complete collection of his teachings. The sermons of the Buddha, the sutras, were recited from memory by one or other eminent disciple, while others listened and corrected the speaker when necessary. You have to remember that the oral tradition has always played a primary role in the transmission of knowledge in the East, and does so even today. Trained Easterners often have an astonishing memory. This isn’t just fiction, as I have stood witness and heard Tibetan teachers, and students too, reciting texts several hundred pages long from memory, stopping from time to time to comment on the meaning, with an accuracy that always amazed me as I followed the text in a book.
Each sutra, therefore, begins with the formula, “In such-and-such a place and in such-and-such circumstances, I heard the Buddha speak as follows…’ When you think that the Buddha taught without a measurable break from the age of ~thirty until his death at ~eighty, and that he dealt with the same subjects over and over again like Buddhist teachers today, it’s not unreasonable to think that his close disciples, after passing ~thirty or ~forty years with him, retained an accurate version of his teachings in their memory, even if not absolutely word for word. Those of us who have spent twenty or so years with a Tibetan teacher (or teachers) are capable, without being endowed with any exceptional intellectual capacities, of expressing the essence of his teaching(s) with reasonable accuracy.
As well as the collected words of the Buddha, there are two hundred and thirteen volumes of commentary and exegesis written by eminent Indian teachers and scholars over the centuries following the Buddha’s death, and thousands of volumes of texts written later by Tibetan authors. Tibetan classical literature is one of the richest by volume of any Eastern language, outdone only by Sanskrit and Chinese
Lots of good info there. Thank you.
I just wanted to add that the oral tradition has also played a primary role in the West. A good example of this was the old Celtic cultures. Songs, histories, and stories, were passed down orally for hundreds of years before being written down. I've heard that the need to record something by writing it down was considered to be a sign of a weak mind. Strong memory skills were highly prized in Celtic culture.
Love & Peace
Joe
this is definitely the benefit of choosing a path.
The structure and methodical presentation of the stages and paths is very conducive to a thorough understanding of ones progress and development.
Love & Peace
Joe
My experience has been one of straddling two traditions and really suffering for it, Thai forest and Soen (Korean Zen). Both are Good and True, but the differences became greater, not lesser, with time. This completely confounded the ideal of Buddhism I had carried for decades, but it was so. Once I decided to let go of one Sangha (they remain old friends) and the responsibilities of community organizing, public sittings and so forth that I was involved with, and devoted wholeheartedly to the other, progress in practice shot forward like a released elastic band.
The differences that clarified can be summed up as follows....
Thai Forest: Realizing liberation through the renunciation of conditions, the end of rebirth and final release in Nibbana (Nirvana) "The unconditioned".
Soen: Liberation through the non-renuciation of conditions, and release as the unity of Nirvana and Samsara in Suchness.
I recall that some Sri Lankan Theravadins were critical of the Thai Forest monastics for being prone to Eternalism in their view, but this seems absurd.
There are also those who say the Zen teaching and practice already exists in the Pali Canon, but I would appreciated it if someone with extensive knowledge could show an example of this. This has never been mentioned by the Thai forest Monastics and I've never seen it.
My view is that these paths are a matter of free choice, but there is also something old and deep at work in where we best practice. Niether is better or worse. In fact someone elequently put it this way... Theravada is like this, because Zen is like that, Zen this that, because Theravada is like this.
It may be different for others.
According to followers of the Mahayana, the Buddha taught both the Theravada and the Mahayana during his life. But, as he taught the individuals according to their particular capacities, he only taught the Mahayana to those who had the openness of mind necessary to understand it. I am not referring here to the esoteric teachings, which do also exist in Buddhism, but of different levels of teaching that weren’t normally distinct in the Buddha’s lifetime.
The Mahayana emphasize that to free oneself alone from suffering is a severally limited goal. At the same moment as committing yourself to the path, you should have the intention to attain Buddha-hood for the sake of all beings. You transform yourself in order to acquire the capacity to help others free themselves from suffering. Since I’m only one person, while others are infinitely numerous, whatever happens to me, whether good or bad, is insignificant compared to the suffering and happiness of others. The depth of Mahayana resides in its views on emptiness, on absolute truth. Emptiness has nothing to do with nothingness, but consists of understanding that phenomena have no intrinsic existence. It is here the followers of the Theravada contest that view of things, as well as the general authenticity of the Mahayana’s teachings.
I should mention that there’s also a third vehicle, which arose in India like the two others, but which was particularly widespread in Tibet. It’s called the Vajrayana, or Adamantine Vehicle, and adds to the Mahayana a large number of esoteric techniques for the path of contemplation.
This response is little more than a basic overview of the major streams of Buddha Dharma. Anyone with any history in the Buddhist Sangha will have heard this a million times. You completely missed the point of the post, and clearly did not notice the history of Sangha involvement stated by the poster.
That's almost identical to what I said on another thread. Is that good?
Love & Peace
Joe
isn't this that we are making effort to gain the 'Noble Right View'?
its very good Joe.
in other words, if i know what is right and what is wrong and further makes an effort to gain 'Noble Right View' in this life-time, i am with Theravada
and
if i am happy to know what is right and what is wrong and practise it whole heartedly without making effort to gain 'Noble Right View' in this life-time, i am with Mahayana
is this the difference between the two?
First of all the difference is a difference I experienced in practice. Whether this represents an objective difference , or a difference for others I cant say. But it basically came down to this... In Theravada what I was taught is that the conditioned world is exile, a "burning house" and the peace resulting from uprooting the defilements while in the world gives way to Nibbana upon death. The goal is Nibbana. In Zen the world is Nirvana. It is not an exile. The idea that the Mahayana practitioner stays behind to help other before finally entering Nirvana is not true, he effectively realizes nirvana as samsara. The conditioned realm and the "unconditioned" are two sides of one occasion. The world is the Zen practitioners business endlessly. In terms of the Bodhisattva vow this is expressed in the Diamond Sutra as vowing to liberate numberless beings knowing that no-one has been liberated. The split I finally encountered was not between the compassion or lovingkindeness of the practioners. The finest people I have ever known, have been Thai Forest monastics, it was the decision in practice between staying and going, liberation from conditions, and liberation as conditions. It was a fork in the road, that appeared at the ripening of concentration practice.
Like I said it may be different for others
Love & Peace
Joe
Buddhist ideas can perfectly well impregnate someone’s mind and bring them many benefits without their necessarily renouncing what they do. In theory, there are said to be eighty-four thousand approaches, or entrance doors, in Buddhism. The large number is to indicate that, in fact, anyone can start wherever they are. To climb Mount Everest, you could set out from the traffic jams of a Los Angeles suburb or from the lush greenery of Ireland’s countryside. The goal is the same, but the ways you might travel are different. In the same way, on the spiritual path we all have to start at a point where we find ourselves, each with a different character, set of disposition, intellectual and belief structure. Everyone can find the particular means tailored to their needs, allowing them to work on their thoughts, gradually setting themselves free from the yoke of the negative emotions, and finally perceive the ultimate nature of the mind.
Yet, simple though it might seem at first glance, the liberation of thoughts is neither an optimistic view of things nor a collection of recipes without any basis or outcome. The techniques it uses are derived from a ‘contemplative science’ thousands of years old, built up at the cost of considerable effort by hermits practicing for hours a day over twenty or thirty years of their lives. It is inevitable that, without taking some steps in the context of their own experiences to see what it’s all about, some people will feel doubtful about any knowledge obtained using such unfamiliar methods. Every science has its own instruments. Without a telescope, you cannot see the craters on the moon. Without contemplative practice, you cannot see the nature of the mind…
Nevertheless, Buddhism doesn’t claim to have discovered any new truths. The very notion of ‘newness’ is, of course, foreign to any spiritual knowledge, which aims at recognizing the very nature of things. But what distinguishes Buddhism from a purely intellectual analysis is that it’s derived from direct contemplation of the nature of the mind. It’s acquired by experience, as perhaps those expressed by Richard Herman above, not just conceptual reasoning. Nor is it knowledge that’s left as theory, like a doctor’s prescription left on your bedside table without the medicine ever been taken. It’s actually put to work to eliminate from the stream of mind everything that veils its underlying nature…
To become a Buddhist, one’s not obliged to adopt the cultural context in which Buddhism was born and in which it was able to develop in the East. Rather the essence of Buddhism isn’t ‘Buddhist’, its universal because it touches the basic mechanisms of the human mind. Buddhism considers each person has to start where they are and use the methods that match their nature and their personal capacities. That flexibility and richness of possibilities could be useful to anyone, without Buddhism renouncing its basic values.
It’s not a matter of adapting the teachings of Buddhism, but of being sure to understand its very essence – which doesn’t need any adaptation, for it corresponds to the deepest preoccupations of anyone, whoever and wherever they might be…
I agree Joe, life can be annoying. I think this is largely because, as you were alluding too, without even realizing it we can say things that we don't neccesarily believe in, but rather think we should believe in merely because it is, by popular belief, able to be categorized in a group, belief or whatever it may be, to think such a thing, or have such an opinion. (Holy crud that was a long sentence!)
So getting back on track now
And in all honesty, I believe it us, as people, who places a difference in the things we see. Would anyone not agree that Ice an Water are the same thing? Yet our minds percieve them differently. So Joe, I think a world in which we did not seperate and differntiate, would be an impossible Utopia to come across, thus, I think it is then up to us to see two people, and rather than searching for the differnces, recognize that, in themselves...at the core, they are the same. They are both people, are they not?
Excellent post!
Speaking directly from your practice in your own words this is...........
The essence of Buddhism is a metaphysical convention, from which a successive wisdom applicable in every instant and in all circumstances is derived… the nature of being, ignorance, the causes of suffering, the nonexistence of either the self or phenomena as autonomous entities, the law of causality, and so forth. The core teachings analyze and dismantle the mechanisms of happiness and suffering. Where does suffering come from? What are its causes? How can it be remedied?
It’s a search that concerns any human being, Buddhist or not. As such, one could say it is not a question of how Buddhism fits into one's life, but rather how one's life fits into Buddhism...
Love & Peace
Joe
As my great grandson was reading your post to me, I could only nod in agreement. The Dalai Lama has repeatedly stated wisdom that follows the insight of your statement – inclusivity not exclusivity, Kamma/Karma, the Middle Path.
This matter was addressed during the Buddha's first sermon in Benares within the boundaries of Deer Park. At being addressed by the five ascetics with whom Gautama had time spent, the Buddha was heard to have said,
Love & Peace
Joe
R: Shortly following the Buddha’s death, a council was held at which his five hundred closest disciples met to compile a complete collection of his teachings. The sermons of the Buddha, the sutras, were recited from memory by one or other eminent disciple, while others listened and corrected the speaker when necessary.
S9: Unless these 500 closest disciples had the kind of minds that could memorize what the Buddha said, as he said it, (like a tape recorder) there are bound to be some discrepancies between what he said and what they thought he meant.
Even if they got up and ran out of the room and wrote it down immediately and then memorized their words, they would still be their words they memorized. And so we are bound to have lost some of their meaning, as all of these fellows were not equally Realized, or nearly as clever as the Buddha.
Then we have so many years between then and now. Let us allow that there are differences.
Not only that, but when speaking to a large crowd, you are not purposely going to speak above most of their heads. I imagine there were a precious few who actually came from the same place of understanding as the Buddha, and he would take them aside and speak to them separately.
I think we need to at least make an attempt to be realistic and not indulge fruitlessly in magical thinking.
Of course I could be wrong,
S9
I also agree that we need to be realistic and not indulge in magical thinking… but then again, sometimes ‘magical’ thinking can lead to delightful, thrilling, and miraculous thoughts and ideas, and even result in an innocuous giggle or two...
Love & Peace
Joe
R: I also agree that we need to be realistic and not indulge in magical thinking… but then again, sometimes ‘magical’ thinking can lead to delightful, thrilling, and miraculous thoughts and ideas, and even result in an innocuous giggle or two...
Quote: “There is a time for everything under the sun.” Ecclesiastes
S9: But then again, I don’t believe the Buddha was trying to be a stand-up comic. ; ^ )
Smiles,
S9