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.
Sectarianism
Simonthepilgrim
Veteran
One prevalent Western myth about Buddhism is that the various schools, traditions and lineages happily co-exist. Indeed, on this site, when a member asks "which branch of Buddhism should I follow?" we tend to answer that what matters is what 'fits' for that individual.
Whilst this answer comforts our Western individualism, I wonder how true or skillful it really is. It is a cop-out in that it gives the enquirer no material with which to work and, emphasising personal choice, reinforces the delusion of the individual self.
Conflict between various schools of Buddhism has existed for centuries and continues to this day. Pretending it does not exist is a real denial of things as they are (yathabhutam). And the conflict can be as violent and blood-thirsty as the internecine warfare between Christian, Jewish or Islamic sects.
Catholic Christians claim "Apostolic succession" and "tradition" as proof that they are the true church; Protestants lay claim to the Bible. Sunni and Shia Muslims kill each other ove the strict interpretation of sharia. Similar struggles go on in Buddhism and we can just about detect them even here, on these boards.
Theravadan Buddhists claim that they are closer to the pure teachings of Gautama by referring solely to the Pali Canon. Mahayanists used to call Theravadins Hinayana (lesser vehicle) and claim higher teachings.
And even within overarching traditions, there are bloody conflicts. Tibetan Buddhism has been divided over the question of the "New Kadampa Tradition" and the division has led to intemperate language (even from the Dalai Lama) and to murder.
For many of us, coming to Buddhism with a contextual culture of awareness of such divisive dogma, these disputes are not simply off-putting, they are actual obstacles. They weaken the authority of the teachers and leave the searcher puzzled. Even some of the basic terms of Buddhism have different meaning in different traditions.
Our venerable friend, Palzang-la, has made a very good point about Westerners who mix and match aspects from different traditions. I think this is not only inevitable but, as against his conclusions, I think it may be a way into a "multi-cultural" Buddhism where the differences are accepted and, even, welcomed.
What do you think?
Whilst this answer comforts our Western individualism, I wonder how true or skillful it really is. It is a cop-out in that it gives the enquirer no material with which to work and, emphasising personal choice, reinforces the delusion of the individual self.
Conflict between various schools of Buddhism has existed for centuries and continues to this day. Pretending it does not exist is a real denial of things as they are (yathabhutam). And the conflict can be as violent and blood-thirsty as the internecine warfare between Christian, Jewish or Islamic sects.
Catholic Christians claim "Apostolic succession" and "tradition" as proof that they are the true church; Protestants lay claim to the Bible. Sunni and Shia Muslims kill each other ove the strict interpretation of sharia. Similar struggles go on in Buddhism and we can just about detect them even here, on these boards.
Theravadan Buddhists claim that they are closer to the pure teachings of Gautama by referring solely to the Pali Canon. Mahayanists used to call Theravadins Hinayana (lesser vehicle) and claim higher teachings.
And even within overarching traditions, there are bloody conflicts. Tibetan Buddhism has been divided over the question of the "New Kadampa Tradition" and the division has led to intemperate language (even from the Dalai Lama) and to murder.
For many of us, coming to Buddhism with a contextual culture of awareness of such divisive dogma, these disputes are not simply off-putting, they are actual obstacles. They weaken the authority of the teachers and leave the searcher puzzled. Even some of the basic terms of Buddhism have different meaning in different traditions.
Our venerable friend, Palzang-la, has made a very good point about Westerners who mix and match aspects from different traditions. I think this is not only inevitable but, as against his conclusions, I think it may be a way into a "multi-cultural" Buddhism where the differences are accepted and, even, welcomed.
What do you think?
0
Comments
As for your point about "multi-cultural" Buddhism, that seems to be an attractive proposition to some "modern" types who think it is important to break down barriers between seeming opposing camps and so forth. I disagree most wholeheartedly, however. The examples of multi-cultural Buddhism I've seen are just mishmashes of Buddhism which don't really end up teaching Buddhism at all, but rather some dumbed down, watered down version that ends up throwing out the baby with the bath water (please excuse my horrible mixed metaphors!). How you can teach Buddhism while throwing out concepts like "karma", "rebirth" and so forth are beyond me! Better to choose a path and follow it to the exclusion of all else. This is what my teachers advise, and I think it's good advice. Otherwise you're just setting yourself up to become confused and even more deluded than you started out. And I've seen it happen more times than I like to think about.
Just my humble, worthless opinion!
Palzang
Also I would like to clear something up. Everyone says that Buddhism does not have REWARD and PUNISHMENT. This is not true. We follow this path to end our suffering (REWARD). If we do not follow this path our suffering becomes worse(PUNISHMENT). Sure there is no heaven or hell but there is reward and punishment.
Also opinions are never worthless or humble. If they were either we would keep them to ourselves.
It is a fact that everyone cannot and will not agree on exactly what the Buddha taught, what's the best way to practice, and what the results of said practice will be. There are so many different suttas, sutras, sayings, teachings, traditions, schools, commentaries, teachers, types of people, etc. that not everyone will see the Dhamma in the exact same way. It is up to each of us to practice, in whatever ways we learn, to see the truth of any given teaching. In the end all that can be hoped is that you will eventually transcend this concept known as dukkha, and if that doesn't happen in this lifetime then at least you will have lived a wholesome and blameless life.
I do not tell anyone what to believe. I just hope that they will learn the truth themselves through serious practice and contemplation. Just by me saying, "Rebirth is true and important to the understanding of the Dhamma." will not help this realization to arise in anyone. I just try to give them the encouragement to discover these truths for themselves. I believe that the Buddha's teachings are complete and lead to way to freedom from dukkha. I also believe that everyone must discover these truths on their own. If they wander down the path of wrong views then they will have to learn through experience that these views are incorrect. My job is not to point out their errors, it is to help point out the right direction. To me the right direction is contemplation of the suttas/sutras combined with meditation. That is the only way for truth to arise in ones own heart.
In my journey I have found that I am more drawn to the Theravada teachers as well as the Pali Canon. I never say I am a 'Theravada Buddhist', but I am as closer to that label than any other. For me I find that this way suits my character more than any of the others. I seem to learn more from the repetitive, straight forward style of the Pali texts. So in my explaination, views, and assessments I tend to give Pali suttas to reinforce my points and/or help in giving advice. But in light of this -- I do not deny other traditions or claim that they are wrong. In truth I began my study of Buddhism with books written by the Dalai Lama. I learned a great deal from him, but I did not limit myself to just his views and insights. I explored others until I found something that I had unshakable confidence in.
What has worked for me though, will not necessarily work for others. That is why I believe the Buddha taught so many different ideas, meditations, and ways of practicing--because there are so many different types of people that have different levels of insight.
I find the skillfulness in letting people discover their own Path simply because there is no way that I can do it for them. It is a journey that we each must walk on our own, and I cannot with a clear conscience try to persuade someone that only my way is the right way. I have not reached the end of the Path myself, so I cannot say with any confidence it is going to lead you anywhere at all! I can, however, share what I have learned personally with the hope that it may help someone who is struggling at the beginning of their journey.
In the end I hope that all of us finds the 'Truth' which we are so desperately looking for.
I understand where you're coming from, C.I. However, following a path is not about applying labels to oneself or seeking reward vs. punishment. Putting the results of karma in terms of "reward" and "punishment" is more of a Judeo-Christian way of looking at it, I think. The more "Buddhist" way would be to just look at it in terms of what actions lead to results that produce happiness, particularly the kind of permanent happiness that is the result of following the Dharma. The only valid reason for entering the path in the first place, in my opinion, is to end suffering for all sentient beings, not just oneself. Of course, no one comes onto the path wiith that motivation, or at least just that motivation. We come to the path in the first place because we are deluded sentient beings who seek to clear this delusion and become enlightened, so obviously we're still operating from an ego point of view at that point (and for some time after!). Probably everyone who has become a Buddhist did so initially to relieve their suffering. Sure, there may be some concern with the suffering of others as well, but it's basically about ME. That's normal and not something to feel guilty about (another Judeo-Christian artifact!). You just start where you are and go from there.
One khenpo I studied with said that feeling compassion and generosity does not come naturally to most people. That's what training is for. If you can't be generous to others, he suggested taking money and giving it from one hand to the other as a first step! So it's a gradual process of developing compassion for the well-being of others as much more important than just oneself, if only because there are so many more of them than you.
And if you're on the path as some sort of identity statement so that you can call yourself a Buddhist and look cool or something, what my teacher calls "walking the Dharma walk and talking the Dharma talk," then I think you'd be better off finding another hobby! Not a place for dilettantes. Not that I think anyone here is doing that. It seems like everyone here has a good motivation. But there are people I've seen like that, so it needs to be said.
Anyway, thanks also to Simon for raising this important issue. It is an important one as Dharma enters the West so that it Buddhism just doesn't become one more fad that fades away next summer when a new one comes along. Keeping the various traditions pure and unsullied is key to this, imho. And yes, I also feel that a Western Buddhism will emerge. It always has taken on the characteristics of whatever culture it has encountered, so why would it be different here?
Palzang
Thanks for starting a great thread. I kind of feel like we've touched on some of these points in some of the earlier threads we've participated in.
Remember when I was blathering on about "what is true?" or "what is factual?" - I think you make some great points in this thread.
Some folks on this forum are very new to Buddhism - just like people are new to Christianity. The person that "first finds God" or "Buddha" or "Vishnu" - they really don't know what they're doing. They first and foremost, come to a realization that brings them some kind of peace, identification or association. They have no idea of the theory, doctrines, dogmas, etc. that have been argued over the centuries - they're just really digging the fact that they found something - that they've had an epiphany.
Then, as with most things, as you start finding out more about whatever it is you've found - the more you start thinking about it.
For example, one of Buddha's teachings deal with intoxication of the mind. Now, I remember when I first read that, I was like, "Oh crap!"
Not because I have to have a drink everyday. I don't have to have a drink every week or every month. But, I do like a glass of beer. I do like beers when I'm out golfing with my buddies. My girlfriend and I like a bottle of wine with dinner or some Saturday nights when we're just hanging.
Then I started thinking, "Well, if I'm going to do this - I have to stop drinking."
But do I? A number of people here still have an occassional drink when they want to. And then I started thinking, "Yeah... I can do that too!" - but is it right? Is the goal of Buddha's teachings that we're not to become intoxicated to the point where we lose control over our thoughts and actions? Or not to do this or anything that intoxicates the mind at any time - so we will always have a clear head?
I know I talk about a lot of things about how "I feel about Buddhism" that really could be as wrong as wrong gets. I probably also say things that followers of specific concepts of Buddhism are probably going, "This guy is full of crap!"
But as with any religion, thought process, philosophy, etc. - it all comes down to interpretation of what we've read or heard. And you're right - I really don't have any idea of the off-shoots of the various practices of Buddhism - or what has happened culturally regarding Buddhism. It sounds like there might have been some very "tough times" for Buddhism when it made it's way into China and Japan - just from little snippets that I've read here and there.
I don't delude myself that there are probably very strict thought processes that various followers of Buddhism have. I also know that we even have a couple of people here from different practices that, so far, have been able to provides insights and commentaries on why they believe the certain vein of Buddhism that they do - without it digressing into name calling and ridicule. Plus, it gives the rest of us some food for thought.
But as Westerner's we probably do think of Buddhism being one big happy family because we really don't know any different. And that might not be a bad thing. I'm sure that when Buddha became enlightened - he had no idea that all these off-shoots of "this type of Buddhism" and "that type of Buddhism" were going to take place. He might have thought that with his enlightenment, all the need for off-shoots and such would no longer be needed and "everyone" could rest under the umbrella of enlightenment.
When I started writing this - I thought I had a comment that went along with this thread - now I'm not so sure. But!, thanks Simon, for all of your posts and insights.
Michael
I have a question. I have been drawn to Buddhism because of the Dalai Lama - what exactly does he advocate? What is his type of Buddhism? I've read a few of his books, and obviously know of him. His compassion and willingness for peace really moves me, he's probably the most enlightened man on earth. After all his troubles personally and with Tibet - he still advocates peace and forgiveness. How patient is he?
I had no idea there were so many different ways and it's very confusing for a newbie! Is Buddhism a way of life, a philosophy or is it a religion? Does it have to be practiced in a certain way in a certain place? If one chooses to apply the principles in one'e everyday life, without attending temples or anything, does that mean one is not a true Buddhist?
Another question for you. What exactly is "gassho"?
Thanks
Fee
This was one of the things that most surprised me when I went to a zen retreat. It was my first time and I went to shake hands with the other people there but instead they gassho-ed me! They also gassho-ed to say thank you for things instead of speaking and also as a farewell when leaving.
In fact Wolfscalissi's avatar is him Gasshoing!
They way I see all the different sects of Buddhism is this: In the olden days before the internet and other communicative technologies, it was all like 'chinese whispers'. Little things were changed as the word and teachings were spread. Of course it will be different in different parts of the world. I do not see any as being superior to the others, they all carry slightly different characteristics accordiing to the country in which it is practised. Like chrisianity, different sects, same God. Buddhism, all same Buddha.;)
Emmak - I understand what you are saying, but when a Buddhist practices the faith/religion/way of life - how do you know what to do if you are not part of any particular way of doing things? (does that make sense?) I mean, how do you know if you are following a correct path rather than one just made up to suit yourself?
I think: I left organized Western religion because it did not allow me to have a personal relationship...so why would I pursue an Eastern religion where all the different parts are saying 'we are right'.
Right here, right now. I drink a beer (once a year), swear, and have no intention of giving up anything. Buddhism must fit me now, as I am.
In all seriousness, I visited three of four different temples in my (kind of local) area. Then I picked the one I felt more comfortable in, the one that was the most welcoming, even though they all were. Incidentally, it was a Tibetan Buddhist Temple. I don't really think it matters too much if you cannot make an informaed decision regarding which sect you would like to follow. Just find a sangha that you like - that is important!
No teacher, no method, no sutta or sutra, no title, no label, no word itself is the Goal. It is all just basically a training. A set of guidelines, instructions, and methods that are used to make the conditions ripe for this profound wisdom to arise. Nothing more, nothing less. Once this raft of the "Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha" takes you to the other shore you simply let them go as the Buddha points out in this simile:
The Raft Simile
"Monks, I will teach you the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One.
The Blessed One said: "Suppose a man were traveling along a path. He would see a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. The thought would occur to him, 'Here is this great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?' Then the man, having gathered grass, twigs, branches, & leaves, having bound them together to make a raft, would cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with his hands & feet. 7 Having crossed over to the further shore, he might think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying on my back, go wherever I like?' What do you think, monks: Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?"
"No, lord."
"And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."
~ Majjhima Nikaya 22 Alagaddupama Sutta
Emmak,
I may be off base here - but I think there is a big difference between what the Dali Lama believes in a lot of forms of Buddhism.
If I'm wrong, I would certainly like to be enlightened. But, I thought Tibetin Buddhism has really become a sect unto itself. Just the whole thing about the Dali Lama being the reincarnation of some boddhisotva (or however that works) doesn't seem to fit in with "The Four Noble Truths" and the "Eight Fold Path" at all.
I think there is quite a difference in types of Buddhism. We've heard about two main branches by Simon and Elohim (Theravada and Mahayana) - there is Zen, Pure Land (does this include Jodo Shinshu? Is Jodo Shinshu = Pure Land?), Nichiren, etc.
I don't know what the differences - but all of them seem to stray incredibly away from the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path.
<gasp!> <gurgle!> help!
Michael
I'm just doing what I'm doing until I find something that works for me. I don't think you have to say, "Hmm... before I can continue, I have to grab a label to pin on my chest - or Buddhism won't let me in the club."
I'm thinking the whole process is a journey of knowing and enlightenment - whatever happens.
Michael
The Buddha turned the Wheel of the Dharma three times. What this means is that he gave different teachings according to the needs and the abilities of his students. Not all students have the exact same needs, and not all have the same abilities. These three turnings are called the Hinayana, or Lesser Vehicle, the Mahayana, or Greater Vehicle, and the Vajrayana, or Diamond Vehicle.
The Hinayana, which is sometimes mistakenly applied to the Theravadan school of Buddhism, is concerned with self-liberation without regard to others. This is actually the point at which most of us enter the path whatever school we may align ourselves with. We're concerned with saving our own butts, relieving our own suffering, and probably aren't all that concerned with others. So this is not a teaching to be found in just one school of Buddhism. It is in fact found in all major schools of Buddhism. The main practice here is moral discipline.
The Mahayana expands this view to include the suffering of others. In fact, when one realizes how many sentient beings there are who are suffering in infinitely worse ways that we are, our own suffering becomes insignificant by comparison, so we dedicate our lives to ending the suffering of all sentient beings. One practices to increase one's compassion for others.
Vajrayana goes one step further. It takes the poisons of unenlightened mind and transforms them directly into enlightened view. It is said to be the quickest path but also the most dangerous and most difficult. It requires a lot of self-examination and self-honesty, and having a teacher one can trust completely is essential.
All three are essentially the same teaching viewed in different ways. There is no essential difference. One teacher and one teaching.
Hi Emmak -
I wasn't judging or discounting what you said. Just expounding that I think Tibetan Buddhism is kind of like a Buddhism unto it's own self. I think they have deities and other things they worship/do that is different from other forms of Buddhism.
I think.
I'm not sure.
That's why I was asking for some clarification from someone that really knew what they were talking about.
Michael
Hi Palzang!
Thanks for the reply and certainly your knowledge is much broader and deeper than mine. That's why I was asking for someone else to post something...
As for being judgemental, I didn't think I was being judgemental.
As for judging - I really have no right to judge. But, I do follow this:
Kalama Sutra - "Rely not on the teacher/person, but on the teaching. Rely not on the words of the teaching, but on the spirit of the words. Rely not on theory, but on experience. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do
not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." - the Buddha
I know I have much to learn - but I just don't take what people say for granted. I ask questions? I seek some sort of enlightenment that makes sense to me. That agrees with reason - just like what the Sutra says.
Now as for Buddha turning the Wheel of Dharma three times - and this happening or that happening - I can't say if this is true, fiction, a parable - I honestly have no idea. To me, this once again sounds like something that someone else came up with after Buddha and put some label on and started teaching it. Since everything that came from Buddha was handed down orally before it was written down - we have other peoples interpretations involved with these "labels" and "facts".
Myself? I don't believe that there was something turned and then this magically happened or that magically happened.
It does stand to reason that one who has become Enlightened would have the wisdom and forethought to realize that people learn at all different levels. That people digest and come to grips with things presented in different ways. That some people might not be as "learned" as other, thus, they need to have something explained in a different way.
Just my thoughts. I hope I'm not being sacriligious here or anything. Just stating what and where I've come to at this point.
Thanks for the post.
Michael
Cannot the Kalama sutta also be relevant with all of the different traditions, schools, teachers, and teachings that have sprung up since the Buddha's death? Just in the Pali Canon alone Bhikkhu Bodhi found that many of the texts have been corrupted from the originals. Some of the Pali words are even completely different from one text to the other (Burmese/Singhalese/etc.), and that included the parallel texts of the Chinese Canon that was translated from the Sanskrit. Quite possibly the Kalama sutta can have a new use in this modern age. Just as the Kalamas were praised for their doubt as to whose teachings they should follow, we too should be praised for our doubt in whose teachings we should follow. In all truth many of the things we take as the Buddha's words may not in fact be his words at all.
As far as doubt goes, there is two separate types in my opinion. There is the cautious doubt which is praised because it is a doubt that is based in patience and discernment. Without rushing blindly into something you take a good look at it first, getting to know what you've got here....is it a harmless rope that is good for many things or is it a coiled snake full of venom? On the other hand, I see skeptical doubt as the unskillful variety. Here skeptical doubt is the doubt that occurs after you have given that good look, seen what is there, and then proceed to second guess everything. This is doubt in the words that came directly out of the Buddha's mouth (whatever these may be since we do not have the good fortune to have him among us), which is the training for release from dukkha. The Buddha saw the stupidity of this form of doubt because he was the one person that did 'see', and did 'know'. To disregard his words was like refusing a life-preserver while in the process of drowning while you scream, "Help me help me!".
So, in my opinion, the Kalama sutta is still as useful today as it was when the Buddha first spoke those words, but there is also a time for us to have faith (saddha in Pali) as opposed to skepticism (vicikiccha in Pali). After we become familiar with the teachings, the methods of meditation, and have a working understanding of the Path then that is where the Gotamaka-cetiya sutta and the Pubbakotthaka sutta come in -- doubt should be put aside.
They replace the Kalama sutta since there is no more room for doubt to arise, instead it is time for practice.
That is how I see it in any case. I may be wrong in my understanding of the Buddha's teachings, and if I am saying something that is not in line with the Dhamma I am deeply sorry. Just thought I would share my views on this topic.
Jason
Thanks a lot for this posting.
Very enlightening and interesting. These are the kinds of things that help me along my way.
I think you are correct in the sense that being skeptical is like a two-edged sword. I agree with you that it's a good thing to not just "jump into something" because of what someone says.
I also agree that I probably tend to be too skeptical or pessimistic (one of my great character ... ... flaw?) at times. I think it could also be due to the fact that I raised Christian and was forced to integrate a religion into myself that did not allow for the asking of questions or just saying, "Why?". I think that rubs off a lot now on everything that I do.
I didn't know that the Kalama Sutra was for non-followers. I'll have to dig into the information you've provided in your post.
Thanks for putting up this info.
Michael
I started off just like you. I would read one thing and then think that was all there was to it. Later on when I quoted that same thing to someone else they pointed out that I was either using it in the wrong context, misunderstanding it, or something to the effect. I was then given a plethera of other ideas, suttas, or perspectives to consider. That helped to correct me when I was wrong, or at the very least give me another way to look at it.
Just recently in fact I used the Kalama sutta in a point I was trying to make, but I was again reminded of other suttas that looked at the Buddha's teachings in another light. We see that for one group of people (non-followers) we have one teaching, while for bhikkhus and lay followers (current followers) we have another teaching. They are all appropriate, but on different levels. For right now the Kalama sutta is right for you. But after time, when you learn more and practice more, the Kalama sutta is no longer appropriate. It is not easy to keep up with all of the teachings, I know! That is why people like us get to together to share our knowledge, views, opinions, and experiences.
We help each other to grow and learn. That is another meaning to 'Sangha'. It not only referes to the Noble disciples and the monastic community, but it is also refereing to your fellow Dhamma friends. This may have been taught for monks, but I believe it applies to us as well:
"I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was living among the Sakyans. Now there is a Sakyan town named Sakkara. There Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "This is half of the holy life, lord: admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie."
"Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path."
~Samyutta Nikaya XLV.2 Upaddha Sutta
"In the Buddhist tradition, skeptical doubt (Pali: vicikiccha) is one of the five hindrances. In Pali it has the sense of being distracted, pulled away from what is important. Doubt, along with the other hindrances of lust, ill-will, sloth, and restlessness, prevent the mind from settling and from seeing the world just as it is."
~Mitchell (student in the tradition of Thich Nhat Hanh)
The 'Atthasalini' (Book II, Part IX, Ch. III, 259) states about doubt:
Here doubt means exclusion from the cure (of knowledge). Or, one investigating the intrinsic nature by means of it suffers pain and fatigue (kicchati)- - thus it is doubt. It has shifting about as characteristic, mental wavering as function, indecision or uncertainty in grasp as manifestation, unsystematic thought as proximate cause, and it should be regarded as a danger to attainment.
~From Abhidhamma in daily life by Nina Van Gorkom
I think agree with you.
It's not that I "don't believe" something because I haven't see it or it hasn't been proved to me - I just leave it under the heading of "unproven - but a possibility".
Michael
This has become a rather interesting thread.
River- your comment about the older you get the less you know, that is something my stepfather always says. He also says at 18 we know everything, and it is all backwards from there!
This has been a fascinating discussion., because it has raised all sorts of myths about Buddhism and, in particular, the Tibetan variety.
It also has raised the deeply dualistic mind that obtains when we start discussing such matters. Ven. Palzang said: But doesn't that statement, in and of itself, tip us straight back into such thinking?
Very few things are quite so unedifying as the sight of bhikkus throwing stones at each other in the name of competing Karmapas. And the public spat between HHDL and NKT stinks of the sort of sectarianism that haunts Christianity. It presents real difficulties for those of us who have found, in HHDL, a guru who speaks straight to our hearts.
"Turning the Wheel" has no magical significance. It is the Buddhist term for the three major sermons given by the historical Buddha.
Are you upset? Are you upset with people asking questions or wanting edification? Are you upset with me asking questions? You can PM me if you'd like.
In my posts, I have never meant to offend anyone. I have never meant to offend you.
I would say more about the tone of your post - but I don't think that would bring about anything but disharmony.
Michael
I am truly sorry if my post came across as being offended. I am not. I posted about the "Turning of the Wheel" because I know that you like accuracy. It is one of the aspects of your posts that I enjoy. Like myself, I think, you are not prepared to take anything "on trust".
This does leave us in an interesting bind when it comes to most traditions of Buddhism which emphasise absolute trust in the guru.
I believe that you will find the clarity and down-to-earthness in some of the Zen traditions. But, once agsin, they also stress discipline and "no-mind". You and I, as heirs to the Enlightenment, have a really hard task with both!
If I have understood you correctly, you have great difficulty with the 'religion/superstition' bits. Is that right? Coming from a lapsed Catholic/Jewish background, I live with one eyebrow constantly raised in disbelief.
Once again, my apologies. I think that the way I use language may be part of the problem. Please read me as what I am, an Oxford-educated 62 year-old Brit whose English is a generation out-of-date (but not, I hope, past its sell-by date!)
As for the Turning of the Wheel - it did sound mystic and I guess I do have a hard time with mysticism just because someone stated it. I was asking because I didn't know what it was. Just like when I was younger, I knew what the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were - but didn't know what people were talking about when they referred to them as the Gospels - or references to the Apocrypha, etc. So, knowing that the "Turning of the Wheel" refers to specific teaching of Buddha - it's just something new I learned.
I was worried when I saw words like 'spat' and 'unedifying' that posts were taken as demeaning your beliefs - when, honestly, I haven't seen anyone on this site who has stooped to the level of just saying harsh words to hurt someone else.
So, I was wanting to make sure things were cool.
Even though I may not believe exactly what you believe - I do value your insight, knowledge and experience.
Michael
Indeed the Honoured One had said before there are 84,000 ways to enlightenment~ Each to its own still, 84,000 sounds too few to me~
The spiritual smorgasbord type of thing is really popular now, particularly in the West. Everybody wants a little bit of that and a little bit of this. What happens is you end up with a watered down, feel good type of Buddhist-like junk food that doesn't take into account even the most basic teachings of the Buddha. This is not a recipe for success on the path.
Much better to choose a pure path that appeals to you and follow that to the exclusion of all others. If you're a Nyingmapa, then don't practice Gelug practices, and vice versa. If you're a Soto Zen practitioner, then don't practice Pure Land. If you're a Vipassana meditator, then don't practice Dzog Chen. If you do, you just get confused. If you do, however, follow the path you're on with diligence and devotion, then a good result is virtually guaranteed. It's not that one is better than the other. That's not at all what I'm saying. You can look at Truth as being one mountain with many paths leading to the top. If you follow the path you started out on, it may wander all over the place, down valleys and up cliffs, but eventually it'll come out on the top. If, however, you skip from path to path, your chances of ever reaching the top are slim to none.
Some say this is dualistic or sectarian thinking. I beg to differ. It's simply finding the path that speaks to you and following it. I don't have any patience with sectarian views. I think it's stupid and dangerous to put one tradition over other traditions. It's certainly not enlightened view. But that is not at all the same as saying I can just practice whatever tradition I want whenever I feel like it. That's a horse of a different color entirely. They're all the same path ultimately. But we have to find the path that speaks to us or we'd be better off flipping on the TV with a six pack of beer and watching football (real football, not that pansy soccer stuff they play in Europe! :smilec: )
Just my view.
Palzang
Nevertheless, whilst I agree with our Venerable friend, Palzang, that great skill will only be achieved with constant practice, as in learning to play a complex musical instrument or to use a difficult artistic medium, we need to do so without clinging to any thought of "better" or "worse", "right" or "wrong".
It is a feature of 20th century spirituality that searchers such as Aldous Huxley or Ken Wilbur have concentrated on uncovering some kind of basic "Perennial Philosophy" underlying all spiritual systems. Part of the reason has been the perceived 'bankruptcy' of the monotheisms. The problem is compounded by the Dalai Lama himself when he makes remarks about the strangeness he finds in Europeans wanting to be Tibetan Buddhists (sorry, Palzang, but he did say it!). He also has repeated, a number of times, that his religion is kindness - which has no dogma, doctrine or liturgy!
I have only had a few years to reflect on His Holiness's comment to me that all religions can be reduced to two ways: the way of compassion and the way to achieve such loving-kindness. He then said, "Lord Buddha is my door; Lord Jesus is your door". I continue to try to understand what he was saying. His Holiness the Karmapa urged me to find my teacher and to believe in such a teacher 100%. I am still searching.
No, Comic, they didn't come from four different Buddhas. Lord Buddha had many students, and the different lineages of Buddhism trace their lines right back to the Buddha through his main students. Of course, each of them had students, so they would each start their own lineage, and so on. Many lineages have been lost along the way, naturally, but what we're left with is what you see in the world today. And there are four main lineages of Vajrayana, not all Buddhism. There are also Theravadan lineages and Mahayana lineages. There have been other lineages in Vajrayana as well, but they have either been absorbed by the other lineages or just lost. The word lineage means you can trace the teaching back in a direct line right to Lord Buddha. The fact that they differ in some respects is due to the different students who passed them along. They're all ultimately the same teaching but with certain things emphasized or deemphasized depending on the needs of the students.
Palzang