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.
The initial point would be, of course, to ensure the pool is not empty....
This is not an attempt to be flippant....
But I have known many make hasty and rash remarks, believing their motives to be good, just, critical, all-knowing and intelligent, only to find they were shooting themselves in the foot.
This is where "Idiot" View comes in... They simply weren't thinking outside the box, or seeing things as they really Are.... They were so 'bent' upon taking that leap, they weren't looking clearly. Goggles fogged up, maybe....?
This is where Right View and Right Intention come in...
In fact, if one measures each of the first three Noble Truths against the fourth, things become much clearer... using the Path not only as a Via Sacra away from the Reality of suffering, but using it to understand what Suffering is, and to act accordingly....
Right View, Intention, Speech, Action, Livelihood, Effort, Awareness (Mindfulness) and Meditation (Concentration) will all help enormously to see really clearly what is meant by Life is Suffering..... Why Life is suffering, And what the way out of suffering is.....
And so it is with Mr. Calder. Didn't apply himself correctly.
Leapt in with both feet, and got it hopelessly wrong.
All life is suffering - yes. The object is to end suffering - hmm, after a while. I feel that a certain amount of personal suffering is absolutely necessary to engender compassion in a person. Without suffering we can only sympathise, we cannot empathise.
The much maligned Marie Antoinette and her remark about the starving poor having no bread "Well, let them eat cake" was an example of someone who had never suffered a day's hunger in her life and so couldn't begin to imagine another person's hunger.
If the objective is to achieve universal compassion and unconditional love, then we have to suffer ourselves to do this.
Yes, I completely agree. It's why one of my teachers, Gyaltrul Rinpoche, says to "pray for adversity." It's adversity that allows us to grow. As they taught me long ago in boy scout leadership training, it is only when a person is under stress that they learn and grow. Otherwise they're comfortable and happy and just stay where they are.
ORIGINAL POST made reference to ARTICLE BY Christopher Calder 1998:
What we call Buddhism today is an amalgamation of the true teachings of Siddhartha, combined with invented myths and large amounts of culture derived from the country in which the Buddhism is practiced. Tibetan Buddhism, for example, is as much Tibetanism as it is Buddhism. Buddha's words were handed down for several centuries through oral tradition before a committee was formed to commit the communal heritage, not memory, of Buddha's teaching to written text. No human being who actually met the Buddha wrote any of the famous Buddhist scriptures that present day followers take so literally and seriously.
Can we separate the essential teachings of the many enlightened ones, the many Buddhas, from mere tradition? Can we bring Buddhism up to date by keeping the essential tools of enlightenment, while discarding the cultural biases that burden the path with unnecessary obstacles? I believe we can create a new Buddhism if we consciously analyze our situation as present day seekers of truth. With this most fundamental definition of the word 'Buddhism,' anyone who seeks enlightenment can be called a Buddhist.
Although I can't agree with the very last sentence, the rest makes sense to me. No lack of reverence is necessarily entailed. I think what Calder writes is very interesting, and find about 80% of it plausible. From my own experience, I can't help but think that different generations emphasize different things and that it would be easy enough to interpret a lot of spiritual ideals in the wrong spirit, simply due to the changing times which humanity has always experienced. I believe that nobody has any monopoly on truth and that humankind is greatly in need of clarity. Ortega y Gassett said that man has a mission on this earth and that mission is the mission of clarity. Now, as faith traditions go, it seems to me that Buddhism is a gem; that said, I still believe that historically its leaders have sometimes stressed nonessentials at the expense of higher things.
- - - - - -
As for praying for Adversity, Thanks but no thanks! Down here in South Carolina few live in Ivory Towers and day-to-day life is pretty brutal. I'll pray for a let-up of the hostilities in the workplace, for one, and for some lessening of all the exploitation of the workers by management and by the trifling troublemakers who work on the later shifts. Ah, deliver us from these Evils!
No, I'll hope for just an occasional, sincerely meant kind word.
Pray for adversity - a very salutary example of this was on the UK news recently. Prince Harry who has led a very privileged and pampered life was interviewed in Irak where he has been on the front line.
He said "This is the probably the nearest I will get to "normal" in my life. I have loved these last 10 weeks"
He's been out there treated no differently from the other troops, not showering, eating rat packs, being under fire .... and the poor wee soul loved it.
He has found his true self in adversity despite being in turns "scared sh**less", dirty, hot and tired."
I practise in the Zen tradition, so I don't know from tulkus, gurus, etc. I wouldn't say I venerate my teachers, though some people have found the bowing and scraping excessive.
But, as my folks get older (and me along with them, alas!), I've started to 'get' the idea of having a kind of parent/ child relationship with a teacher. It's not just about respect and gratitude, but also stuff like fixing their computer, worrying if they'll be OK taking the bus alone, laughing dutifully at jokes I've already heard a dozen times, etc.
Not sure if this is what anyone else had in mind talking about their own teachers, but it works for me!
My swami has all the help he needs. It's He who has in no small way taken on the karma of his students. He has adopted us and we are regaled with his prayers, attention and devotion. Our respect and deference to him is just our part of the deal. It is only through his eyes that we can really see ourselves.
I feel I must object to this veneration business. Someone above defined 'veneration' as simply being 'respect', but to that I'd say, if what you really mean is 'respect', then just say 'respect'! I have no problem respecting anyone who deserves it, but veneration, with all its connotations of bowing and scraping and cringing, is quite a different story.
First I would mention that when Buddha was dying, he refused to name a successor, telling people instead: 'You must work out your own salvation with diligence; be lamps unto yourselves'. After all, no one can tell us what a state of self-transcendence is like, anymore than a state of love; we have to experience such states yourself, and to experience them ourselves we must work out the best way to do so for us, ourselves.
This is why I don't find veneration useful, at least for me; and if it were only this I'd just say 'Well if it works for you, whatever'. But my real concern is actually quite a bit worse, and that is that veneration can have consequences that are really quite sinister. I'm sure plenty of teachers are truly selfless in intention, but there is nothing in veneration to stop someone less scrupulous from taking advantage of the practice, by hijacking some genuinely good teachings and using them to make a cult, with themselves as the centre of worship. What cult leader has NOT made themselves out to be 'the only way out of a burning building'? This claim doesn't just HELP exploitative cults, it is the LIFE BLOOD of exploitative cults! They couldn't exist with it! Just look at every dangerous religious cult and political dictatorship, past or present, and you will find in the centre of its cold black heart the claim that the individual's salvation is dependent on the dear leader, and that they must therefore venerate the dear leader; whereupon all individual freedoms must be surrendered.
By going back to the 'be a lamp unto yourself' idea, we disable any such potential for abuse of authority. This is what I'd say buddhism can learn from the West, and what I think the Buddha originally meant: That we don't venerate our teachers/leaders, in fact we hold them up to GREATER scrutiny and criticism precisely BECAUSE they are our teachers/leaders, with authority that can be abused. In fact the one thing I liked about the christian story was when Jesus stooped to wash the feet of his disciples. Now THAT is teaching the students egolessness!
I think that far from all this non-veneration-ism being 'ego' and 'pride', it is the very thing that disables ego and pride, along with their bad consequences for others, in the very people most susceptible to them. But I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this.
I agree with you to a point, Prometheus. It is very possible and even likely that people will and do exploit this veneration for their own ego's benefit. But there are safeguards that we can use to guard against this. First and foremost is our own basic sanity which we need to learn to listen to. That is our best guide to finding a pure teacher who is there for our benefit rather than his. Second is lineage. Lineage helps ensure (but doesn't guarantee) that a teacher is part of a valid lineage that can trace back to the Buddha. This gives us some reassurance that the particular teacher is qualified. But it is number one that is the best guide. That's why the Buddha encouraged his students to not only test the teachings but also the teacher until we are satisfied that we're on the right path. Even then, though, some people still end up going astray and winding up with a false teacher. But that is karma, the habit of paying more attention to one's delusions than one's own basic sanity.
As for veneration, to me veneration means I am placing the Dharma above my ordinary confused mind because that is the door to liberation. My mind has not produced the result of enlightenment and in fact has kept me spinning on the endless wheel of birth and death since time out of mind. Therefore I venerate the teachings which arise from the mind of enlightenment rather than ordinary confused perception because therein lies my only hope of getting off the wheel at long last. I therefore venerate the teacher because it is the teacher who has appeared for me in this life to lead me out of samsara. I don't venerate the teacher as a person particularly or a personality or anything like that. I may or may not even "like" my teacher. That's all completely irrelevant. The only thing that does matter is, can this teacher lead me out of samsara? Because I really can't do it on my own. That would be like an alcoholic saying that he can cure himself of alcoholism. Ain't gonna happen!
I have never heard a tulku rest on his/her laurels, so to speak, by pointing to their accomplishment in past lives. Most tulkus I have met have actually not been comfortable talking about past lives or even refusing to discuss them. They have always said it doesn't matter what they may or may not have done in past lives; it only matters what they're doing in this one.
It seems to me that most Western-born tulkus are abandoning the trappings of traditional Tibetan Buddhism and are presenting themselves as real people rather than some distant unattainable object sitting up on a throne. Many have refused to even teach or take on students formally. I think that's a reflection of the Western mind that doesn't tend to trust ostentatious display and personality cults. I certainly don't. So I think we're seeing how Buddhism will take on a Western flavor, as it inevitably will. We're not Tibetans, we're not Japanese, we're not Chinese, we're not Thai, we're Americans and English and Canadian and Mexican and French and German and Russian. So we have to find our own way, just as the Buddha himself taught.
There has not been a Buddhist war. Probably because Buddhists believe in Karma - cause and effect. In the example of Tibet, used in the article, there has been no retaliation because of the strong belief in Karma, and that every cause has an effect and every effect has a cause, so to retaliate would have an effect, a chain effect if you like.
Tibet did not retaliate because it would have been pointless and quixotic. They did not have the ability to oppose the much greater force and manpower of the Chinese. If they won some battles they would only incur greater wrath when they were eventually subjugated.
Throughout Tibetan history you will find war and conflict, between schools aligned with various temporal rulers and sometimes at the behest of particularly vindictive and destructive demagogues like Pabongka. All of this I think we can agree is strictly parochial and not in the least buddhist.
It's a nice thought that Tibetans are this peaceable culture, but it is not historically accurate.
The much maligned Marie Antoinette and her remark about the starving poor having no bread "Well, let them eat cake" was an example of someone who had never suffered a day's hunger in her life and so couldn't begin to imagine another person's hunger.
.
A small point for posterity: if anyone said "qu'ils mangent de la brioche", it was likely *not* Marie Antoinette but rather Marie-Therese during Louis IV's rule. The point remains that suffering can provide us much needed context. As the Tibetan axiom goes: "Humans can take great suffering, but only a little happiness."
Namgyal
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited May 2009
The other problem being that whilst the buddha has always taught non-violence and the 1st precept is set against killing or harming - there is nothing anywhere that the Buddha said that goes against self-defence. the Tibetans (in my opinion) took this ahimsa to extremes. They should certainly have had some means of self-defence. but in following the Buddha's teachings, they omitted to understand that in effect, arguably, they committed harm and killing against themselves.... the guitar string was too tight.....
It seems to me that most Western-born tulkus are abandoning the trappings of traditional Tibetan Buddhism and are presenting themselves as real people rather than some distant unattainable object sitting up on a throne.
The reality is that many tulkus don't want all of the restrictions on their behaviour and responsibilities they would have traditionally in the Tibetan community. I have heard this line about how people "give up their robes so that people can relate to them better" and I think it is utter bullshit, whether it is Trungpa Rinpoche saying it or some western-born tulku. I never had trouble relating to HH Penor Rinpoche or HH Dalai Lama on a throne or otherwise, nor to my own lama who is also a fully ordained monk. How does it make them more approachable simply if they can screw whomever they choose? I have seen too much profligacy masquerading as spirituality to have much respect for this sort of convenient justification.
I think that this can be an excuse for indulgence, living off of their students' goodwill rather than taking responsible for their ordained sangha like HH Penor Rinpoche (who had 6000 monks and nuns under his care) did. I am not at all sure that we should dress up this western innovation as a virtue.
I think that's a reflection of the Western mind that doesn't tend to trust ostentatious display and personality cults.
*cough* *cough* Roman Catholicism...<ahem>...Jonestown *cough* *cough*
The other problem being that whilst the buddha has always taught non-violence and the 1st precept is set against killing or harming - there is nothing anywhere that the Buddha said that goes against self-defence. the Tibetans (in my opinion) took this ahimsa to extremes. They should certainly have had some means of self-defence. but in following the Buddha's teachings, they omitted to understand that in effect, arguably, they committed harm and killing against themselves.... the guitar string was too tight.....
Federica: Please compare the population of China with Tibet, then look at military preparedness in the 1950s for both countries. There *was* resistance, but full scale conflict would have resulted in extermination of the Tibetan people not victory. Leave Buddhism aside; it is pollyannish to assume that Tibet would have prevailed if only they had fought harder.
'First and foremost is our own basic sanity which we need to learn to listen to'.
Hm. I don't know that this is an effective guard. I doubt anyone who ever entered a cult thought they were insane, or that what they were entering was even a cult at all; they thought what they were doing was most sane thing they'd ever done in their life, and that the leader they had so rationally decided to follow was doubtlessly the most sane individual on the planet (believing, as their sanity told them, that the individual was enlightened). Such people generally do listen to their sanity as much as the rest of us; they just make mistakes, like the rest of us. But, at the very least, by emphasising 'be a lamp unto yourself', we can prevent misguided individuals from coalescing into a misguided group.
Can't we just let the Dharma alone be our guide, and learn from each other with mutual respect?
I understand your point, Namgyal. I don't have any problem with teachers like His Holiness Penor Rinpoche or others sitting on thrones and keeping strict adherence to their vows. I was, after all, ordained a gelong monk by His Holiness Penor Rinpoche, so it would be a bit hypocritical for me to criticize his style!
I was simply pointing out a phenomenon that I have observed. Whether it is a good or bad phenomenon I leave to the reader. I don't, however, have even the slightest problem with Trungpa and his often controversial behavior. Quite the opposite. I think he was probably more responsible for bringing the Dharma to the West than anyone. But he was a crazy wisdom teacher, not a teacher like His Holiness Penor Rinpoche at all. I like both. They both have their place. Do you find that odd? Contradictory? Illogical? Probably all three. So?
And Prometheus, I agree that there is no sure-fire method of guaranteeing that any teacher you choose is going to prove to be a good one. We're dealing with humans, and humans make mistakes and get confused. We're in the fix we are because we've lost touch with our basic sanity. How then to proceed? Never an easy answer.
The reality is that many tulkus don't want all of the restrictions on their behaviour and responsibilities they would have traditionally in the Tibetan community. I have heard this line about how people "give up their robes so that people can relate to them better" and I think it is utter bullshit, whether it is Trungpa Rinpoche saying it or some western-born tulku. I never had trouble relating to HH Penor Rinpoche or HH Dalai Lama on a throne or otherwise, nor to my own lama who is also a fully ordained monk. How does it make them more approachable simply if they can screw whomever they choose? I have seen too much profligacy masquerading as spirituality to have much respect for this sort of convenient justification.
I think that this can be an excuse for indulgence, living off of their students' goodwill rather than taking responsible for their ordained sangha like HH Penor Rinpoche (who had 6000 monks and nuns under his care) did. I am not at all sure that we should dress up this western innovation as a virtue.
*cough* *cough* Roman Catholicism...<ahem>...Jonestown *cough* *cough*
Namgyal
It is occasionally the case that an ordained tulku has decided to give up the robes in order to marry, and I don't think that they should be condemned for this, nor considered to be indulgent. I've no doubt that some do perhaps take advantage, but I wouldn't like to make any sweeping statements about tulkus in general.
Actually many Nyingma tulkus never take robes in the first place. It's not required, and it's an old Nyingma tradition dating back to King Langdarma's time.
I agree with you to a point, but I'll add that sometimes our own western culture colors our view of things in a unique way.
Before and after every Kung Fu lesson, I bow to my teacher by placing my hands face down on the ground and touching my forehead to the back of my hands (from a kneeling position). In Americana, bowing connotates Kings and vassals, which we curl up our noses at it. However the origination of it in this context (the East) is much simpler: respect for your teacher.
Whenever dealing with a concept like "veneration" it's important to fully realize your own cultural bias when approaching the concept. Because veneration connotates "scraping" to you and those around you does not mean the connotation is universal.
'I agree that there is no sure-fire method of guaranteeing that any teacher you choose is going to prove to be a good one. We're dealing with humans, and humans make mistakes and get confused'.
This was at the heart of my argument for not venerating.
'How then to proceed?'
MUTUAL respect, learning from each other, venerating no one. This IS a sure-fire way to stop cults from forming; again, that was my argument.
Lincoln:
'I bow to my teacher by placing my hands face down on the ground and touching my forehead to the back of my hands (from a kneeling position)'.
This is way beyond simple 'respect'. This makes me want to take a shower. In my dojo we bowed to each other; again, MUTUAL respect. Perhaps it is a cultural thing; what I do know is that it doesn't matter what culture you're in, such subservience has always been the hallmark of dictatorship and ruler-worship, including in China and Japan. That it's a different culture doesn't make it right; human rights violations always - always - follows from such subservience to leaders. Unless you believe human rights are just a western cultural idiosyncracy as well.
Obviously Tibetan Buddhism is not the path for you. However, devotion to one's teacher is the surest and quickest path to realization. Generations of Tibetan practitioners are a testament to this. To quote Khenpo Karthar:
Whenever you think of the guru and supplicate him, you will cry uncontrollably. There is actually a saying about this, “If your eyes are dry, you are not a Kagyupa.” You will think that you are going to explode with devotion, as though your flesh and bones were going to blow up. It is more than you can stand. When devotion reaches that degree of intensity, even if you try to prevent meditation experience and realization from occurring, you will not be able to. Regardless of how little interest you have in their arising, because of your devotion they will arise automatically.
Devotion can be misused when given to an unscrupulous person. But so can any trust. Is the answer not to trust anyone?
As most of you already know, I feel the same way about the veneration issue as Prometheus does which is why I chose a school of Buddhism that doesn't stress the importance of guru worship. I don't have a problem with authority at all (I never even rebelled as a teenager). In fact, I'm deferential to authority in general. A person in authority already has my respect until they say or do something to lose it and it would have to be something unequivocally wrong. But I still can't give over my spiritual development to anyone human.
For me, and I imagine for a lot of people, the spiritual part of me is the most vulnerable and the part of me that's most prone to deep and strong fear. When I was still living in the darkness of heart/mind sickness and anxiety/panic (before Buddhism) I was suffering so deeply that I was extremely vulnerable to anyone who might come along and tell me they had the cure for my pain. I would have wanted to believe them very, very much.
I believe there are a great many people in this world who are walking wounded and very, very vulnerable. Not only is basic sanity not a guarantee in such a state, it's a likely bet that they're living their lives in a kind of semi-sanity, even if they're not self-medicating. (And being drunk or really high on hard drugs are both states of insanity in my humble opinion.) They don't have a lot of sanity to draw upon, especially in the face of someone who is deliberately conning them. Even the smartest and most sane people can get conned.
Add to this the fact that our spirituality and its development is the most important and precious thing under our control and you can see why I agree with Prometheus that veneration and guru worship can be extremely dangerous practices.
I also didn't understand the justification for this kind of worship until Jinzang explained it in that last post. If worshiping or venerating one's teacher brings one to enlightenment more quickly than that's great. It's difficult for me to believe of course, because I just don't believe statements like that unless they can be proven in some way and this statement can't be. But like so many other things in Buddhism that can't be proven, I'll definitely keep my mind wide open to the possibility.
In the meantime I'll take the slow and steady route. It's just a personality thing.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
This is way beyond simple 'respect'. This makes me want to take a shower. In my dojo we bowed to each other; again, MUTUAL respect. Perhaps it is a cultural thing; what I do know is that it doesn't matter what culture you're in, such subservience has always been the hallmark of dictatorship and ruler-worship, including in China and Japan. That it's a different culture doesn't make it right; human rights violations always - always - follows from such subservience to leaders. Unless you believe human rights are just a western cultural idiosyncracy as well.
Peace:(
Prometheus, I note that you have a resistance to such ritual, and some part of it simply does not sit well with you. However, you're interpreting things according to your own impressions, perceptions and prejudices....
But remember that in the East and the Far East, bowing is about as common as you and I saying 'hi' to each other.
The Dalai Lama bows to people, and people bow to him.
people prostrate themselves at times, before others, and the simple hands-together-at-the-chest gesture is deeply respectful, and pays homage. But it is not subservient, and nor is it inferior or submissive. It is veneration, but not in any sense derogatively.
The word 'Namaste', which always accompanies the hands-together' gesture, means "the blessed in me recognises and greets the blessed in you"
The thing to remember about bowing is that there is no difference between the one that bows and the one that is bowed to. The communication between them is inexpressibly perfect.
'Devotion can be misused when given to an unscrupulous person. But so can any trust. Is the answer not to trust anyone?'
Hi Jinzang: The difference might be that we cannot avoid the need to trust others in our lives, while we can avoid venerating someone. Your quote was interesting, but I have to wonder if the issue of whether or not it is truly a faster path would be dependent on the person... However - and this is my main point - even if it is true that veneration is a faster path, I still wonder if the non-venerating path might not be better for all in the long run, avoiding the dangers in veneration for the individual student, but more importantly for society at large (e.g. a culture endorsing human-veneration easily being a ramp to ruler-worship and human rights abuses, i.e. Stalinist Russia or North Korea). After all it's not just about us personally; it's about society.
(Maybe we could have the same sense of devotion to an Ideal, like love or compassion or selflessness, or to Humanity at large- instead of to a person? Just a thought).
'But remember that in the East and the Far East, bowing is about as common as you and I saying 'hi' to each other.
The Dalai Lama bows to people, and people bow to him.... The word 'Namaste', which always accompanies the hands-together' gesture, means "the blessed in me recognises and greets the blessed in you". The thing to remember about bowing is that there is no difference between the one that bows and the one that is bowed to'.
If I read you right, Federica (and correct me if I haven't) then I'm not sure that we actually disagree on anything. If you re-read what you quoted from my post, I implied that I had no problem with people bowing to each other (I said this was what we did in my dojo), as this is mutual respect. I have no problem with respect that goes both ways equally.
I find myself in agreement with Prometheus on this one. Much of what I have witnessed as 'veneration' is more about protocol than about true reverence. For example, my father (a staunch atheist) would genuflect in a Catholic church, "out of politeness".
Protocol does make things easier, of course, but is also a way of reinforcing patriarchal hierarchy. When we met HHDL, I asked his secretary about protocol and was told that there was none for us (non-Buddhist, non-Tibetan). It made for a strange moment at the end of our meeting. My son was talking to Takla, the secretary, and HHDL came over to me. Not knowing what to do but very moved, I knelt down. He took my hands and kissed them, raising me to my feet. He then presented his forehead. I now know that he was offering a blessing but I hadn't been warned and, instinctively, I kissed his head. He hugged me to him and kissed my cheek - a blessing indeed.
Would it have been better if we had touched foreheads? Certainly, I wouldn't have felt so embarrassed later when it was explained to me but it was a moment of spontaneity and contact.
True reverence is, I think, a two-way transaction otherwise it is simply showing-off!
What a great post, Simon! The description of your interaction with His Holiness gave me shivers, good shivers. What I would give to be hugged and kissed on the cheek by that man! What I would give...! And it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
What a great post, Simon! The description of your interaction with His Holiness gave me shivers, good shivers. What I would give to be hugged and kissed on the cheek by that man! What I would give...! And it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
This is way beyond simple 'respect'. This makes me want to take a shower. In my dojo we bowed to each other; again, MUTUAL respect.
Again, you speak from your own bias, not knowledge of the practice in this context. Your post is based on what the bowing means to you, not what it means to us.
We bow three times in this way; only one of the bows is to the teacher, and he bows with us the other two times (the other bows are to the dojo and the group, if I'm recalling correctly).
We also bow (usually standing) when entering or exiting the dojo, before/after working with a partner, and before/after talking to the teacher.
It is a sign of respect in every context that it is used. Your seemingly flippant use of the term 'simple respect' makes me think that our connotations of the term may be different. "Yeah, yeah, I respect you, sure" isn't the respect I'm talking about, nor could it ever be confused with subservience.
I have no problem with respect that goes both ways equally.
Mutual respect to be sure, but equal? Call me old-fashioned, but I believe the student needs greater respect for the teacher than the teacher for the student, if for nothing else than the experience and knowledge the teacher is sharing.
I also didn't understand the justification for this kind of worship until Jinzang explained it in that last post. If worshiping or venerating one's teacher brings one to enlightenment more quickly than that's great. It's difficult for me to believe of course, because I just don't believe statements like that unless they can be proven in some way and this statement can't be.
There are two aspects to devotion or veneration. The first is aspiration. The person you are venerating embodies the qualities you are aspiring to develop. The second is trust. Because they embody these qualities they can be a trustworthy guide. This is a very potent combination and meeting someone who inspires your veneration can have a profound affect on your life. Please note that no one has a right to demand your veneration, it's something that must be given spontaneously and freely if it's to be effective.
It also should not be given blindly. Before you sit down in a chair, you make sure it can hold your weight, or the results will be disastrous. In the same way, before venerating someone, you should make sure they deserve to receive that veneration and are motivated by kindness. If they lack qualities, they can mislead you out of ignorance and if they lack kindness, they can mislead you out of malice. But if they have both, how could there be a problem. One can point to Jim Jones, but the problem here is not the veneration, but that the person venerated was unworthy. If the people of Jonestown had put their trust in the Dalai Lama instead, wouldn't they be fine today?
Sorry if I sound like I'm just running my own record again, but my whole point in response to Palzang was that people who do venerate unworthy people don't know that they are unworthy. They believe they are following an enlightened being, who is motivated by kindness, and they believe they are doing it of their own free will. People like Jim Jones couldn't have gotten a following in the first place if the followers had thought otherwise. Of course some teachers may be genuinely motivated by kindness, but my point was that people can make mistakes in this regard, and those mistakes have lead to catastrophes ranging from Jonestown to Stalin's Russia.
This is a risk present only in the endorsement of human-veneration; a risk that disappears completely under the alternative of simply learning from each other, and directing devotion, aspiration and trust to an Ideal that embodies the qualities we wish to have. If this works (and in my own experience it works a gem) then what's the point in running the risk of another Jonestown? The Buddha himself refused to name a successor, refusing to create a formal teacher, saying the Dharma and our own common sense should be our guides. I agree with this move.
Well, Prometheus, when you enter a spiritual path you are taking a risk, a big one. You very well might end up with a bogus teacher and create a lot of misery for yourself. But if that happens, it's important to remember that it's just your karma. Even a bad situation can provide a valuable lesson. Some of the greatest lessons I've learned in life came about from situations that I would have described as the worst possible thing to happen to me at the time. Nobody grows without adversity and stress. To have devotion in an ideal or some nebulous thing like that will have no result. You're just spinning your wheels if you believe that, reinforcing your own delusions.
As Trungpa Rinpoche said, at some point you just have to make a leap without knowing where you'll land or if it'll be a good thing or a bad thing or whatever. That's the truth about the spiritual quest. It could lead to complete enlightenment and liberation, or it could lead to the lowest hell realm. It is truly a razor's edge we walk. But if you're going to do it at all, you have to do it with your whole being. You can't do it half-assed or the result will be just that. You have to take that risk. If you're not willing to do that, you might as well not even try. Better to stay home, watch football, and eat pizza and drink beer.
My point was why take the risk when the non-risk alternative works just as well, if not better. Nothing 'half-assed' about that, it's just logical.
And remember anyway that we're not just taking risks with ourselves; we're taking risks with society. And no, I wouldn't seek awakening at all if it meant even just the risk of losing society to cult leaders, ruler-worship and brutal dictatorship. I'm just not that important. So if that is half-assed, then I'll be content with being half-assed.
You missed my point entirely, Prometheus. The point is your "no-risk" alternative will have no result. You only get into your practice what you put into it, and if you're not willing to take risk, then you may as well not even start practice. Your "safe" way will only result in staying on the wheel. There is nothing "safe" in samsara. You can't be "safe" anywhere. The only safety is to get off the wheel. What you are suggesting is worse than all the fake gurus and cults. What your "alternative" would do is destroy Dharma altogether.
Jinzang: What you post is very interesting. My own teacher in my own tradition does not like me venerating him. Friendship before tenure. I have a great deal of respect for you and your teacher and am happy you have affinity therein; my own affinity leads me down a different path, and a different method.
I think you are missing my point. I will take risks, but I won't take unnecessary risks. As I said, the alternative works just as well if not better to realise the result, and so endorsing veneration is an unnecessary risk. Where is the sense in unnecessary risk?
And the thing is, I don't believe in the doctrine of continual rebirth on earth until enlightenment-via-Dharma-alone, so I don't believe Dharma is needed at absolutely-all-costs-no-matter-how-bloody-those-costs-are. I just believe the Dharma to be a great tool to increase well-being and selflessness in this life- and one not requiring veneration of teachers. If veneration of teachers was somehow necessary for this practice, then yes, I would feel forced to find some other means of well-being, for the sake of society as a whole. This conclusion doesn't come from lack of commitment, it comes precisely from my commitment to the welfare of others. Fortunately, I don't see any reason for veneration being necessary at all, as I've said, so this second paragraph is all a bit of a moot point.
I think you are missing my point. I will take risks, but I won't take unnecessary risks. As I said, the alternative works just as well if not better to realise the result, and so endorsing veneration is an unnecessary risk. Where is the sense in unnecessary risk?
And the thing is, I don't believe in the doctrine of continual rebirth on earth until enlightenment-via-Dharma-alone, so I don't believe Dharma is needed at absolutely-all-costs-no-matter-how-bloody-those-costs-are. I just believe the Dharma to be a great tool to increase well-being and selflessness in this life- and one not requiring veneration of teachers. If veneration of teachers was somehow necessary for this practice, then yes, I would feel forced to find some other means of well-being, for the sake of society as a whole. This conclusion doesn't come from lack of commitment, it comes precisely from my commitment to the welfare of others. Fortunately, I don't see any reason for veneration being necessary at all, as I've said, so this second paragraph is all a bit of a moot point.
Peace
I've just caught the tail end of this discussion but FWIW I would never go into this Dhamma business if someone had told me at the start I must venerate and obey whomever.
Instead, I was guided quite easily and naturally by friends all around - whom asked nothing of me except an encouragement to practice.
"The Dhamma is to be known by yourself as surely as one who drinks water and knows the taste of refreshment"
I would not call it an impediment myself if you were to undertake actual-factual practice.
You will notice if you practice (Four Noble Truths) that in that there is no need for belief or trust or veneration - other than in your own capacity for bringing forth the Dhamma into real life.
And, as you practice, perhaps you will meet friends and even teachers of good standing whom you cannot help but trust one day. But trust will be beside the point - it is not yet the truth of the matter.
Keep in mind if and as you actually practice, then there will come a time when guidance is very important - and the reason for this is because ego is very subtle.
But when that time comes, you will know, and you will be ready.
We are all very certain until we come to know our certainties. Where you are is fine, and just right for you. Keep peace in that, and don't forgo the possibility of genuine friendship either.
Yeah, you're right, once you arrive on the other shore you don't need it anymore. Until then, you bet your sweet you-know-what you need it! And making use of that door, as you put it, is exactly what I'm talking about. Devotion is the key in Vajrayana. Without it, you don't go nowhere.
Palzang
Hi Palzang,
As you have pointed out, devotion is the key in Vajrayana. I am not very well versed in the role of devotion (teacher etc) in the other traditions. It's my (often misguided) understanding that The Buddha tought many ways for people of different capacities, and if veneration/devotion is something that is not present in your current curcumstances then either the Therevada or Hinayana schools would be more in line with your path. Either path can lead to enlightenment. I suppse what I am getting at it that if it is in your cards, then you understand it, and it it isn't then there really isn't a point in trying to explain it?
You're quite right, Orangey. Enlightenment is possible no matter which vehicle you choose to board. Personally I need a teacher to keep me on point or otherwise Buddhism would just turn into a dry, musty intellectual exercise and I would have probably dropped out long ago.
You're quite right, Orangey. Enlightenment is possible no matter which vehicle you choose to board. Personally I need a teacher to keep me on point or otherwise Buddhism would just turn into a dry, musty intellectual exercise and I would have probably dropped out long ago.
Palzang
It still amazes me that the longer I walk the path (which one it is exactly I am still trying to figure out lol) the more that I see the proof of what the Buddha taught. That may sound so simple, but for example when the example of you needing an teacher to walk your path, and others not, is proof of the teachings proufound truth. I suppose I am so amazed with it sometimes, that I just catch myself thinking " How did I not see that before?". I realize I am off topic a bit here, pardon me.
Sorry if I sound like I'm just running my own record again, but my whole point in response to Palzang was that people who do venerate unworthy people don't know that they are unworthy. ... This is a risk present only in the endorsement of human-veneration; a risk that disappears completely under the alternative of simply learning from each other, and directing devotion, aspiration and trust to an Ideal that embodies the qualities we wish to have.
No one is saying you have to follow the Vajrayana path of devotion. We're merely explaining why other people do. Devotion is something that develops quite naturally when a student works with a teacher. Vajrayana recognizes and encourages it, other traditions don't. But it's not absent in them.
The danger of making a mistake is always there. One can and should try to evaluate a teacher rationally before giving them your trust. But risk cannot be entirely eliminated. If you're willing to take the risk, devotion can speed your progress. If you're unwilling, you can still make progress, but it's harder. This is not just theory. I've seen it work in Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche's students. Those who placed full trust in him *AND PRACTICED AS HE TOLD THEM TO* have made a lot of progress. Needless to say, Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche bears no resemblance to Jim Jones or Hitler.
That is an excellent point, Jinzang (nice pic by the way, thanks!). When you practice devotion and immediately do what your teacher tells you to do, the results are astounding. When you don't do it or you put it off or you do it with a messed up attitude, there is no result. I have found that to be true for myself and others over and over and over again. So we're not just whistling Dixie here. There really is a reason for devotion, and a powerful one at that.
Oh, one other thing. The reason most Westerners in particular react so strongly to the idea of devotion is that devotion represents a strong attack on ego, so people respond with fear. It is a natural response but one that can (and should) be overcome. The whole idea is to loosen ego's grip on us after all, and that entails a great deal of risk, or at least what seems like risk to us because we are still trying to protect our stupid egos.
I can also verify that whilst one should always investigate carefully, the path of devotion is indeed a powerful one. However it doesn't end there, that's just part of the path, not the result.
No one is saying you have to follow the Vajrayana path of devotion. We're merely explaining why other people do. Devotion is something that develops quite naturally when a student works with a teacher. Vajrayana recognizes and encourages it, other traditions don't. But it's not absent in them.
The danger of making a mistake is always there. One can and should try to evaluate a teacher rationally before giving them your trust. But risk cannot be entirely eliminated. If you're willing to take the risk, devotion can speed your progress. If you're unwilling, you can still make progress, but it's harder. This is not just theory. I've seen it work in Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche's students. Those who placed full trust in him *AND PRACTICED AS HE TOLD THEM TO* have made a lot of progress. Needless to say, Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche bears no resemblance to Jim Jones or Hitler.
There's even a bit of a risk in so-called spiritual practice. After all, what do I have to go on? A wing and a prayer?
As genkaku says we all start with hope and belief, but it doesn't mean that that's how we must all end. Hope and belief are only necessary to the extent of not yet knowing.
By the way, Jinzang, I am interested in your quote - how do you see the interpretation of it? Thanks.
Comments
I would agrre a big THUD!!
All life is suffering - yes. The object is to end suffering - hmm, after a while. I feel that a certain amount of personal suffering is absolutely necessary to engender compassion in a person. Without suffering we can only sympathise, we cannot empathise.
The much maligned Marie Antoinette and her remark about the starving poor having no bread "Well, let them eat cake" was an example of someone who had never suffered a day's hunger in her life and so couldn't begin to imagine another person's hunger.
If the objective is to achieve universal compassion and unconditional love, then we have to suffer ourselves to do this.
In my humble experience.
Palzang
Can we separate the essential teachings of the many enlightened ones, the many Buddhas, from mere tradition? Can we bring Buddhism up to date by keeping the essential tools of enlightenment, while discarding the cultural biases that burden the path with unnecessary obstacles? I believe we can create a new Buddhism if we consciously analyze our situation as present day seekers of truth. With this most fundamental definition of the word 'Buddhism,' anyone who seeks enlightenment can be called a Buddhist.
Although I can't agree with the very last sentence, the rest makes sense to me. No lack of reverence is necessarily entailed. I think what Calder writes is very interesting, and find about 80% of it plausible. From my own experience, I can't help but think that different generations emphasize different things and that it would be easy enough to interpret a lot of spiritual ideals in the wrong spirit, simply due to the changing times which humanity has always experienced. I believe that nobody has any monopoly on truth and that humankind is greatly in need of clarity. Ortega y Gassett said that man has a mission on this earth and that mission is the mission of clarity. Now, as faith traditions go, it seems to me that Buddhism is a gem; that said, I still believe that historically its leaders have sometimes stressed nonessentials at the expense of higher things.
No, I'll hope for just an occasional, sincerely meant kind word.
He said "This is the probably the nearest I will get to "normal" in my life. I have loved these last 10 weeks"
He's been out there treated no differently from the other troops, not showering, eating rat packs, being under fire .... and the poor wee soul loved it.
He has found his true self in adversity despite being in turns "scared sh**less", dirty, hot and tired."
But, as my folks get older (and me along with them, alas!), I've started to 'get' the idea of having a kind of parent/ child relationship with a teacher. It's not just about respect and gratitude, but also stuff like fixing their computer, worrying if they'll be OK taking the bus alone, laughing dutifully at jokes I've already heard a dozen times, etc.
Not sure if this is what anyone else had in mind talking about their own teachers, but it works for me!
First I would mention that when Buddha was dying, he refused to name a successor, telling people instead: 'You must work out your own salvation with diligence; be lamps unto yourselves'. After all, no one can tell us what a state of self-transcendence is like, anymore than a state of love; we have to experience such states yourself, and to experience them ourselves we must work out the best way to do so for us, ourselves.
This is why I don't find veneration useful, at least for me; and if it were only this I'd just say 'Well if it works for you, whatever'. But my real concern is actually quite a bit worse, and that is that veneration can have consequences that are really quite sinister. I'm sure plenty of teachers are truly selfless in intention, but there is nothing in veneration to stop someone less scrupulous from taking advantage of the practice, by hijacking some genuinely good teachings and using them to make a cult, with themselves as the centre of worship. What cult leader has NOT made themselves out to be 'the only way out of a burning building'? This claim doesn't just HELP exploitative cults, it is the LIFE BLOOD of exploitative cults! They couldn't exist with it! Just look at every dangerous religious cult and political dictatorship, past or present, and you will find in the centre of its cold black heart the claim that the individual's salvation is dependent on the dear leader, and that they must therefore venerate the dear leader; whereupon all individual freedoms must be surrendered.
By going back to the 'be a lamp unto yourself' idea, we disable any such potential for abuse of authority. This is what I'd say buddhism can learn from the West, and what I think the Buddha originally meant: That we don't venerate our teachers/leaders, in fact we hold them up to GREATER scrutiny and criticism precisely BECAUSE they are our teachers/leaders, with authority that can be abused. In fact the one thing I liked about the christian story was when Jesus stooped to wash the feet of his disciples. Now THAT is teaching the students egolessness!
I think that far from all this non-veneration-ism being 'ego' and 'pride', it is the very thing that disables ego and pride, along with their bad consequences for others, in the very people most susceptible to them. But I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this.
Peace:-/
As for veneration, to me veneration means I am placing the Dharma above my ordinary confused mind because that is the door to liberation. My mind has not produced the result of enlightenment and in fact has kept me spinning on the endless wheel of birth and death since time out of mind. Therefore I venerate the teachings which arise from the mind of enlightenment rather than ordinary confused perception because therein lies my only hope of getting off the wheel at long last. I therefore venerate the teacher because it is the teacher who has appeared for me in this life to lead me out of samsara. I don't venerate the teacher as a person particularly or a personality or anything like that. I may or may not even "like" my teacher. That's all completely irrelevant. The only thing that does matter is, can this teacher lead me out of samsara? Because I really can't do it on my own. That would be like an alcoholic saying that he can cure himself of alcoholism. Ain't gonna happen!
I have never heard a tulku rest on his/her laurels, so to speak, by pointing to their accomplishment in past lives. Most tulkus I have met have actually not been comfortable talking about past lives or even refusing to discuss them. They have always said it doesn't matter what they may or may not have done in past lives; it only matters what they're doing in this one.
It seems to me that most Western-born tulkus are abandoning the trappings of traditional Tibetan Buddhism and are presenting themselves as real people rather than some distant unattainable object sitting up on a throne. Many have refused to even teach or take on students formally. I think that's a reflection of the Western mind that doesn't tend to trust ostentatious display and personality cults. I certainly don't. So I think we're seeing how Buddhism will take on a Western flavor, as it inevitably will. We're not Tibetans, we're not Japanese, we're not Chinese, we're not Thai, we're Americans and English and Canadian and Mexican and French and German and Russian. So we have to find our own way, just as the Buddha himself taught.
Anyway, that's my ramblings on the subject!
Palzang
Tibet did not retaliate because it would have been pointless and quixotic. They did not have the ability to oppose the much greater force and manpower of the Chinese. If they won some battles they would only incur greater wrath when they were eventually subjugated.
Throughout Tibetan history you will find war and conflict, between schools aligned with various temporal rulers and sometimes at the behest of particularly vindictive and destructive demagogues like Pabongka. All of this I think we can agree is strictly parochial and not in the least buddhist.
It's a nice thought that Tibetans are this peaceable culture, but it is not historically accurate.
Cheers,
Namgyal
A small point for posterity: if anyone said "qu'ils mangent de la brioche", it was likely *not* Marie Antoinette but rather Marie-Therese during Louis IV's rule. The point remains that suffering can provide us much needed context. As the Tibetan axiom goes: "Humans can take great suffering, but only a little happiness."
Namgyal
The reality is that many tulkus don't want all of the restrictions on their behaviour and responsibilities they would have traditionally in the Tibetan community. I have heard this line about how people "give up their robes so that people can relate to them better" and I think it is utter bullshit, whether it is Trungpa Rinpoche saying it or some western-born tulku. I never had trouble relating to HH Penor Rinpoche or HH Dalai Lama on a throne or otherwise, nor to my own lama who is also a fully ordained monk. How does it make them more approachable simply if they can screw whomever they choose? I have seen too much profligacy masquerading as spirituality to have much respect for this sort of convenient justification.
I think that this can be an excuse for indulgence, living off of their students' goodwill rather than taking responsible for their ordained sangha like HH Penor Rinpoche (who had 6000 monks and nuns under his care) did. I am not at all sure that we should dress up this western innovation as a virtue.
*cough* *cough* Roman Catholicism...<ahem>...Jonestown *cough* *cough*
Namgyal
Federica: Please compare the population of China with Tibet, then look at military preparedness in the 1950s for both countries. There *was* resistance, but full scale conflict would have resulted in extermination of the Tibetan people not victory. Leave Buddhism aside; it is pollyannish to assume that Tibet would have prevailed if only they had fought harder.
It is interesting to see how sexual lust
Martin Luther was subject to strong sexual lust and existential fears. He created a new form of Christianity to accomodate that.
Unfortunately, he regarded his religion as something profound and the only way, rather than merely another variance in human behaviour & disposition.
The essense of Buddhism is as it is, always perfect & a radiant jewel.
Hm. I don't know that this is an effective guard. I doubt anyone who ever entered a cult thought they were insane, or that what they were entering was even a cult at all; they thought what they were doing was most sane thing they'd ever done in their life, and that the leader they had so rationally decided to follow was doubtlessly the most sane individual on the planet (believing, as their sanity told them, that the individual was enlightened). Such people generally do listen to their sanity as much as the rest of us; they just make mistakes, like the rest of us. But, at the very least, by emphasising 'be a lamp unto yourself', we can prevent misguided individuals from coalescing into a misguided group.
Can't we just let the Dharma alone be our guide, and learn from each other with mutual respect?
Peace:)
P.S- By the way I enjoy your responses, Palzang!
I was simply pointing out a phenomenon that I have observed. Whether it is a good or bad phenomenon I leave to the reader. I don't, however, have even the slightest problem with Trungpa and his often controversial behavior. Quite the opposite. I think he was probably more responsible for bringing the Dharma to the West than anyone. But he was a crazy wisdom teacher, not a teacher like His Holiness Penor Rinpoche at all. I like both. They both have their place. Do you find that odd? Contradictory? Illogical? Probably all three. So?
And Prometheus, I agree that there is no sure-fire method of guaranteeing that any teacher you choose is going to prove to be a good one. We're dealing with humans, and humans make mistakes and get confused. We're in the fix we are because we've lost touch with our basic sanity. How then to proceed? Never an easy answer.
Palzang
It is occasionally the case that an ordained tulku has decided to give up the robes in order to marry, and I don't think that they should be condemned for this, nor considered to be indulgent. I've no doubt that some do perhaps take advantage, but I wouldn't like to make any sweeping statements about tulkus in general.
Dazzle
Palzang
Before and after every Kung Fu lesson, I bow to my teacher by placing my hands face down on the ground and touching my forehead to the back of my hands (from a kneeling position). In Americana, bowing connotates Kings and vassals, which we curl up our noses at it. However the origination of it in this context (the East) is much simpler: respect for your teacher.
Whenever dealing with a concept like "veneration" it's important to fully realize your own cultural bias when approaching the concept. Because veneration connotates "scraping" to you and those around you does not mean the connotation is universal.
'I agree that there is no sure-fire method of guaranteeing that any teacher you choose is going to prove to be a good one. We're dealing with humans, and humans make mistakes and get confused'.
This was at the heart of my argument for not venerating.
'How then to proceed?'
MUTUAL respect, learning from each other, venerating no one. This IS a sure-fire way to stop cults from forming; again, that was my argument.
Lincoln:
'I bow to my teacher by placing my hands face down on the ground and touching my forehead to the back of my hands (from a kneeling position)'.
This is way beyond simple 'respect'. This makes me want to take a shower. In my dojo we bowed to each other; again, MUTUAL respect. Perhaps it is a cultural thing; what I do know is that it doesn't matter what culture you're in, such subservience has always been the hallmark of dictatorship and ruler-worship, including in China and Japan. That it's a different culture doesn't make it right; human rights violations always - always - follows from such subservience to leaders. Unless you believe human rights are just a western cultural idiosyncracy as well.
Peace:(
Devotion can be misused when given to an unscrupulous person. But so can any trust. Is the answer not to trust anyone?
For me, and I imagine for a lot of people, the spiritual part of me is the most vulnerable and the part of me that's most prone to deep and strong fear. When I was still living in the darkness of heart/mind sickness and anxiety/panic (before Buddhism) I was suffering so deeply that I was extremely vulnerable to anyone who might come along and tell me they had the cure for my pain. I would have wanted to believe them very, very much.
I believe there are a great many people in this world who are walking wounded and very, very vulnerable. Not only is basic sanity not a guarantee in such a state, it's a likely bet that they're living their lives in a kind of semi-sanity, even if they're not self-medicating. (And being drunk or really high on hard drugs are both states of insanity in my humble opinion.) They don't have a lot of sanity to draw upon, especially in the face of someone who is deliberately conning them. Even the smartest and most sane people can get conned.
Add to this the fact that our spirituality and its development is the most important and precious thing under our control and you can see why I agree with Prometheus that veneration and guru worship can be extremely dangerous practices.
I also didn't understand the justification for this kind of worship until Jinzang explained it in that last post. If worshiping or venerating one's teacher brings one to enlightenment more quickly than that's great. It's difficult for me to believe of course, because I just don't believe statements like that unless they can be proven in some way and this statement can't be. But like so many other things in Buddhism that can't be proven, I'll definitely keep my mind wide open to the possibility.
In the meantime I'll take the slow and steady route. It's just a personality thing.
Prometheus, I note that you have a resistance to such ritual, and some part of it simply does not sit well with you. However, you're interpreting things according to your own impressions, perceptions and prejudices....
But remember that in the East and the Far East, bowing is about as common as you and I saying 'hi' to each other.
The Dalai Lama bows to people, and people bow to him.
people prostrate themselves at times, before others, and the simple hands-together-at-the-chest gesture is deeply respectful, and pays homage. But it is not subservient, and nor is it inferior or submissive. It is veneration, but not in any sense derogatively.
The word 'Namaste', which always accompanies the hands-together' gesture, means "the blessed in me recognises and greets the blessed in you"
The thing to remember about bowing is that there is no difference between the one that bows and the one that is bowed to. The communication between them is inexpressibly perfect.
_/l\_
Hi Jinzang: The difference might be that we cannot avoid the need to trust others in our lives, while we can avoid venerating someone. Your quote was interesting, but I have to wonder if the issue of whether or not it is truly a faster path would be dependent on the person... However - and this is my main point - even if it is true that veneration is a faster path, I still wonder if the non-venerating path might not be better for all in the long run, avoiding the dangers in veneration for the individual student, but more importantly for society at large (e.g. a culture endorsing human-veneration easily being a ramp to ruler-worship and human rights abuses, i.e. Stalinist Russia or North Korea). After all it's not just about us personally; it's about society.
(Maybe we could have the same sense of devotion to an Ideal, like love or compassion or selflessness, or to Humanity at large- instead of to a person? Just a thought).
'But remember that in the East and the Far East, bowing is about as common as you and I saying 'hi' to each other.
The Dalai Lama bows to people, and people bow to him.... The word 'Namaste', which always accompanies the hands-together' gesture, means "the blessed in me recognises and greets the blessed in you". The thing to remember about bowing is that there is no difference between the one that bows and the one that is bowed to'.
If I read you right, Federica (and correct me if I haven't) then I'm not sure that we actually disagree on anything. If you re-read what you quoted from my post, I implied that I had no problem with people bowing to each other (I said this was what we did in my dojo), as this is mutual respect. I have no problem with respect that goes both ways equally.
Peace
Protocol does make things easier, of course, but is also a way of reinforcing patriarchal hierarchy. When we met HHDL, I asked his secretary about protocol and was told that there was none for us (non-Buddhist, non-Tibetan). It made for a strange moment at the end of our meeting. My son was talking to Takla, the secretary, and HHDL came over to me. Not knowing what to do but very moved, I knelt down. He took my hands and kissed them, raising me to my feet. He then presented his forehead. I now know that he was offering a blessing but I hadn't been warned and, instinctively, I kissed his head. He hugged me to him and kissed my cheek - a blessing indeed.
Would it have been better if we had touched foreheads? Certainly, I wouldn't have felt so embarrassed later when it was explained to me but it was a moment of spontaneity and contact.
True reverence is, I think, a two-way transaction otherwise it is simply showing-off!
Me too Brigid, what a wonderful experience!
We bow three times in this way; only one of the bows is to the teacher, and he bows with us the other two times (the other bows are to the dojo and the group, if I'm recalling correctly).
We also bow (usually standing) when entering or exiting the dojo, before/after working with a partner, and before/after talking to the teacher.
It is a sign of respect in every context that it is used. Your seemingly flippant use of the term 'simple respect' makes me think that our connotations of the term may be different. "Yeah, yeah, I respect you, sure" isn't the respect I'm talking about, nor could it ever be confused with subservience.
Surely acknowledging someone's superior expertise in a field doesn't mean that you're less worthy of respect as a person.
'...nor could it ever be confused with subservience'.
If it's not subservience, then I have no problem and we are debating about nothing.
Peace:)
There are two aspects to devotion or veneration. The first is aspiration. The person you are venerating embodies the qualities you are aspiring to develop. The second is trust. Because they embody these qualities they can be a trustworthy guide. This is a very potent combination and meeting someone who inspires your veneration can have a profound affect on your life. Please note that no one has a right to demand your veneration, it's something that must be given spontaneously and freely if it's to be effective.
It also should not be given blindly. Before you sit down in a chair, you make sure it can hold your weight, or the results will be disastrous. In the same way, before venerating someone, you should make sure they deserve to receive that veneration and are motivated by kindness. If they lack qualities, they can mislead you out of ignorance and if they lack kindness, they can mislead you out of malice. But if they have both, how could there be a problem. One can point to Jim Jones, but the problem here is not the veneration, but that the person venerated was unworthy. If the people of Jonestown had put their trust in the Dalai Lama instead, wouldn't they be fine today?
Sorry if I sound like I'm just running my own record again, but my whole point in response to Palzang was that people who do venerate unworthy people don't know that they are unworthy. They believe they are following an enlightened being, who is motivated by kindness, and they believe they are doing it of their own free will. People like Jim Jones couldn't have gotten a following in the first place if the followers had thought otherwise. Of course some teachers may be genuinely motivated by kindness, but my point was that people can make mistakes in this regard, and those mistakes have lead to catastrophes ranging from Jonestown to Stalin's Russia.
This is a risk present only in the endorsement of human-veneration; a risk that disappears completely under the alternative of simply learning from each other, and directing devotion, aspiration and trust to an Ideal that embodies the qualities we wish to have. If this works (and in my own experience it works a gem) then what's the point in running the risk of another Jonestown? The Buddha himself refused to name a successor, refusing to create a formal teacher, saying the Dharma and our own common sense should be our guides. I agree with this move.
Peace:)
As Trungpa Rinpoche said, at some point you just have to make a leap without knowing where you'll land or if it'll be a good thing or a bad thing or whatever. That's the truth about the spiritual quest. It could lead to complete enlightenment and liberation, or it could lead to the lowest hell realm. It is truly a razor's edge we walk. But if you're going to do it at all, you have to do it with your whole being. You can't do it half-assed or the result will be just that. You have to take that risk. If you're not willing to do that, you might as well not even try. Better to stay home, watch football, and eat pizza and drink beer.
Palzang
My point was why take the risk when the non-risk alternative works just as well, if not better. Nothing 'half-assed' about that, it's just logical.
And remember anyway that we're not just taking risks with ourselves; we're taking risks with society. And no, I wouldn't seek awakening at all if it meant even just the risk of losing society to cult leaders, ruler-worship and brutal dictatorship. I'm just not that important. So if that is half-assed, then I'll be content with being half-assed.
Peace:)
Palzang
Best wishes.
New/old/West/East are all just artificial divisions.
And the thing is, I don't believe in the doctrine of continual rebirth on earth until enlightenment-via-Dharma-alone, so I don't believe Dharma is needed at absolutely-all-costs-no-matter-how-bloody-those-costs-are. I just believe the Dharma to be a great tool to increase well-being and selflessness in this life- and one not requiring veneration of teachers. If veneration of teachers was somehow necessary for this practice, then yes, I would feel forced to find some other means of well-being, for the sake of society as a whole. This conclusion doesn't come from lack of commitment, it comes precisely from my commitment to the welfare of others. Fortunately, I don't see any reason for veneration being necessary at all, as I've said, so this second paragraph is all a bit of a moot point.
Peace
I've just caught the tail end of this discussion but FWIW I would never go into this Dhamma business if someone had told me at the start I must venerate and obey whomever.
Instead, I was guided quite easily and naturally by friends all around - whom asked nothing of me except an encouragement to practice.
"The Dhamma is to be known by yourself as surely as one who drinks water and knows the taste of refreshment"
I would not call it an impediment myself if you were to undertake actual-factual practice.
You will notice if you practice (Four Noble Truths) that in that there is no need for belief or trust or veneration - other than in your own capacity for bringing forth the Dhamma into real life.
And, as you practice, perhaps you will meet friends and even teachers of good standing whom you cannot help but trust one day. But trust will be beside the point - it is not yet the truth of the matter.
Keep in mind if and as you actually practice, then there will come a time when guidance is very important - and the reason for this is because ego is very subtle.
But when that time comes, you will know, and you will be ready.
We are all very certain until we come to know our certainties. Where you are is fine, and just right for you. Keep peace in that, and don't forgo the possibility of genuine friendship either.
When you are ready, at your time.
Best wishes,
Abu
Palzang
Hi Palzang,
As you have pointed out, devotion is the key in Vajrayana. I am not very well versed in the role of devotion (teacher etc) in the other traditions. It's my (often misguided) understanding that The Buddha tought many ways for people of different capacities, and if veneration/devotion is something that is not present in your current curcumstances then either the Therevada or Hinayana schools would be more in line with your path. Either path can lead to enlightenment. I suppse what I am getting at it that if it is in your cards, then you understand it, and it it isn't then there really isn't a point in trying to explain it?
Palzang
Palzang
No one is saying you have to follow the Vajrayana path of devotion. We're merely explaining why other people do. Devotion is something that develops quite naturally when a student works with a teacher. Vajrayana recognizes and encourages it, other traditions don't. But it's not absent in them.
The danger of making a mistake is always there. One can and should try to evaluate a teacher rationally before giving them your trust. But risk cannot be entirely eliminated. If you're willing to take the risk, devotion can speed your progress. If you're unwilling, you can still make progress, but it's harder. This is not just theory. I've seen it work in Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche's students. Those who placed full trust in him *AND PRACTICED AS HE TOLD THEM TO* have made a lot of progress. Needless to say, Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche bears no resemblance to Jim Jones or Hitler.
Palzang
Palzang
There's even a bit of a risk in so-called spiritual practice. After all, what do I have to go on? A wing and a prayer?
As genkaku says we all start with hope and belief, but it doesn't mean that that's how we must all end. Hope and belief are only necessary to the extent of not yet knowing.
By the way, Jinzang, I am interested in your quote - how do you see the interpretation of it? Thanks.