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.
I can't say it any better than Steven Goodheart said:
We are free to believe or not believe what the Buddha taught. And the Buddha told us to try his teachings and see for ourselves if they work. But claiming this moral freedom is a very different thing than claiming that all teachings are the same and that distinctions and what the Buddha called “right view” are unimportant or unnecessary. If the Buddha of the Pali canon doesn’t speak to you, that’s fine. If the Buddha of the Mahayana tradition doesn’t speak to you, that’s fine! But shouldn’t we at least have the moral courage to admit the differences in teachings and traditions, instead of ignoring them or explaining them away? And if we see disagreements, do we have to believe that means that one teaching is “higher” or a “greater vehicle” than the other?
If some belief or view we hold is not skillful, if it does not lead to the end of suffering, then if we follow the Buddha’s path of the Four Noble Truths, eventually this will become apparent. Seeing distinctions and differences is not about saying “I’m right” and “you’re wrong!” It’s about having the intellectual integrity to respect what some teacher actually taught. It’s about the moral courage and spiritual integrity to agree to disagree and to respect those differences, with all good will toward our fellow beings in their quest for happiness in the road they travel.
To what good purpose would one slight the beliefs of another dharma practitioner as being false? It mystifies me.
To what good purpose would one slight the beliefs of another dharma practitioner as being false? It mystifies me.
What if this person is giving, what you believe to be, unskillful/bad advice to a friend of yours? Shouldn't you say something?
At least the Tibetan lama I listen to states the Mahayana evolved to broaden the appeal of Buddhism as traditional Buddhism was losing influence in India.
I think there is a great deal of truth in this. There's a reason why some religions/ideas catch on, and others die off. I think Theravada didn't offer enough to laypeople, especially those who don't meditate.
What if this person is giving, what you believe to be, unskillful/bad advice to a friend of yours? Shouldn't you say something?
To me, that would depend on the risk to them and if they have asked for advice in their practice.
If they haven't asked for advice and the only risk is laggy dharma practice, then I would say that, for karmic reasons alone, that it is not wise to interfere. These are each our own paths, and they are different for us all.
I guess there is also a very real sense in which the failures are part of the practice.
But, if they were being indoctrinated in a home-made Dharma that required they be crack addicts to reach enlightenment, I would probably suggest they tried a different approach:p
It is important to recognise that the different Schools of Buddhism are historically and culturally distinct having evolved over time in different places, often with relatively little knowledge of each other. It is also important to remember that no religion of any size remains uninfluenced by the state. In the case of most Buddhist sects the state has often intervened and influenced the type and nature of the practice - so we need to be selective about what we receive. Moreover, the very survival of a sect over a long period is dependent its currency among the masses. Many sects have been destroyed by war and often those that survive may have done so for different reasons(being harmless). This is a two edged sword, where schools which claim superiority are likely to attract more people, this popularity may attract a counter reaction when times change.
The ability of Schools to develop superior leadership may also have an impact on its popularity and John Powers argues that this is the case in Tibetan Buddhism. He suggests that Tulkus are questionable as reincarnations/rebirths, but that the identification of Tulkus effectively allowed for the selection of the most promising young men to be trained from childhood - thus creating outstanding exemplars and leaders.
There are three propositions here. First, is one set of practices absolutely better than another. Thus, on the whole the practitioners on this group tend to progress faster and have deeper insight than another group. There has been no effort to objectivly test this and in ancient times there were far fewer choices than we have. I think we can be sceptical of insiders who claim superiority of their sect. So, the answer is we don't know. Second, is one set of practices relatively better than another. So, that for certain types of people it might be best to practice with certain set of techniques, because one will progress relatively faster. A common racist perspective, as in the above discussion, is found with Asian monks who negatively compare Westerner's mind state despite their very different circumstances. It is amazing how calm the Western mind becomes on holidays; but the point is valid, some practices might be more suitable to lay practitioners than for monks. Jack Kornfield suggests that it is easy to have an equanimous glow in a monastic setting and suggests that lay life presents some necessary challenges for the enlightened to polish their jewel. On the other hand, people are attracted to glow, and when I meditated full time, even non-dharma people noticed - despite having little insight then. Now, with a full-time job, I never get a comment. Third, every path is the same. This is simply not true. Whilst my root, practice is Zen, I have practiced with all sects and my experience is that there are big differences.
As a final comment, my view is that individual differences are significant, and that a consistent and dedicated practice seems to work well in all traditions, but it does pay to spend some time in another tradition - as it breaks down a lot of myths.
Comments
I think there is a great deal of truth in this. There's a reason why some religions/ideas catch on, and others die off. I think Theravada didn't offer enough to laypeople, especially those who don't meditate.
If they haven't asked for advice and the only risk is laggy dharma practice, then I would say that, for karmic reasons alone, that it is not wise to interfere. These are each our own paths, and they are different for us all.
I guess there is also a very real sense in which the failures are part of the practice.
But, if they were being indoctrinated in a home-made Dharma that required they be crack addicts to reach enlightenment, I would probably suggest they tried a different approach:p
namaste
The ability of Schools to develop superior leadership may also have an impact on its popularity and John Powers argues that this is the case in Tibetan Buddhism. He suggests that Tulkus are questionable as reincarnations/rebirths, but that the identification of Tulkus effectively allowed for the selection of the most promising young men to be trained from childhood - thus creating outstanding exemplars and leaders.
There are three propositions here. First, is one set of practices absolutely better than another. Thus, on the whole the practitioners on this group tend to progress faster and have deeper insight than another group. There has been no effort to objectivly test this and in ancient times there were far fewer choices than we have. I think we can be sceptical of insiders who claim superiority of their sect. So, the answer is we don't know. Second, is one set of practices relatively better than another. So, that for certain types of people it might be best to practice with certain set of techniques, because one will progress relatively faster. A common racist perspective, as in the above discussion, is found with Asian monks who negatively compare Westerner's mind state despite their very different circumstances. It is amazing how calm the Western mind becomes on holidays; but the point is valid, some practices might be more suitable to lay practitioners than for monks. Jack Kornfield suggests that it is easy to have an equanimous glow in a monastic setting and suggests that lay life presents some necessary challenges for the enlightened to polish their jewel. On the other hand, people are attracted to glow, and when I meditated full time, even non-dharma people noticed - despite having little insight then. Now, with a full-time job, I never get a comment. Third, every path is the same. This is simply not true. Whilst my root, practice is Zen, I have practiced with all sects and my experience is that there are big differences.
As a final comment, my view is that individual differences are significant, and that a consistent and dedicated practice seems to work well in all traditions, but it does pay to spend some time in another tradition - as it breaks down a lot of myths.