Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@newbuddhist.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take up to 48 hours. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Which Buddhist tradition do you follow...and why (any particular reason??)

N2BN2B
edited May 2011 in Sanghas
or perhaps you dont follow a specific tradition..

I have a friend who doesnt belong to any tradition...just practices meditation and follows the basic 8 fold path..
«1

Comments

  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    New Kadampa tradition.

    A. Because I was born with it.
    B. Becuase what is taught works :)
  • DaozenDaozen Veteran
    Zen. It works.. for me anyway.
  • Zen, particularly the Soto school. My first genuine interest in Zen Buddhism was through reading R.H. Blyth's four volume series on Haiku.

    The meditation approach of shikantaza ("just sitting") intuitively makes sense to me, and, like haiku, appeals to my minimalist sensibilities.
  • VajraheartVajraheart Veteran
    edited May 2011
    Dzogchen, with some Vajrayana practices, but definitely Dzogchen view through and through. Because it's deeply experiential, and purifies my moment to moment process through it's integrative teachings. It seems to collect and make clear all the different Buddhist vehicles without falling into any of the possible traps. I'm not saying there are inherent traps in the other Buddhist vehicles, just that there is a tendency for people to become dogmatically attached to their traditions precepts. I love how deep Dzogchen literature goes when talking about the enlightened state of mind. The methods offered are so interesting and colorful as well.

    Also, I grew up a Tantric Shaivite since birth of the Trika persuasion or popularly known as Kashmir Shaivism style of Hinduism, which through study, I have found was most likely influenced by the much earlier Buddhist forms of Tantra in Vajrayana and also the Ati Yoga or Dzogchen. Then after meeting a master of Dzogchen, through direct introduction, and unquestionable direct experience of it's power and the teachers presence! I converted from what I experienced previously as a powerful form of Theistic Hinduism to an even deeper appreciation for Buddhism and more definitely found that Vajrayana and Dzogchen were even more powerful traditions than anything I'd come across in all my studies and interpretations of the nature of spiritual experiences.

    I especially like the concept of "Meditation without meditating." Which is an idea I first came across through my studies as a Shaiva Tantrica. But, I found that Buddhism as a whole has a much clearer understanding of everything, plus the tradition is far more alive than any form of Hinduism in my opinion.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen for more information.

    "The essence of the Dzogchen teaching is the direct transmission of knowledge from master to disciple. Garab Dorje epitomized the Dzogchen teaching in three principles, known as the Three Statements of Garab Dorje.

    1. Direct introduction to one's own nature
    2. Not remaining in doubt concerning this unique state
    3. Continuing to remain in this state

    In accordance with these three statements, Garab Dorje's direct disciple Manjushrimitra classified all the Dzogchen teachings transmitted by his master into three series:

    1. Semde (Sanskrit: cittavarga), the series of Mind, that focuses on the introduction to one's own primordial state;

    2. Longde (Sanskrit: abhyantaravarga), the series of Space, that focuses on developing the capacity to gain familiarity with the state and remove doubts; and

    3. Menngagde (Sanskrit: upadeshavarga), the series of secret Oral Instructions, focusing on the practices in which one engages after gaining confidence in knowledge of the state.

    Tulku Urgyen explains what is meant by "gaining confidence in liberation": "The third analogy of the liberation of thoughts is described as being like a thief entering an empty house. This is called stability or perfection in training. A thief entering an empty house does not gain anything, and the house does not lose anything. All thought activity is naturally liberated without any harm or benefit whatsoever. This is the meaning of gaining confidence in liberation."

    The Dzogchen teachings focus on three terms: View, Meditation, and Action. To see directly the absolute state of our mind is the View; the way of stabilizing that View and making it an unbroken experience is Meditation; and integrating that View into our daily life is what is meant by Action."
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    or perhaps you dont follow a specific tradition..

    I have a friend who doesnt belong to any tradition...just practices meditation and follows the basic 8 fold path..
    That was me, also, for around 20 years.
    In fact, even though I now would describe myself as Theravadin, I would say that your friend's policy is commendable.

    I say this so many times, my poor fellow members must be FU2theBT of listening to me, but when you have the 4, the 8 and the 5, this really involves a lifetime's dedication.
    Those 17 - adhered to, followed, studied and realised - are in my very humble opinion, really all anyone needs.

    and 17 into 1 will go.

    "Simplify!".

  • Federica.
    I would go as far as to say that all one really needs is the 4. And what is the 4? The four noble truths. Why would I say that? Because within the four noble truths is the eightfold path, and within the eightfold path is right speech, and right action, which covers the five precepts. With that said, would you not agree that all you really need is the 4?
    -Tikal
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    No.
    You also need the 5, because they underpin the 8.
    Many argue against the 5, but adhering to them, and understanding their validity, even though they are not commandments, lets you appreciate the 8 more clearly.
    The 8 form part of the 4, but a significant part, and a whole lifetime's practice and dedication.

    You need the 4, but cannot stop at the 4.
    you need the 8 because they are the fundamental aspect of the 4.
    you need the 5 because it pays to be Mindful and be reminded of the 8.

  • you dont need anything.. everything you need you have. :)

    with metta
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    Incorrect.
    if everything you need, you have.... then, why are you here? ;)

    You may have all the trekking gear, but I believe a map is always useful, no?
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited May 2011
    I don't follow any one tradition, but rather have studied many traditions to try and come to an understanding of what the Buddha taught (for the purpose of the alleviation of suffering, where-ever suffering may be found). I also practice Samatha-Vipassana meditation to directly experience the workings of the mind and the nature of those experiences. The Four Noble Truths w/Noble Eightfold Path, Three Marks of Existence (Anicca-Dukkha-Anatta), Five Precepts, Dependent Origination, and Karma are all part of it. The Bodhisattva ideal is one I agree with, but I don't entangle it with rebirth/reincarnation speculations, rather working in the here-and-now for the benefit of others.

    What can't be known (in other words is unknowable), I put on a shelf... self/fear are the basis of forming beliefs from the unknown, and that clouds our vision and entangles us in speculative views. What can be known, I work toward finding out... and keep an open mind otherwise. ;)

    The reason? My desire to know the truth, no matter whether I like it or not, is much more powerful than my ability to lie to myself to be happy. People believe what they want to believe, but I don't want to be blinded by my own stubborn refusal to be honest with myself.
  • but I believe a map is always useful, no?
    Yes, and you have it. :)
  • NirvanaNirvana aka BUBBA   `     `   South Carolina, USA Veteran
    you dont need anything.. everything you need you have. :)

    with metta
    O, my friend, Have you been reading Astavakra?

  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited May 2011
    @ santhisouk:
    Yes, and it's appreciated when it's shared.
    When you're walking with a big group of friends, and one of you has a map, you lay it down so that everyone can discuss the best route, the most scenic, the quickest, the one which has more pit-stops....
    being one of many, if you've got a map, we can all have a look.

    if however, you think you already have your map, and that it's all you need, I'll be sure to bear that in mind when you tell us your map says "how about we go this way...." :D
  • shanyinshanyin Novice Yogin Sault Ontario Veteran
    edited May 2011
    I'll be totally honest, and in doing so hoping I will learn something.

    I went to a monastery because I wanted to formally take refuge, and ended up taking Bodhisattva vows from the monk.

    But all I want to do is follow the 4, the 5 and the 8. I share federica's view on this and appreiciate her remarks.

    It was rather naive of me.

    Be well.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited May 2011
    Nothing wrong with that @shanyin, a vow is just a commitment you make to yourself. You could make a vow to lose weight and fail to do so, and you're the only one suffering from it. If you don't actually want to lose weight, then you don't suffer do you? :) In time you may be more comfortable taking bodhisattva vows because you'll be beyond your own suffering and ready to spend your time dedicated exclusively to others, but I wouldn't worry about it (unless you want to worry, but I've found worrying to be worrisome!).

    In essence, bodhisattva vows are just like taking refuge. It's not the words or taking them formally before a monk that's important, but the consistent effort you continue to apply toward doing the work. It's not something you do once, say once, and are done with. It's like walking the path itself, something you must cultivate.
  • santhisouksanthisouk Veteran
    edited May 2011
    @ federica:
    I'm pretty sure we're looking at the same map :) I totally agree with you that its much better to share and discuss the best routes. I think that its our own curiosity that brings out our "blind faith". Its always good to have something to take into consideration. The 4, 8, and 5 to me is not a road that should be taken alone or to direct anyone. I believe the map is well written enough and suits us perfectly.

    @Nirvana: I have not heard about Astavakra. I'll look it up.
  • typo.. should not be taken alone I mean.

    with metta :D
  • you dont need anything.. everything you need you have. :)

    with metta
    O, my friend, Have you been reading Astavakra?

    Just don't get solipsistic with it... see infinite regress/progress insight that is inter-dependent origination, the emptiness of now which is it's fullness.
  • NirvanaNirvana aka BUBBA   `     `   South Carolina, USA Veteran
    Dunno what solipisistic means, but do know that itses scream.

    It is, it was = "it's" please. The possesive pronoun is just simply "its" -the sound of chalk screeching on a chalkboard is not so loud.

    There's nothing solipsistic at all about Astavakra. That's the prejudiced view.

    Astavakra is pure Advaita and is meant as an antidote to "other" hermetically conceived, as it were, approaches.

    Astavakra teaches the foolishness of trying too hard to achieve what you already really have.

    There's a give-and-take in all things —a flux. Not this, not that, but still there. (Neti, na iti)

    The dogmatic "my way or the highway" approach not only misses the point of life (which is in the river's flow) but misleads others into thinking there is something when there's not or there is nothing where there most surely is.

    THOU ART THAT is simply true. You cannot make an -ISM out of that and still be fair. That is inanity itself.

    Quite like saying that bananas have no value, no truth.
    you dont need anything.. everything you need you have. :)

    with metta
    All are unhappy because they exert themselves. But none know this. The blessed one attains emancipation through this instruction alone.
    from the Asthavakra Samhita XVI:3:
    All are unhappy because they exert themselves. But none know this. The blessed one attains emancipation through this instruction alone.

  • NirvanaNirvana aka BUBBA   `     `   South Carolina, USA Veteran
    Golly I earlier save a draft and then when I came to post a link to Astavakra Samahita online only my earlier draft posted.

    Here, santhisouk, is the Asthavakra Gita online.

    Here it is again in case my linking attempts fail:
    http://www.home2b.nl/home2b-vedanta/vedanta-page-ashtavakra-samhita.html
  • Thank you Nirvana. Doesn't Asthavakra believe in the "self" though?
  • I am a Zen (Soto school). I am a Zen mainly because we focus on the mind and the world more than anything else and I believe this is very important.
  • NirvanaNirvana aka BUBBA   `     `   South Carolina, USA Veteran
    "Self," with a capital "S," is used but it is the same as "Universe." It's really all there "Is."

    I try to think of "it" as Consciousness rather than a "thing." Self is "thing," consciousness is no-thing. (Indeed "thinking" is "thing-ing.")

    The Truth Astavakra points to is absolute truth, not relative truth. It's the truth of meditation and why we need to meditate and to be witness and to get to know the witness and to grow as the witness.

    Words cannot get it nor thought get there. But meditate and be happy.

    Astavakra teaches continually, "Be happy." To my mind that's another way of his saying, "go meditate."
  • Dunno what solipisistic means, but do know that itses scream.

    It is, it was = "it's" please. The possesive pronoun is just simply "its" -the sound of chalk screeching on a chalkboard is not so loud.

    There's nothing solipsistic at all about Astavakra. That's the prejudiced view.

    Astavakra is pure Advaita and is meant as an antidote to "other" hermetically conceived, as it were, approaches.

    Astavakra teaches the foolishness of trying too hard to achieve what you already really have.

    There's a give-and-take in all things —a flux. Not this, not that, but still there. (Neti, na iti)

    The dogmatic "my way or the highway" approach not only misses the point of life (which is in the river's flow) but misleads others into thinking there is something when there's not or there is nothing where there most surely is.

    THOU ART THAT is simply true. You cannot make an -ISM out of that and still be fair. That is inanity itself.

    Quite like saying that bananas have no value, no truth.
    you dont need anything.. everything you need you have. :)

    with metta
    All are unhappy because they exert themselves. But none know this. The blessed one attains emancipation through this instruction alone.
    from the Asthavakra Samhita XVI:3:
    All are unhappy because they exert themselves. But none know this. The blessed one attains emancipation through this instruction alone.

    It reifies an ultimate Self as substratum or ultimate basis, so it's a substantiated advaita and not compatible with Buddhisms non-substantiated non-dualism. It's guidance would only lead to formless bliss realms or higher rebirth, not Nirvana as defined by the Buddha. The Ashtavakra Samhita like all Advaita Vedanta is obviously influenced by the Buddhas teachings, but not as complete as the Buddhas teachings. The famous "Thou Art That" statement of the Upanishads is not true according to the insight of dependent origination as it reveals the opposite, that is, independent origination, as if all things arise from one fundimental self existing essence.
  • VajraheartVajraheart Veteran
    edited May 2011
    "Self," with a capital "S," is used but it is the same as "Universe." It's really all there "Is."

    I try to think of "it" as Consciousness rather than a "thing." Self is "thing," consciousness is no-thing. (Indeed "thinking" is "thing-ing.")

    The Truth Astavakra points to is absolute truth, not relative truth. It's the truth of meditation and why we need to meditate and to be witness and to get to know the witness and to grow as the witness.

    Words cannot get it nor thought get there. But meditate and be happy.

    Astavakra teaches continually, "Be happy." To my mind that's another way of his saying, "go meditate."
    Consciousness according to Buddhism is a relative truth, an aggregate, and if it is mistakenly considered as a self existing ultimate through one level of formless samadhi or another, or one level of contemplative solitude or another, one will only enter into high level absorption at the end of a cosmic eon and ignorant re-expression in the next.

    There is no "ultimate truth" in Buddhism, and that's Buddhisms ultimate truth.

    The universe is not considered a self existing Self, a truth that shines from it's own side. Dependent Origination reveals infinite regress, no ultimate beginning, no intellectual, nor experiential excuse for an ultimate Self existence.
  • or perhaps you dont follow a specific tradition..

    I have a friend who doesnt belong to any tradition...just practices meditation and follows the basic 8 fold path..
    My practice is Zen Buddhism.

    Well wishes,
    Abu
    TheEccentric
  • NirvanaNirvana aka BUBBA   `     `   South Carolina, USA Veteran
    My practice is my own particular mixture of bhakti and karma yogas. I meditate when I can and I read scriptures of all faiths. I consider the Buddha's Dharma as sublime and true, but I don't think it was intended as a monopolistic pursuit, for lack of better words right now.


    Consciousness according to Buddhism is a relative truth, an aggregate, and if it is mistakenly considered as a self existing ultimate through one level of formless samadhi or another, or one level of contemplative solitude or another, one will only enter into high level absorption at the end of a cosmic eon and ignorant re-expression in the next.

    There is no "ultimate truth" in Buddhism, and that's Buddhisms ultimate truth.

    The universe is not considered a self existing Self, a truth that shines from it's own side. Dependent Origination reveals infinite regress, no ultimate beginning, no intellectual, nor experiential excuse for an ultimate Self existence.
    Compatible with Buddhism or not, it is what it is.

    There are things incompatible with many things. There are many ideologies and religions and political theories. There exist pluralities of cultures, calendars, languages, measuring systems, usw.

    Only what truly is, is.

    Isms are just thought systems. Thinking is not the answer.

    The truth cannot be literally comprehended. Look at the word "comprehend." Literally, it means to engulf entirely. No thought system or belief system has it all figured out. Thinking is one thing, reality quite another.

    In principio erat Verbum... in ipso vita erat et vita erat lux hominum
    Et lux in tenebris lucet et tenebrae eam non conprehenderunt.

    Buddhism points out a way. I don't believe any avatar or Buddha ever taught that he was teaching anything fundamentally new. It's all, in the end, Tao.

    And we wayward beings cannot quite fathom much, nor should we try to categorize all things. Just meet things as they are and only dismiss them if they would lead to harm. Judge not and be not judged. Nudge not and be not nudged.

    It's interesting how related religions and languages are. Just as the different languages have differing concepts, paradigms, and nuances —so do the religions from which these linguistic groups sprang. I believe that —in the same way we learn more about our own languages by studying others— the more we learn about our native religion by studying others and engaging with their adherents. I remain a proud Episcopalian —in no small part because my little church is unafraid to be real, whilst so many other organized religions continue to add to the broader culture of intolerance of human frailties, etc.

    I bow not the knees of my mind to any thought system. I bow down my head to that eternal bliss that resides both within and without.

  • :poke: any Buddhism is fine
  • VajraheartVajraheart Veteran
    edited May 2011



    Buddhism points out a way. I don't believe any avatar or Buddha ever taught that he was teaching anything fundamentally new. It's all, in the end, Tao.
    It's obvious you haven't studied much Buddhism. Which is fine. I used to think this way, as I grew up a Bhakti into Universalism as is taught in modern day versions of Advaita, which is kind of a new age movement. The Buddha did in fact debate with "wrong views" though and was not scared of correcting people if they're path was erroneous. Even Shankaracharya didn't agree with Buddhism, even though his teachers before him obviously took from Nagarjunas teachings to create the view of Advaita Vedanta before passing them on to Shankara.


    I bow not the knees of my mind to any thought system. I bow down my head to that eternal bliss that resides both within and without.

    To think that there is an eternal bliss that self exists from it's own side, is a subtle thought system. To make this bliss that is experienced in formless states, of which I have plenty experience in, an ultimate Truth of all things, is to subsume the potential of Nirvana into absorption states of reifying consciousness as ultimate. This is a subtle pride reflective of a non-conceptual attachment to a Self existence. Having been raised in the Tantric Shaivite tradition before coming to realize it's internal faults and committing myself to the path of Buddhas, know directly how attractive the Hindu views are. To ultimate the non-conceptual leads to a subtle grasping deep within the subconscious and is not conducive to right view as the Buddhas teach, and is not conducive to ultimate liberation.

    You should read the 31 planes of existence and some Abhidharmakosha. Really study Buddhism if you want to know what the Buddha taught. The Buddha was not an Avatar. He cannot be equated with the gods Vishnu/Krishna and so on. These are things that Hindus do mistakenly, only out of ignorance of what the Buddha actually taught.
  • I study the 'self' tradition.
    And which ever 'Buddhist tradition' helps me then it helps the 'self' which is really the whole point.

    Of course people will favour others. I do like Zen. However this doesnt mean i dont read from other traditions.

    Just because you like orange juice, would you not drink apple juice if someone offered some to you..It would be bizare if you totally turned it away..

    The Buddha himself would probably laugh and smile at all the traditions, and say it totally does not matter.

    It also depends on what your goals are: If you are only trying to better your self and make others happy then dipping in and out of all traditions is completely fine. Its like asking, 'would you read other wisdom books just becuase your a buddhist?....well of course i would read other books. (if i needed to ;)

    Best wishes on your path.
  • @ashcat said,

    The Buddha himself would probably laugh and smile at all the traditions, and say it totally does not matter.

    I agree.
  • VajraheartVajraheart Veteran
    edited May 2011
    @ashcat said,

    The Buddha himself would probably laugh and smile at all the traditions, and say it totally does not matter.

    I agree.
    Everyone keeps referencing the historical Buddha, but please remember, that because his Buddhism works, there have always been Buddhas on Earth ever since, clarifying, embellishing, deepening and expanding on his original work. He wouldn't laugh, he would understand and does understand as he is not dead, or non-existent. He sees how these variations are necessary and arise dependent upon the needs or likewise the potentiality of individual people.

  • Vajraheart said:
    He wouldnt laugh, he would understand and.....

    When I wrote 'the buddha would laugh and smile' The smile would be the understanding your referring to. A smile can mean many things. The Buddha (whether existed or not) practised compassion and therefore would indeed smile at all us. Of course He would understand. Thats what smiling is all about. Understand. I repeat: ''The Buddha (any Buddha, all Buddhas, past and present) would just laugh and smile..

    Best wishes on your path.x
  • Vajraheart said:
    He wouldnt laugh, he would understand and.....

    When I wrote 'the buddha would laugh and smile' The smile would be the understanding your referring to. A smile can mean many things. The Buddha (whether existed or not) practised compassion and therefore would indeed smile at all us. Of course He would understand. Thats what smiling is all about. Understand. I repeat: ''The Buddha (any Buddha, all Buddhas, past and present) would just laugh and smile..

    Best wishes on your path.x
    Sweet, thanks for the clarification subverting my assumption. :)
  • thanks all
    and ASHCAT, cool answer bruv. cheers
  • "Self," with a capital "S," is used but it is the same as "Universe." It's really all there "Is."

    To clarify, the Buddha said that even seeing a universal Self as absolute is erroneous. Buddhism is not even polytheistic essentially. It really is a totally different way of seeing things than is described in any theism, or monism (of which Advaita Vedanta is) as well.
  • NirvanaNirvana aka BUBBA   `     `   South Carolina, USA Veteran
    edited May 2011
    What's all this about Buddhism? Other ways of thinking also exist.

    So there's just one "right Road," is there?

    I'm no apologist for any religious tradition and I know credentials alone can bring you no closer to realization. As Astavakra says, "My child, you may often speak upon various scriptures or hear them. Nonetheless, it is important to forget them all if you are to [gain realization]. XVI:1

    We simply cannot know things in concepts and words. As Kant said, we know them only for ourselves (what import they have on our lives), not what they are in themselves.

    So Astavakra is saying that the dogmas get in the way and that we have to let them go. We have to unlearn. As Lord Buddha said, we must relish unflavored things...

    ("Lord Buddha?" Vajraheart might think. Sounds like two monologues to me.

    (Likewise!)
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    Alright, you two, take it to PMs. This isn't a personal contest, this isn't a debate, it's a thread simply asking what tradition you follow and why.
  • Alright, you two, take it to PMs. This isn't a personal contest, this isn't a debate, it's a thread simply asking what tradition you follow and why.
    Is debating the finer points of the dharma not allowed here?
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited May 2011
    Create a thread for it, this thread is for something else and you guys are off-topic and completely diverting it.
  • Oh, I see... gotcha. But, Nirvana did divert it to begin with by mentioning non-Buddhist texts in this thread asking about Buddhist traditions. So, for the sake of eliminating confusion about these assertions from erroneous views, I thought I'd offer a correction. I apologize.
  • As per moderator suggestion, I have moved the debate between Nirvana and I to a separate thread, it's open to anyone who wishes to contribute. Take care!!
  • Fedi.
    I think there is a possibility that you might have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was not asserting that one does not need the eightfold path, or the five precepts. In fact, I was championing them. The idea I was merely wishing to express, was a stream lining, or refining, of this 17-fold recommendation. Sort of like re-organizing a filing cabinet so that you have one big file, that breaks down into a bunch of smaller files. Instead of having two or three files containing all those smaller files. In the same way, instead of suggesting to a student that they need to understand and practice 17 things it is possible to suggest that they practice only 1 thing, and that one thing would be the four noble truths. Within the four noble truths you have the eightfold path, and withing the eightfold path you have the five precepts, along with many other important aspects of the Dhamma. By expounding in this way, if you teach only the four noble truths, you are effectively teaching everything, including the 17. It seems that this would be a far more simple method of teaching, and one that might make understanding easier for the learner. Best regards. :)
    -Tikal
  • DaozenDaozen Veteran
    edited May 2011
    Tikal, Fede: You are both right. Yes, the 4 contains the 8 and 5. So you can say only 4 is needed in theory. But us dumb humans need a focus, and whilst just the 4 can be a little abstract, the 5 is very practical, so it serves a purpose too.

    Personally, i follow the 3 :)
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited May 2011
    IMHO any Buddhist practice that doesn't include the Four Noble Truths w/Noble Eightfold Path, Three Marks of Existence (Anicca-Dukkha-Anatta), the Five Precepts (at least to keep from doing harm, also to allow for effective meditation) and some form of meditation to calm and focus the mind for the arising of insight... is incomplete for the purposes of awakening. There's more, and plenty can be added, but these things need to be present somewhere. Pretty sure all traditions include these; I mean individual practices.

    @Daozen, I'd say the Three Marks are implied in the Four Noble Truths also. We have the truth that dukkha is caused by tanha and also that the cessation of tanha is the cessation of dukkha. And so we ask ourselves, what causes tanha? Ah, ignorance! And so ignorance becomes the real reason we suffer. Ignorance of what? The Three Marks of Existence... that everything is impermanent, ownerless and bound with dukkha. Everything really folds back into the Four Noble Truths if we follow it back far enough.
  • DaozenDaozen Veteran
    @Daozen, I'd say the Three Marks are implied in the Four Noble Truths also. We have the truth that dukkha is caused by tanha and also that the cessation of tanha is the cessation of dukkha. And so we ask ourselves, what causes tanha? Ah, ignorance! And so ignorance becomes the real reason we suffer. Ignorance of what? The Three Marks of Existence... that everything is impermanent, ownerless and bound with dukkha. Everything really folds back into the Four Noble Truths if we follow it back far enough.
    Actually i was referring to the Buddha, Dharma & Sangha when i said "the 3". Sorry i wasn't clear - there are a lot of lists in Buddhism :)

  • ShutokuShutoku Veteran
    I am Jodo Shinshu.
    I started with Soto Zen, and a little Thich Nhat Hanh, but the only Temple in my town is Jodo Shinshu.
    Upon going there, meeting the fellow Buddhists, and learning about Shinran's teachings I am very grateful to have the Temple and this teaching.
  • Ch'an and Pureland. Because they work. With Repentance as well of course!
  • Theravadan as it was the tradition that I was first introduced to and I like its simplicity. Plus our local centre is Theravadan: The Forest Hermitage in Warwickshire. The Abbot there is British, but was one of Ajahn Chah's students.
  • New Kadampa tradition.

    A. Because I was born with it.
    B. Becuase what is taught works :)


    How long has it been around if i may ask.
Sign In or Register to comment.