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.
Those who disregard Vajrayana as not Buddhism
Mani
Veteran
Instead of continuing to respond to various comments in various threads, I thought I would make a thread based upon this.
There are so many incidents where many people will express their own limited views towards Vajrayana (and its practitioner's), claiming it to not be Buddhist. I feel this is quite tiring and never seems to end. It really leads to intolerance of other vehicles, and traditions. I see this on most forums I have been to, and it is quite sad.
Please, lets all keep in mind that there are so many methods within Buddhism that are really aiming towards similar goals. We mustn't confuse actual Dharma with the methods utilized to realize Dharma. Dharma has a few meanings within different contexts, but ultimately Dharma is the way things are, or the way things exist.
It is absurd to put forth these opinions, and is really showing little respect for some of the great teacher's that have great realization of the nature of reality that comes from these practices. And it is absurd to think that they are any less "Buddhist", then a teacher from another tradition.
Sometimes I feel if we seriously focus on changing ourselves, and not others then we may have some hope...
:thumbsup:
M
There are so many incidents where many people will express their own limited views towards Vajrayana (and its practitioner's), claiming it to not be Buddhist. I feel this is quite tiring and never seems to end. It really leads to intolerance of other vehicles, and traditions. I see this on most forums I have been to, and it is quite sad.
Please, lets all keep in mind that there are so many methods within Buddhism that are really aiming towards similar goals. We mustn't confuse actual Dharma with the methods utilized to realize Dharma. Dharma has a few meanings within different contexts, but ultimately Dharma is the way things are, or the way things exist.
It is absurd to put forth these opinions, and is really showing little respect for some of the great teacher's that have great realization of the nature of reality that comes from these practices. And it is absurd to think that they are any less "Buddhist", then a teacher from another tradition.
Sometimes I feel if we seriously focus on changing ourselves, and not others then we may have some hope...
:thumbsup:
M
0
Comments
"THE TIBETAN BOOK
OF THE GREAT LIBERATION"
- OR -
“THE METHOD OF REALIZING
NIRVANNA THROUGH KNOWING
THE MIND”
If you would like to read it ( it's not very long ) it is at...
http://arfalpha.com/OneMind/TheGreatLiberation.PDF
Just a word to everyone reading this thread: This thread will NOT go the way of the other one. Adult discussion is welcomed. Invective, name-calling, etc is not, and will not be tolerated. Period.
However, it must be admitted that some aspects of Vajrayana are categorically not Buddhist. For example Tibetan Buddhism is influenced by and contains elements of the Bon religion. Bon beliefs that their shamans had the power of rainmaking and the gift of prophecy have been integrated with the powers of Lamas. And Bon gods and demons have been included in Tibetan Buddhism as Dharma Palas, defenders of the dharma.
And you know that thing where the lama or monk dips his finger into water or milk, and then flicks it up? That's Bon too.
So, with respect, in those cases and examples, criticism can be laid towards Vajrayana.
On a different matter, I was astonished to find there are sects within Mahayaha that dismiss the entire pali canon as a "provisional teaching" for those who are not ready, or who are not intelligent enough to understand the full teaching. For them, the Lotus Sutra is the "true" teaching of the Buddha, and all the previous suttas and teachings are mere "Expedient Means".
They say all people who are not devoted to the Lotus Sutra are not True Buddhists.
But of course, fundamentally most sects have the Four Noble Truths as their foundation, and follow the 8-fold path. So in that way Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana are basically the same, or are different aspects or expressions of the same religion.
If a sect abandoned the Four Noble Truths and the 8-fold Path, then I would say it's not Buddhism. But, I'd be willing to listen to arguments from any such sects, it has been known for me to be wrong!
All compounded things are impermanent.
All stained emotions are painful.
All phenomena are empty.
Nirvana is peace.
What do you reckon?
We don’t own the truth of anything, we don’t own Buddhism; and neither does the sect we belong to.
How many of us talk a lot, but then we have no energy for are own practice?
It's not that we don't have the energy, it's that after hanging around here all day, we don't have the time! More mindfulness is needed regarding how we spend our time. For some of us, anyway. Not to mention anyone in particular. ...Certainly not me ... :orange:
Regarding Hinayana I have heard that it is a very low word in some translations and I don't approve of its use. The dalai lama explained the reason for maha/great is that the wish for enlightenment includes all beings and thus it is vaster than just one.
A lot of the mahayana sutras are also considered provisional. This is important in some of the traditions to distinguish between provisional and definitive. Many theravadan practitioners say certain of the pali sutras are 'mundane' sutras. So if the theravada considers some of its own sutras as 'lower' then is it any bit surprising that the mahayana may also have its own opinion.
I think you are acting as if the mahayana is an aggressor when in fact they just have their own genuine beliefs. If a Jehova witness says that I should not have a blood transfusion are they an agressor or are they just true to their beliefs on the matter?
I think the Dalai Lama's perspective on the plethora of religions in general is relevant here. He says he used to think that Buddhism was the superior religion. Then, after traveling and getting to know the world, he realized that different religions evolved according to local customs, and so are culturally determined to a degree. Some are suited for certain cultures, others for other cultures. The "different strokes for different folks" approach could apply to the many forms of Buddhism as well.
Vive la difference! If we can celebrate other forms of diversity, why can't we celebrate diversity within Buddhism? Does it strike too close to home, perhaps? Too close to the heart?
Moderator: I thought of posting this long after my time limit for adding it to my previous statement, sorry. You may merge them if you feel it necessary.
But actually mostly we grasp on that what is needed to wash out, we love to identify our self's.
Personally I’m guilty of it.
I try not to be too evangelical about it, but I can sometimes feel the need to defend the right (of a Buddhist) to be a skeptic. Or I could argue when people say that “the proof is out there” when I think that’s not the case.
At the other hand: I’ll grant everyone the right to believe what they want.
Every religious tradition has a path to higher consciousness. In fact one need not even be a part of any religious affiliation to reach transcendent states of consciousness. It is fine if one practices Vajrayana, and believes they have penetrated deep into the reality of mind, and the universe. But to put down others who have a different path is prejudice, and therefore the higher states of consciousness that is claimed superior teaching becomes highly suspect. Without humility, any practice or religion is harmful and divisive.
A way to end this kind of superiority is to smack the practitioner with a brick upside the head. Then we'll see how those subtle realizations that transcend ordinary human beings works.
...and likewise Theravadin's claim of authenticity.
I'm getting fed up with "Buddhism" actually and that is one of the reasons.
I hope you do not abandon Buddhism because of a few people who think they know more than the rest of us. "Wash my own rice bowl", is sufficient for me to continue my practice of Buddhism, in spite of the preachers of different sects.
As a new practitioner [about 14 months daily meditation and study of Hinayana, Mahayana and some Nyingma lamas on Vajrayana] I'd like to add my two pennies worth to this discussion.
Surely a lot of what Buddhism teaches is about non-duality.
That there is no right/wrong, no in/out etc.
Doesn't criticising other vehicles mean one is seeing things dualistically ?
Who are we to criticise the path of another ?
I keep going back to the Hinayana teaches when I realise that I am not understanding something from the 'higher' teachings either intellectually or more importantly, experientially at a wisdom level.
The sort of arguments that go on, and the way they are expressed are like the fundamentalist or literalist versus gnostic or inner experience divisions in Christianity and Islam. Not helpful and sometimes leading to violence ?
I've just been reading a Lama Yeshe book The Peaceful Stillness of the Silent Mind and he says Buddha taught at different levels and for different people at different stages.
I wonder whether the Theravadin followers [not all by any means] sometimes cannot see behind the surface of the imagery and practice of Vajrayana ?
Or understand the need that we humans sometimes have for symbols and a connection with images from deep within our inner conciousness ?
[ref. Jung and other transpersonal pyschologists]
Also unless Theravadin/Hinayana practitioners experience Vajrayana practice at a deep level how can they say it's wrong or not what Buddha taught ?
Didn't Buddha say we should find out by our own experience ?
Don't Vajrayana practitioners build up through the path of the other vehicles ?
I don't think I've ever read anything that suggests a criticism of Theravadin/Hinayana by any Vajrayana teachers, more that it's 'horses for courses' and individual choice.
The world has enough divisions, adding more 'Our way is right, yours is wrong' seems sad.
Some would even never start to go on.
Its like the modern backpacker culture. 1000h research, feedback and organizing and even after a long trip haven't seen anything, but another 1000h of stories what people have talked and the news about information centers and where to get the best films.
*smile*
According to this definition by our motivation, even though I study mahayana buddhism my motivation is mostly about my immediate pleasure and comfort, maybe a little concern about my future karma.
My point is, the real path we are on isn't determined by which teachings we follow but by the motivation behind our practice.
@compassionate_warrior: An example of a provisional sutra is the heart sutra. I may be incorrect about that, but the heart sutra can easily be misunderstood. Thus it is provisional which in the context I referred to in an earlier post means that it is in need of the reader's interpretation. There are some other sutras which I have heard are definitive such as the nirvana sutra. Even so I find that we should always guard against holding to adamantly to our own interpretation of a sutra, because we could have made a mistake :{ Thich Nhat Hanh says that some of the teachings dealing with emptiness are like a snake. That you have to use a forked stick to handle the snake properly so that it does not bite you. This is in his book Thundering Silence.
We see the eightfold path and four noble truths, but notice that each website we go to there is a different expression of these qualities. I am not speculating these pieces are provisional! But rather I am saying that each person hears what he needs to from these teachings. Probably they are expressed in english by a person who has spent a long time in retreat reading texts and meditating.
Just an aside the practitioner leading an aol informal sangha, a very personable patient guy, expressed to me that some of the Tibetan Buddhists recognize the 2nd turning of dharma as definitive prajna parimita/emptiness whereas some of the Tibetan Buddhists recognize the 3rd turning as definitive, the mahamudra and dzogchen teachings.
The provisional sutras a person must be especially careful to take the teaching lightly (not to say unserious), lightly in the sense that your attitude is relaxed and gentle. Not exited, but rather honest and kindhearted and yielding. For this reason a lot of texts on subjects we find are preceded by taking refuge and generating compassion for all beings.
It is my opinion that all views are provisional and even when we see that truth we need to take the rug out from under our feet again. Emptiness is also form and we need to guard against evil (unskillful but I am thinking of the dhammapada) while at the same time keeping our mind open and gentle. That is just my opinion.
And I agree with Thich Nhat Hanh. What eloquent wisdom! :thumbsup:
Again its that fine line between a discussion and an argument. I think its a little of both because we are halfway between lucidity and the doubts.
Getting back to the OP, I think Vajrayana is a part of Buddhist philosophy/psychology/religion. I personally have learned quite a bit from reading Tibetan related books and articles. Remember we have Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche to thank for bringing Tibetan Buddhism to America in a big way. He also started the Naropa Institute for higher learning in Boulder, Co.
Transcendent states of consciousness are available to all, regardless of tradition affiliation. But, the Buddha did declare that this alone cannot lead to liberation as he defined it. He said that only those that understand dependent origination and apply it's wisdom during the experiencing of higher states of consciousness can one empty them of the tendency for self clinging. The elaboration on the different jhanas and their associated realms is a very important insight that does not exist outside of the path of the Buddhas.
In my own experience, this is true. I was born and raised a Shaivite Tantric, quite attached to Eternalistic views and interpretations of meditative experience and contemplation. This Eternalistic view does not lead to the same freedom from proliferation of views as the insight of dependent origination and emptiness as expounded by the Buddha, as I later came to realize.
But, you are free to disagree.
The Buddha taught the middle path, it's insight is subtler and it's non-theistic in essence. The Buddhas insights do not lead to the same outcome of other paths. Even though, since any individual has the potential to attain Buddhahood, they can, on their own, come to the state of Buddhahood through diligent self inspection, meditation and contemplation. I NEVER said that you had to be a Vajrayana practitioner in order to have the highest realization. It's just that on this planet, there are certain paths that explain with clarity and others that explain with less clarity. I am not to judge what any one person might need during their process of personal growth and progress towards Buddhahood. Just as I needed to master various states of jhana through the practice of Shaivism before I came to Buddhadharma. It was part of my process and I need that stepping stone in order to learn the Brahmaviharas (4 immeasurables) which is what Eternalistic paths revolve around.
From Wiki:
"The brahmavihāras: (sublime attitudes, lit. ‘abodes of brahma’) are a series of four Buddhist virtues and the meditation practices made to cultivate them. They are also known as the four immeasurables (Sanskrit: apramāṇa, Pāli: appamaññā).
According to the Metta Sutta, Shākyamuni Buddha held that cultivation of the four immeasurables has the power to cause the practitioner to be re-born into a Brahma realm (Pāli: Brahmaloka).[3] The meditator is instructed to radiate out to all beings in all directions the mental states of: 1) loving-kindness or benevolence, 2) compassion, 3) sympathetic joy, and, 4) equanimity. The four immeasurables are also found in Patañjali's Yoga Sutras (1.33),[4] a text composed long after the beginning of Buddhism and substantially influenced by Buddhism. These virtues are also highly regarded by Buddhists as powerful antidotes to negative mental states (non-virtues) such as avarice, anger and pride."
These states do lead to higher rebirth, but not Buddhahood, as the insight of dependent origination does not necessarily dawn on a being just because they are in a state of infinite love and bliss, which is the state of the long lived Gods.
Buddhist cosmology is quite unique, and there is a reason why this is so. The cosmos is multifarious and it's parts do not come from one place, they do come from one potential which is infinite potential, but that's not saying all things come from one ultimate "thing". Because they do not, this is why not all paths lead to the same outcome.
His level of clarity was very unique and unheard of at the time. He did say that other beings had attained Buddhahood, but they did not teach it. Really, the truth is in the details, not just putting all paths together, pulling quotes out of context and plastering your own projected meaning onto them in a wish to make everything the same, like the new age movement seems to do. This will be the downfall of a unique tradition that has a unique set of methods that are realized through practicing them, not through merely philosophizing them away through monistic idealism.
@wondering... Buddhahood puts an end to your wondering.
The above is an article, Did Buddha Teach the Tantras?
There is no such thing as "Buddhahood". Just ego inflation.