Is sticking with a tradition important?

Invincible_summer · February 2013

See title.

I know that it's more important to find what practice works best for me than to feel the need to identify with a particular tradition/school, but I'm beginning to wonder if one's practice would be deeper if a specific tradition was followed more closely?

The problem is, I see lots of good things about all schools of Buddhism. The emphasis on experience and simplicity in Zen; the devotion and ritual in Pure Land and Vajryana; the drawing upon suttas, less mythological, and greater emphasis on ethics in Theravada. I know I'm just grossly generalizing these schools, but my point is that I see value in many of these practices. But I'm not sure just practicing a mish-mash of Pure Land, Zen/Chan, Nyingma, and Theravada would be fruitful, as it's almost like spreading my practice thinly across different practices. Plus, there's no real sangha that would support my own cherry-picking of practices, and I see great value in having a sangha.

I mean, I've mainly been involved with Zen (with little peeks into other traditions) since I became interested in Buddhism some years ago, but I always feel drawn to other practices.

Anyone else feel this way? How do you reconcile it? Any words of wisdom?

Thanks in advance.

caz · February 2013

Find one school you connect well with and focus all your energy in to accomplishing its instructions each schools practices are designed to be supportive of further instruction within that school so it is best just to focus on one school and that method of practice exclusively.

genkaku · February 2013

@Invincible_summer -- On the one hand there are the Hindus observing aptly that a man who wants to find water does not dig 100 shallow holes, he digs one deep one. On the other hand, imagining in some come-to-Jesus way that your own way is the only true way is over-the-top.

My take is this: Find a practice that seems to suit you perhaps 85%. If it suits you 100%, stay away from it. How could you learn anything if you agreed with everything? Once having chosen a practice, then practice it and don't waver. Dig in and dig deep. Don't worry too much about what anyone else is doing ... just do what you're doing.

Along the way, there is no need to shut anything out. Of course there are other persuasions and practices and there is no reason not to snoop the terrain. You're not a robot, after all. But keep practicing the practice you have chosen. Imagine you were among friends and one said, "Let's go see movie X." Another said, "Let's go see movie Y." And there were other suggestions as well. Eventually, you would make your choice to see movie X ... and in so doing, you automatically did not go to see movie Y. You weren't being arrogant and you certainly weren't wrong ... you just made a choice.

The metaphor isn't exact because spiritual endeavors tend to flow into and out of each other. By seeing movie X, you will invariably get a chance to see movie Y. But even if you don't, still, if you hit water, it's worth the effort.

karasti · February 2013

For me, yes, it was important. I started off just reading basic outlines of the different major schools. That was fine enough. I found a few that spoke to me and read more about them. Then I went down one path. But then I ran into questions, so instead of looking for answers along that path, I went looking for answers that the different schools offered. The only thing that happened was that I became more confused than ever and nothing spoke to me anymore. Then I lost the desire to practice because it was too much to keep track of who believed what and what seemed right for me. Cherry picking just didn't work. There are still things about my chosen tradition that I find confusing, or that don't "work" for me, but I'm ok with that. Over time, some things work better as I come along in my practice and understanding. Some things are still heavy sticking points for me. But I've been reassured many times by my teachers and Dharma family that it doesn't matter, the details. That you don't have to have an answer that resonates for every single question and problem that comes up. It's ok to not know sometimes.

Glow · February 2013

You can always learn from other traditions, and even non-Buddhist traditions. In terms of what to practice, I would take the most practical option: do you find one path more rewarding than others? It's okay to take a "buffet" mentality, and sample different schools, sanghas, scriptures, and practices. You should find benefit from your practice, even at the beginning stages, so find which tradition fels most "alive" to you: most usable and applicable to your daily life with its ten thousand sorrows and joys.

chela · February 2013

This is just my curiosity asking-- how long have you identified yourself as Buddhist? I just wonder because, as a newbie, I jumped in thinking I had to choose something. But as things have settled and I've slowly learned a bit about the different schools, I seem to be totally content with where I'm at and going to a non-sectarian Sangha. But I know that may change as I go deeper into practice.

lobster · February 2013

That you don't have to have an answer that resonates for every single question and problem that comes up.

Focus on what you can know. Monastics may practice Hindu Yoga, Taoist Qi Ong, read Christian or Islamic mystics, atheistic science and still be practicing Buddhists . . .
Influences and combinations eventually become traditions.

Even though I am familiar with practices from some other systems, I practice from the Buddhist perspective. The mind I sit with, chant to, contemplate, alter, placate or just let be is pretty much the same in all the different emphasises . . .

I am of course assuming there is such a thing as 'a mind' . . . which is not part of all Buddhist traditions . . . Maybe I will take up knitting . . .

:wave:

karasti · February 2013

Our local sangha is actually pretty nondenominational. Most of us have taken refuge vows and precepts with the Tibetan monk who leads the larger sangha. But our small local one is the only one within about 300 miles, and so we have a couple members that are Zen, a couple Christian-Buddhists and a couple "I'm not sure about anything." They all add terrific things to our group and I appreciate them all. Zen never spoke to me. One of our members has a Zen teacher and once in a while we will listen to his teachers audio recordings but it just doesn't resonate with me. It's funny how that works, when something doesn't "sing" to me, it is like listening to a foreign language. That is how I knew I found what worked for me. Because it was not a struggle to grasp it and it resonated with me.

Invincible_summer · February 2013

@genkaku: The point you make about 85% vs 100% is interesting - never thought about things that way. Also, the "hitting water" analogy really struck a chord. Thank you. _/\_

@karasti: Heh, it's funny because I have almost the opposite problem. I'm confused because lots of traditions do speak to me.

I realize that it's okay to not know all the answers to the ultimate questions of life, the universe, and everything, but I suppose it's fairly human to wonder "Is what I'm doing the best for me? Is there something better?" Not necessarily something that will better answer questions, but resonate with me even more deeply than other traditions.

@Glow: My family and one of my good friends are Christian, and I went to a Catholic elementary school so I'm exposed to lots of stuff from that angle and it probably informs my spirituality more than I know.

The thing is, Zen "spoke to me" the most at first, but now I'm quite curious and open to what the other schools have to offer.

I'm inclined to avoid the "buffet-style" spirituality as I feel it's diluted and runs the risk of taking teachings out of context or not understanding them as fully as if I were more immersed in the tradition.

@chela: I've identified myself as a Buddhist for about 3 years now I think? I haven't really kept track. I became interested in Buddhism about 4-5 years ago, but I can't remember when I decided to identify as one.

I do remember, however, that in the first year or so of being a "real Buddhist," I really jumped around traditions, just trying everything out. I settled into Zen, which I've been practicing for the past ~2 years. But I'm getting antsy again and looking for the "right" tradition for me.

The sangha I attend (really just a university meditation group) is non-sectarian, though there is more Zen representation as the Zen chaplain leads half the sits per week. However, I'm really seeking to immerse myself in a tradition... at first glance it seems that it should be Zen as I've the most experience with it, but I'm not sure.

@lobster: That's true... the different schools just have different emphases. I suppose that my "grass is greener" mentality towards Buddhist schools comes from my curiousity as to which emphasis works the best for me.

Jeffrey · February 2013

The problem is that different traditions take definitions differently all down the line. So you can easily get confused if you engage in multiple. It's like having one foot on one track going in one direction and the other on a track going the other. If you just study one tradition deeply eventually you will get to the point where you can look at others and know what they are doing and thus avoid the problem of confusion because you took one path far enough to get to the place where all paths are joining each other.

Zero · February 2013

Invincible_summer said:

See title.

A thirsty man will seek liquids to drink.

Glow · February 2013

Invincible_summer said:

@Glow: My family and one of my good friends are Christian, and I went to a Catholic elementary school so I'm exposed to lots of stuff from that angle and it probably informs my spirituality more than I know.

The thing is, Zen "spoke to me" the most at first, but now I'm quite curious and open to what the other schools have to offer.

I'm inclined to avoid the "buffet-style" spirituality as I feel it's diluted and runs the risk of taking teachings out of context or not understanding them as fully as if I were more immersed in the tradition.

Well, even the Buddha went through his own "buffet" phase in his quest for liberation. Of course, he studied with his two initial teachers (Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta) sequentially, devoting himself to one tradition and then the next. I suggest that, if you are satisfied that Zen is having a positive impact on your life, stick with it. If not, look elsewhere. There's nothing to stop you from simply reading about other teachings while you practice Zen. After all, how can you know the answer to your questions ("Is what I'm doing the best for me? Is there something better?") if you don't actually go out and attend various sanghas, read different texts, try different practices, and see for yourself? Indulge your curiosity. And see where it takes you.

I myself actually started with Zen. However, I eventually found its goals too vaguely defined. I had no sense of what the point of it all was. More and more, I found myself attracted to Vajrayana. I liked that they seemed to have very explicit instructions for heart-based meditation practice, and very specific goals. But finally, I found "home" with what I would called Early Indian Buddhism. (It's what most would call Theravada.) The thing that tipped the scale for me were the suttas of the Pali canon: this was, as far as we can tell, as close as we can ever get to words of the man who started it all: Siddhartha Gautama. I found the straightforwardness of the suttas refreshing.

If you are curious, here are the words of the Buddha himself on choosing a school:

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.

Source: Kalama Sutta

You'll notice the Buddha doesn't recommend using pure logic. The main goal, rather, is the end of suffering. That is how the Buddha described his teaching: suffering and the end of suffering. The entirety of the Buddha's teaching is essentially about deciphering all the possible causes of suffering a human being can come across in his life, and find their causes and conditions, and dismantling those causes. (This is the formula of the Four Noble Truths.) Ask yourself: does this path make me happy? Does it lead to qualities of mind and heart that are leading to the end of suffering for myself and those whose lives I touch?

Invincible_summer · February 2013

@Glow - I really appreciate your thoughtful reply _/\_

I'm sort of at the point you described about Zen (even though I haven't practiced that long) - the goals seem too vague.

And yeah, I suppose I've been looking at this situation with a very "all or nothing" perspective.

I think I'll continue with Zen for now, but I've been very interested in Theravada and will probably start checking that out on the side.

lobster · February 2013

Invincible_summer said:

I think I'll continue with Zen for now, but I've been very interested in Theravada and will probably start checking that out on the side.

:clap:
Sounds like a recipe for the perfect affair.

Keep an open heart and the mind will follow without moving a zenith.
Close the mind and the Heart will be follow without moving mountains.

BhikkhuJayasara · February 2013

This is a tough question that ultimately has to be answered by YOU, with your own insight. No one can really tell you what is best for you, they can only speak from their own perspective and experience based on their own path.

I'd examine the schools and go with your "gut", trust that intuition, or at least that is what I did. My intuition has never steered me wrong when I trusted it fully.

For me, before I started reading into the different schools of Buddhism and found Theravada, I couldn't really "commit" fully to the practice. It all sort of came together at the same time for me, I was mentally ready, I found Theravada and then Bhikkhu Bodhi's " the Buddhas teaching as it is".. and it was off to the races from there as a lay disciple and now someone who is looking to possibly renounce in the Theravada tradition.

that's not to say I agree/believe with everything buddhism, or theravada says, I'm agnostic on many things and there are some traditions I don't care much to follow, but I have developed a faith/confidence in the path of practice that the buddha taught to the point where I know it is beneficial and worth dedicating my time towards.

DairyLama · February 2013

Invincible_summer said:
I know that it's more important to find what practice works best for me than to feel the need to identify with a particular tradition/school, but I'm beginning to wonder if one's practice would be deeper if a specific tradition was followed more closely?

I think for most people it's best to focus on one tradition. The different traditions have different assumptions and methods, and mixing them up can get quite confusing. Having said that, there is no need to make a lifetime commitment, and some people will spend a number of years in one tradition and then be drawn to another. And there's a lot to be said for exploring a number of traditions in order to get a feel for the big picture.

Florian · March 2013

genkaku said:
@Invincible_summer -- On the one hand there are the Hindus observing aptly that a man who wants to find water does not dig 100 shallow holes, he digs one deep one. On the other hand, imagining in some come-to-Jesus way that your own way is the only true way is over-the-top.

My take is this: Find a practice that seems to suit you perhaps 85%. If it suits you 100%, stay away from it. How could you learn anything if you agreed with everything? Once having chosen a practice, then practice it and don't waver. Dig in and dig deep.

What good advice. Esp. choosing a tradition that doesn't quite suit you. Never thought of that. Mind you, I suppose sometimes one needs to dig a few shallow holes before deciding where to dig the main one.

@Invincible_summer - If Zen seems a bit vague then this is just appearance. I was led straight to Zen by 'Cultivating the Empty Field - The Silent illuminations of Master Hongzhi' (Tuttle Library of Enlightenment, 2000) - partly it was the poetry, but mainly it was for the preface and introduction by Taigen Dan Leighton, who goes straight to the heart of the issues. Might be worth a read. I'm extremely grateful that this was the first book I read on Buddhism.

riverflow · March 2013

Seconding @Florian's suggestion of Leighton's translation of Hongzshi. He reminds me of Dogen except not quite so bizarre! (even though I find both of them very edifying) This shouldn't be surprising as Hongzshi was part of the Caodong school which in Japan become Soto.

Two excellent, slender volumes on Chan/Zen I'd recommend which spell things out so beautifully and have helped me immensely:

Zen Keys: A Guide to Zen Practice by Thich Nhat Hanh

and

Chan Buddhism by Peter D. Hershock

Also, @Invincible_summer , if you are willing to look into Chan/Zen a bit more, I cannot more highly recommend the books of Sheng Yen. Really, you can't go wrong with him. I find he has a real nuts-and-bolts kind of approach to things and he has helped make Chan so much less bewildering to me and given me a better sense of direction (which I need badly since I have not yet been in the position go to a sangha or find a teacher). Most of his books are actually transcriptions from talks at retreats, often being line-by-line commentaries on Chan classic texts (including the above-mentioned Hongzhi in Sheng Yen's book, The Method of No-Method: The Chan Practice of Silent Illumination (i.e. shikantaza in Soto Zen).

I'm re-reading Sheng Yen's Song of Mind which is full of so many helpful things. Other invaluable books of his I would recommend by Sheng Yen:

Attaining the Way: A Guide to the Practice of Chan Buddhism

Dharma Drum: The Life and Heart of Chan Practice

Subtle Wisdom: Understanding Suffering, Cultivating Compassion Through Chan Buddhism

Hoofprint of the Ox: Principles of the Chan Buddhist Path

The Method of No-Method: The Chan Practice of Silent Illumination

Song of Mind: Wisdom from the Zen Classic Xin Ming

There is No Suffering: A Commentary on the Heart Sutra

The Infinite Mirror: Commentaries on Two Chan Classics

Faith in Mind: A Commentary on Sen Ts'an's Classic

I've read a great deal of Buddhist literature, mostly focused on Chan/Zen, and Sheng Yen I've found to be the most helpful, with a very balanced approach between study, practice and compassion.

footiam · March 2013

Invincible_summer said:
See title.

I know that it's more important to find what practice works best for me than to feel the need to identify with a particular tradition/school, but I'm beginning to wonder if one's practice would be deeper if a specific tradition was followed more closely?

The problem is, I see lots of good things about all schools of Buddhism. The emphasis on experience and simplicity in Zen; the devotion and ritual in Pure Land and Vajryana; the drawing upon suttas, less mythological, and greater emphasis on ethics in Theravada. I know I'm just grossly generalizing these schools, but my point is that I see value in many of these practices. But I'm not sure just practicing a mish-mash of Pure Land, Zen/Chan, Nyingma, and Theravada would be fruitful, as it's almost like spreading my practice thinly across different practices. Plus, there's no real sangha that would support my own cherry-picking of practices, and I see great value in having a sangha.

I mean, I've mainly been involved with Zen (with little peeks into other traditions) since I became interested in Buddhism some years ago, but I always feel drawn to other practices.

Anyone else feel this way? How do you reconcile it? Any words of wisdom?

Thanks in advance.

I suppose all the different traditions have the same core principals, things like the precepts and the noble truth etc which probably, are what matter the most. The different practices in the different schools should not be issues unless they harm. If there is going to be a tradition that one is going to stick to, it ought to be suitable to that person. Someone's meat is another man's poison, they say; and I suppose the same principle works here. If you like simplicity, pick Zen; if you like chanting; pick Mahayana but respect and support all the traditions especially since they have a role to propagate Dhamma. Over here, Chinese who are proficient in Mandarin probably mostly end up in Mahayana temples since the language used there is Mandarin and those who are proficient in English ends up in Theravada temples for the same reason that activities there are conducted in English. Those who read and write only Malay probably stays at home, end up in churches or elsewhere -never mind. And then of course, sometimes, it is the fellowship with other people that determine our choice. As long as we still see the light of Dhamma, you can even stay at home and be happy.

DairyLama · March 2013

genkaku said:
@Invincible_summer -- On the one hand there are the Hindus observing aptly that a man who wants to find water does not dig 100 shallow holes, he digs one deep one.

Yes, but if one begins to dig and then hits an outcrop of rock it might be better to start digging elsewhere.

how · March 2013

Each form of Buddhism has its own advantages and disadvantages and come with their own checks and balances. Switching it up can be frowned upon for the idiot reasoning's of it challenging the status quo and reflecting badly on beloved Buddhist institutions.
But....

There are however a couple of valid points to consider with mixing it up.

(1) If folks cherry pick different aspects of different forms and there by eliminate the very relevant checks and balances that apply to that particular practise, the delusions they were meant to address can become very real.

(2) We all eventually come face to face with aspects of our practise that are almost too tough to face. To go beyond this often requires much patience, faith and due diligence in our practise. It is not uncommon to see practitioners repeatedly coming to this same place in their training and having it be the reason that they switch practises.
For those folks switching practises, this ends up manifesting as a habit of avoidance , rather than one of transcendence. Needless longterm suffering seems to be the result.

I'm not advocating for staying or switching it up, but would recommend to those who decide to mix practises to remain watchful for these possibilities.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Is sticking with a tradition important?

Comments