dan
Senior Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by dan on Oct 1, 2014 21:36:52 GMT 1
Hey Jeff, Thank you for sharing the Dreyfus quotes. I would love to read more of his stuff sometime. (I'm bogged-down (or, perhaps, lifted-up ) with plenty of Dharma reading for now.) Those are choice quotes! It appears to me that most of your doubt is with your own conceptual constructs, which is the important part. Seems to me that you are right where you "should" be, when it comes to nurturing faith. Just wanted to use your thread to share some free teachings pdf's from Vimala Treasures, in southern Oregon. I like this particular bit regarding keeping a harmonious sangha, from near the end of talk in the first pdf on the page (as I write), by Gyatral Rinpoche: "When you see your faults, then you can work to eradicate them. That is how you develop qualities. That is how you clean up your mindstream and become worthy of praise and respect. You don't get praise and respect by yelling the loudest; if you did, babies would be above all others. We don’t need more babies crying or boasting. We need people working together smoothly, watching and helping intelligently, like grown up human beings. That is not beyond our level." vimalatreasures.org/free-downloads.aspx
|
|
|
Post by noessentialnature on Oct 5, 2014 3:34:19 GMT 1
I think what is being referred to in the quote is different than interaction with the beings of the six realms, Will. I guess I want to explore whether the “nameless religion” is actually an essential part of Dharma or a cultural embellishment. The realms illustrate how our intentions and consciousnesses create the worlds that migrating beings experience. The extremely detailed descriptions of hells at one end and enlightenment at the other illustrate that the mind has no limits, whether negative, by pursuing our delusions, or positive, by cultivating loving compassion and wisdom. I consider that to be essential Dharma. But my post is intended to elicit some discussion about those elements of religious practice which seem not to correspond with any of the Dharma teachings that I've come across so far. For example, consulting oracles and spirits for advice or appeasing harmful spirits with offerings. You set up 'essential dharma' and 'cultural embellishments' as opposites. But isn't the teaching, the word, the experience, that helps you wake up, essential? If a true valid ancient idea, causes problems in a given culture, those problems are opposing the dharma, so they need an interpretation, which is a cultural embellishment. Does that make it disposable when it gets passed to the next culture? Attitudes to meat eating and animals are a fascinating example for me, which there is no consensus on, but strong different traditions, and core motivations (some of which elude us now I think, like ritual purity). I think the idea of a pure original 'essential' tradition is really meaningless for a postmodern Western mind, and I see the tracing of frameworks and motivations as crucial to a modern exegesis. Because the aim of these words, all this scripture, is not to move your tongue in a suitably parallel way. It is contact, mind to mind. These teachings were made for freedom, for waking up - seek to understand how, and they are working. There has been mention of beings of the six realms, and of there being a broad acceptance of the same cosmology among different Buddhist traditions. Have you looked into how this cosmology is derived though? Even within a single tradition it gets very complicated! en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology or www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.htmlBuddhism along with Jainism, is sometimes described as a reform movement of Hinduism -more properly Sanatana Dharma- and it certainly seems India of the Buddha's time was an exceptional place for spiritual debate, discussion and practice. Much of Buddhist cosmology is actually a sophisticated answer, a reaction, a reworking for different Buddhist aims, of Hindu concerns expressed in cosmology. I love the section in Brahmajala Sutta 'Speculations About The Past', which I think all Buddhists in monotheistic-dominated countries should learn - noting well the emphasis on respect for those of insight in other traditions, but neatly setting their realisations within a larger truth. I can't speak about the 'eternal religion' as encountered in Tibetan Buddhism, though I know it took quite a while after the first attempts to take Buddhism there for it to take root. I also found Milarepa's conversion from hail-storm-summoning shaman to Buddhist saint a very interesting example of interplay between traditions. However, in the Zen tradition, Stephen Heine has what I think is a very interesting perspective in his book Opening A Mountain: Koans Of The Zen Masters (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mgOcmlCwZ5MC&sitesec=reviews&hl=en), that the 'Golden Age' of koan creation was linked to when Buddhism was very directly coming into confrontation with shamanic Daoist practitioners, and essentially competing with them in usually brief interactions not long dialogues, to demonstrate the qualities of what they practice. For me this opens a way to reconsidering more widely 'cultural baggage' in all Buddhist traditions. A given culture is not just a set of habits, or even of values, but a hierarchy of modes of discourse. To thrive in the West, Buddhism must succeed in engaging with those we prize. And looking at how Buddhist thinkers reached outside and beyond their traditions, as preserved in syncretic elements that have persisted, can I think help point the way to such things now. The Prajnaparamita steps way beyond postmodernism and critical theory, and sets them within a larger truth:
|
|
|
Post by Jeff H on Oct 5, 2014 18:09:47 GMT 1
...the aim of these words, all this scripture, is not to move your tongue in a suitably parallel way. It is contact, mind to mind. These teachings were made for freedom, for waking up - seek to understand how, and they are working. ... I love the section in Brahmajala Sutta 'Speculations About The Past', which I think all Buddhists in monotheistic-dominated countries should learn - noting well the emphasis on respect for those of insight in other traditions, but neatly setting their realisations within a larger truth. ... For me this opens a way to reconsidering more widely 'cultural baggage' in all Buddhist traditions. A given culture is not just a set of habits, or even of values, but a hierarchy of modes of discourse. To thrive in the West, Buddhism must succeed in engaging with those we prize. And looking at how Buddhist thinkers reached outside and beyond their traditions, as preserved in syncretic elements that have persisted, can I think help point the way to such things now. I’m a little confused, noessentialnature, because this post sounds as if you are disputing what you quoted from me. But what I’ve quoted here from you reflects my position quite well. I am seeking discernment in order to operationalize my practice of the teachings I’ve received. For example, I consider the realization of ‘no essential nature’ to be an essential element of Buddhism. That is an article of faith about something I don’t understand based on foundational teachings I think I can understand, which point to selflessness as a reasonable solution. The question I’m raising here is, under what circumstances is it an essentially Buddhist activity to consult an oracle? If my continuum is eventually able to attain the bodhisattva’s path, I believe I must make a sincere, inviolable pledge to strive for as long as necessary to end suffering. That’s essential to Mahayana Buddhism. Will it likewise be necessary for me to establish a household god or make offerings to evil spirits in order to follow a Buddhist path? These are not challenges to such practices. I accept them within Tibetan culture because I believe animism and naturalism are equally valid conventional falsehoods. But are animistic practices essential to the Buddhist path? These are my questions about discerning a correct and sufficient path for my journey. Do you subscribe to what we are calling in this thread “Tibetan shamanism” in your practice? If so, I’m asking what your experience is. I’m asking whether you had to work out a transition into that practice, or has it always been your belief, or did you simply accept it because you believe it’s – what? – essentially Tibetan or essentially Buddhist? And if not, why not?
|
|
|
Post by Jeff H on Oct 5, 2014 18:57:20 GMT 1
Likewise, thanks for your quote, Dan. I found Dreyfus' book to be a delicious inside look at the tradition and educational processes of Tibetan Buddhism. Interestingly I've been listening to some Robert Thurman lectures in preparation for attending his teaching next Friday and Saturday at Tibet House in NYC. I've been watching the previous three lectures in this five-part series, which is a preparation for HHDL's teachings on November 3 & 4, (Thurman's lectures are posted at: tibethouse.us/programs/full-calendar/view/706811/114.) The teachings are on Tsongkhapa's, Essence of True Eloquence. But you mention the Vimala Treasures (which I'm not familiar with) and I've also been listening to Thurman's audiobook, The Yoga of Ordinary Living, which is his commentary on the Vimalakirti Sutra. Apparently Vimalakirti was an enlightened householder who went around correcting the recognized adepts of his time. But Thurman is fond of quoting his answer to the question, "Where is the Dharma to be found?" According to Vimalakirti, the Dharma is found in the 62 incorrect views (or something like that). I'm not sure of exactly what 62 things, but the point is that if you look deeply enough into all that is wrong with our experience, that's where you will find the true Dharma.
|
|
dan
Senior Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by dan on Oct 7, 2014 20:53:15 GMT 1
Hi Jeff. I haven't watched a lot of Robert Thurman's teachings, though I do like him and have enjoyed most of the ones I've watched. His teaching on the Vimalakirti Sutra, though, has been one of my favorite viewings. Thurman's passion and delight with the sutra is evident in the way he describes the way the Buddha manifests the canopy of the tent in which the teaching takes place to reflect the "entire billion-world galaxy." I also loved the way he describes the setting for the teaching As to those "62 incorrect things," they are enumerated in the sutra and basically, as Manjushri explains it, you need a swamp to grow a decent lotus. A lotus needs the muck to transform and integrate into its stainless appearance. If we're already "stainless," training in the Dharma is unnecessary since there is no misconception to remedy. And speaking of "stainless," that is the meaning of "Vimala," as I found through my short search, trying to discern the difference between your reference to Vimalakirti and my subsequent, erroneous search for "Vimalamitra and the 62 dharmas." "Vimala Treasures" is actually the title of the linked site and its name is taken from Vimalamitra--rather than Vimalakirti--who is attributed with the spreading of tantra in Tibet. From the page about the site: If interested, Vimalamitra's biography is here: www.treasuryoflives.org/biographies/view/Vimalamitra/9985
|
|
dan
Senior Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by dan on Oct 7, 2014 21:45:38 GMT 1
Jeff H wrote:
Regarding the "essence," it's our own mind with its dispositions, prejudices and whatnot, that determines what we are attracted to, regarding the Dharma.
As to chod, its precedent isn't shamanism, but Buddha Shakyamuni, himself. As chod is an aid to dispel our demons, this was done by the Buddha when he encountered Mara and his hordes under the bodhi tree.
Offering the body is a practice of generosity, which is one of the paramitas, and has been done by mahabodhisattvas, including Shakyamuni Buddha in his previous lives in a variety of situations. Also, as another example, according to his life story, Nagarjuna allowed his head to be cut off with a blade of kusha grass so that a prince could become king.
Furthermore, Troma Nagmo is considered to be a manifestation of Prajnaparamita, both of whom are depicted as female and considered to be the mother of all buddhas. With a simple thought, one can think in terms of the Heart Sutra with its rendition of "...no eyes, no ears," etc. Because the mind produces these appearances, the Dharma provides countless means as antidotes for taking those appearances a true, real and existing.
Regarding the Dharma, in general, I've often found it helpful to remember a line from an old Psychedelic Furs song: "I follow where my mind goes..." I think that if we allow it, the Dharma will ripen in a kind of ongoing, alchemical transformation so that one may recognize all doubts to be more like catalysts rather than obstacles.
By the way, for anyone whose mind may be leaning that way, Machik's Complete Explanation: Clarifying the Meaning of Chod, by Sarah Harding, is considered one of the best texts regarding the practice of chod.
|
|
|
Post by noessentialnature on Oct 8, 2014 17:51:41 GMT 1
I guess I want to explore whether the “nameless religion” is actually an essential part of Dharma or a cultural embellishment. But isn't the teaching, the word, the experience, that helps you wake up, essential? These teachings were made for freedom, for waking up - seek to understand how, and they are working. A given culture is not just a set of habits, or even of values, but a hierarchy of modes of discourse. I’m a little confused, noessentialnature, because this post sounds as if you are disputing what you quoted from me. But what I’ve quoted here from you reflects my position quite well. The question I’m raising here is, under what circumstances is it an essentially Buddhist activity to consult an oracle? Will it likewise [as an act of faith] be necessary for me to establish a household god or make offerings to evil spirits in order to follow a Buddhist path? These are not challenges to such practices. I accept them within Tibetan culture because I believe animism and naturalism are equally valid conventional falsehoods. But are animistic practices essential to the Buddhist path? These are my questions about discerning a correct and sufficient path for my journey. Do you subscribe to what we are calling in this thread “Tibetan shamanism” in your practice? If so, I’m asking what your experience is. So my answer is, if it works for you. Seeing it work for others is a good guide. But, the styles of critique our practice will face including from ourselves as members of our culture, will involve specific ways of arguing, talking, & appeals to authority. We have to go with what we have the capacity to 'operationalise' as you put it. I feel that much of these practices you mention was for engaging with and working with cultures as practitioners found them, and seeking to be like they /found/ them is missing the point - we should seek to be people like /after/ practitioners found them, we should seek not to copy the context of the teaching, but what was conveyed or transformed by it. To understand and transform our own contexts. This is in contrast to other perspectives. One that says, there are the teaching of the Buddha & his direct words, they are the revealed dharma, that is it. The other which says there is a core 'essential' dharma, and it is only true Buddhism to practice the very core of what all traditions have shared. We are simple practicioners, not enlightened beings. If can easily be argued that we are in no position to pick and choose among articles of faith and traditional practices. In a sense I follow this, in saying do not discard and dismiss them for others or for all times or places. But, seek for them to speak to us, to now, focus energy on those practices that seem most nourishing and dynamic, and in accordance with your heart and meditative mind. That was the route to faith that the Buddha advised. I personally find oracles very interesting, and occasionally practice I Ching and Tarot. But I keep an open mind about whether they tell a future that has it's seed in that moments casting consciousness, or have any more, prescriptive role. It is certain that prophecy is a cultural universal, has an archetypal appeal - and also that if can be dangerous, destructive, approached in certain ways. How we think about time is a crucial social and psychological mystery, and a profound scientific one. Free will and determinism, prophecy and chaos, go to the core of stories we tell ourselves about our lives. Good material for meditation, but such heavy things should be held lightly. I practice Zen. But I believe much of what that practice has been has been discarded too readily by Westerners, unexamined. No framework for universal ticking off of things into categories of true and false, essential and not, can escape the fact that it's you that matters in your practice, not the universal. This subjective opportunity to become a boddhisattva. How can you seek to operationalise that without trusting yourself to choose what to practice? The Buddha reached ahead of himself as an unenlightened being to become one, he did not just follow. Yet he also took all that his times and thinkers had to offer.
|
|
graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on Oct 20, 2014 4:18:36 GMT 1
I have no way to process discussions of spirits and oracles, let alone incorporate them into a rational discussion of Dharma behavior in the world. I liked Tamara’s suggestion that spirits are the energies of unseen beings and oracles are those beings within our own realm who are in touch with such energies. But I think it must go much deeper than that. I came across this quote in Georges Dreyfus’ The Sound of Two Hands Clapping, I’d be interested to hear people's thoughts about this “nameless religion”. spirits and oracles? is this what the Buddha taught?
|
|
dan
Senior Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by dan on Oct 20, 2014 6:40:53 GMT 1
I don't recall any of the life stories of the Buddha which didn't mention a "soothsayer" or the like, predicting to his father that his son would either be a great king or a great spiritual leader, depending on whether he witnessed the suffering of others or not.
This is the link to an article from a 1987 scholarly journal called The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies. It specifically addresses oracles in regard to the spread of Mahayana Buddhism and its adoption of regional practices and beliefs. I found it a delightful read. It comes back to the Buddha's skillful means. An excerpt from: "Pre-Buddhist Elements in Himalayan Buddhism: The Institution of Oracles," by Ramesh Chandra Tewari:
Also, the Buddha leads by example:
|
|