The Nameless Religion

Csee, my friend, debating implies that people with differing views can put forth propositions that depend on terms and teachings, and then analyze them together based on some agreed upon rules. Your concept of Buddhism seems to have no rules, no terms, and no teachings. It seems to be simply self-evolving, self-awareness of everything that exists, exactly as it exists, with no volitional conditions of change. We had our discussion before and, honestly, it felt like “debating” solipsism. You can certainly hold whatever belief you wish, but yours seems particularly lonely to me and I don’t know how to interact with you about Buddhism.

With reference to the quote, you are simply mistaken; “nameless” is a specific term used to juxtapose certain Tibetan Buddhist practices against the main body of Dharma teachings. The three vehicles all have names and can be shown to flow together as the necessary means for a single being to attain enlightenment. The nameless religion refers to common, ancillary beliefs and practices among Tibetans which may or may not be a part of that greater transmigratory path.

This is a good discussion and I would like to chime in. I believe that there are a lot of valid ways to analyze the issue at hand. The most poignant of these will keep Jeff H firmly in the hot seat, because the issue is not really how do TIbetans, who have lived in a culture dominated by Buddhism in different forms for at least 1200 years practice, but how is reading about the myriad ways and means of that affecting you and your practice? Like a lot of Western Buddhists I have met, it is stretching your credulity to a breaking point. And I think, also like most or all neo-Buddhists, and I mean that as a way of identifying us all as people from non-Buddhist places, you struggle with faith and what to believe and not believe, and it would be great to be able to simplify that some.

So my position is okay, great, you can at any time limit how much material you want to confront that seems archaic and completely irrational to you at first blush. In fact, it makes a lot of sense to do so. I mean if something seems incredible and has no bearing on your path currently, then why struggle with it at all? It is a waste of precious time and energy. However, if you decide well, this (whatever example) is just the remnants of shamanism, and this (example) is the core (read true) Buddha's teachings, then you risk a kind arrogance that we in the West have been particularly prone to.

But I also am supposing you have a pretty distorted idea of what Je Tsongkhapa would find valid. You know he fully believed in the existence of all the beings that Will mentioned? Were you aware, that Tibetans consider it skillful to limit our exposure to those particular issues and teachings at first, because they sound so far fetched to us in the West? Now when I say he believed in their existence, that can be tricky, because all these beings are like us, empty, and the point of Buddhist practice is to realize this about ourselves and all beings, so it is not like the point of Buddhist practice is to validate their existence, nor is it to invalidate their or our existence, but simply provide a path to Universal liberation.

Tsongkhapa wrote a treatise on the Six Yogas. In this he described how dream yoga became one of these six primary practices. It replaced a practice where near the end of one's life, finding one's body old and in danger of failing, you simply transferred your consciousness into the body of some younger, recently deceased body and so had a lot more time to pursue enlightenment. He firmly believed this practice was and is real, and described it in some detail, explaining that the tradition had been mostly discontinued around the time of Marpa and Milarepa. So that is kind of bizarre, isn't it? And that is good old feet on the ground, Lamrim creating Tsongkhapa.

As far as I know most Buddhist schools don't use Shamanism, so it's difficult to see how it could be an essential aspect of Buddhism.

I think it would then be a case of looking at the respective purposes of Buddhist and Shamanistic practice, and seeing if there is any common ground.

And do we have enough knowledge of Shamanism in the modern world to use it effectively anyway?

Rudy is very skilled I think in deconstructing our faith in science in particular, because he has a strong technical background and in his 25 or so years of Buddhist practice has done a lot of it for himself. This is the point I am hoping to add to the discussion, not shut it down or completely change its direction, but just add as an important contribution. It is not simply a matter of what we find incredible, but rather a firm belief in our own present description of reality. Confronting that is always unsettling at best, and it is that attachment to a world view that reacts when challenged. That is where the real unease comes from in my opinion. If we can logically examine and deconstruct our own assumptions and beliefs, many of which are common sense in our home culture, then this is a good way to gently open the door to all kinds of greater possibilities.

I don't find any Buddhist teachers I find credible actively limiting the Dharma. They will certainly advise us to focus on particular skillful means, but they are not spending their time saying, oh this way or that way is not a real Buddhist teaching. The one exception I can think of is the Dalai Lama and Shugden Dorje, and I think that is the real issue, and will continue to be for a lot people a tricky obstacle for some time. The funny thing is, the real objection to Shugden Dorje is his extreme sectarianism. But Buddha himself warned against this attitude, calling it, The Great Mistake.

So we can talk about what we think may or may not be a culturally specific Dharma, but people will never agree about that, and until we are fully enlightened we are not going to be able to say with any certainty.

I think Shugden Dorje has always had a divisive influence, and creates ongoing problems and obstacles for people, and one truism about obstacles is as long as they are bothering and obstructing us, we can't see them clearly.

So the image of the blindfolded monks and the elephant comes to mind.

Spiny: "I think an open mind is important, but I see little point in abandoning one set of cultural assumptions just to replace them with another set of cultural assumptions. What's the point in that?"

I agree that would be foolish. Where did I advise that? I am speaking from my own experience of having a world view that has changed a great deal in decades of study and practice, sometimes it has been challenged by teachings and at times even exploded from within by experience. This is a real hard part of the path, growth is usually difficult and often painful. Buddhists from the time of Buddha Shakyamuni, at least, untill present have worked very hard to find skillful means to make it a more gentle and smooth process. Critically examining our own present beliefs and views, and their logical inconstancies has proven to be one effective and gentle way. That certainly does not mean or in anyway equate to swalloing all of your favorite teacher's views and beliefs whole or being in a hurry to adopt them. I am saying what any of us might define as common sense can be deconstructed, logically taken apart, and then the world has a natural tendency to become larger, more open and full of possibilities, and that is analogous to the evolution of our relationship with emptiness.

Spiny, you prefer Therevada, Will is generic Mahyana, Dan, Tamara, Rudy and I prefer Tibetan, as does Jeff H, but he is also struggling with issues around NKT. One thing we all have in common is we are nowhere near competent to decide what is and is not essential Dharma. And the teachers I greatly admire have always influenced me to a more open and tolerant attitude.