The Nameless Religion

But are you saying we have to take on a belief in these things in order to do Buddhist practice?  

A lovely discussion.


Jeff,

One of the things we might take into account when thinking about topics such as oracles is that Buddha Shakyamuni himself set that precedent in the Dharma when he predicted the births of the likes of Nagarjuna, Tsongkhapa and Padmasambhava.

It's said that reading the spiritual biographies (namthar) of such masters can be helpful for increasing one's faith in the teachings and their practice. For example, Nagarjuna retrieved the Prajnaparamita from the nagas, and Padmasambhava subdued (and employed) the malicious spirits which were obstacles to the Dharma in Tibet at that time. Tsongkhapa, when building his monastery, discovered the conch shell which Shakyamuni Buddha had Maudgalyayana place for him to find at the time Buddha gave Tsongkhapa's previous incarnation a prediction regarding his future life.

Taking refuge in the three jewels is the beginning of the Buddha's skillful means which benefit us by helping us to change our karma and its results. I think that one of the ways it helps in this endeavor is to change our habitual, ordinary thinking. Our ordinary Western thinking may give us the idea that such things can't exist. But, following the logic of the middle way, we ourselves can't be said to exist in the manner we perceive. 

As Nagarjuna wrote:

"To whomever emptiness is possible,
All things are possible."

Here, Bon is included as a fifth Tibetan buddhism lineage:

www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/study/comparison_buddhist_traditions/tibetan_traditions/intro_compar_5_traditions_buddhism_bon.html

And I just found this page, and have only read the first paragraph, which seems to speak to the skillful means aspect of this topic:

"Tantric systems often treat as external forces what many other psychologies would consider internal; in Jungian terms, the wisdom behind this tantric externalization is that autonomous complexes are thereby confronted in a manner preventing identification with them and thus being overpowered by them. Also, the contemporary psychological exaggeration in which complexes are considered to be “mine” as if they were somehow within one’s sphere of control becomes impossible. On the negative side, excessive projection onto the environment could lead to misidentifying as external the source of what are actually internal problems with the result that one becomes paranoically concerned with outside forces—be these beings on a different plane or just other people in one’s environment—which are actually projections of one’s own afflictive emotions. Indeed, some practitioners seem caught in a process of external projection that they seek to relieve through the performance of rites. Still, I do not want to fall into the arrogance of the assumption that only projection is involved; I by no means feel justified in assuming that there are not harmful (or helpful) external entities on a subtle level." --Jeffrey Hopkins

blog.shambhala.com/2009/12/24/dealing-with-demons/

I re-discovered the above link when I was looking for this one. The difference between the buddhist path and the shaman's path is mentioned here:

"Traditionally speaking, the path of yoga is a path of self-mastery and the yogin is one, whether male or female, who aims for perfect Enlightenment. This is not a shamanic path.

"The way of the shaman, on the other hand, has always been a path involving communion with other powers and spirits, and in many cases the attainment of Enlightenment may not be perceived as its goal at all. A shaman or shamaness, by definition (vide Prof. Hutton, Shamans, Hambledon & London, London 2001), is 'someone who works with spirits to help others.' The shaman channels these spirits, to accomplish definite ends, such as healing or gaining access to knowledge of some kind. But Chöd combines the path of Enlightenment and Shamanism into one."

www.dharmafellowship.org/library/essays/chod.htm

Spiny et al,

As my Faith thread suggests, I do think any 'doubt(s)' that your mind relates to your path, is poison.  That seed of doubt can start from seeing a lama refusing to eat tomatoes because they are red, to the sprouting doubt of all termas beginning to sound like paraphrases of each other, to a flourishing Affliction Tree under which you sit, radiating contempt for all spiritual paths. 

So yes, the guru knows the way - that is why we picked him or her.  If you cannot put aside your doubts and worries, then the Guru is the best one to pester.  The Guru is also the best one to dole out Dharma to you - in small manageable portions for some, complex intellectual patterns for some and direct insight into your buddha nature for a few.  

Stick to the Guru with devotion and faith!

I think that's a very good approach actually, maintaining a core practice while exploring possibilities.  

No, I don't believe that. I have come to believe in aspects of the Dharma very gradually as I lived and practiced. I also don't think beliefs are as important as many people seem to, because they are simply an understanding that will always evolve and change with experience.** But there is a whole lot of positive grey area between two extremes: 1. Deciding to make your self believe everything your hear or read about the Dharma, no matter how far-fetched it seems to you OR 2. Rejecting outright anything that sounds incredible and re-writing the Dharma to suit your world view.

Let me ask you something, Spiny, what does emptiness mean to you? How has your understanding or experience of it changed in the last year? I am asking because when you post your own ideas, you seem very thoughtful and nuanced, but when you rephrase Will or I, you reduce what we say to something black and white that has lost its intended meaning. What I am trying to say is what I wrote at length in previous posts...

I think everyone should keep an open mind and expect their beliefs to evolve over time. If they become closer to their teacher's gradually, because of personal experience, then there is no great surprise in that. In the meantime, why feel like you have to decide one way or the other? To me that is not what faith means.

**Here is an example of what I mean: Even if you believe in rebirth, your understanding of it will change with time, so by definition your belief is changing with time. No matter how sophisticated your understanding becomes, it is not going to be the same as what you experience when you die. The same is true with emptiness.

I sincerely believe you are able to do that, Will, and I am happy for you. I just feel like I know it is not going to work for 90% of the beginners I meet on this forum. I am also reading Nagarjuna a little differently, I don't think he is saying faith is the same as belief. They are related, but to me they are not the same. He says, don't reject and have faith, not make yourself believe. I think it phrased the way it is for good reasons.

Yes, indeed, good post, Will.

Sometimes I think people put themselves in an unnecessary quandary feeling like they have to commit to a belief in parts of the Dharma that seem incredible. Whenever my teacher is teaching there is a lot of laughter. If nothing else the stories are wonderful. Try to remember what is was like to be a young child, when the world was not so solid and well defined, and incredible things were possible. Let go of yourself a little and enjoy it, suspend disbelief and open your heart to greater possibilities.

That sounds like a good way, the right way to go, Jeff. Remember, you started the thread by saying you had no reference point for talk of Oracles or Spirits and wondered if there were a way to identify an essential Dharma. The potential problem with that is many people will say, "Sure there is!," then answer according to their own bias, which tends to be a reflection of their own strengths. That opens the door to a lot of unnecessary conflict. But the actual result was a great discussion.


Carlos Castaneda once quoted his Mentor Don Jaun: "Ancient Shamen saw these spirits and allies as something outside themselves. Modern men would say they are inside them. Neither are precisely right."

Shamanism is a word that encompasses a whole lot of cultural practice and phenomena. It covers so much ground it is nearly meaningless. As far as Chod is concerned, it may, like all religious practice have its roots in Shamanism, but it is now part of an advanced path dedicated clearly to full Buddha enlightenment, so I would take identifying it with Shamanism with a grain of salt. Most Chod Masters would laugh or be shocked by that association.


Chod is a means to give, not just dedicate, but really give even your own body up for the benefit of all sentient beings. Whether or not you study or practice Chod, if you stay on the Bodhisatva path long enough you will experience it. It is inevitable, and it is wonderful.

As far as spirits are concerned: there is a huge difference between employing demonic or spiritual forces for the benefit of yourself or your client, reifying their existence, and through non duality guiding them to liberation or releasing their awful karma. I don't believe shamanism is bad, not at all. I studied and practiced it for years, while I was a practicing Buddhist. It is not bad, but practiced for it own sake it is a spiritual dead end. When you deliberately engage and so become involved with powerful spiritual forces, then a dead end is not an acceptable option. Shamen of one kind or another were very prominent and sophisticated in the Himalyan cultures for a long time, as was the Bon religion. Buddhism conquered them, and by then they were so, so grateful to be conquered, because it meant being shown out of a really untenable situation. Whatever Tibetan Buddhism has acquired from those times has now been fully integrated into a truly advanced form of Buddhism, and dedicated clearly to the benefit of all. I think this is so much the case we could call it the rule, and all rules have exceptions.