I hear all the time that THIS particular teachings is of the HIGHEST in Buddhism. THIS teaching is the PUREST. Whether it is Madyamika Prasangika, Dzogchen, Mahamudra, or some off branch of Tibetan Buddhism that no one recognizes but their own followers.
We have all the innate desire to be a part of the best. When discussing the GIANT path of Shambhala Buddhism with Acharya Adam Lobel I tried to question him about this. Is this truly a path or is it mankind's need for a map to enlightenment that really doesn't exist (the map doesn't exist I have no idea about enlightenment). If you compare Shambhala's path to Scientology's path to Operating Thetan.. it doesn't look much different.
Shambhala, like Scientology, is full of reverence for these people that "achieve" these higher levels yet maintain an enforced secrecy about what exactly these people are doing thats so special. In Shambhala they are referred to "tantrikas." As if this is really all that. Tantra is a essential part of Tibetan Buddhism practiced by all schools. I have a couple of "empowerments." Without going into the esoteric details I can't really say I always find it so special. I go through periods where its interesting and periods where it isn't. Google Tantra if this peaks your curiosity. I'm certainly not dissing it. I'm the first to admit perhaps I just don't get the profundity of tantra yet. Like I said at times its more interesting than others.
And perhaps... its because Tantra is considered the HIGHEST path in Tibetan (not necessarily with other factions) Buddhism that the mystiq is there?
The other question that arises is Partisanship. There is a lojong (mind training) saying that "All dharma's agree at one point." Pretty self explanatory. However there are still those that say, "My dharma is better than yours. Ours contains the HIGHEST/PUREST teachings." This is usually followed by something like, "of course my mind is different than your mind..." Which is a safeguard to disallow the charge of partisanship. But more justification will always follow with the implication that their's is still better.
I'm actually only interested in what works. I really don't think the Buddha set out to find the HIGHEST teachings as much as he sought an actual solution to the human condition of suffering. I look for what works in my day to day life. What helps me walk more gently in the world and with others. What inspires me to shift the focus of all about me to others. Because it truly is only through others that we find happiness. Self absorption is rapidly dull and and a sure road to self destruction. Buddhism's teachings on Emptiness is clearest description of reality I've ever found.
I'm sure reading this there will be those that think I haven't achieved a high enough rebirth to understand their HIGHER/PURER teachings. Perhaps not. But I don't think you have clue either.
Chad
Buddha
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Clarity and Confusion
Grant your blessings that my Mind may be one with the Dharma
Grant your blessings that the Dharma may progress along the Path
Grant your blessings that the Path may clarify Confusion
Grant your blessings that Confusions may dawn as Wisdom
4 Dharmas of Gampopa
I take a class out of Jamyang Center taught by Geshe Tashi. Jamyang is a Gelugpa center in the tradition of the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition (FPMT). This is the graduate course of the Foundations of Buddhist Thought Course. It is just as wordy as all the titles. No one would accuse Je Tsongkapa of being concise.
We study Lama Tsongkapa's great work - The Gradual Path to Enlightenment, Lam Rim Chenmo. Tsonkapa (LTK as we call him) is easily the most astute philosopher that Tibet ever produced. Hence the superlative - crown jewel of the sages of the Land of the Snows.
I am a dharma mutt. A typical Western practioner. I took refuge from a Nyingma lama (Thubten Tulku), from a Soto Zen Roshi (Joan Halifax), done sesshin's with Roshi Joan and Roshi John Tarrant, done 5 levels of Shambhala training, done 3 weekthuns (weeklong sits) at Shambhala Mountain Center, read every dharma book I could get my hands on over 16 years .. and taken these 2 courses. And other stuff.
This course is the most challenging philosophical debate I've ever under taken. I constantly find myself agreeing with LTK and totally, angrily, disagreeing with LTK. I often think he doesn't understand the things he is "bashing." And when I say bashing. I mean bashing.
Currently in my mind I'm constantly exploring the gradualist approach of scholarship and the "inferential cognizer" or mind that explores Emptiness through the use of the conceptual mind vs simultaneous approach that any conception of the Mind will be erroneous and mistaken. That only by holding the Mind without concept can enlightenment be achieved. The first emphasizes analysis and scholarship before mediation and the second the reverse.
I find incredibly beauty to each one. The first brings me more peace of Mind and an incredible understanding of "reality" for lack of a better word. The second makes the entire world and everything that happens sacred and brings such a quality of poetry to life its difficult to describe. The first's meditation is full of prayers, lineage masters, and contemplation. The second's meditation is just the breath, the space, and the eccentric Mind.
I spend time with each one. I can't choose which is best. I can't dedicate to doing this vs that (because honestly this vs that is a game). My honest opinion is that the gradualist path eventually leads to the simultaneous path. That if you want to seriously play the violin you need to study and take lessons and spend some time and learn it. Then release and you can play freely.
I honestly have no idea. I fluctuate in transition of different ideas constantly. I employ the scientific method to Buddhism. Theory, test, results, analysis make adjustments. Lately the simultaneous approach, the sacredness of everyday life, the beauty of just sittings has really been my passion. But I still study and ponder Emptiness. I have the class and the teachings to study. Questions to answer. Such as "LTK's advise against negating too little and not negating too much in regards to the I."
Constant Confusion. Glimpses of Clarity. Clouds in the Sky.
Chad
Grant your blessings that the Dharma may progress along the Path
Grant your blessings that the Path may clarify Confusion
Grant your blessings that Confusions may dawn as Wisdom
4 Dharmas of Gampopa
I take a class out of Jamyang Center taught by Geshe Tashi. Jamyang is a Gelugpa center in the tradition of the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition (FPMT). This is the graduate course of the Foundations of Buddhist Thought Course. It is just as wordy as all the titles. No one would accuse Je Tsongkapa of being concise.
We study Lama Tsongkapa's great work - The Gradual Path to Enlightenment, Lam Rim Chenmo. Tsonkapa (LTK as we call him) is easily the most astute philosopher that Tibet ever produced. Hence the superlative - crown jewel of the sages of the Land of the Snows.
I am a dharma mutt. A typical Western practioner. I took refuge from a Nyingma lama (Thubten Tulku), from a Soto Zen Roshi (Joan Halifax), done sesshin's with Roshi Joan and Roshi John Tarrant, done 5 levels of Shambhala training, done 3 weekthuns (weeklong sits) at Shambhala Mountain Center, read every dharma book I could get my hands on over 16 years .. and taken these 2 courses. And other stuff.
This course is the most challenging philosophical debate I've ever under taken. I constantly find myself agreeing with LTK and totally, angrily, disagreeing with LTK. I often think he doesn't understand the things he is "bashing." And when I say bashing. I mean bashing.
Currently in my mind I'm constantly exploring the gradualist approach of scholarship and the "inferential cognizer" or mind that explores Emptiness through the use of the conceptual mind vs simultaneous approach that any conception of the Mind will be erroneous and mistaken. That only by holding the Mind without concept can enlightenment be achieved. The first emphasizes analysis and scholarship before mediation and the second the reverse.
I find incredibly beauty to each one. The first brings me more peace of Mind and an incredible understanding of "reality" for lack of a better word. The second makes the entire world and everything that happens sacred and brings such a quality of poetry to life its difficult to describe. The first's meditation is full of prayers, lineage masters, and contemplation. The second's meditation is just the breath, the space, and the eccentric Mind.
I spend time with each one. I can't choose which is best. I can't dedicate to doing this vs that (because honestly this vs that is a game). My honest opinion is that the gradualist path eventually leads to the simultaneous path. That if you want to seriously play the violin you need to study and take lessons and spend some time and learn it. Then release and you can play freely.
I honestly have no idea. I fluctuate in transition of different ideas constantly. I employ the scientific method to Buddhism. Theory, test, results, analysis make adjustments. Lately the simultaneous approach, the sacredness of everyday life, the beauty of just sittings has really been my passion. But I still study and ponder Emptiness. I have the class and the teachings to study. Questions to answer. Such as "LTK's advise against negating too little and not negating too much in regards to the I."
Constant Confusion. Glimpses of Clarity. Clouds in the Sky.
Chad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)