distinction between common & uncommon preliminaries
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 12:41 am
Why is refuge considered an "uncommon" preliminary? I thought refuge is an essential part of all Buddhist paths.
A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
https://www.dharmawheel.net:443/
The reason why ngondro's refuge is considered uncommon lies in the fact that it is the Mahayana refuge. It differs from the Hinayana refuge and in this way is not common for all transcendent Buddhist paths.dakini_boi wrote:Why is refuge considered an "uncommon" preliminary? I thought refuge is an essential part of all Buddhist paths.
Tenzin wrote: The reason why ngondro's refuge is considered uncommon lies in the fact that it is the Mahayana refuge. It differs from the Hinayana refuge and in this way is not common for all transcendent Buddhist paths.
There are 3 aspects that usually characterize the difference: intention [for taking refuge], object [in which we take refuge] and time [for which we take refuge].
Hinayana practitioners take refuge with the intention to liberate themselves from Samsara, and to attain Nirvana (i.e. Arhat or Pratyekabuddha). Mahayana practitioners take refuge with the intention to liberate themselves from Samsara and Nirvana, and to attain Mahanirvana (i.e. Buddha).
As for the object Hinayana practitioners take refuge in Realized Buddha as the guide to Nirvana, in Dharma as the path to it, and in Sangha as companions on that path. Mahayana practitioners take refuge in Realized Buddha as the guide to Mahanirvana, in Dharma as the path to it, and in Sangha as companions on that path.
Moreover, since according to Hinayana view beings don't have Buddha Nature, only Mahayana practitioners take refuge in their own nature - Buddha Nature, resolving to realize it.
Hinayana practitioners take refuge for the time until they become Arhat or Pratyekabuddha. Mahayana practitioners take refuge for the time until they become Buddha.
I made a shameful mistake here due to my habits of selfishnessTenzin wrote: Hinayana practitioners take refuge with the intention to liberate themselves from Samsara, and to attain Nirvana (i.e. Arhat or Pratyekabuddha). Mahayana practitioners take refuge with the intention to liberate themselves from Samsara and Nirvana, and to attain Mahanirvana (i.e. Buddha).
You are right that every being's nature is Buddha. I say it as a person who trusts in the teaching of Mahayana.The Seeker wrote:Thank you for explaining this. I am new to Buddhism. From the way I understand the things I've read, we all have the Buddha Nature in us. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
But to reach Enlightenment, we all must follow the Path of the Buddha and do all we can to follow The Five Precepts.
Kindest wishes
This is not true. Theravadra practices do not aim merely for the accumulation of merit, but for the realisation of the enlightenment of an Arhat (the destruction of the five poisons) as well, via the accumulation of wisdom.Tenzin wrote:But I know that those who trust only in the teaching of Hinayana will not be agree with that. They would say that Buddha's qualities are not within us and these qualities can be obtained only through the accumulation of merit (good karma).
This is a view propounded by some Mahayana-ists in order to demean Shravakayana practitioners, please do not present it as an objective fact (unless of course you have some evidence to back it up).That is just a sign that they didn't accumulate enough merit and wisdom in past lifes to gain the capacity to adopt Mahayana view in this one and they just mainly focus in their intention on their own benefit (like me in the mistake I made). It is not a voice of arrogance. Any time I practice virtue with the intention to attain any type of Nirvana and without intention to bring all beings to Mahanirvana (i.e. Buddha) I actually practice Hinayana path.
Excerpt from "Praise of the Twelve Acts of the Buddha" by Rigdzin Jigme LingpaThrough three incalculable aeons in samsaric existence,
You sought the meaningful by binding all your thoughts
With the rope of accumulating merit and wisdom.
Then, beneath the bodhi tree, you put the maras to flight,
And attained enlightenment, as all the Buddhas do.
On the ship of the three turnings of the Wheel of Dharma, you save
Beings who rush into samsara's bottomless and endless abyss,
And ferry them to the perfect levels of liberation and omniscience: I bow to you in homage!
Oh indeed it does! very much so!The Seeker wrote:I'm very drawn to the Mahayana tradition, and it would seem that taking Refuge would "help or aid" in the accumulation of merit and wisdom.
An outcome of proper actions is the accumulation of wisdom and merit. A reward is like something that is bestowed, but really all that happens is that right actions have positive outcomes. In Mahayana when we accumulate merit and wisdom through our actions/practices we then dedicate it all towards the liberation of all sentient beings. Of course, being a sentient being, that means that you also benefit from the dedication.Which should really not be the goal in our actions of liberating sentient beings, but the "reward" for our proper actions.
Dakini_boi - Tenzin, Paul, Nodrub and Sangey all are talking about aspects of Vajrayana refuge.Tenzin wrote:The reason why ngondro's refuge is considered uncommon lies in the fact that it is the Mahayana refuge. It differs from the Hinayana refuge and in this way is not common for all transcendent Buddhist paths.dakini_boi wrote:Why is refuge considered an "uncommon" preliminary? I thought refuge is an essential part of all Buddhist paths.
I totally agree that Hinayana practitioners need to accumulate of wisdom. Here I talked about the distinction in the views on "origin" of Buddha's qualities.gregkavarnos wrote:This is not true. Theravadra practices do not aim merely for the accumulation of merit, but for the realisation of the enlightenment of an Arhat (the destruction of the five poisons) as well, via the accumulation of wisdom.Tenzin wrote:But I know that those who trust only in the teaching of Hinayana will not be agree with that. They would say that Buddha's qualities are not within us and these qualities can be obtained only through the accumulation of merit (good karma).
I have no intention to demean Hinayana practitioners. Some beings accumulated more merit and wisdom than others. It is true and if I assert that I don't automatically demean all those who accumulated less. I just distinguish how things are. For example, Buddha Shakyamuni accumulated more merit and wisdom than me. This fact doesn't demean me, on the contrary I strive to attain the same.gregkavarnos wrote:This is a view propounded by some Mahayana-ists in order to demean Shravakayana practitioners, please do not present it as an objective fact (unless of course you have some evidence to back it up).Tenzin wrote:That is just a sign that they didn't accumulate enough merit and wisdom in past lifes to gain the capacity to adopt Mahayana view in this one and they just mainly focus in their intention on their own benefit (like me in the mistake I made). It is not a voice of arrogance. Any time I practice virtue with the intention to attain any type of Nirvana and without intention to bring all beings to Mahanirvana (i.e. Buddha) I actually practice Hinayana path.
According to this view shepherd-like bodhisattvas won't become Buddha until all beings are not totally liberated and helmsman/ship captain-like bodhisattvas won't become Buddha if all beings are not ready to be totally liberated.gregkavarnos wrote:A Bodhisattva may "herd" beings towards liberation (shepherd-like bodhisattva, where the beings arrive at liberation before the Bodhisattva does), travel together with them towards liberation (helmsman/ship captain-like bodhisattva that arrives at liberation together with all beings) or the bodhisattva may attempt to reach Buddhahood as quickly as possible and then use their enlightenment to bring all beings to liberation (king-like bodhisattva).
It can't be uncommon in Shravakayana tradition because its way of taking refuge is the very base of comparisonThe Seeker wrote:ok back to the OP, is taking Refuge an uncommon preliminary in all traditions?
And Maha and Vajra yana practitioners don't? So what are mandala offerings and Ngondro practices about then? And anyway, what are you saying here? An Arhat has to accumulate wisdom whereas a Mahayana practitioner (who is a Mahayana practitioner due to the accumulation of merit and wisdom) does not need to? Or, somehow, has accumulated more merit than an Arhat? What a crock!Tenzin wrote:I totally agree that Hinayana practitioners need to accumulate of wisdom.
Really? So, like, you have accumulated more merit and wisdom than a once-returner then? Of course that is demeaning. It is like saying that the effort made by a Hinayana (and by this term what exactly do you mean? Shravakayana? Pratyekabuddhayana? Theravadra?) practitioner doesn't mean squat, that the best a once-returner may hope for is rebirth as a (almighty) Mahayana practitioner. Of course that is demeaning, no matter how your try to disguise it.I have no intention to demean Hinayana practitioners. Some beings accumulated more merit and wisdom than others.
According to a Mahayana-ist. It reminds me of the logic that Christians use: "It's true that God exists, it says so in the bible!"While it can be not pleasant to hear that Mahayana view is superior to Hinayana view, it is true.
Of course this is your somewhat skewed view of the teaching, yes! Anyway, if I remember correctly, Bodhisattvas make a vow to not enter nirvana until ALL sentient beings reach enlightenment (are freed from suffering). Now if they happen to get there "by mistake", well that's a different story altogether. If this is the case though (as you claim), then obviously Mahayana practitioners (even Bodhisattvas) require to accumulate merit to reach Buddhahood.According to this view shepherd-like bodhisattvas won't become Buddha until all beings are not totally liberated and helmsman/ship captain-like bodhisattvas won't become Buddha if all beings are not ready to be totally liberated.
I would say that the difference lies in their means/methods.So the difference between these three types of Bodhisattvas is not in the result, it is in the cause - their intention.
Of course this is your somewhat skewed view of the teaching, yes!gregkavarnos wrote:According to this view shepherd-like bodhisattvas won't become Buddha until all beings are not totally liberated and helmsman/ship captain-like bodhisattvas won't become Buddha if all beings are not ready to be totally liberated.
Skewed from the angle that once again Tenzin is trying to set up a hierarchy: Shepherd and Helms-man like Bodhisattvas are deluded because, whether they like it or not, they will get enlightened anyway, thus king-like is (actually) the only way to go, by default.Namdrol wrote:No, this is the standard presentation of two of the three main kinds of bodhicitta. In Tibetan Buddhism, we mostly use the royal bodhicitta -- i.e. I will attain buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings.
In Zen and Chinese Buddhism in general, they mostly rely on the sheperd kind.
gregkavarnos wrote:Skewed from the angle that once again Tenzin is trying to set up a hierarchy: Shepherd and Helms-man like Bodhisattvas are deluded because, whether they like it or not, they will get enlightened anyway, thus king-like is (actually) the only way to go, by default.Namdrol wrote:No, this is the standard presentation of two of the three main kinds of bodhicitta. In Tibetan Buddhism, we mostly use the royal bodhicitta -- i.e. I will attain buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings.
In Zen and Chinese Buddhism in general, they mostly rely on the sheperd kind.
Manjushri is the archetype for the Shepherd Bodhisattva.gregkavarnos wrote:Skewed from the angle that once again Tenzin is trying to set up a hierarchy: Shepherd and Helms-man like Bodhisattvas are deluded because, whether they like it or not, they will get enlightened anyway, thus king-like is (actually) the only way to go, by default.Namdrol wrote:No, this is the standard presentation of two of the three main kinds of bodhicitta. In Tibetan Buddhism, we mostly use the royal bodhicitta -- i.e. I will attain buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings.
In Zen and Chinese Buddhism in general, they mostly rely on the sheperd kind.
That would be Avalokiteshvara, AFAIK.kirtu wrote: Manjushri is the archetype for the Shepherd Bodhisattva.
Kirt
Saraha in "Tantric Treasures: Three Collections of Verse from Buddhist India"Hey! Unify, don't divide -
don't make distinctions in knowing;
In this whole triple world
there's one colour, one;
great delight.