Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Whether you're exploring Buddhism for the first time or you're already on the path, feel free to ask questions of any kind here.

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:15 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Don't you think that it's strange that you feel justified in making derogatory comments about practitioners of other traditions


He didn't. He made a standard remark about the relationship between the nine yānas and the two accumulations.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12566
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Astus » Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:18 pm

Sönam,

That is one common interpretation of the one vehicle doctrine. It seems it provides an explanation for the diversity of the teachings and traditions. What it actually always does and always used for that, is a justification for whatever the highest vehicle is imagined to be. It seems tolerant, but in fact it is simply arrogant. And I'm not saying here that you personally are arrogant, but this argument, known throughout Mahayana, is nothing more than an attempt to explain the superiority of a doctrine above others, based not on proper knowledge, but on fabricated karmic deficiency. A similar argument is used for the caste system.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

"Neither cultivation nor seated meditation — this is the pure Chan of Tathagata."
(Mazu Daoyi, X1321p3b23; tr. Jinhua Jia)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T2076p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4170
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Sönam » Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:57 pm

Astus wrote:Sönam,

That is one common interpretation of the one vehicle doctrine. It seems it provides an explanation for the diversity of the teachings and traditions. What it actually always does and always used for that, is a justification for whatever the highest vehicle is imagined to be. It seems tolerant, but in fact it is simply arrogant. And I'm not saying here that you personally are arrogant, but this argument, known throughout Mahayana, is nothing more than an attempt to explain the superiority of a doctrine above others, based not on proper knowledge, but on fabricated karmic deficiency. A similar argument is used for the caste system.


Astus,

I'm not expecting to be understood by practitioners of all yanas. One can think it is arrogance ... one can also ask itself if such a point of view about arrogance is not merely jealousy (which, I accord you, would have no reason to be). You speak about superiority ... I don't.
But if it is arrogance, I would be interested to understand how one view the fact that different levels of practitioners co-exist within the same historical time frame and if they all would be following the same kind of teachings ?

Sönam
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 1998
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Astus » Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:31 pm

You identified the levels of practitioners with distinct teachings, that are again put into a hierarchical system. So those who follow sravakayana are necessarily low level practitioners, who follow sutrayana are medium level practitioners, who follow vajrayana are higher level practitioners, and who follow dzogchen are the best of all. This, I think, is a faulty identification on many levels.

First, these so called yanas are not real vehicles or traditions, but only one school's categorisation of the teachings as they understand them. Other schools have different interpretations of those teachings, just as they have different categorisations. However, the Nyingma categorisation does not and cannot include any other school's view of those teachings, otherwise they would actually be the same school. So it is with any other school. Thus there is no basis here to differentiate between existing schools, only a theoretical categorisation of certain teachings within a single school.

Second, the level of practitioners does not depend on what teaching they claim or seem to follow, but it is an inner quality others can hardly judge. There are beginners and advanced practitioners everywhere in every profession, just as there are students who learn slow and who learn fast. If students master French faster and German slower, does that mean those who study German are students of lower, and students of French are of higher ability? Or is it that French is simpler, easier and so inferior, while German is more complicated, harder and therefore superior? Does it make sense at all to call those students and languages superior or inferior? I don't think so.

Finally, to call things inferior and superior requires a value system, a measuring tool. But such values and measures are necessarily arbitrary. From a Nyingma point of view others are inferior, from a Zen point of view others are inferior. That's why I said that that kind of interpretation of the one vehicle doctrine is nothing more than arrogance. And arrogance is a very self-absorbed and closed-minded attitude.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

"Neither cultivation nor seated meditation — this is the pure Chan of Tathagata."
(Mazu Daoyi, X1321p3b23; tr. Jinhua Jia)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T2076p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4170
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Sönam » Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:56 pm

Ok, I understand your view. First, I underligne once more that I do not speak about superior or inferior, you do (like Sravakas saying hinayana is insulting, which is not).
But then, if I accept your reasonning ... first, we will both agree (as stated in the Abidharmakosha) that Arhats (sravakas) would have to rebirth to become mahayana practitioners and finalize "real" buddhahood, I would be interested to know your point on that view. Then, differents yanas explain in their own scriptures how long it would take to attain buddhahood, atiyoga claiming in present life ... what explanation do you have for that ?

Sönam
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 1998
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby catmoon » Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:15 pm

To judge from the foregoing posts, it wold seem the move towards ecumenical Buddhism is going to leave a few people behind.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2995
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Astus » Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:17 pm

I prefer to follow a more historical view on the development of different Buddhist teachings. I add to that that in different times, places and circumstances the Dharma was adapted both intentionally and naturally. Thus all texts and teachings are to be understood in its own context and not in a misplaced or anachronistic manner. This leaves us the option to see all forms of teachings as many ways to express the same truth, same Dharma. This is evolution, not in the sense of progression to a higher level - since there is no higher truth than the Dharma - but in the sense of adapting in order to stay alive and relevant. In China they could come to the view, but of course not all agree with this, that the eight schools are one (i.e. all the major views are valid). And although this interpretation can also be used to create a "more equal than others" situation, I believe that this view generates a less biased and more open perspective on all the Buddhist traditions.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

"Neither cultivation nor seated meditation — this is the pure Chan of Tathagata."
(Mazu Daoyi, X1321p3b23; tr. Jinhua Jia)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T2076p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4170
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Dec 21, 2011 10:05 pm

Namdrol wrote:He didn't. He made a standard remark about the relationship between the nine yānas and the two accumulations.
Yes, just that the standard remark is derogatory, since the standard is not exactly a standard, but a particular subjective view of the relationship of the nine yana to the two accumulations. One that sets a hierarchy of capacity and ability.

It's like in the other thread on branding where one considers Aboriginal and Native societies as undeveloped by using Western societies as the standard.

For me personally it is better to just say that the development or goals are different rather than to construct an arbitrary hierarchy based on ones personal preferences. I think that it is somewhat more respectful. But now I'm getting an intense feeling of deja vu, like I've had this discussion on at least three different occasions on three different sites. If I remember correctly it always ends up either in a bun fight, or people agreeing to disagree and leaving the value judgements aside (at least until the next thread and website Image ).
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby tomamundsen » Sat Dec 24, 2011 9:04 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Namdrol wrote:He didn't. He made a standard remark about the relationship between the nine yānas and the two accumulations.
Yes, just that the standard remark is derogatory, since the standard is not exactly a standard, but a particular subjective view of the relationship of the nine yana to the two accumulations. One that sets a hierarchy of capacity and ability.

Well then finally we get back to the OP. Sonam was just presenting a teaching in the Nyingma sect. Yea, sometimes schools have teachings that make it difficult to achieve an ecumenical Buddhist institution.
User avatar
tomamundsen
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:50 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Malcolm » Sat Dec 24, 2011 9:52 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Namdrol wrote:He didn't. He made a standard remark about the relationship between the nine yānas and the two accumulations.
Yes, just that the standard remark is derogatory, since the standard is not exactly a standard, but a particular subjective view of the relationship of the nine yana to the two accumulations. One that sets a hierarchy of capacity and ability.




Greg:

The nine yānas sets out a heirarchy of capacity and ability. That is the whole point of the system -- to grade various Buddhist practices in a hierarchy.

They are not arbitrary assignations, incidentally, but assignations found in the tantras.

If you want to consider the Nyingma system derogatory, please go ahead by all means. And yes, Vipassana, Madhyamaka, Zen, Pure Land, Kriya Tantra, Yoga Tantra and so on all find their place within the nine yānas somewhere, and of course, none of them are at the head of it.

N

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12566
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Dec 24, 2011 10:22 pm

Namdrol wrote:Greg:

The nine yānas sets out a heirarchy of capacity and ability. That is the whole point of the system -- to grade various Buddhist practices in a hierarchy.

They are not arbitrary assignations, incidentally, but assignations found in the tantras.

If you want to consider the Nyingma system derogatory, please go ahead by all means. And yes, Vipassana, Madhyamaka, Zen, Pure Land, Kriya Tantra, Yoga Tantra and so on all find their place within the nine yānas somewhere, and of course, none of them are at the head of it.
Dear N.

Let's, for the sake of the discussion, say that the stated hierarchy is actually objective and valid. That it is a true hierarchisation based on objective praxis. Even if that were the case, if one was interested in a truly ecumenical approach to Buddhism based on mutual respect of each tradition and the practitioners in each tradition (individuals that truly believe that what they are doing is valid, useful AND leading to ultimate liberation) wouldn't it be more "intelligent" or "diplomatic" to not publicly state the position?

I mean, rubbing peoples faces in it is hardly a way to get them to develop an interest in the practices and lead them to liberation now is it? Isn't that the goal after all: Bodhisattvahood ---> Buddhahood for the sake of ALL sentient beings? If stating the system of hierarchy causes aversion (and really, we are talking about causing aversion to the majority of Buddhist practitioners) wouldn't it be more skillful to avoid stating it?

Of course one may argue that the aversion felt is based on karmic predisposition and a clinging to the eight worldly dharmas and the poison of pride, but couldn't anybody from within any tradition (or even religion) make this claim? One may even claim: "That's just how it is (suck it up)!" But again it seems that it would be like the Christian attitude of: "It's in the bible so it must be true".

I dunno, it seems that instead of being a vehicle for unity and good will we are just manufacturing obstacles. Something that I always believed that Buddhism would/should be completely at odds with.

If anything these sorts of discussions make me want to just practice and not give a flying **** about anybody and anything, but then I will fail miserably as a Bodhisattva. Probably Cone's and Mr G's advice in another thread is the most valid: it's just a display, don't take it seriously!
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Malcolm » Sat Dec 24, 2011 10:34 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Let's, for the sake of the discussion, say that the stated hierarchy is actually objective and valid. That it is a true hierarchisation based on objective praxis. Even if that were the case, if one was interested in a truly ecumenical approach to Buddhism based on mutual respect of each tradition and the practitioners in each tradition (individuals that truly believe that what they are doing is valid, useful AND leading to ultimate liberation) wouldn't it be more "intelligent" or "diplomatic" to not publicly state the position?



All Yanas are valuable and useful, hence the term "yāna".

The best approach is honesty. Everyone thinks their version of Buddhism is the best, otherwise, they would not practice it. A true ecumenical spirit recognizes this. We are not trying to sell anything. Your stated approach seems to bear with it a concern for the consumer. The reality is that people wind up with the practice and teachers they have a connection with and no other.

Whether it is three yānas of the new tantra school, or the nine yānas of Nyingma, and so on, we don't need to worry about people being turned off to this or that. People can always find a reason not to like something.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12566
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:22 pm

Namdrol wrote:People can always find a reason not to like something.
This is sooooooo... true, but my issue is: why GIVE them a reason?
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Malcolm » Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:33 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Namdrol wrote:People can always find a reason not to like something.
This is sooooooo... true, but my issue is: why GIVE them a reason?
:namaste:



Because, if you dissemble, pretend that you think everyone's pratice is the same, people will eventually find out you are schmoozing and they will think you are dishonest.

If you take the other approach, which is to admit up front that our tradition has some major triumphalist rhetoric, then people may not like it, but they can't fault you later when they do find out that it is true.

In other words, since this type of hierchical approach to Buddhist teachings exist in Tibetan Buddhism from the start, it is better to just be open about it.

Now, you personally may not buy into it, but since the nine yānas hierarchy is there, and since it is embedded into our tradtion, it is a little too much to insist that people not speak from the point of view of the teachings they follow. To be quite honest with you, as far as I am concerned, it gives an honest assessment, if terse, of the key points of the teachings of various schools and shows what their limitations are.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12566
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Dec 25, 2011 10:19 am

Namdrol wrote:Because, if you dissemble, pretend that you think everyone's pratice is the same, people will eventually find out you are schmoozing and they will think you are dishonest.
Sorry, I realised later after rereading your previous post that you had already answered this question. Thank you for spelling it out more fully though!

Now, you personally may not buy into it, but since the nine yānas hierarchy is there, and since it is embedded into our tradtion, it is a little too much to insist that people not speak from the point of view of the teachings they follow.
While it is good to be honest, and I commend people for being so, it is also good to be tactful. If i am not aware that this is a basic analysis found in the Nyingma teachings then when somebody makes the statement it basically just sounds like they are puffed up full of pride, boastful and demeaning. For me it is a matter of tactfulness (look who's talking, many will say :tongue: ). I am sure that other schools and traditions also have their hierarchical analysis where they are numero uno, but to use it as a show piece?

I like this piece by Ju Mipham Rinpoche myself, it shows that there exists an ecumenical spirit within the Tibetan tradition based on humor and a auto-sarcastic approach (humbleness)
Satirical Advice for the Four Schools
by Jamgön Mipham Rinpoche

Namo manjushriye!

Through the enlightened activity of the victorious buddhas,
And the skilful means of their bodhisattva heirs,
May the four schools of buddhist teachings, old and new,
Successfully transmit their perfect methods of awakening!

The authoritative transmission of sutras, the Gendenpa,
The authoritative transmission of mantra, the Nyingmapa,
The authoritative transmission of exposition, the Sakyapa,
And the authoritative transmission of practice, the Kagyüpa.

The Sakyapas are the masters of learning,
The Gendenpas are the masters of discourse,
The Kagyüpas are the masters of realization,
And the Nyingmapas are the masters of spiritual power.

These are the four marvellous transmissions of the teachings:
The Nyingmapas whose view is beyond all extremes,
The Kagyüpas who persevere in meditation,
The Gendenpas with their perfect conduct,
And the Sakyapas with their regular practice of approach and accomplishment.

Although they all possess infinite qualities,
Each one emphasizes a particular practice.

Nyingmapas chant through their noses,
Sakyapas chant with their lips,
Gendenpas create the melodies mainly in their throats,
And Kagyüpas chant strongly from deep down inside.

The Gendenpas maintain the complete path of scriptural study, so they are like the body of the teachings.
The Sakyapas bring together sutra and mantra approaches, so they are like the eyes of the teachings.
The Kagyüpas bring everything together into the single practice of devotion, so they are like the heart of the teachings.
The Nyingmapas possess the profound key instructions of the tantras and sadhanas, so they are like the life-force of the teachings.

Now for a few words in jest:

The Nyingmapas claim they have a path for accomplishing the level of Vajradhara through the practice of clear light Dzogpachenpo, without the need to rely upon an external consort and so on, and yet the lamas say they must take a wife in order to increase their longevity, improve the clarity of their vision, maintain good health, assist in the revelation of termas and accomplish the welfare of beings. They don’t say that in order to benefit the teachings they should teach and practise! That taking a wife could be a way to benefit the teachings and beings, and a substitute for teaching and practice, and at the same time improve clarity of vision and so on, is, I think, incredible!

The Gendenpas claim the antidote to all the pains of existence is the wisdom which realizes selflessness, and yet when they approach the realization of no-self they are so afraid to let go of this sense of identity that they can not sit still upon their cushions. In the past it was said that the attainment of the path of seeing and the clear experience of selflessness that precedes it are marked by special feelings of joy, so I think this must be a symptom of the current degenerate age!

The Sakyapas make the supreme assertion that one should not place too much emphasis on conduct because inner wisdom is the most important thing, and yet when they recite the Lamdü Hevajra sadhana, they maintain the discipline of never leaving their seats, because to do so would transgress their vow. If they ever did need to get up and do something, they would have to drag their seats behind them, such are their rites of purification and liberation based on time and the physical body. I wonder what would happen to them if they did leave their seats!

The Kagyüpas assert that the Great Mudra is the wisdom which pervades all samsara and nirvana, and yet they think of the word ‘mudra’ as referring to one’s hands. I wonder what such an enormous hand would look like!

Ha ha ha! That was all said in jest.

The teachings of the great masters are rich in meaning,
And each school has its own unique vision and key instructions.

Most followers of the Nyingma school shun the taking of life but think that there is no need to give up women. If they are a genuine yogins, I take refuge in them! But in general this ordinary sexual desire is harmful to the Nyingma teachings, so take care, I pray!

Most followers of the Kagyü school dislike classical exposition and logic, preferring the approach that is based purely on mind and meditation. If they are those in whom realization and liberation are simultaneous, I take refuge! But in general this closed-minded attitude is harmful to the Kagyü teachings and must be abandoned!

Most followers of the Genden school do not see any fault in taking life, but their aggression is harmful to the Genden teachings, so take care, I pray!

Most followers of the Sakya school regard as supreme only those empowerments and instructions they themselves have received and the particular branch to which they belong—be it Sakya, Ngor or Tsar—but this strong prejudice and dogmatism is harmful to the Sakya teachings, so it needs to be abandoned!

Generally, even if one has attachment to one’s own tradition it is important to avoid any antipathy towards other traditions. If we consider just our own tradition, since we are all followers of the Buddha, we can consider that we are all closely related. The different systems of teachings began at the time of Khenpo Shantarakshita, Guru Rinpoche and King Trisong Detsen, and, following the noble traditions of the past, all the schools in Tibet accept the four seals which are the hallmark of the buddhist teachings. We are all equal in this respect, and what is more we all assert the great shunyata free from conceptual elaboration. Not only that, we all accept the mantrayana with its inseparable unity of bliss and emptiness. This means that we are exceptionally close in terms of our view and our tenets.

Other traditions, non-buddhist outsiders and philosophical extremists, who differ even in terms of outer signs and dress, are as numerous as the stars in the night sky, and by comparison we buddhists are as rare as stars in broad daylight. Now, when the buddhist teachings are on the verge of extinction, all who seek to ensure their survival must view one another as the closest of allies. Any feelings of hostility will bring only ruin, so instead we must regard each other with joy, like a mother seeing her only child, or a beggar discovering a priceless treasure.

Having become followers of the same teacher,
May all who are students of these same teachings,
Abandon any hostility and prejudiced views,
And work together with a sense of joy!

Whoever practises in accordance with the true meaning of the teachings,
Be they from one’s own or another tradition, may they gain accomplishment,
So that the four great buddhist schools here within the Land of Snows,
Come to blaze in dazzling splendour with a wealth of Dharma teachings,
And gain complete success and universal victory!

This was written playfully at the request of a friend who has the intelligence to follow all four schools—Sakya, Nyingma, Kagyü and Gelug. Mangalam!
:namaste:
Last edited by Sherab Dorje on Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Adamantine » Sun Dec 25, 2011 11:15 am

Just a thought, when following this whole 9-yana debate-- > there is perhaps a worse "triumphalist" rhetoric among many people following Theravada, in that they often claim all this Mahayana stuff is made up later, Vajrayana is just a degeneration of true Dharma, the Guru relationship is manipulative, etc.

I have witnessed these attitudes myself, I am sure many here have. So at least the 9-yana approach lends authenticity to the various vehicles and therefore a multiplicity of lineages... whereas, an opposing rhetoric attempts to invalidate other expressions of Buddhism completely. Of course, this rhetoric is not built-in to the tradition, but it is common enough nowadays.

Personally, I think there is much more room for an ecumenical attitude in the 9-yana approach!
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
User avatar
Adamantine
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2936
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Location: Space is the Place

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Sönam » Sun Dec 25, 2011 11:57 am

Mahayana scriptures recognize that Sravakas Arhat would have to reincarnate as Mahayana practitioner to achieve buddhahood ... but some Mahayana practitioners do not accept they could them self be concerned by a progression onto another yana to achieve buddhahood ... it is somehow curious. One can then question if concepts of pride and shame, superior and inferior are not involved in their innerfeeling, which of course would be anti-ecumenical.

Imagine a round of golf, not only with 18 holes, but 100. No one could finish the party in one day. Therefore, an observer in the morning could see golfers starting at hole 1, others at hole 2, and so on until hole 100. One could say that golfers on hole 90 are better than golfers on hole 5, but that would have no senses, because the quality of the golfer can only be seen in observing his behavior during the day, not his starting hole. And a golfer on hole 1 can easily be a better golfer that one on hole 100.

Therefore, as there is no place for pride and shame, superior and inferior, for an holder of the 9 yanas system, why someone holding that view could not communicate it to others? would it be better to keep it secret ... doing so, one could feel you mark a difference between those who can know and those who can't, then it would not be ecumenical.

Then, to answer to OP, yes ecumenical Buddhisme is realistic ... as far as one do not get lost in dualistics concepts like pride and shame, superior and inferior.

Sönam
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 1998
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Malcolm » Sun Dec 25, 2011 4:47 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:While it is good to be honest, and I commend people for being so, it is also good to be tactful. If i am not aware that this is a basic analysis found in the Nyingma teachings then when somebody makes the statement it basically just sounds like they are puffed up full of pride, boastful and demeaning. For me it is a matter of tactfulness (look who's talking, many will say :tongue: ). I am sure that other schools and traditions also have their hierarchical analysis where they are numero uno, but to use it as a show piece?


But you see, here, in this forum, Greg, there is no one who does not understand what the Nyingam POV is, so there is no point in chiding Sonam for stating what we all know to be the case i.e. that the Nyingmapas place every practice on the nine yānas, and in fact, place Dzogchen above that nine yāna scheme.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12566
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Blue Garuda » Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:37 pm

Namdrol wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:While it is good to be honest, and I commend people for being so, it is also good to be tactful. If i am not aware that this is a basic analysis found in the Nyingma teachings then when somebody makes the statement it basically just sounds like they are puffed up full of pride, boastful and demeaning. For me it is a matter of tactfulness (look who's talking, many will say :tongue: ). I am sure that other schools and traditions also have their hierarchical analysis where they are numero uno, but to use it as a show piece?


But you see, here, in this forum, Greg, there is no one who does not understand what the Nyingam POV is, so there is no point in chiding Sonam for stating what we all know to be the case i.e. that the Nyingmapas place every practice on the nine yānas, and in fact, place Dzogchen above that nine yāna scheme.


I have little idea of it, I'm afraid, so please could you clarify something for me?

Does Dzogchen rely upon attainment of the nine yanas? If not, then is it 'above' or simply 'beyond' the nine? If not linked as a progression, then are the Nine and Dzogchen complementary or not associated at all, like a staircase and an elevator?
Left
Blue Garuda
 
Posts: 1967
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?

Postby Malcolm » Sun Dec 25, 2011 6:07 pm

Blue Garuda wrote:
Does Dzogchen rely upon attainment of the nine yanas? If not, then is it 'above' or simply 'beyond' the nine? If not linked as a progression, then are the Nine and Dzogchen complementary or not associated at all, like a staircase and an elevator?


The nine yānas is one way of presenting Dzogchen i.e. as the result of a gradual progression.

But there there is Dzogchen proper, which is beyond the nine yānas because it and of itself, Dzogchen is not gradual in anyway.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12566
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

PreviousNext

Return to Exploring Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests

>