Navayana should be able to work if done properly

[rob h]

Have been reading a bit about Navayana, and to be honest I don't see what the big problem is if people want to go down that route. What I do see is a type of fear from other schools that Navayana is a threat to their own schools of Buddhism and/or that it will just water Buddhism down until it's useless in the west. I don't see that at all.

From Dechen Norbu (with metta to him and respect.) in a thread that was locked, in a response to nowheat :

"What you present here is not Buddhism. It’s a sterile and degenerate version of it, built to fit a materialist paradigm and conform to the state of affairs of scientific knowledge of this day. It’s no better than any other shoddy self-help system."

Now I've not read through the whole thread and I'd guess nowheat could've maybe explained things better, or maybe even had a faulty conception of what Navayana could actually be, but I don't see it as degenerate, materialist, western-style scientific (As a westerner I loathe the western reliance on the current type of science and how it refuses to be open minded and research several areas properly and with the right funding.) or a shoddy self-help system.

The Buddha said in the Kalama Sutra :

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

From George Beoree :

"It is, of course, a little presumptuous to say which of the many sutras are the ones we should pay attention to, and which should be considered some kind of later addition or modification. We will never know exactly what the Buddha said and did not say."

This is true. You can say teachings have been passed down throughout thousands of years, but we don't know what exactly is taken directly from the Buddha, what was taken as notes from his original teachings and then modified by followers throughout the centuries, what was added, what was taken away, what was mistranslated and so on. Unless your insight has allowed you to recall a past life where you were extremely fortunate enough to have been sat with him and listening to exactly what he said, you do not know.

You can talk about hells, heavens, karma, rebirth and so on, but if you don't have direct experience you cannot know any of this for a fact. You're using faith, not direct knowledge. You can trust all the elders and teachers you want, but the Buddha himself said not to go by this, he said to only accept it fully when you know that wrong views, methods, etc, are unskillful, and so on.

So Navayana can and probably will exist as time passes, and I just hope it treats the teachings that are around with respect.

My own take on karma, hell, heaven, gods, goddesses, rebirth, angels, demons, buddha lands and so on is this : I don't know they exist so I will not believe in them unless I have direct experience. But, and this is the final and most important thing that I think is of total importance if Navayana is going to work at all : to not reject karma, hell, heaven, gods, goddesses, rebirth, angels, demons, buddha lands and so on. It's to stay open. To not close their minds to any of these things if some take the decision to break off and go their own way. Neither reject nor accept, but to practice until direct knowing is attained.

Two final things :

1) The Buddha, once enlightened, was said to have exhausted all his karma so that he'd never be reborn again. This to me makes no sense. If the Buddha upon being enlightened has the complete freedom of the Dharmakaya, he is then free to do what he wants. So if he decides to come back, he can, because he has absolute freedom to do so if he chooses for the sake of helping others.

2) When other schools of Buddhism started out, do you think the other Buddhists were like "Yeah ok, go ahead, no probs!" If the Buddhists that began the Mahayana were so worried about what other Buddhists thought wouldn't it be the case that we'd not have the Mayahana, we'd have Theravada and that'd be it? So your teachings, your schools, this forum and so on, wouldn't be here.

If people go ahead with this in the future, the best thing that can be done is to support them, help them out of compassion, help guide them, and remind them that even though they don't agree with certain things, it'd be wise not to discount any of them at the same time because ultimately in their current state they can't say one way or the other. Let them stay open, use what works for them, the Eightfold Path, Zen methods, Vajrayana methods, Theravada methods and so on. But they shouldn't be treated as outcasts if they have respect for the Buddha and parts of the teachings that can lead them to awakening.

Navayana can work if it's done properly. There's been many different schools in the past. Does living in the current time carry a rule that nobody is allowed to create a new school? No it doesn't. I'm just hoping that if it's done they're not treated overall in the way that I think many will treat them.

What concerns me the most about all this is that even if the next Buddha where to appear in the word today and say he's creating a new vehicle to work best with the current times, he'd probably be rejected by huge amounts of Buddhists as a charlatan because people are so entrenched in their own schools.

Nothing of what I've said was meant to offend or attack anyone, I'm just saying what the situation looks like to me regarding this issue. For anyone offended I'm genuinely sorry and metta to you. Besides, the more awake you are the less some words on a forum are going to bother you anyway.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Boree states:
"...many of us, especially westerners, find the fundamental ideas of Buddhism deeply meaningful, but cannot, without being dishonest with ourselves, accept certain other ideas usually associated with Buddhism."

The problem isn't that certain parts the dharma teachings are wrong or unprovable.
the problem is that one doesn't understand what the dharma is, meaning it's function.
I mentioned in another thread, unlike "religion", the dharma isn't a belief system per se.
It is more like a box full of tools
the purpose of which is to liberate oneself and others from suffering.

If you need a hammer, you grab a hammer and if you need a screwdriver, you grab a screw driver.
If you need to cut some wood, you grab a saw.
But if you have no wood to cut, you don't need to decide that
there is something wrong with the tool box because it has a saw in it
and come up with a new tool box, one without saws.
You just have to use the tools you need.

What do you propose to do with all of those people throughout history,and today,
for whom gods and realms and hungry ghosts are "real"
or whose level of understanding of "real" includes things
that a limited or confused mind does not yet grasp?

The problem isn't that Buddhism refers to gods and demons and various realms.
Whether they "exist" or not, in any provable sense, is totally irrelevant.
The only reason to prove something exists is so you can believe in it.
The Dharma has nothing to do with the duality of belief and non-belief
both of which merely reinforce clinging to a "self".

The motivation for wanting to make the dharma more accessible is good
but the understanding is flawed.
Stop trying to believe what the Buddha taught
and you'll have no problem with practice
using what is already there.
If you are skeptical,
use that as a tool.
.
.
.

[rob h]

Boree states:
"...many of us, especially westerners, find the fundamental ideas of Buddhism deeply meaningful, but cannot, without being dishonest with ourselves, accept certain other ideas usually associated with Buddhism."

The problem isn't that certain parts the dharma teachings are wrong or unprovable.
the problem is that one doesn't understand what the dharma is, meaning it's function.
I mentioned in another thread, unlike "religion", the dharma isn't a belief system per se.
It is more like a box full of tools
the purpose of which is to liberate oneself and others from suffering.

If you need a hammer, you grab a hammer and if you need a screwdriver, you grab a screw driver.
If you need to cut some wood, you grab a saw.
But if you have no wood to cut, you don't need to decide that
there is something wrong with the tool box because it has a saw in it
and come up with a new tool box, one without saws.
You just have to use the tools you need.

What do you propose to do with all of those people throughout history,and today,
for whom gods and realms and hungry ghosts are "real"
or whose level of understanding of "real" includes things
that a limited or confused mind does not yet grasp?

The problem isn't that Buddhism refers to gods and demons and various realms.
Whether they "exist" or not, in any provable sense, is totally irrelevant.
The only reason to prove something exists is so you can believe in it.
The Dharma has nothing to do with the duality of belief and non-belief
both of which merely reinforce clinging to a "self".

The motivation for wanting to make the dharma more accessible is good
but the understanding is flawed.
Stop trying to believe what the Buddha taught
and you'll have no problem with practice
using what is already there.
If you are skeptical,
use that as a tool.
.
.
.

That's a great response, thanks. Love the signature and avatar too!

I think the problem isn't what I choose to believe in or not, but what Navayana people will choose to accept or not should they go down this path. I'm pretty fine with what I do already and yep, I also see a lot of things as tools and use different tools for different situations. I just want any future people who might go with this Navayana idea to do it properly and not be rejected by the rest of the Buddhist community just because they're going their own way. There seems to be a lot of problems in the modern world when it comes to people wanting to do their own thing and I think those problems could come from Buddhists in this situation. As long as they're not attaching loads of dodgy modern day stuff to what they do (which is what Dechen Norbu was probably thinking of when he wrote what I quoted.) I think they can manage it, with help from other Buddhists.

I don't try to "believe" either, I just like to practice meditation and I know that it works if it's done properly. Belief isn't what I spend my time with and I don't like having beliefs, I'm just trying to look at it from the viewpoint of how future Navayana people might approach things.

As for this :

What do you propose to do with all of those people throughout history,and today,
for whom gods and realms and hungry ghosts are "real"
or whose level of understanding of "real" includes things
that a limited or confused mind does not yet grasp?

I don't propose to do anything with them! I hope they're able to deal with what they're experiencing by sticking to their paths and that their practice helps them navigate past those obstacles if they're causing them problems. I'll probably have to deal with them too to a certain extent if I practice properly too and hope my practice also helps there. But yeah, when you mention "that a limited or confused mind does not yet grasp." That's why I suggested that the most important thing for these people to do (because I have a feeling they're on their way at some point in the future.) is to not reject those things, but to stay open. Because if not, they'll have a hell of a shock if those things do appear at somepoint as they might not know how to deal with them.

[Jikan]

You can talk about hells, heavens, karma, rebirth and so on, but if you don't have direct experience you cannot know any of this for a fact. You're using faith, not direct knowledge. You can trust all the elders and teachers you want, but the Buddha himself said not to go by this, he said to only accept it fully when you know that wrong views, methods, etc, are unskillful, and so on.

Indeed. I don't think faith is a dirty word. In the Lotus Sutra, a discourse directed to an assembly of committed followers (not to a general audience), the Buddha advocates for an attitude of faith toward the Dharma, toward the specific teachings He is offering. By contrast, the Kalama-sutta is a discourse for the general public, and is good advice: use your head.

I think direct knowledge is important. Faith (in the sense of an attitude of respect, devotion, commitment, and willingness to learn) is an important approach to direct knowledge. I have to trust the methods given by my teacher and trust my teacher's expertise *before* I can accomplish the method and see for myself. A lack of faith in this sense is functionally the same as an unwillingness to part from one's attachments, which is to say, an unwillingness to learn.

That's one meaning of refuge: acknowledging that I am incompetent to do it myself, and doing it myself has only caused me a great deal of grief and problems for others too (samsara), so I put my faith in the Buddha and His teachings to turn things around.

What is the meaning of faith in Navayana? Refuge? What methods are advocated for direct knowledge?

[rob h]

You can talk about hells, heavens, karma, rebirth and so on, but if you don't have direct experience you cannot know any of this for a fact. You're using faith, not direct knowledge. You can trust all the elders and teachers you want, but the Buddha himself said not to go by this, he said to only accept it fully when you know that wrong views, methods, etc, are unskillful, and so on.

Indeed. I don't think faith is a dirty word. In the Lotus Sutra, a discourse directed to an assembly of committed followers (not to a general audience), the Buddha advocates for an attitude of faith toward the Dharma, toward the specific teachings He is offering. By contrast, the Kalama-sutta is a discourse for the general public, and is good advice: use your head.

I think direct knowledge is important. Faith (in the sense of an attitude of respect, devotion, commitment, and willingness to learn) is an important approach to direct knowledge. I have to trust the methods given by my teacher and trust my teacher's expertise *before* I can accomplish the method and see for myself. A lack of faith in this sense is functionally the same as an unwillingness to part from one's attachments, which is to say, an unwillingness to learn.

That's one meaning of refuge: acknowledging that I am incompetent to do it myself, and doing it myself has only caused me a great deal of grief and problems for others too (samsara), so I put my faith in the Buddha and His teachings to turn things around.

What is the meaning of faith in Navayana? Refuge? What methods are advocated for direct knowledge?

I honestly don't even know of any Navayana people about, was purely meaning that if it does arrive at somepoint it could work. Another big reason behind even making this thread was that I googled this forum along with Navayana to try and get some decent info and it just bugged me a bit to see the only decent sized thread on it pretty much pass it off as unworkable and then locked. That's not to get at Dechen Norbu though, like I said maybe nowheat had a vision of Navayana that maybe wound some people up, etc.

But what you say about faith does make some sense. I guess that being brought up in a mainly Christian area where faith has basically boiled down to just having pure faith in everything without having the tools, as PadmaVonSamba put it, has badly distorted my whole idea of what faith is. I like practice and testing out what works and what doesn't without relying on faith. I'd rather look at it like confidence instead, but maybe I'm just getting down to the level of semantics at this point. One of the main and repeated sayings of the Lankavatara Sutra that I value is to have confidence in the self-arising of noble wisdom, so when thinking of it like that maybe we're not so far apart anyway.

edit : Sorry, when I say self-arising, I don't take that self as the "I" or the ego, (just incase you thought I had that mixed up.) I think of it as the essence beyond the illusory-like self, or the intuitive faculty needed for awakening that works when practice is done properly.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Heh...Navayana gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "reinventing the wheel" doesn't it?

Seriously though, as rich as existing Buddhist traditions are, I am unconvinced there is any need for some version intentionally removed from those traditions. The toolbox analogy was fantastic! The modern age wants to reinvent a modern version of everything, there's no point..pick it up, use it..that's it, if your way of using it slightly different that's no problem. The issue of cross-cultural communication is one thing, the issue of removing parts of Buddhism that are inconvenient is another.

Personally I feel that Buddhism that subscribes to a naive realist view of the world is literally a dead end philosophically, it's just self help for a view that already exists, and is the orthodox view f the times.

That said, I think someone doing this kind of Dharma practice is better off than someone doing none, and I feel from personal experience that 'self help' style Dharma practice can lead to greater things, however bumpy the road.

[kirtu]

You can talk about hells, heavens, karma, rebirth and so on, but if you don't have direct experience you cannot know any of this for a fact.

Some people do have memories of hells and previous rebirths.

Kirt

[PadmaVonSamba]

There are a lot of roads that lead people to dharma
and within buddhsim, there are many paths to realization.
And I have always had a lot of respect and admiration for Dr. Ambedkar,
even though his goal was more towards political, than "spiritual" liberation.
There have been a lot of "new versions" of dharma that have sprung up over the centuries.
Nichiren started one and was basically run out of town, yet his school survives, as does Shinran's.
And there are splits in Tibetan traditions.
One can look at this as a weakness in Buddhism
or proof of the Dharma's adaptability to all situations
and the ability of a sangha to reinvent itself.

But I am reminded of a story about a guy who invents a mala (Buddhist "prayer" beads) with 109 beads on it.
Basically, he is trying to "improve" Buddhism.
Traditionally, a mala has 108 beads. And so, the gist of the story is that by adding another bead,
when people are chanting mantras or whatever, an extra one will automatically slip in
and the person will attain enlightenment that much sooner!
It's a funny idea, but points out that trying to change things that don't really need to be changed,
to make them new and improved,
often doesn't amount to much.

I have no problem with somebody calling something "navayana" or whatever
but it sounds as though people are thinking too much
instead of clearing their minds of thoughts.
.
.
.

[Jikan]

There are a lot of roads that lead people to dharma
and within buddhsim, there are many paths to realization.
And I have always had a lot of respect and admiration for Dr. Ambedkar,
even though his goal was more towards political, than "spiritual" liberation.
There have been a lot of "new versions" of dharma that have sprung up over the centuries.
Nichiren started one and was basically run out of town, yet his school survives, as does Shinran's.
And there are splits in Tibetan traditions.
One can look at this as a weakness in Buddhism
or proof of the Dharma's adaptability to all situations
and the ability of a sangha to reinvent itself.

But I am reminded of a story about a guy who invents a mala (Buddhist "prayer" beads) with 109 beads on it.
Basically, he is trying to "improve" Buddhism.
Traditionally, a mala has 108 beads. And so, the gist of the story is that by adding another bead,
when people are chanting mantras or whatever, an extra one will automatically slip in
and the person will attain enlightenment that much sooner!
It's a funny idea, but points out that trying to change things that don't really need to be changed,
to make them new and improved,
often doesn't amount to much.

I have no problem with somebody calling something "navayana" or whatever
but it sounds as though people are thinking too much
instead of clearing their minds of thoughts.
.
.
.

I'm reminded of the analogy of the man who was shot by the arrow and demanded to know who shot it and so on before submitting to emergency surgery to remove the projectile and close the wound. Except in this case, the mortally-wounded patient insists on bracketing out most kinds of triage, and will accept only the approaches to emergency medicine he himself recognizes as legitimate.

[Ukigumo]

Honestly, if people want to reject karma and rebirth and other basic principles of the dharma, I don't really see what the point is in calling yourself Buddhist.

If you're not interested in liberation from suffering, liberation from the round of rebirth, then why bother with these old texts written by dead Asian guys? Why call yourself a Buddhist if you're not interested in becoming a Buddha?

If all you're looking for is something to make you feel better about yourself, don't bother with Buddhism. Just read some self-help books, get some therapy, smoke some marijuana and donate money to UNESCO or Greenpeace.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Honestly, if people want to reject karma and rebirth and other basic principles of the dharma, I don't really see what the point is in calling yourself Buddhist.

If you're not interested in liberation from suffering, liberation from the round of rebirth, then why bother with these old texts written by dead Asian guys? Why call yourself a Buddhist if you're not interested in becoming a Buddha?

If all you're looking for is something to make you feel better about yourself, don't bother with Buddhism. Just read some self-help books, get some therapy, smoke some marijuana and donate money to UNESCO or Greenpeace.

These are also basic principles of many of the religions of India, not just Buddhism.
Now, if one is rejecting them for political reasons, say, to separate oneself from the oppression of the caste system,
and is converting to Buddhism for political reasons, then Buddhism is really just serving as a convenience.

Most westerners do not automatically assume any notion of rebirth, and karma is widely misunderstood.
We aren't brought up that way, so the thing is, these are concepts that we have to acquire
and since they are not readily observable, we tend to look at them as things we are expected to accept on blind faith.
That's really the issue, I think, although your point is well taken.

However, I think it is quite reasonable to call oneself a Buddhist, take refuge in the three jewels
and have little concern over what will happen when one's body is gone.
.
.
.

[ground]

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Now isn't this unbelievable? This is all there is? What is going to believe this? What is going to say "I am a believer"?

[muni]

Honestly, if people want to reject karma and rebirth and other basic principles of the dharma, I don't really see what the point is in calling yourself Buddhist.

If you're not interested in liberation from suffering, liberation from the round of rebirth, then why bother with these old texts written by dead Asian guys? Why call yourself a Buddhist if you're not interested in becoming a Buddha?

If all you're looking for is something to make you feel better about yourself, don't bother with Buddhism. Just read some self-help books, get some therapy, smoke some marijuana and donate money to UNESCO or Greenpeace.

Rejecting this, accepting that by our own reflections. Aren't it these habits, by karma, which are "reborn"?

We should indeed use a broad mind and realize the limitations of the conceptual created world in which we are fighting with our own prefered, right wrong concepts.

Thank you Ukigumo.

[rob h]

Honestly, if people want to reject karma and rebirth and other basic principles of the dharma, I don't really see what the point is in calling yourself Buddhist.

If you're not interested in liberation from suffering, liberation from the round of rebirth, then why bother with these old texts written by dead Asian guys? Why call yourself a Buddhist if you're not interested in becoming a Buddha?

If all you're looking for is something to make you feel better about yourself, don't bother with Buddhism. Just read some self-help books, get some therapy, smoke some marijuana and donate money to UNESCO or Greenpeace.

Sorry but all three parts there aren't even related to what I said. I said not to reject if acceptance can't be done, or to neither reject nor accept, but to stay open. I didn't say those views were perfect, but for some people in the process of learning it might be helpful instead of rejecting or blind faith. The middle way? It's hard to speak on some subjects when things keep being distorted, maybe that's partly why the first Navayana thread was also locked.

Without grasping and not conceptualizing,
This is the wisdom of the supramundane realm,
Which abandons the two types of coarseness,
And naturally attains transformation of the basis. - Vasubandhu

What is the discrimination of birth? It means getting attached to the notion that things come into existence and go out of it according to causation.

What is the discrimination of no-birth? It is to discriminate that all things are from the beginning unborn, that the causeless substances which were not, come into existence by reason of causation.

What is the discrimination of bondage and emancipation? It is like imagining that there is something bound because of something binding as in the case of a man who by the help of a cord ties a knot or loosens it.

Those who believe in the birth of something that has never been in existence and, coming to exist, finally vanishes away, which leads them to assert that things come to exist, things pass away, according to causation - such people have no foothold in my teaching. - Lankavatara Sutra

[kirtu]

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Now isn't this unbelievable? This is all there is? What is going to believe this? What is going to say "I am a believer"?

Personally I thing this is taken out of context (and possibly not a great translation but it doesn't matter because the meaning is certainly the same) - but Seung Sahn Sunim said exactly this in one of his teachings appending essentially a praise to Shakyamuni Buddha who sat down and observed his senses and saw what was to be seen with the eyes, heard what was to be heard through his ears, etc. and added and subtracted nothing and thus attained enlightenment. I'll see if I can find the exact quote because it bears remembering.

Kirt

[muni]

What is known through perception of ordinary senses "is not ultimate truth".

Buddha then explains on the offered webside:... if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

Grounds' words seems to open this as well: "Now isn't this unbelievable? This is all there is? What is going to believe this? What is going to say "I am a believer"?

Many teachings say something like; we see appearances/experiences but not the spacelike "mind" in which they appear.

[catmoon]

Interesting thread. But I haven't seen any detailed statements laying out exactly what the Navayana people are advocating.

Can anyone supply a reference to their position on rebirth and karma?

[muni]

Catmoon, sure.

I just pick few words by Rob:

" If people go ahead with this in the future, the best thing that can be done is to support them, help them out of compassion, help guide them, and remind them that even though they don't agree with certain things, it'd be wise not to discount any of them at the same time because ultimately in their current state they can't say one way or the other. Let them stay open, use what works for them, the Eightfold Path, Zen methods, Vajrayana methods, Theravada methods and so on. But they shouldn't be treated as outcasts if they have respect for the Buddha and parts of the teachings that can lead them to awakening".

Thanks!!!

These words wow! I think my vocabulary here can easely remain by wow. Can we say to fellows: our tradition is the only one leading to (right) insight?

What about "them, all beings", how can they be "out"? What about wisdoms' compassion?

When they don't agree, they can be respected. They can be offered by selfless love the skills they need in accordance and respect with their state of being.

ps Nature is unobstructed is said but we make solid doors for the rooms of the mirage-house.

[rob h]

All I'd suggest personally is that if you're into the idea of Navayana and don't research Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana you might be missing a good enough understanding of what Buddhism is in its different aspects. If that's the case, when you try and create any type of Navayana vehicle for personal or other use, it might not work properly. That's unless you're lucky enough to see the root of the problem (of our current reality.) earlier on, because you hava good karma, etc.