Tibetan Interest in EA Buddhism

[Anders]

Moment-to-moment rebirth is a fine teaching. I think DN might have been referring to the trend of taking this as an alternative explanation of conventional rebirth (that is to say, people who say "I believe in rebirth! But when you die, that is the end of the game anyway. That kind of rebirth is old superstitious etc.") rather than a deeper elaboration of it.

[devilyoudont]

Moment-to-moment rebirth is a fine teaching. I think DN might have been referring to the trend of taking this as an alternative explanation of conventional rebirth (that is to say, people who say "I believe in rebirth! But when you die, that is the end of the game anyway. That kind of rebirth is old superstitious etc.") rather than a deeper elaboration of it.

Yeah, that's probably what he meant. I just wanted to point out (in my crass manner) that "moment to moment rebirth" usually refers to something quite different. Besides, is this attitude really so common in Zen Buddhism? (I mean really, if one accepts this presentation of moment to moment rebirth, one need only observe that all afterlives, including annihilation, are equally unfalsifiable, hence lie beyond the domain of scientific prediction. Since we cannot predict our exact moment of expiry either, (ie. of the consciousness) why is it unreasonable to extrapolate an endless stream of such moments extending indefinitely into the future?)

PS. Questionable scholarship notwithstanding, Ven. Payutto's diagram makes for an excellent prop. lol

[Anders]

Besides, is this attitude really so common in Zen Buddhism?

I don't think it is quite as common as the numbers DN are throwing out there. But it's common enough that it's noticeable and rebirth does tend to spoken of more tentatively in Zen, even among those who accept it.

Tbh, I don't think it is very common at all among practitioners of 10+ years. But of course, there are many who haven't soaked in Buddhist practise for that long.

[devilyoudont]

But it's common enough that it's noticeable and rebirth does tend to spoken of more tentatively in Zen, even among those who accept it.

Well, doubt has an important place in Zen practice, doesn't it?

[Mr. G]

Haha. Well, this is one thing you'll likely have in common with Zen practitioners.

I used to think the same. But to be honest, after having met with and practised with many pure land practitioners, I have changed my mind. Some of the sweetest, most kindhearted and generous practitioners I have met have been pure land practitioners. I have great admiration for their dedication. Chanting Amitabha's name may be simple, but it's very doable and many do it quite a lot! And also for their simple and humble approach to the Buddhadharma. It's very inspiring to me and I aspire for my Chan practise to have such sincere quality. It's all well and good to talk about aspiring for Buddhahood in this life, but there is proof in the pudding and I am generally impressed at the results Pure Land Buddhism appears to produce. It is also far from unknown that dedicated pure land practitioners come to realise that this life is itself the pure land (ie realisation).

It wouldn't surprise me at all for us nose-in-the-sky practitioners who wilfully tumble about in this Saha world with our imaginations of attaining realisation in this life, doing bodhisattva work in a realm where it matters or what not, if we were generally leapfrogged by the more humble practitioners who just knuckled down to business with a method that works, got reborn in the pure land and attained the result, and subsequently comes back to help those us still floundering in worlds like this!

And besides this, there is a lot more to Pure Land. It's actually a very fascinating school with sometimes surprising depth. To be honest, I find it very elegant that it can have this, yet it doesn't require much more than a very simple aspiration and dedication to chanting Amitabha's name. It is at one time a very accessible, reliable and very safe method, but also holds the potential for going deeper for those so inclined.

The distinction between intellectually-oriented 'insight' practitioners and faith-oriented 'samadhi' practitioners goes back to the earliest sutras. And imo, we all have much to learn from those that fall on the other side of the fence to ourselves. Understanding the teachings and engaging in profound practise and investigation may be easy for the former, but is it coupled with humble sincerity and application? Does it produce good qualities beyond some measure of understanding and a bit of happiness from that in this life?

Many people following the current fashion of Zen think of it as the supreme Dharma. They look down on Pure Land and do not practice it. Because they delight in fame, they learn some words and sentences from ancient sages so that they can talk smoothly and eulogize one another. The urge to enter the Dharma doors (i.e., to cultivate) is in decline. These people not only lack real practice, they even deprecate the Mahayana sutras, claiming that the sutras are mere words and need not be read. Though such persons may have some mundane knowledge, they cannot save themselves. It is really terrible. Most of them do not understand the Mahayana sutras, do not understand that there are many expedient methods for teaching sentient beings, do not know the meaning of the expression: "Everything returns to oneness, but there are many expedient methods that lead us to an understanding of the Truth." They only know that the Zen Patriarchs stressed Awakening. Yet the original intent of the awakened mind is to end Birth and Death. Is this not also the very purpose of Buddha Recitation?

Many Zen practitioners fail to escape the cycle of Birth and Death, while Pure Land followers find it easy to escape that cycle. What is the reason for this? It is because to practice Zen, you must stop the thought process, while to recite the Buddha's name, you must concentrate on pure thoughts. Since sentient beings have been mired in false thinking for untold eons, it is very difficult to detach themselves from it [and thus end the thought process]. Buddha Recitation, on the other hand, changes impure thoughts to pure thoughts, fighting poison with poison to purify one's own thoughts. 13) Therefore, in Zen practice it is difficult to attain Awakening, while Buddha Recitation makes it easy to reach that goal. If you really want to end Birth and Death in one lifetime, concentrate on Buddha Recitation. There is no need to worry any further.

For a long time, I was not particularly enamoured of the attitude displayed in many Mahayana sutras of spending countless lifetimes simply making offering to Buddhas or what not, basically just accumulating merit without really aspiring for the higher path. I saw it as a kinda patronising Buddhism. Why should the Buddhas not encourage such people to practise for awakening asap?

I was somewhat surprised recently to find how much my view has changed of late. I was studying the Gandhavyuha Sutra wherein the youth Sudhana seeks out 52 different teachers to obtain Buddhahood in this lifetime. As many of those teachers did, one bodhisattva, the night goddess Vasanti, recounted her path towards her current profound stature. Starting one night, "as many eons ago as atoms in the polar mountain" ago, when she was having sex and then fell asleep, a Buddha attained samyaksambodhi that night. A night goddess back then woke her up her by tingling her jewellery and told her about the event, what a Buddha was and how they became Buddhas. At that time, she resolved to become a Buddha right there and then.

As a result of that aspiration, she then spent the following aeons "as many as atoms in the polar mountain" never born in a bad state, always achieving human greatness among humans and celestial greatness among celestials, never with defective faculties and with little suffering, never apart from Buddhas and Bodhisattvas... and not giving a damn about Prajnaparamita for all this time! Well, that is how I would have read it formerly. But actually that latter thought never occurred to me this time around. Perhaps it was the narrative that made it easier to put myself in her place, or maybe I've just come to see things differently, but the thought that occurred to me reading this was not one of whether should could have done more or better, but rather "'how wonderful, that she should enjoy such a long string of lifetimes enjoying a good life content with how she lived." And recounting this, the night goddess does in fact note that she passed these aeons "happily, peacefully, safely, and rightly" planting roots of goodness, even though after all this time she did never develop the faculties of awakening.

Eventually, a mere ten thousand aeons ago, she did attain awakening and set forth on the bhumis. Though she instructs Sudhana, she has to send him on his way for further instruction, since she only "knows this enlightening liberation that is a method of guiding the world by the light of the truth which dispels the darkness of all sentient beings." Just your average blows-everything-in-the-saha-world-out-of-the-water siddhi/realisation really and how could that possibly compare to the profound wisdom of Samantabhadra?

But the point in all this is that I don't think I really believe any more that there is such a Buddhism as the highest/best/supreme path for living beings towards happiness let alone paths within Buddhism constituting that. It's a supposition that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny for me any more in terms of how people live their lives. It seems to me more a case of, by virtue of it being the case, honouring and fully acknowledging that all beings walk their own way in life and find their own way to happiness. And that as Bodhisattvas, to the extent we can be so, we're not really here to help other beings towards any such imagined 'best/highest/supreme' path to happiness, but rather to assist, sustain and nurture beings in whatever way they can and wish to find their own happiness. Be it Prajnapramita, chanting Amitabha's name, or simply being good person, living a modestly happy life.

Nevertheless, this is a causal universe and minds strike me as being generally glued together of the same building blocks. And I do believe, even as we all walk our own honoured yet bumbling and twisting paths to our own happiness, that for each and every one of us on our own very individual paths, this... aspiration for happiness that comes in all kinds and forms, will eventually refine itself into the wish for liberation and the path towards this inevitably will manifest along along the lines of what we in this world recognise as "Buddhism". So I guess you could nevertheless say, from this highly tentative perspective, that Buddhism does represent a 'supreme' path.

But my point is I don't think there are any scorecards of happiness or path to measure beings progress against. If there are beings who aspire to Buddhahood and/or liberation and making good work towards that, well that's wonderful. For where they are in life. If there are people who used this life make just a seed of goodness worth of progress, that is really wonderful too. For where they are in life.

Enough rambling. Peace out.

Anders

These were great posts Anders. Thank you.

[Astus]

But my point is I don't think there are any scorecards of happiness or path to measure beings progress against. If there are beings who aspire to Buddhahood and/or liberation and making good work towards that, well that's wonderful. For where they are in life. If there are people who used this life make just a seed of goodness worth of progress, that is really wonderful too. For where they are in life.

"You should speak appropriately about the affairs of your own life, for each matter you encounter constitutes the meaning of your existence, and your actions are without hindrance. The fruit of the bodhisattva way is just thus, born of mind, taking names to be forms. Because of the knowledge of the emptiness of forms, birth is nonbirth. Comprehending this, one acts in the fashion of one's time, just wearing clothes, eating food, constantly upholding the practices of a bodhisattva, and passing time according to circumstances. If one practices in this manner is there anything more to be done?"
(Mazu Daoyi in Zen's Chinese Heritage, p. 67)

[Astus]

To avoid off topic posts: Tibetan Buddhist View of Zen

[Dechen Norbu]

Excellent posting Anders, thank you. Great reading you gave me, back there.
Also, yes you are completely right, I meant moment to moment rebirth in the way you've said. Should have been clearer. Correctly understood it's an excellent teaching, that IMO helps understanding literal rebirth even better. I was going to say why, but you guys know it already, so I'll spare you a long unnecessary post.

You may be right and there aren't that much Zen practitioners with this sort of ideas. Maybe the ones that exist are just quite noisy in the virtual world of the internet. I remember two fellows, Theravada practitioners (so, not Zen) that had a beef with the notion of literal rebirth. They have every right to their opinions. Nevertheless, in all the buddhist boards I knew, if you had a thread about rebirth, there they were making their points. It was something rather unbelievable. Seemed like an obsession. But in fact, there weren't many practitioners spousing the same opinions. Only a few, but a loud few. Probably the similar case with these Zen folks.

Thank you once again for the excellent post.

Thank you for the PDF, Astus. Haven't had the opportunity to read it just yet, but it seems great.

[gregkavarnos]

Sutra is sutra. It only can carry one so far.

To me it seems that it is this this attitude that is the source of the of the Tibetan Buddhists lack of interest in EA Buddhism.

Now why do I choose to use the word attitude instead of the word statement? Because the statement may actually be true. I cannot judge its veracity. But the reality of all I have seen thus far, in terms of the results of practice (not only for myself but for 99% of other TB practitioners) is that the "so far" of sutra based practice is "so far" out of reach for the majority of TB practitioners that it is silly to even begin to judge (and criticise) the practice of other traditions as limited, or merely a step along the path. We are so far from reaching even that step that we have no right to criticise the EA path (or any other path for that matter). I severely doubt whether most practitoners have passed the second jhana of meditative concentration, yet we are quick off the mark to condemn the spiritual practice and level of the Arhats.

We say our practice will lead us to the state of Bodhisattva, but most times we use our Bodhisattva Vow to merely justify our incapacity to act within the moral/ethical guidelines established by Theravadra practice. Then we have the gall to stand on the tip of Mt Meru and condemn the Bodhisattva path when the only Mt Meru most have us have ever seen is the centre of the universe that exists in our underpants!

Oooops... I think I am ranting!

[Anders]

Brothers,

---

devilyoudon't, I suppose it does. I am not sure that is all the explanation for this tendency, but maybe a fair piece of the puzzle.

[LastLegend]

If we cannot detach from eating (a big attachment) for example, we cannot reach Enlightenment or Emptiness. So we know what practice constitutes. There is no easy way out even via Pure Land. If we are going to be attached to this life, earth, and body...we will not achieve Enlightenment...so be aware of the lofty talks and ideas which is nothing more than fantasies.

[Malcolm]

Sutra is sutra. It only can carry one so far.

To me it seems that it is this this attitude that is the source of the of the Tibetan Buddhists lack of interest in EA Buddhism.

Now why do I choose to use the word attitude instead of the word statement? Because the statement may actually be true. I cannot judge its veracity. But the reality of all I have seen thus far, in terms of the results of practice (not only for myself but for 99% of other TB practitioners) is that the "so far" of sutra based practice is "so far" out of reach for the majority of TB practitioners that it is silly to even begin to judge (and criticise) the practice of other traditions as limited, or merely a step along the path. We are so far from reaching even that step that we have no right to criticise the EA path (or any other path for that matter). I severely doubt whether most practitoners have passed the second jhana of meditative concentration, yet we are quick off the mark to condemn the spiritual practice and level of the Arhats.

We say our practice will lead us to the state of Bodhisattva, but most times we use our Bodhisattva Vow to merely justify our incapacity to act within the moral/ethical guidelines established by Theravadra practice. Then we have the gall to stand on the tip of Mt Meru and condemn the Bodhisattva path when the only Mt Meru most have us have ever seen is the centre of the universe that exists in our underpants!

Oooops... I think I am ranting!

If you have a sūtrayāna attitude towards the Dharma, all of what you say is perfectly reasonable.

But there are alternatives.

[gregkavarnos]

If you have a sūtrayāna attitude towards the Dharma, all of what you say is perfectly reasonable.

But there are alternatives.

Of course there are alternatives, I didn't say they were no alternatives and I did not say that the alternatives are invalid. My statement is in regard to mere posing, or lip-service regarding the options. I am not judging the practices, I am judging the practitoners. And since I am one of them (a Vajrayana practitioner), I am also judging myself.

[Malcolm]

If you have a sūtrayāna attitude towards the Dharma, all of what you say is perfectly reasonable.

But there are alternatives.

Of course there are alternatives, I didn't say they were no alternatives and I did not say that the alternatives are invalid. My statement is in regard to mere posing, or lip-service regarding the options. I am not judging the practices, I am judging the practitoners. And since I am one of them (a Vajrayana practitioner), I am also judging myself.

Perhaps you are not in a position to judge anyone, apart from yourself, that is.

N

[gregkavarnos]

Perhaps you are not in a position to judge anyone, apart from yourself, that is.

Perhaps judge is too strong a term. I would say though, that anybody that is passing through, or is stuck at a certain obstacle can benefit from the advice of somebody that has passed through or has overcome the same obstacle, especially if they ask for the advice.

Maybe you have had the extremely positive karma to have not run into (or have been) a boastful, hypocritical, sycophantic or judgemental Vajrayana practitoner, I personally have not had such karma. As for not being in the position to judge, well, my job puts me into direct contact with tens of people at a personal level, every week. After a while you get pretty good at spotting BS. Maybe this has made me judgemental, or maybe this has just made me perceptive, time will tell!

[Malcolm]

Perhaps you are not in a position to judge anyone, apart from yourself, that is.

Perhaps judge is too strong a term. I would say though, that anybody that has passed through, or is stuck at a certain obstacle can benefit from the advice of somebody that has passed through or has overcome the same obstacle, especially if they ask for the advice.

Maybe you have had the extremely positive karma to have not run into (or have been) a boastful, hypocrite, sycophantic or judgemental Vajrayana practitoner, I personally have not had such karma. As for not being in the position to judge, well, my job puts me into direct contact with tens of people at a personal level, every week. After a while you get pretty good at spotting BS. Maybe this has made me judgemental, or maybe this has just made me perceptive, time will tell!

99% is a pretty large number.

We only have three states: deluded, partially deluded, and free of delusion.

Which are you?

[gregkavarnos]

Hhhhhmmmm... the ten thousand dollar question... Let me see... Let me see... Ummmmmm...
I'll go for option two since it includes both option one and three!
Did I guess right?
Did I win the prize?

[LastLegend]

I am full of delusion I know that for I am not enlightened yet.

[remm]

About the PL buddhists... I have a hard time accepting that the path can be reduced to the repetition of one text (or few) to gain rebirth in a Pure Land. Why not aiming a little higher and going for Enlightenment right now? Seems a bit defeatist and one doesn't even start to investigate this school. I'm sure there's much more to it (see my ignorance?) than the repetition of a text (or a few), but having in mind the aim of the practice- let's try to achieve Buddhahood in the next life, in this life there's no point so let's only wish for a favorable rebirth- it's a sort of turn of. There's so much to the Noble Path, why reducing its main practice to the repetition of a text? We suspect there's more to it, but...

But we should remember that very often among those who you or I would consider having the least sophisticated intellectual understanding, we find some of the purest hearts and greatest vigor in practice.

[Astus]

"The attitudes of the Tibetan Lamas from the eleventh century until today toward Chan have been, by and large, exceedingly negative, except for certain Nyingmapas like Longchenpa and Urgyan Lingpa. The Tibetan Lamas are content with their Indian-derived traditions as representing the authentic corpus of the Buddha's teachings. They have had absolutely no interest in the post-eighth-century developments of Buddhism in China, including Chan, and have had little or no contact personally with the Chinese teachers of Chan and the Japanese teachers of Zen. ... This Olympian disinterest, if not disdain, for non-Tibetan manifestations of Buddhism clearly represents a feeling on the part of Tibetans of their cultural superiority more than anything else. "
(John Myrdhin Reynolds: The Golden Letters, p. 223)