"highest practices" and anti-intellectualism

Locked
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17092
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

"highest practices" and anti-intellectualism

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

I could have just as easily posted this in the Zen section due to the parallels involved, I remember thinking same thing when I practiced Zen, but figured this was better here.

So something I've run into in my Dharma experiences, a kind of clash of personality types among practitioners that gets me wondering:

An attitude you find in practice groups among some folks goes something like this: "You don't need [Common Mahayana/ prayers/ Sutra/ Tantra etc.], all you need is [Zazen/ Shikantanza/ abiding in Rigpa] man".

This sort of approach has always seemed sophomoric to me, as I have my doubts that anyone can be anything like a "pure" practitioner that makes no use of "lower" teachings. Or at least, it seems like such people are exceedingly rare.

It sometimes feels to me like in our culture this approach risks turning into a Dharmic form of anti-intellectualism, and is often accompanied by "dude you can't learn Dharma from a book" (which while true in many ways, is sort of beside the point, and devalues scholarship and study). Am I just being paranoid, is it just my quirks and pet peeves, or is this a real trend that others have observed?

I mean, I get that one should not cling to or be conditioned by practices, that intellectual knowledge is provisional etc.. but I seem to run into the opposite sometimes - people who seem to reject "lower" practices altogether in favor of a sometimes rigid, sort of protestant approach where any "lower" practice requiring what is viewed as effort are frowned upon. Sometimes the value of studying or knowing Dharma subjects at all is questioned.

What do all y'all think?
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
KRB80
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:19 am
Location: New England, USA

Re: "highest practices" and anti-intellectualism

Post by KRB80 »

When it comes to going out into the real world and compassionate activity, good luck not making use of the "lower" teachings, I say.
We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all. - Kalu Rinpoche
Tiago Simões
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:41 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: "highest practices" and anti-intellectualism

Post by Tiago Simões »

Even Dilgo khyentse Rinpoche practiced ngondro up to the end of his life!

I think it's our modern culture to go for the "fastest" and "highest/better" in everything, not just dharma. I very much feel attracted to the idea of a master first being able to present us to teachings through simple activity, completely mundane and boring, the real essence of dharma. And then "lower" practices become clear, but I feel "lower" and "higher", depend on whether we have understood the essence or not."here's me still praying that I might meet a teacher in this lifetime still !!!"

I think some people are just afraid to admit that they need the lower paths as a heavy foundation, and need to return to them from time to time. Like remembering the 4 noble truths, or dependent origination...etc
User avatar
TTFace
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 3:51 pm

Re: "highest practices" and anti-intellectualism

Post by TTFace »

I think that the very idea of "Higher" or "lower" paths misses the mark. New teachings, ideas and practices come into existence (in the best circumstance) because they are helpful to someone or some group of people. If they weren't useful to someone they wouldn't exist. I think that saying this is the "BEST" way to do it is narrow. People are different. We all exist as a complex set of systems (dependent-arisings) that have different hang ups and different needs. Yet we ARE all the same. We might find different ways of thinking and doing to be extremely helpful, and others useless. To say that there is such a thing as high/low or best/worst is to differentiate between things, which I personally think falls under the category of ignorance.
binocular
Posts: 392
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:58 pm

Re: "highest practices" and anti-intellectualism

Post by binocular »

Johnny Dangerous wrote:/.../
What do all y'all think?
I've seen this. The idea that the 4NT and other basic teachings are for "newbies" and the "unintelligent" while the "advanced" and the "intelligent" practice more sophisticated teachings.
muni
Posts: 5559
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: "highest practices" and anti-intellectualism

Post by muni »

I mean, I get that one should not cling to or be conditioned by practices, that intellectual knowledge is provisional etc.. but I seem to run into the opposite sometimes - people who seem to reject "lower" practices altogether in favor of a sometimes rigid, sort of protestant approach where any "lower" practice requiring what is viewed as effort are frowned upon. Sometimes the value of studying or knowing Dharma subjects at all is questioned.
Rejecting lower practices can only by not having realized is there been told.
We approach the dharma by the intellect to go beyond. Therefore without that needful temporary step, how would we do?

However like you said Johnny, the intellect is provisional.
Certainty is an ever-deepening principle. When we work with developing certainty, we have to start right at the very beginning, with intellectual certainty. We relate to the ordinary world around us with our intellect, so it makes sense that we also connect with practice using our ordinary, everyday mind and intellect. We use our intellect to analyze the words of a teaching and to try to make sense of the nuts and bolts of it. This is how we glean some understanding of the practice. But many of us mistake this basic understanding, this intellectual certainty, for wisdom and realization. They are not the same.
We could say that this intellectual process we go through is an aspect of wisdom, but it is ordinary, everyday wisdom rather than transcendental wisdom. That means it is based in dualistic mind. When we apply intellectual certainty, we see that it is quite practical, but it is not enough to cut through our deeply ingrained habits of doubt and skepticism.

For example, the root of the entire mahayana path is the development of bodhichitta, the awakened mind that experiences compassion for all beings.......... https://www.vajrayanaworld.com/long-bit ... actitioner
Vasana
Posts: 2231
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: "highest practices" and anti-intellectualism

Post by Vasana »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: So something I've run into in my Dharma experiences, a kind of clash of personality types among practitioners that gets me wondering:

An attitude you find in practice groups among some folks goes something like this: "You don't need [Common Mahayana/ prayers/ Sutra/ Tantra etc.], all you need is [Zazen/ Shikantanza/ abiding in Rigpa] man".

This sort of approach has always seemed sophomoric to me, as I have my doubts that anyone can be anything like a "pure" practitioner that makes no use of "lower" teachings. Or at least, it seems like such people are exceedingly rare.

If you're already confident in the recognition of mind's nature , then in one sense, it's true that all you need is to stabilize that with non-distraction. Practising something other than that once you've 'hit the money' is regarded as a kind of deviation at certain points along the path...Said to be like looking for trinkets when you've already unmistakeably found gold, or like looking for the elephant in the forest when he's already resting right in front of you. If you're at that stage, then structured view and meditation can be done away since there is 'no distraction between formal sessions and the periods between'. On the other hand, whether or not that's 'all you need' is determined by how honest a practitioner is with their level of distraction from secondary conditions and stability within the natural state.

"Your recognition of awareness is challenged when you perceive objects manifesting to your five senses or when denial or affirmation, in- grained fixations, or strong afflictive emotions occur in your mind." -Longchenpa

"Even though you have recognized your essence, if you do not get accustomed to it,
You will be carried away by the enemy of thoughts, like a small child in a battle field.
So long as you are not free from the limitations of accepting and rejecting,
That long will you not recognize the view of the innermost secret heart-essence."
-Longchenpa

If dualistic acceptance/attachment and rejection/aversion are still present in the mind even just a tiny degree, relative conduct still needs to be observed. To not observe it is to make your own path more difficult, especially if you have any vows or Samaya.

"My view is higher than the sky; My attention toward karma and its consequences is finer than
flour"
- Guru Rinpoche.

Dudjom Rinpoche also says that conditioned virtue shouldn't be abandoned if you've not fully realized the nature of unconditioned virtue.
'When thoughts arise, recognise them clearly as your teacher'— Gampopa
'When alone, examine your mind, when among others, examine your speech'.— Atisha
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: "highest practices" and anti-intellectualism

Post by Astus »

Johnny Dangerous wrote:It sometimes feels to me like in our culture this approach risks turning into a Dharmic form of anti-intellectualism, and is often accompanied by "dude you can't learn Dharma from a book" (which while true in many ways, is sort of beside the point, and devalues scholarship and study). Am I just being paranoid, is it just my quirks and pet peeves, or is this a real trend that others have observed?
As I see it, the so called simple/direct methods are usually very basic practices with a lot of verbal ornamentation like "sudden enlightenment", "highest teaching", etc. They serve as entry points.

Through learning, one will comprehend dharmas. / 聞已得知法
Through learning, one will not do evil. / 聞已不作惡
Through learning, one will give up harm. / 聞已離無利
Through learning, one will gain nirvāṇa. / 聞已得涅槃
(The Noble Mahāyāna Sūtra of The Absorption That Encapsulates All Merit, tr 84000.co / T382p999a)
I mean, I get that one should not cling to or be conditioned by practices, that intellectual knowledge is provisional etc.. but I seem to run into the opposite sometimes - people who seem to reject "lower" practices altogether in favor of a sometimes rigid, sort of protestant approach where any "lower" practice requiring what is viewed as effort are frowned upon. Sometimes the value of studying or knowing Dharma subjects at all is questioned.
Knowledge is not provisional, it is quite essential. Interestingly, what is called the "sudden path" by both Bodhidharma (Two Entrance and Four Practices) and Dakpo Tashi (Mahamudra Moonlight, p 144) are for people established in the Dharma.

But this is really a very old problem with oversimplification. See Zhiyi:

"There is a type of meditation master who exclusively utilizes cessation-type practice and does not allow for the practice of contemplation. ... There is also a type of meditation master who exclusively utilizes the practice of contemplation and does not allow for the practice of cessation. ... Both of these types of teachers follow only one of the methods for realizing [enlightenment], and teach other people on the basis of the benefit they have received from [their one-sided practice]. Those who study [under them] are not aware of their [one-sided] intentions. [It is like the story in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra] “one who exclusively drinks milk will have difficulty getting a drink [of cream], not to mention ghee.” If people rely exclusively [on either cessation or contemplation, or on only one teaching or practice] to attain understanding, then what was the reason for the Buddha to offer such a variety of teachings? The heavens are not always clear; a doctor does not rely exclusively on powdered medicine; one does not always eat rice."
(quoted by Paul L. Swanson in Ch’an and Chih-kuan, p 8)
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: "highest practices" and anti-intellectualism

Post by Nemo »

The lower paths, vows for monks, etc are for the most part simply a codification of what an enlightened person does naturally. You could become enlightened and reinvent the wheel of course but the outcome wouldn't be much different.

Members of this particular group do have a tendency to fetishize learning credentials to the point where some could consider it a minor obstacle. But that is for you to decide.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "highest practices" and anti-intellectualism

Post by Malcolm »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: I mean, I get that one should not cling to or be conditioned by practices, that intellectual knowledge is provisional etc.. but I seem to run into the opposite sometimes - people who seem to reject "lower" practices altogether in favor of a sometimes rigid, sort of protestant approach where any "lower" practice requiring what is viewed as effort are frowned upon. Sometimes the value of studying or knowing Dharma subjects at all is questioned.
Dzogchen is the most intellectually elaborate Buddhist system there is. It also cannot be learned from books, it is a system that depends principally on receiving intimate instructions from a qualified guru.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17092
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: "highest practices" and anti-intellectualism

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

If you're already confident in the recognition of mind's nature , then in one sense, it's true that all you need is to stabilize that with non-distraction. Practising something other than that once you've 'hit the money' is regarded as a kind of deviation at certain points along the path.
Sure, I get this, it's part and parcel of Dzogchen praxis it seems.

However, even assuming that someone is at that point (which is a big assumption anyway, given how many Dzogchen practitioners engage in secret mantra practices etc. etc.), the idea that they would develop this idea of rigid exclusivity or devalue skillful use of different practices, or even simply clarifying conversations about doctrines, yanas, etc. as "too intellectual" is the part that makes me go hmmmph...
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17092
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: "highest practices" and anti-intellectualism

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Malcolm wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote: I mean, I get that one should not cling to or be conditioned by practices, that intellectual knowledge is provisional etc.. but I seem to run into the opposite sometimes - people who seem to reject "lower" practices altogether in favor of a sometimes rigid, sort of protestant approach where any "lower" practice requiring what is viewed as effort are frowned upon. Sometimes the value of studying or knowing Dharma subjects at all is questioned.
Dzogchen is the most intellectually elaborate Buddhist system there is. It also cannot be learned from books, it is a system that depends principally on receiving intimate instructions from a qualified guru.

I get this, but it is not really what I'm talking about exactly. I would argue that -no- form of Dharma can truly be learned from books anyway, in anything but a really limited form.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: "highest practices" and anti-intellectualism

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Johnny Dangerous wrote:
If you're already confident in the recognition of mind's nature , then in one sense, it's true that all you need is to stabilize that with non-distraction. Practising something other than that once you've 'hit the money' is regarded as a kind of deviation at certain points along the path.
Sure, I get this, it's part and parcel of Dzogchen praxis it seems.

However, even assuming that someone is at that point (which is a big assumption anyway, given how many Dzogchen practitioners engage in secret mantra practices etc. etc.), the idea that they would develop this idea of rigid exclusivity or devalue skillful use of different practices, or even simply clarifying conversations about doctrines, yanas, etc. as "too intellectual" is the part that makes me go hmmmph...
A lunch conversation at my monastery yesterday included a reference to ChNN. The nun that brought him up had no idea about DW or this thread. Anyway, according to her, 25 years ago ChNN had leukemia and asked this monastery to say prayers for him. Also according to her ChNN credited his recovery to those prayers. So it sounds like maybe ChNN sees the value of a good old fashioned HYT prayer request here and there too!
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Vasana
Posts: 2231
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: "highest practices" and anti-intellectualism

Post by Vasana »

smcj wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote:
If you're already confident in the recognition of mind's nature , then in one sense, it's true that all you need is to stabilize that with non-distraction. Practising something other than that once you've 'hit the money' is regarded as a kind of deviation at certain points along the path.
Sure, I get this, it's part and parcel of Dzogchen praxis it seems.

However, even assuming that someone is at that point (which is a big assumption anyway, given how many Dzogchen practitioners engage in secret mantra practices etc. etc.), the idea that they would develop this idea of rigid exclusivity or devalue skillful use of different practices, or even simply clarifying conversations about doctrines, yanas, etc. as "too intellectual" is the part that makes me go hmmmph...
A lunch conversation at my monastery yesterday included a reference to ChNN. The nun that brought him up had no idea about DW or this thread. Anyway, according to her, 25 years ago ChNN had leukemia and asked this monastery to say prayers for him. Also according to her ChNN credited his recovery to those prayers. So it sounds like maybe ChNN sees the value of a good old fashioned HYT prayer request here and there too!
It's found in Mahamudra praxis too, Jonny. At least as per Dakpo Tashi Namgyal.
And yeah, it is a big assumption you're right, which is why it's not something we can knowingly assume about an another. We can only know it for ourselves. Hence why I stressed a degree of self honesty and quoted Longchenpa's criteria for being distracted later in that post. Norbu Rinpoche says as Dzogchen practioners, you have no limitations and it's completely fine to practice methods from the other Yanas in the scheme. It depends on your circumstances and suitability.

Also smcj, what exactly is a 'HYT prayer request'? A prayer's a prayer, right?
Last edited by Vasana on Fri Mar 31, 2017 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
'When thoughts arise, recognise them clearly as your teacher'— Gampopa
'When alone, examine your mind, when among others, examine your speech'.— Atisha
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "highest practices" and anti-intellectualism

Post by Malcolm »

Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote: I mean, I get that one should not cling to or be conditioned by practices, that intellectual knowledge is provisional etc.. but I seem to run into the opposite sometimes - people who seem to reject "lower" practices altogether in favor of a sometimes rigid, sort of protestant approach where any "lower" practice requiring what is viewed as effort are frowned upon. Sometimes the value of studying or knowing Dharma subjects at all is questioned.
Dzogchen is the most intellectually elaborate Buddhist system there is. It also cannot be learned from books, it is a system that depends principally on receiving intimate instructions from a qualified guru.

I get this, but it is not really what I'm talking about exactly. I would argue that -no- form of Dharma can truly be learned from books anyway, in anything but a really limited form.
I agree. The difference lies in the path. There is a path for śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, etc., and they all, from a Dzogchen perspective, miss the point. They are provisional means, like hitching a ride— they will get you part of the way you want to go, but not all the way.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17092
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: "highest practices" and anti-intellectualism

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Malcolm wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is the most intellectually elaborate Buddhist system there is. It also cannot be learned from books, it is a system that depends principally on receiving intimate instructions from a qualified guru.

I get this, but it is not really what I'm talking about exactly. I would argue that -no- form of Dharma can truly be learned from books anyway, in anything but a really limited form.
I agree. The difference lies in the path. There is a path for śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, etc., and they all, from a Dzogchen perspective, miss the point. They are provisional means, like hitching a ride— they will get you part of the way you want to go, but not all the way.

Right, what i'm talking about is a dismissive attitude about practices and praxis though, not view. Like an attempt at some kind of ideological purity. An idea like "don't waste your time with that Tantric practice, common Mahayana practice etc.", don't bother reading about systems of practice and what defines them because that's just intellectual, and thus a waste of time. I've run into the attitude in both Dzogchen and Zen enough times to think it's not just coincidence. It might be that it's my pet peeve and I'm just magnifying it of course.

BTW in case anyone has this at the back of their head, this is not some thing where I'm trying to make allusions to DW conversations or members, if anything the most egregious conversations where this have cropped up for me have been in meatspace.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
PuerAzaelis
Posts: 958
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: "highest practices" and anti-intellectualism

Post by PuerAzaelis »

Good job no dzogchen master has ever written any books then ...

:thinking:
Generally, enjoyment of speech is the gateway to poor [results]. So it becomes the foundation for generating all negative emotional states. Jampel Pawo, The Certainty of the Diamond Mind

For posts from this user, see Karma Dondrup Tashi account.
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: "highest practices" and anti-intellectualism

Post by dzogchungpa »

Johnny Dangerous wrote:Right, what i'm talking about is a dismissive attitude about practices and praxis though, not view. Like an attempt at some kind of ideological purity. An idea like "don't waste your time with that Tantric practice, common Mahayana practice etc.", don't bother reading about systems of practice and what defines them because that's just intellectual, and thus a waste of time. I've run into the attitude in both Dzogchen and Zen enough times to think it's not just coincidence
It's called "arrogance".
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
Nicholas Weeks
Posts: 4209
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am
Location: California

Re: "highest practices" and anti-intellectualism

Post by Nicholas Weeks »

'Dismissive attitude' is just another form of sectarianism or self-cherishing.

We would not pick a particular view or path if we did not think it was best for us. Unfortunately and commonly, 'best for us', often becomes 'best for them' too. Therefore the corollary of 'not best for them' is applied to everything 'they' prefer to practice that is not our best.

Live and let live, therefore practice and let practice.
May all seek, find & follow the Path of Buddhas.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "highest practices" and anti-intellectualism

Post by Malcolm »

Johnny Dangerous wrote:

Right, what i'm talking about is a dismissive attitude about practices and praxis though, not view.
From a Dzogchen point of view, the practices of the eight lower vehicles will not get you were you want to go because they are all based on mind, whereas Dzogchen is based on pristine consciousness. That point is hard to grok until you have had a direct perception of vidyā.
Locked

Return to “Dzogchen”