One Path Or Two?

[Giovanni]

This from Tai Situpa.

“ Vajrayana is part of Mahayana view of Buddhism. There are various schools within Mahayana..Pure Land Schools, Zen schools, many other Japanese and Chinese schools.What is sure is that we can only be a good student of one school in our lifetime, and following even one school is hard. We have to choose or let it find us. I see western students following a little zen then a little Mahamudra. This is not good. This will not result in fruit. We must be disciplined and work within a tradition to the end.”

Situ Rinpoche ‘Morning Talks’ Delhi 1985.

What do you think?

[PadmaVonSamba]

It’s like trying on shoes.
At some point this is really true. Only one pair of shoes is the right pair, the best fit, and the style that suits you.
But it doesn’t hurt to lean from all traditions,
Especially at first,
and that will help you to learn which path is your path.

The thing to avoid is never progressing far enough with one method and then suddenly switching to something else.

I also think, and this only reflects my own experience, (which has always been a bit odd) even though my formal introduction to Buddhism (after studying zen, Theravada, pure land, etc) is Vajrayana, my teachers have all been great lamas, my practices have been Vajrayana sadhanas, and I feel a strong connection with that, still I am not a Vajrayana in terms of what Vajrayana expects. I am more chan/pureland. Although geography is not really how one should categorize Dharma, my inclination is, you might say, more Chinese than Tibetan.

So, I think, whatever method you follow outwardly, the most important is to be honest with yourself on the inside. Then things will fall into place naturally.

[Giovanni]

Yes, my first knowledge of Buddhism was Theravada, because that was available in my home town. Then I encountered Vajrayana. At first I thought I could take what is best from them and be ecumenical, but I soon saw that the Vajrayana took all my effort. So that became my main thing. A friend at the same time came to the same fork in the road but went to the Theravada. We are still buddies.

[Sādhaka]

I think it was Longchenpa who said to be like a bee at first, going around and receiving various teachings, that is until you discover your real nature; and that once you do discover, then stop acting like a bee, and then focus on the specific teaching/practice that led to said discovery.

[KeithA]

I would imagine a lot of it has to do with upbringing. If one is born into a Buddhist household, I imagine the path is pretty much laid out for them. My son only knows my path. It will be interesting to see how it develops as he gets older.

I would guess there is also karma. For whatever reason, my own life has often intersected with Korea, and the path I ultimately had the most affinity with was a Korean one. Actually, it is a Western path, with Korean roots (Kwan Um Zen). I often wish I had found a path that doesn't do bows though, because I don't like doing them! But, I do them more or less daily. They are part of the path, and oftentimes there is something to be learned from doing stuff we don't want to.

In the end, it's probably best to stick to a path, but imho it's certainly not an absolute requirement. Everybody has to find their way.

_/|\_
Keith

[Johnny Dangerous]

This from Tai Situpa.

“ Vajrayana is part of Mahayana view of Buddhism. There are various schools within Mahayana..Pure Land Schools, Zen schools, many other Japanese and Chinese schools.What is sure is that we can only be a good student of one school in our lifetime, and following even one school is hard. We have to choose or let it find us. I see western students following a little zen then a little Mahamudra. This is not good. This will not result in fruit. We must be disciplined and work within a tradition to the end.”

Situ Rinpoche ‘Morning Talks’ Delhi 1985.

What do you think?

It's good on the one hand, we can only do so much in one lifetime and time is very valuable. The main calculus is "what will you really do".

However, I would argue that plenty of people get lost just in the byzantine orthodoxy of Vajrayana schemas anyway, and it can end up just being a club with empowerment collections and costumes, and little progress.

You can take this as far as you want, maybe even say that one should not practice outside of one lineage, and some people do. While I have my main practice, I am not personally not going to impose this kind of limitation on myself. For some it may be just the thing to do.

Sometimes reading or studying outside what you are doing to gain perspective makes sense, as long as it doesn't become an endless pursuit of something new and shiny.

[Malcolm]

What do you think?

It is a very limited point of view. We all only practice one path, no matter if we move from this tradition to that tradition, etc. It's all Dharma, it's all good.

[Malcolm]

I think it was Longchenpa who said to be like a bee at first,

This is actually from the 17 tantras.

[Giovanni]

What do you think?

It is a very limited point of view. We all only practice one path, no matter if we move from this tradition to that tradition, etc. It's all Dharma, it's all good.

The word I most notice here is practice. Can we practice for example Guru Yoga and Shin during the same period?
This is not to say one is superior. Just what is possible in one day or one week.

[Johnny Dangerous]

I mean, there is also some correspondence between instructions for things like Shikantaza, Trekchod and Mahamudra. We can argue all day about the different praxis and/or fruit between the traditions, I'll let other people hash that out, it's above my pay grade truthfully.

Personally, for me it is undeniable that I continue to benefit from supplementary Zen/Chan readings and teachings, others mileage varies I'm sure.

As to whether I am "practicing" Shikantaza or Trekchod (inasmuch as one actually "practices" either one), other than from a point of view of..intentionally dichotomous doctrine, I can't see a huge difference, and would be hard pressed to know whether I was doing one or the other. That's probably sacrilege or a sign of ignorance to some, which is fine, but that's where I'm at.

I guess it would be a bigger issue if the instructions I'm most familiar weren't in concordance, but they are, so I don't feel any real conflict.

It'd be very different trying to practice Pureland or something alongside a path that deals directly with the minds nature, those are very different approaches.

[Giovanni]

I mean, there is also some correspondence between instructions for things like Shikantaza, Trekchod and Mahamudra. We can argue all day about the different praxis and/or fruit between the traditions, I'll let other people hash that out.

Personally, for me it is undeniable that I continue to benefit from supplementary Zen/Chan readings and teachings, others mileage varies I'm sure.

This is interesting to me. I have no real knowledge of Shikantaza so the idea of correspondence is interesting.
Please understand I am not trying to doubt this is as you say. Quite the opposite. I see all traditions meeting in the modern world and find that inspiring.

[Malcolm]

The word I most notice here is practice. Can we practice for example Guru Yoga and Shin during the same period?
This is not to say one is superior. Just what is possible in one day or one week.

That depends on you, not on a tradition.

[SilenceMonkey]

I think it's very rare to find a master of both zen and mahamudra, or zen and dzogchen. I've met one, and heard of two others... but they're very rare.

Then again, I've met some practitioners who were originally trained in chinese zen or korean zen and then became kagyupas, following HH the 17th Karmapa. The korean one struck me as a very sincere and good practitioner. I also met a taiwanese vajrayana practitioner who was most likely a lama in his past life, and he says that by practicing shamatha in his theravada lineage it greatly benefits his practice of vajrayana.

And personally, I have benefitted a lot in my understanding from being involved in different traditions. It has helped me understand the essential commonalities as well as be able to identify what is an expression of the teacher's personality. I can't say I'm a good student yet, but I'm aiming in that direction.

I think that the foundational Dharma is mostly the same across all traditions. But when you go deeper in any one tradition, you start to see a particular system emerge. I once received some good advice from Lho Ontul Rinpoche in Tso Pema, when I was interested in practicing Yungdrung Bon. I asked him if it was possible to practice both Bon and Dharma... I felt that he would give an unbiased answer because there are Bonpo tulkus in his family as well as Buddhist tulkus. He told me that it's fine to practice both, and a very good thing. But one must study in whatever tradition one is practicing.

So that would mean studying in both traditions to get a better understanding of what it is you're actually doing. I find this true for any attempt at practicing in multiple traditions, because each tradition has a somewhat unique system behind it.

[SilenceMonkey]

There is also the question of lineage blessing. If one practices in theravada or zen, but also has a vajrayana guru... is it mixing up the nature of the practice, or are blessings from one lineage enhancing the other?

I think it's very possible to carry more than one lineage with you.

[LastLegend]

I personally find Chan the easiest...and hardest...get to see mind as the cleanest window mirror, but something there isn’t right and was denied again and again by my teacher.

[LastLegend]

The issue with Chan and I think with Dharma is it can’t tell us how to go straight into nature that’s beyond all mind phenomena...this step is strictly us. They help guide. Meditation is to generate calm...but it’s insight into our mind to know what’s exactly stopping/blocking us. No, I don’t think we can do it without a teacher unless one is meant to born here like Patriarchs.

[SilenceMonkey]

I personally find Chan the easiest...and hardest...get to see mind as the cleanest window mirror, but something there isn’t right and was denied again and again by my teacher.

You don't ever seem to address the question in the OP, do you... Or maybe you just don't read it? It was about doing two different traditions at the same time.

[LastLegend]

This from Tai Situpa.

“ Vajrayana is part of Mahayana view of Buddhism. There are various schools within Mahayana..Pure Land Schools, Zen schools, many other Japanese and Chinese schools.What is sure is that we can only be a good student of one school in our lifetime, and following even one school is hard. We have to choose or let it find us. I see western students following a little zen then a little Mahamudra. This is not good. This will not result in fruit. We must be disciplined and work within a tradition to the end.”

Situ Rinpoche ‘Morning Talks’ Delhi 1985.

What do you think?

Silencemonkey

I was practicing Pure Land...for a little bit. I couldn’t focus on recitation for too long. It was a hard practice man. Then I aspired to follow a quick path to enlightenment because I was suffering. Then Chan came along. I now understand recitation in the subtle way. It depends on individual’s aspiration that’s what leads them. If you follow Tibetan, and you want the quickest path, they have their direct lineages.

[LastLegend]

So yes, you can practice both.

[Budai]

The problem comes in that really hinders our personal practice is when we stop believing in the Ekayana, that all of Buddhism contains the Way to Enlightenment. However one walks their Path is up to them, and it really is up to them, but remember the Bodhisattva Vow: The Dharma gates are infinite: I vow to master them all. What’s that all about?

Look at the various versions of it here:

https://terebess.hu/zen/szoto/vows.html

Könchok.