Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

I came across this from a Zen website (third msg down):

Perhaps that distinction between a genuine delight in realization of the impermanance of things and the sense that one's delight must be infused with suffering is a basic difference between the Mahayana Buddhism and the Theravada Buddhism. The Mahayana doesn't require the realization of impermanance to be shown by a dour attitude. Buddha teaches the end of suffering. What is the end of suffering if not a realization of the joyful or blissful nature of reality?

The question here is not the naughty Mahayana ignorantly characterizing the Theravada; rather, is the highlighted an accurate reflection of the Theravada? Are we a bunch of sour, grim killjoys, scowling at the Mahayanists who gambol about with abandon in their realizations?.

Personally I take quiet joy and sometimes noisier joy, from an uncluttered room that is light and airy. Personally I dont feel the need drag anything into it.
I guess if people are used to high colour and drama with their Buddhism it might look spare.
I dont see how adding makes one happier.
I find happiness and calm joy comes from shedding.

tiltbillings wrote:I came across this from a Zen website (third msg down):

Perhaps that distinction between a genuine delight in realization of the impermanance of things and the sense that one's delight must be infused with suffering is a basic difference between the Mahayana Buddhism and the Theravada Buddhism. The Mahayana doesn't require the realization of impermanance to be shown by a dour attitude. Buddha teaches the end of suffering. What is the end of suffering if not a realization of the joyful or blissful nature of reality?

The question here is not the naughty Mahayana ignorantly characterizing the Theravada; rather, is the highlighted an accurate reflection of the Theravada? Are we a bunch of sour, grim killjoys, scowling at the Mahayanists who gambol about with abandon in their realizations?.

He appears to have gotten the wrong end of the stick, not only of Theravada but Buddhism in general. Not to say that there aren't people who feel they must approach practice with a sense of dourness.

I'd say the realization of impermanance is joyful or blissful because we give up the need to continually try and manipulate some permanent security or pleasure out of our experience. The nature of reality is not inherently joyful or blissful, reality just is, if we seek to end suffering because we expect joy or bliss to replace it then that's just another craving.

Some of us are, sometimes.
It's one of Ven Dhammika's criticisms of Theravadin Buddhism, if you remember the Broken Buddha thread - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2698.
And I'm sure you have the 'Sabbe sankhara dukkha' thread fresh in your memory, too. Lots of dukkha there, not much sukkha.

But a proverb about pots and kettles does come to mind. From what I know of Zen, their traditions are pretty pared-back. On the whole, I think the Tibetans have most fun.

Kim

Kim O'Hara wrote: On the whole, I think the Tibetans have most fun.

All that fun they get from contemplating the Viciousness of Samsara, which is a standard meditation/comtemplatuion of Tibetan Buddhism and a title of an early chapter in Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation.

Not to speak of the endless chuckles to to be had in " Vajra Hell "....a special hell state reserved for those who commit to the Vajrayana and then change their mind ...

One of the most well known Vajrayana teachers in recent decades used to commence all of his talks with a side splitting half hour description of Vajra Hell...He had 'em rolling in the aisles..

I've heard this view from some early Western books on Buddhism, I think, and occasionally from talk about how bad samsara is, how unwholesome our lay lives are, etc. I guess it can happen that one takes these kinds of teachings that are meant to loosen our craving and develop an aversion to what life has to offer. This is like replacing one sickness with another.

There is also various talk about it being bad to laugh and seemingly to enjoy anything. But from my limited experience with Theravadins offline, this Gregory's contention doesn't seem to hold.

Besides, it is only in some modern incarnations of Zen with ignorance or a radical reinterpretation of Mahayana that desires seem to have been brought back into the fold and we are meant to happily cavort our way to enlightenment. Traditionally the monks' and nuns' training was very focused on ethics and pretty austere. And in many places it still is.

Still, it is interesting to observe the dour reception much of Thich Nhat Hanh's teachings have received. He is someone who has tried to rehabilitate enjoyment and gratitude for experience and I think this is a valid way of letting go. In fact one can't truly enjoy until one lets go - when there is no need to enjoy and no notion of how it should all be.

As for Theravadins being sour grim killjoys, I think Ven Dhammica says something about that, the meditation on corpses, etc. I can't say. My Theravadin friend doesn't fit this description at all but maybe when I first met her 7 years ago, she was a little closer to it, not sure. Ajahns Brahm and Sumedho whom I have heard and read, also don't fit IMO. But no doubt for some people this is what the Buddha's injunctions on craving boil down to and for others it may be a stage in their practice before attaining equanimity.

Greetings,

The more realization of impermanence, the less clinging, the less suffering, the more peace and happiness.



Metta,
Retro.

I am not sure that that TNH 's version of Dhamma has been received dourly.

I find it amusing, and I know others who agree.

In my experience it is finding TNH amusing that is treated dourly. To the point of reporting posts critical of him.

Two words: Ajahn Bhram Arguably the funniest spiritual guide around.

I do find the tone here a little more serious than i have seen at other boards, could just be my perception. Otoh there also seems to be a lower stupidity quotient here than i have seen elsewhere, but that might just be good mod and admin work.

PeterB wrote:I am not sure that that TNH 's version of Dhamma has been received dourly.

I find it amusing, and I know others who agree.

In my experience it is finding TNH amusing that is treated dourly. To the point of reporting posts critical of him.

Yah i have been called to task for being critical of him too He seems to have some very devoted followers.

In my experience there are people of all traditions who appear to be stuck on the first noble truth and they tend to walk around looking like they have been sucking on a lemon.I also find that it is the westerners who are like this as opposed to the locals.I spend a lot of time in Thailand and really like the way that Thai people enjoy their Buddhism.All of my monk friends seem to be happy people including farang monks.I guess I have to say no,we are not ALL a bunchof sour,grim killjoys,just some of us.

m0rl0ck wrote:...there...seems to be a lower stupidity quotient here...

Allll right!...

m0rl0ck wrote:Otoh there also seems to be a lower stupidity quotient here than i have seen elsewhere, but that might just be good mod and admin work.

No my friend, it is the membership that makes Dhamma Wheel what it is!
kind regards

Ben

Ben wrote: No my friend, it is the membership that makes Dhamma Wheel what it is!
kind regards

Ben

Something else occured to me, it might be that the zen and vajra factions are siphoning off the dilettantes and those of diluted purpose before they get to theravadan buddhism. They are more popular and flashy. Being a zen guy myself maybe i should just shut up about that