A vajrayana practitioner is in the position of a snake in a bamboo tube. It's a quick path up or down and it's easier to fall into the lower realms. Take that as you will. Perhaps it's dangerous, but students are normally guided through a fair amount of preparation for it.
As for the rest of these comments about vajrayana, I don't know what to say
Certainly it sounds like it's not Mexicali's personal path.
Is Mahayana perspective useful for Theravada practitioners?
- Ngawang Drolma.
- Posts: 805
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm
Re: Is Mahayana perspective useful for Theravada practitioners?
Yes.Certainly it sounds like it's not Mexicali's personal path.
But saying it is not my path is not the same as confidently dismissing it as unnecessary and potentially dangerous without even giving any justification.
That was all I was trying to say, but I guess it fell on deaf ears.
It is sad to see people continue to harm themselves by this kind of speech.
_/|\_
_/|\_
- Ngawang Drolma.
- Posts: 805
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm
Re: Is Mahayana perspective useful for Theravada practitioners?
I know what you're saying Dan
- Ngawang Drolma.
- Posts: 805
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm
Re: Is Mahayana perspective useful for Theravada practitioners?
As I understand it, passive aggressive means showing aggression via lack of activity. Like procrastination.
Re: Is Mahayana perspective useful for Theravada practitioners?
That's technically correct, but in its day to day, commonly understood meaning, it can also refer to sublimating one's aggression to smarminess. It's reallllllly common on Buddhist message boards, where someone clearly wants to engage you, but needs to hide it behind a veneer of phony wisdom and/or compassion so nobody thinks they're subject to such simple human frailties as, say, disagreement.
"We do not embrace reason at the expense of emotion. We embrace it at the expense of self-deception."
-- Herbert Muschamp
-- Herbert Muschamp
- Ngawang Drolma.
- Posts: 805
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm
Re: Is Mahayana perspective useful for Theravada practitioners?
Last edited by Ngawang Drolma. on Mon May 04, 2009 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Ngawang Drolma.
- Posts: 805
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm
Re: Is Mahayana perspective useful for Theravada practitioners?
Content, it might have been a violation of TOS although it wasn't my intent.
Last edited by Ngawang Drolma. on Mon May 04, 2009 3:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Is Mahayana perspective useful for Theravada practitioners?
Zen has many of the same problems that Tibetan Buddhism does, in terms of encouraging unethical behavior and promoting teachings the Buddha specifically spoke against, in the name of an esoteric doctrine. Seung Sahn's "beyond lust" excuse for his behavior sits comfortably with the excuses for keeping sacred concubines in Tibet. Zen's support for Japanese nationalism and warfare finds an analogue in Tibet's support of the landed gentry's right to keep slaves. The 'crazy wisdom' commonly found in both has encouraged a lot of people to reject ubaya in favor of seeking some kind of "higher wisdom". People like Osel Tendzin and Richard Baker aren't representative of some kind of fringe cult, they were very mainstream figures working from very orthodox teachings.
"We do not embrace reason at the expense of emotion. We embrace it at the expense of self-deception."
-- Herbert Muschamp
-- Herbert Muschamp
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Is Mahayana perspective useful for Theravada practitioners?
Greetings,
Please be mindful of the following from the...
Terms Of Service
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Surely this topic can be discussed without personal attacks.
Metta,
Retro.
Please be mindful of the following from the...
Terms Of Service
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Members are expected to self-moderate, being mindful of the adage that 'behaviour breeds behaviour'. Mutual respect and friendliness should be the basis of all interactions. For the Buddha's teaching on this see the Saleyyaka Sutta.
Surely this topic can be discussed without personal attacks.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Is Mahayana perspective useful for Theravada practitioners?
Zen Buddhism is Buddhism and therefore morality (sila) is essential. It is present in the vows, in the teachings and in the practice. See for example:Mexicali wrote:Zen has many of the same problems that Tibetan Buddhism does, in terms of encouraging unethical behavior and promoting teachings the Buddha specifically spoke against, in the name of an esoteric doctrine.
Stating from 2008, Chan (Zen) Master Sheng Yen's compassion for humanity was further revealed in "the Six Ethics of the Mind Campaign". They are Workplace Ethics, School Ethics, Family Ethics, Living Ethics, Environmental Ethics and Ethics between Ethnic Groups.
He believed that in today's society, chaos in all its manifestations springs from a lack of ethical and moral standards in interpersonal relationships among all walks of life. Thus, everyone scrambles for their rights while forgetting their obligations and duties. "Ethics" means doing one's duties and observing one's role and "morality" means respecting and caring for each other in interpersonal relationships.
Yes, Zen (Seon) teachers are human beings and all that that entails. It is unfortunate but I suspect probably not confined to the Zen tradition. What is not correct is to paint everyone with the same brush. The Buddha's immediate disciples had their failings too.Mexicali wrote: Seung Sahn's "beyond lust" excuse for his behavior sits comfortably with the excuses for keeping sacred concubines in Tibet. Zen's support for Japanese nationalism and warfare finds an analogue in Tibet's support of the landed gentry's right to keep slaves.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. This is not my experience of Zen, nor something I found in reading classical Zen stories. No crazy wisdom there. Only compassion coupled with deep insight.Mexicali wrote: The 'crazy wisdom' commonly found in both has encouraged a lot of people to reject ubaya in favor of seeking some kind of "higher wisdom".
I don't know about Osel, but Baker was expelled by his sangha and more recently said the following (in a 1994 interview with Sugata Schneider):Mexicali wrote: People like Osel Tendzin and Richard Baker aren't representative of some kind of fringe cult, they were very mainstream figures working from very orthodox teachings.
Suzuki Roshi had to choose an heir to continue with the Centre. He chose Baker. And Baker screwed up. Does it follow that there is something inherently wrong with Zen? I don't think so.I don't think that the gossipy or official versions of what happened are right, but I feel definitely that if I were back in the situation again as the person I am now, it wouldn't have happened. Which means it's basically my fault. I had a kind of insecurity and self-importance, which I didn't see for a long time, that was a bad dynamic in the community.
My attitude to posting is not to be rude but try to stay constructive. Your response above was to me addressing Drolma, who was also a witness to other ill-informed Vajrayana bashing posts, which I find very sad. Simply because people dismiss a venerable tradition which have produced wonderful enlightened teachers whose compassion exceeds anything you or I can imagine. This attitude hurts the person him/herself. You can see or choose not to see. Your business entirely. But sect-bashing and ad hominems are against Terms of Service so please refrain in the future for community's sake. If you need to, you can PM me.Mexicali wrote:Dan
You're sanctimonious and passive aggressive. I'm not sure if those are considered "wrong speech" per se, but I find it obnoxious. Someone disagreeing with you doesn't mean they're "harming themselves" or that your oh-so-noble words "fell on deaf ears". You want to address what I specifically said, feel free, but get over yourself.
This is not to say that you can't constructively criticise. I responded to your critical comments about Zen, which had some factual support. But when people dismiss entire traditions, it just sounds like extreme hubris and serves no one.
_/|\_
_/|\_
Re: Is Mahayana perspective useful for Theravada practitioners?
This seems to me a silly thing to say, Dan. One does not have to cross to the other shore to have formed a justified opinion that a particular set of practices seem to be unnecessary and potentially dangerous. For example, the Dalai Lama has repeatedly called Shungden practices unnecessary and potentially dangerous and he has also repeated denied having crossed to the other shore.Dan74 wrote:the quote above would have some justification if you have crossed to the other shore and have helped others do likewise without vajrayana methods.I view vajrayana as mostly unnecessary and potentially dangerous, but most vajrayana Buddhism still has at root the noble truths, noble path, dependent arising, anatta, and self-effort.
Since some teachings of Mahayana were not taught by the Buddha 2600 years ago we can justifiably conclude they are unnecessary. Since we see these teachings lead some people into unwholesome behavior we can justifiably conclude they are potentially dangerous.
One doesn't need to have crossed to the other shore to see these things.
That said, Mahayana teachings are clearly helpful and beneficial to many many people and should not be dismissed lightly.
Again, this seems to me a very silly thing to say, not to mention sanctimonious and self-righteous. Are you really asserting that picking any tradition other than Vajrayana hurts oneself?Dan74 wrote:Simply because people dismiss a venerable tradition which have produced wonderful enlightened teachers whose compassion exceeds anything you or I can imagine. This attitude hurts the person him/herself.
- Peter
Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
Re: Is Mahayana perspective useful for Theravada practitioners?
This is not a relevant example. Shugden practice is propitiating a spirit - nothing to do with Buddhism at all. Vajrayana tantric practices are squarely aimed at liberation from delusion.Peter wrote:This seems to me a silly thing to say, Dan. One does not have to cross to the other shore to have formed a justified opinion that a particular set of practices seem to be unnecessary and potentially dangerous. For example, the Dalai Lama has repeatedly called Shungden practices unnecessary and potentially dangerous and he has also repeated denied having crossed to the other shore.Dan74 wrote:the quote above would have some justification if you have crossed to the other shore and have helped others do likewise without vajrayana methods.I view vajrayana as mostly unnecessary and potentially dangerous, but most vajrayana Buddhism still has at root the noble truths, noble path, dependent arising, anatta, and self-effort.
I don't know for a fact what exactly was and was not taught by the Buddha 2600 years ago, but assuming that some teachings came later, this certainly doesn't make them unnecessary. In the sense that to the Buddha's audience some teachings took first priority and to Chinese, Tibetan etc other skillful means may be necessary to achieve the same aims. Some awakened very early in the Buddha's career. Does that make his subsequent teachings unnecessary?Since some teachings of Mahayana were not taught by the Buddha 2600 years ago we can justifiably conclude they are unnecessary. Since we see these teachings lead some people into unwholesome behavior we can justifiably conclude they are potentially dangerous.
As for being dangerous, anapanasati can be dangerous. Goenka's vipassana can be dangerous. If misapplied. So this is saying nothing. The statement about Vajrayana being unnecessary and potentially dangerous comes across as simply a sectarian slur showing disrespect and a lack of understanding.
And perhaps, not at all.That said, Mahayana teachings are clearly helpful and beneficial to many many people and should not be dismissed lightly.
I said:Peter wrote:Again, this seems to me a very silly thing to say, not to mention sanctimonious and self-righteous. Are you really asserting that picking any tradition other than Vajrayana hurts oneself?Dan74 wrote:Simply because people dismiss a venerable tradition which have produced wonderful enlightened teachers whose compassion exceeds anything you or I can imagine. This attitude hurts the person him/herself.
Of course I did not mean "that picking any tradition other than Vajrayana hurts oneself." I am not a Vajrayana practitioner myself. It is the dismissive attitude that is harmful.Dan wrote:people dismiss a venerable tradition which have produced wonderful enlightened teachers whose compassion exceeds anything you or I can imagine. This attitude hurts the person him/herself.
It is my unfortunate karma to have to stand up to it.
I am off to bed.
_/|\_
_/|\_
- Ngawang Drolma.
- Posts: 805
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm
Re: Is Mahayana perspective useful for Theravada practitioners?
What I'm hearing from Dan is also a reminder that harsh words can harm the speaker even more than the listener.
- christopher:::
- Posts: 1327
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am
Re: Is Mahayana perspective useful for Theravada practitioners?
Hi guys. The original question was: "Is Mahayana perspective useful for Theravada practitioners?"
So far it sounds like very few Theravada practitioners have answered yes. On the other hand, perhaps if we asked "Has the perspective of certain Mahayana texts or teachers ever been useful to you?" we'd get a more positive response, from many here.
I could be wrong. It's just a hunch.
So far it sounds like very few Theravada practitioners have answered yes. On the other hand, perhaps if we asked "Has the perspective of certain Mahayana texts or teachers ever been useful to you?" we'd get a more positive response, from many here.
I could be wrong. It's just a hunch.
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
Re: Is Mahayana perspective useful for Theravada practitioners?
Of course there were early Buddhists who did bad things. The difference is, they were expected to recognize this. The teacher having sexual indiscretions with the student is not at issue for me; it's the matter of excusing this by trying to claim that one's enlightened status somehow made it acceptable.Yes, Zen (Seon) teachers are human beings and all that that entails. It is unfortunate but I suspect probably not confined to the Zen tradition. What is not correct is to paint everyone with the same brush. The Buddha's immediate disciples had their failings too.
No Zen crazy wisdom? I don't even know what to say. Western Zen especially is practically a crazy wisdom clearinghouse.I have no idea what you are talking about here. This is not my experience of Zen, nor something I found in reading classical Zen stories. No crazy wisdom there. Only compassion coupled with deep insight.
Gee, thanks for the concern Dan. Cos I'm sure you really are just worried about me harming myself.Simply because people dismiss a venerable tradition which have produced wonderful enlightened teachers whose compassion exceeds anything you or I can imagine. This attitude hurts the person him/herself.
That would be Trungpa's succesor, who gave several people HIV/AIDS because he was under the belief that his advanced tantras would prevent him from transferring it. Oops! His own teacher liked the shaggin a bit too. And forceably stripping people. And drinking so much it nearly killed him on a couple occasions. But just because the Buddha said not to do all this stuff doesn't mean a Buddhist shouldn't, I guess. Skillful means works in mysterious ways!I don't know about Osel
Yeah, and your medal will be here any day now. Seriously, listen to yourself here.It is my unfortunate karma to have to stand up to it.
Yeah, like sexing up young girls in mountain temples, fire rituals, and all that stuff. It's wrong and sectarian to dismiss that, but it's okay to be critical of Shugden practitioners.This is not a relevant example. Shugden practice is propitiating a spirit - nothing to do with Buddhism at all. Vajrayana tantric practices are squarely aimed at liberation from delusion.
"We do not embrace reason at the expense of emotion. We embrace it at the expense of self-deception."
-- Herbert Muschamp
-- Herbert Muschamp