We need new rules

[Kusala]

I am not arguing that they are the historical Shakyamuni Buddha's teachings, but there can be a case made (if you check the link I posted above, for example) that they serve the same purpose. And if they do indeed help to lead from ignorance to enlightenment, from bondage to liberation, then the label 'junk' is not appropriate.

Teachings and practices acquired from Hinduism, which are not the Buddha's teachings, do not serve the same purpose as the Buddha's teaching.

Thank you for checking that link, Bhante, but you evidently didn't read to the end, because it tells:

http://viewonbuddhism.org/tantra_practice.html#9

It is often claimed that Buddhist tantra is a derivative from tantric practices of Shivaism, but in fact, the reverse may be true. Although there are striking external resemblances, the differences in methods and aims are much more significant.
As Benoytosh Bhattacharyya notes in his 'Buddhist Esoterism':

"it is possible to declare, without fear of contradiction, that the Buddhists were the first to introduce the tantras into their religion, and that the Hindus borrowed them from the Buddhists in later times, and that it is idle to say that later Buddhism is an outcome of Saivaism. .. The literature, which goes by the name of the Hindu Tantras, arose almost immediately after the Buddhist ideas had established themselves."

As for your other claims, you have said nothing to substantiate the label 'junk'. I think the onus is on you, Bhante.

Tantra violates the 1st stage of awakening...

[Aloka]

The accumulated junk we need to get rid of is the rites and rituals — holy threads, amulets, astrology, mandalas, tantras, guru worship, and initiations. In brief, all of the stuff that has infiltrated Buddhism from other religions and cultures. To know what is the Buddha's original teaching and what is not, takes some patient study.

Having worn 'blessing' and 'protection' threads and amulets for many years, when practising with another tradition, as well as sincerely doing everything else mentioned (and more) including taking part in the required guru devotion to present and past gurus, I can only say that discovering the suttas and Ajahn Chah and the Theravada Forest tradition was a huge revelation to me. I have happily left all the other things behind now and am grateful that they eventually led me to something very different.

I don't think its a good idea to publicly say those practices are 'junk' though, because some people take them very seriously and feel they have benefited from them.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

As for your other claims, you have said nothing to substantiate the label 'junk'. I think the onus is on you, Bhante.

You already admitted that it is not the teaching of Sakyamuni, so what more evidence do we need to provide to substantiate that the label "junk" is valid?

Whatever contemporary Buddhist teachers say, if it's their own invention, and cannot be traced in the Dhamma and Vinaya, then one should rightly conclude that it is not the Buddha's teaching.

We can find no basis for reciting "Om Mane Padme Om," or arranging coloured grains in complex patterns. Nor can we find any esoteric teachings in Buddhism. The Buddha's teachings are open to all to study as they wish — even the Vinaya rules.

There is no secret that sexual intercourse via any orifice is an offence of defeat for a bhikkhu, but the Dalai Lama apparently teaches such Tantric practices. Is it not so?

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

I don't think its a good idea to publicly say those practices are 'junk' though, because some people take them very seriously and feel they have benefited from them.

Well, the word "junk" was originally used by Alan when starting this thread, so I have replied accordingly, but we could perhaps find a word that is less offensive like "extraneous clutter," or "later accretions."

I think it has to be said unequivocally, because if anyone takes superstitions seriously, it can cause them great harm. If Buddhists want to wear an amulet or holy thread to remind them to observe the five precepts, and if they understand from where the real protection derives, there is no harm in it.

When the British were fighting the Burmese war their soldiers had rifles. The Burmese wore amulets that they believed would protect them from danger. Needless to say, they had no effect, unless perhaps by some fluke a bullet ricocheted off of an amulet.

There are some who get holy thread tied when purchasing a new car. A seat belt or air bag is far more effective. I have sometimes seen Buddhists driving without seat belts or using mobile phones while driving — apparently they believe that having a monk in the car will protect them from danger, or maybe they think their kamma is too good to die young. I always wear my seatbelt — not everyone on the roads is a Buddhist, and Buddhists are not always mindful.

[Dhammanando]

Tantra violates the 1st stage of awakening...

I think that to prove your point you will need to show evidence that Tantrists have either attachment to, or misapprehension of, sīla and/or vata. I don't know whether they do or not, but the mere fact that they perform rituals won't suffice to show that they do.

The meal-time anumodanā of Theravādin monks, for example, is a ritual, yet the Buddha himself is reported to have performed it.

[daverupa]

A difference of opinion from the other DW:

Hey everybody..thought I would share. Got into a gnarly motorcycle accident. Car pulled in front of me and I hit it going around 40 mph. No helmet. Got launched through the air and hit the pavement. Knocked me out cold. Ambulance rushed me to the hospital. Long story short although I feel like hammered shit there were no serious injuries. ER Docs couldn't believe I was in one piece and I was able to walk (very slowly) out of the ER. I truly believe it was due to me doing the Vajra Armor 3 day retreat that Rinpoche gave me a while back and making the amulet that I wear all the time. Rinpoche Rocks!! So, if you have the time to do that retreat..do it if you can.

---

I have found that people cling so very tightly to these extraneous bits under discussion. Cleaving it off from the Dhamma can sometimes be rough going because people cherish talking about it in Dhamma/Dharma terms. They will claim a connection to other Buddhas ("I think Buddha Yakoff has cooler stuff that's better for my situation, and since s/he's a Buddha/satva, it's all good, why insist on that one Buddha?"), and with people who think in that way, there is no talking about the historical Buddha and what he taught. They can't hear it.

---

In terms of 'new rules', it's interesting that the much more diaphanous Sarvastivada Vinaya was repeatedly modified to address ongoing issues, and all of it was placed in the Buddha's mouth as a sort of imprimatur. I don't think we need to do that, but I do think that we have the opportunity to build a better superstructure over the original Patimokkha. Every Vinaya we have has already been written down after being treated this way, and I see no reason to privilege the past on this account.

After all, in the Buddha's day it adjusted to the presence of what amounts to a landed Sangha owning parks, as it were, and it shortly had to account for landed monastic structures and community ownership in ways unheard of in an earlier wanderer milieu. I think the spirit of the thing is able to sustain a formal modern shape, but it shouldn't allow for street magic and superstition... petty cash for travel in the modern vinaya may be something that needs to be addressed with discussion. (Some bus tokens have no cash value, neh?)

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

Travelling without cash is not especially difficult nowadays. I qualify for a free Oyster card so I can travel pretty much anywhere in London on buses, underground, and overground trains outside of the rush hour.

Even without that freedom pass, prepaid travel cards can be purchased by supporters and given or posted to monks. If I need to travel long distances within the UK, my supporter can purchase a train ticket online, and it will be delivered to my door.

Travelling abroad is more difficult, and really needs careful planning or a lay attendant travelling with a bhikkhu. In my younger days I trusted to luck, but I would not like to arrive in Bangkok, Rangoon, or Colombo, let alone any other city, on a flight and trust to luck to find my way from the airport to my intended destination.

[Dan74]

As for your other claims, you have said nothing to substantiate the label 'junk'. I think the onus is on you, Bhante.

You already admitted that it is not the teaching of Sakyamuni, so what more evidence do we need to provide to substantiate that the label "junk" is valid?

Whatever contemporary Buddhist teachers say, if it's their own invention, and cannot be traced in the Dhamma and Vinaya, then one should rightly conclude that it is not the Buddha's teaching.

We can find no basis for reciting "Om Mane Padme Om," or arranging coloured grains in complex patterns. Nor can we find any esoteric teachings in Buddhism. The Buddha's teachings are open to all to study as they wish — even the Vinaya rules.

There is no secret that sexual intercourse via any orifice is an offence of defeat for a bhikkhu, but the Dalai Lama apparently teaches such Tantric practices. Is it not so?

Ven Pesala,

1. I did not ' admit that it is not the teaching of Sakyamuni', I just said I am not claiming that it is. I have no way of knowing, but just to rely on the scholar's opinions. This is a fine point, maybe even pedantic, but I try not to claim what I do not know.

2. Many contemporary teachings both in Theravada and in Mahayana cannot be traced in the Dhamma and Vinaya verbatum, does it mean it is not the Dhamma? Of course this would rule out much of Abhidhamma which was well-accepted for millenia. And what of the criterion “…whatever is well said is a saying of the Blessed One, the Worthy One, the Rightly Self-awakened One” from Uttaravipatti Sutta?

3. How is Om Mani Padme Hum so different to Buddho? How is arranging coloured grains in a mandala contrary to the Dhamma? What is precisely the problem with these practices?

4. Sexual tantra is a very small and very seldom-practiced aspect of this system, but one that gets bandied about as 'proof' that it is adhammic. If sexuality is such a powerful force, it only makes sense that practices evolve to deal with this energy and transform it away from the coarse physical manifestation and revert to its original state. As for the Dalai Lama, he does not teach such tantras as he has not practiced them, being a celibate monk, so you are not well-informed there.

On this subject Alexander Berzin (from the link above) says:

As mentioned above, part of the exercises in tantric practice are involving controlling and transforming bodily energies. Sexual energy happens to be one of the strongest forms of physical energy; simply said, it is built-in by nature to ensure the survival of the species. Also these sexual energies need to be completely controlled and transformed. What is usually overlooked is that sexual practices in tantra should be free from the ordinary desires and lust, and only very advanced practitioners should try these practices after permission from their teachers. Simply said, it has very little to do with ordinary sex. Arousal of the sexual energy is preferably done by just visualising a consort.
The union of male and female are symbolic for the union of compassion and wisdom, or more specific in tantra, the union of bliss and emptiness.

5. Dave, this was a pretty funny post both in style and substance but lets be mature and not take it as representative. Anyone can post on these fora.

Edit: I am sorry about my part in taking this thread off topic, especially to members who resent Mahayana intrusions as it were. So I will withdraw. People can find the relevant information readily enough. For the record, I have the highest respect for Ven Pesala and many of his contributions here but clearly on this topic we disagree.

[santa100]

Had there been a Dhamma octagon cage like in the UFC Mixed Martial Arts, there'd be a lot fewer folks willing to bash the others' school for being "un-authentic". They'd be a lot more cautious for they know fully well they'll have to prove it inside the cage and there's a good chance they either won't walk out alive or they'll walk funny for the rest of their life. The stuff comes closest to a Dhamma octagon is AN 8.53 and that's what we should use to "walk the walk", not just "talk the talk"..

"As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'" ~~ http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html ~~

[kirk5a]

Can somebody please get rid of all my junk?

[tiltbillings]

Can somebody please get rid of all my junk?

That is a job you have to do yourself.

[SDC]

Can somebody please get rid of all my junk?

Sell it on ebay. People will buy anything. Mental defilements are so hot right now.

[arijitmitter]

Alan, you made me feel better with your support in another thread. But there is a deeper issue at stake and one which both you and I have missed.

Let alone any religion - are there new rules allowed in baseball, basketball, boxing ? It is what it is. That is why it is called rules. Those who did not like soccer started to play rugby. You cannot change rules of soccer to play rugby. You need a whole new ball game.

In fact it is perhaps slightly inconsiderate of those of us who have asked for change - big or small. The religion is what it is. We decided to accept it warts and all. Now one cannot complain. If there is complaint then such a person is free to leave the tradition (not only Theravada, I am speaking of all forms of tradition in all of human activity).

Do reformation movements actually succeed in changing the original order ? What has the Protestant movement been able to change in Catholicism. Those who did not like Catholicism moved over to being a Protestant. Those who did not like organized church moved over to evangelical outfits.

So if I am logical - I will not demand that rules of Dana change. I will become a part of Buddhism with no Dana, no Bhante, no arahant and perhaps no Nibbana also since I have decided to use only that part of Buddha's teachings that relate to here and now, and not a future life. If I accept Nibbana as a goal, I do not enjoy the journey. Maybe there is Nibbana, maybe not .. can anyone say for certain ? Let me enjoy the journey, and maybe 20,000 years later I will be enlightened (or not).

Now before I get my usual share of mocking retorts there is such a free thought school which stresses only on using Buddhism for making change in here and now and not consider those aspects which cannot be proven or do not appeal to a rational mind like Nibbana or rebirth (this being a Theravada Forum and the administrators being kind enough to let me write here, I will not break their trust by publicizing another "sect")

Alan you can be what you want to be. But you cannot expect chess players to allow for two queens to make it a fierce and bloody battle just because you want the game to be exciting. You can invent your own version of the game, invite friends to play it and see how it goes. Card games developed in this way. But Fischer Random chess attributed to the genius player Bobby Fischer (to break the habit of memorizing openings and counter moves) did not gain much currency.

Such Buddhist organizations though nascent do exist, that make for a full 21st century interpretation of Buddhism. Why not give it a try and see if it fits.

Look at it this way John Kabat Zinn reinvented mindfulness for a secular audience. He did that without commenting about existing methods of mindfulness. That buddy is the crux.

It is not about fighting the system from the inside, it is about creating a whole new system (if you want). Maybe that system will have only one follower - you. But you will have achieved all that you wanted.

In the meantime draw succour from Robert Frost

"Two roads diverged in a yellow wood
and sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveller, long I stood
and looked down one as far as I could
to where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
and having perhaps the better claim
because it was grassy and wanted wear
...
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I --
I took the one less travelled by,
and that has made all the difference"

Take the road less travelled if you so wish

Mull it over buddy,

Regards,
Arijit

[Modus.Ponens]

Had there been a Dhamma octagon cage like in the UFC Mixed Martial Arts, there'd be a lot fewer folks willing to bash the others' school for being "un-authentic". They'd be a lot more cautious for they know fully well they'll have to prove it inside the cage and there's a good chance they either won't walk out alive or they'll walk funny for the rest of their life. The stuff comes closest to a Dhamma octagon is AN 8.53 and that's what we should use to "walk the walk", not just "talk the talk"..

"As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'" ~~ http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html ~~

"On the left corner, weighing 120 lb, Padmasambhavaaaaa!!! On the right corner, weighing 110 lb, The General of the Dhamma, Venrable Sariputaaaaaaa!!!"

"_ Oh this is going to be a wonderful match tonight!
_ You bet, John. Padmasambhava is already 800 years old, but he still has it in him."

[daverupa]

I'm always fascinated by how AN 8.53 is oft-cited in these sorts of contexts, while SN 20.7 languishes in a corner.

Is this a contradiction? Is it worth a thread?