Author Topic: Buddha nature  (Read 3283 times)

TMingyur

  • Guest
Re: Buddha nature
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2009, 09:52:45 pm »
Ah yes. I recognize yours to be an explanation I am very familiar with. However as far as I am concerned this explanation does not satisfy. I can accept it intellectually but that does not suffice. I have to reconcile the approaches from within, in my heart(-mind). There they have to merge without losing their discerning characteristics. See for me the advantage of having a solid rooting in dialectical teachings and approaches is to safeguard me against taking a delusive direction which I am prone to take if I am applying non-dialectical approaches exclusively. I know that I cannot abide permanently in any non-dialectical sphere in this current life. Therefore I need Manjushri's support.

And this is precisely why the Buddha recommended various kinds of practice, no?  Study, and experience, and meditation, all these are different forms of one practice.  I at least just saw the necessity for all these forms and kinds of practice. 

I do not know certainly but I think it is said that the Buddha recommended 1) hearing (which includes studying), 2) thinking about (which includes analytical reasoning, i.e. logic) and 3) meditation.
For me so far this entailed that I could not make up my mind to exclusively practice the teachings of one tradition. E.g. as far as tibetan buddhism is concerned I feel drawn towards both, the Gelug and the Nyingma tradition.

Kind regards

Offline Pema Rigdzin

  • Member
  • Posts: 220
    • View Profile
Re: Buddha nature
« Reply #16 on: December 11, 2009, 01:24:13 am »
It is my reconciliation of different kinds of practice that I appreciate. One being  dialectical and the other not.

Oh OK. To my mind, they're easily reconciled as responses to the various predilections and habits of sentient beings. I.E. since just like in medicine there's no one magical elixir or panacea that cures all beings of all ailments, different elixirs have been devised to cure them according to their own needs.

- Brian

Ah yes. I recognize yours to be an explanation I am very familiar with. However as far as I am concerned this explanation does not satisfy. I can accept it intellectually but that does not suffice. I have to reconcile the approaches from within, in my heart(-mind). There they have to merge without losing their discerning characteristics. See for me the advantage of having a solid rooting in dialectical teachings and approaches is to safeguard me against taking a delusive direction which I am prone to take if I am applying non-dialectical approaches exclusively. I know that I cannot abide permanently in any non-dialectical sphere in this current life. Therefore I need Manjushri's support.

Kind regards

I must say, I'm not quite clear what you're having a difficult time with. You say you understood the breakdown of these terms and their uses intellectually, but that does not suffice. What are you saying that you understand intellectually but wish to know experientially?

It doesn't matter whether one chooses the Nyingma or the Gelug tradition, or Sakya or Kagyu for that matter. Remember that they're all the Buddha's teachings. They will each lead to the same results. What one should be searching for is not which of the Tibetan Vajrayana traditions one should go with; one should be looking for a qualified teacher. One observes teachers until one finds one that keeps the precepts, knows the Dharma, has all the qualities the teachings say a Vajrayana guru should have, then one becomes that lama's disciple and follows whatever tradition that lama teaches. Looking for a tradition before a lama is kind of backwards... It's putting the cart before the horse. Vajrayana aside, without a skilled Dharma teacher, one is likely to keep flopping around unable to really settle on one's approach and assimilate Dharma coherently in one's mind and thereby mingle it with one's heart.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2009, 01:41:16 am by Pema Rigdzin »

TMingyur

  • Guest
Re: Buddha nature
« Reply #17 on: December 11, 2009, 02:44:47 am »
It is my reconciliation of different kinds of practice that I appreciate. One being  dialectical and the other not.

Oh OK. To my mind, they're easily reconciled as responses to the various predilections and habits of sentient beings. I.E. since just like in medicine there's no one magical elixir or panacea that cures all beings of all ailments, different elixirs have been devised to cure them according to their own needs.

- Brian

Ah yes. I recognize yours to be an explanation I am very familiar with. However as far as I am concerned this explanation does not satisfy. I can accept it intellectually but that does not suffice. I have to reconcile the approaches from within, in my heart(-mind). There they have to merge without losing their discerning characteristics. See for me the advantage of having a solid rooting in dialectical teachings and approaches is to safeguard me against taking a delusive direction which I am prone to take if I am applying non-dialectical approaches exclusively. I know that I cannot abide permanently in any non-dialectical sphere in this current life. Therefore I need Manjushri's support.

Kind regards

I must say, I'm not quite clear what you're having a difficult time with. You say you understood the breakdown of these terms and their uses intellectually, but that does not suffice. What are you saying that you understand intellectually but wish to know experientially?
It is more like "integrating the one with the other".

It doesn't matter whether one chooses the Nyingma or the Gelug tradition, or Sakya or Kagyu for that matter. Remember that they're all the Buddha's teachings. They will each lead to the same results. What one should be searching for is not which of the Tibetan Vajrayana traditions one should go with;
Same result okay. However my concern is the path.
As I have already said: I do not plan to "choose". For me Gelug stands for the approach emphasizing dialectics and Nyingma stands for the approach emphasizing non-dialectics. Therefore they match perfectly.

one should be looking for a qualified teacher. One observes teachers until one finds one that keeps the precepts, knows the Dharma, has all the qualities the teachings say a Vajrayana guru should have, then one becomes that lama's disciple and follows whatever tradition that lama teaches. Looking for a tradition before a lama is kind of backwards... It's putting the cart before the horse. Vajrayana aside, without a skilled Dharma teacher, one is likely to keep flopping around unable to really settle on one's approach and assimilate Dharma coherently in one's mind and thereby mingle it with one's heart.
Well as for my part I appreciate all teachers from all traditions. Teachers I have had contact with were from Kagyu, Gelug and Nyingma and regarding the traditions'  characteristic focus Gelug and Nyingma I like most because they match ideally. But as with traditions it is with teachers: currently I do not see a reason why to select one of them. Actually one of them resides "more often" in my heart than the others, but no need for a closer personal relationship on my side. On the contrary I feel for me it is better not to strive for a closer connection. Also currently I am not keen on doing "standard" vajrayana practice because currently for me it seems to be more complicated than necessary.

Kind regards
« Last Edit: December 11, 2009, 04:19:14 am by TMingyur »

Offline Pema Rigdzin

  • Member
  • Posts: 220
    • View Profile
Re: Buddha nature
« Reply #18 on: December 12, 2009, 12:32:20 am »
It is more like "integrating the one with the other".
Well, my only advice would be to study the different expressions of Sutra, i.e. Prajnaparamita, Cittamatra, and Tathagatagarbha, and then the inner Tantric teachings - under a qualified master, once you're ready to enter into empowerment and thus samaya - and then you can see for yourself what all these traditions say for themselves as well as how they can all be integrated in one tase. I assure you they can, without trying to force them to all be saying the same thing to a single audience.

Same result okay. However my concern is the path.
As I have already said: I do not plan to "choose". For me Gelug stands for the approach emphasizing dialectics and Nyingma stands for the approach emphasizing non-dialectics. Therefore they match perfectly.
This is not so. There is a very strong current of dialectics in the Nyingma tradition. See Mipham Rinpoche(especially), Rongzom Pandita, Kongtrul Rinpoche, Longchenpa, Khenpo Ngakchung, and many others. There are Nyingma shedras open to Western students, even in the US and Europe - even online - in English and other Western languages where a systematic dialectical approach is learned. The real difference is that Nyingma tends to implement generation stage (and sometimes Dzogchen) from the beginning, simultaneous with the dialectical studies, whereas Gelug traditionally seems to have favored finishing the dialectical studies before introduction to Tantric practice. It's all up to one's guru, though, so nothing universal can ever really be said.

On the other hand, there is definitely a non-dialectical current within Gelug. You may not be aware, but there is a living tradition of Mahamudra within Gelug. So, my point is that what really determines one's path is one's guru who knows what one is most suited for each step along the path, not the tradition, and each tradition has both dialectical and non-dialectical approaches. Both are the union of Sutra and Tantra, both emphasize the two stages (generation and completion), and both have what is equivalent with what the Sarma schools call "nondual Tantra."

Well as for my part I appreciate all teachers from all traditions. Teachers I have had contact with were from Kagyu, Gelug and Nyingma and regarding the traditions'  characteristic focus Gelug and Nyingma I like most because they match ideally. But as with traditions it is with teachers: currently I do not see a reason why to select one of them. Actually one of them resides "more often" in my heart than the others, but no need for a closer personal relationship on my side. On the contrary I feel for me it is better not to strive for a closer connection. Also currently I am not keen on doing "standard" Vajrayana practice because currently for me it seems to be more complicated than necessary.
There's nothing wrong with practicing two or more Buddhist traditions. It is easier, generally speaking, to at least get a grounding in one before exploring another, but that's your business. Do what works for you. As for the issue of guru goes, though. Simply stated, the guru is the heart of the Vajrayana path. There really is no Vajrayana without the guru. One doesn't have to have just one, although there again, it's generally thought to be easiest to start out with one main guru and later receive teachings more widely. But again, that's up to you. In the meantime, until one is ready for that step of becoming a lama's disciple and really focusing on such a connection, the Tibetan traditions have many Sutrayana methods of training and learning and I personally feel just about anyone would be better served actually exploring those, and meditating on such topics as the Four Thoughts That Turn The Mind (from samsara) before becoming a disciple (or at least before beginning to practice Tantra seriously).

This is all just my own 2 cents, so take it or leave it. Hope you find some of it helpful, anyhow. Take care.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2009, 12:36:56 am by Pema Rigdzin »

Offline Arya-Shraman

  • Member
  • Posts: 130
  • Karuna,Kshama,Shanti. Compassion,Forgiving,Peace.
    • View Profile
Re: Buddha nature
« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2009, 12:35:42 am »
I think there is no need to believe in every concept. Just to make things simpler :)

TMingyur

  • Guest
Re: Buddha nature
« Reply #20 on: December 12, 2009, 01:38:00 am »
It is more like "integrating the one with the other".
Well, my only advice would be to study the different expressions of Sutra, i.e. Prajnaparamita, Cittamatra, and Tathagatagarbha, and then the inner Tantric teachings - under a qualified master, once you're ready to enter into empowerment and thus samaya - and then you can see for yourself what all these traditions say for themselves as well as how they can all be integrated in one tase. I assure you they can, without trying to force them to all be saying the same thing to a single audience.
Sorry, Pema, but you have not understood what I said. I do not force them to say the same thing but the issue here is to integrate the different things that they are saying.
And as far as sutra is concerned here actually it is only one method of wisdom that I need and that is the view of Prasangkika Madhyamaka as taught by Tsongkhapa since this is the highest most perfect dialectical view from my perspective.
And as far as your advice as to vajrayana is concerned: Thank you for your advice. However - honestly - observing the discussions of "vajrayanists" on e-sangha I decided not to become like this ;) Too much of reificationist views expressed by these people. This is poison but not medicine.

Same result okay. However my concern is the path.
As I have already said: I do not plan to "choose". For me Gelug stands for the approach emphasizing dialectics and Nyingma stands for the approach emphasizing non-dialectics. Therefore they match perfectly.
This is not so. There is a very strong current of dialectics in the Nyingma tradition. See Mipham Rinpoche(especially), Rongzom Pandita, Kongtrul Rinpoche, Longchenpa, Khenpo Ngakchung, and many others.
Okay. But from my perspective the view they express is not (logically) consistent.
A dialectical view that is consistent must be compatible with all phenomena of life, be it "spiritual" or worldly aspects of life and this consistency necessarily includes all words and terminology applied.


On the other hand, there is definitely a non-dialectical current within Gelug. You may not be aware, but there is a living tradition of Mahamudra within Gelug.
Yes of course. See with my focus on the defining characteristics of the traditions as I perceive them I do not say that the other aspects are missing. Actually the other aspects I did not mention are exactly the common grounds to integrate different but (for me) very helfpful characteristics.


Well as for my part I appreciate all teachers from all traditions. Teachers I have had contact with were from Kagyu, Gelug and Nyingma and regarding the traditions'  characteristic focus Gelug and Nyingma I like most because they match ideally. But as with traditions it is with teachers: currently I do not see a reason why to select one of them. Actually one of them resides "more often" in my heart than the others, but no need for a closer personal relationship on my side. On the contrary I feel for me it is better not to strive for a closer connection. Also currently I am not keen on doing "standard" Vajrayana practice because currently for me it seems to be more complicated than necessary.
There's nothing wrong with practicing two or more Buddhist traditions. It is easier, generally speaking, to at least get a grounding in one before exploring another, but that's your business. Do what works for you. As for the issue of guru goes, though. Simply stated, the guru is the heart of the Vajrayana path. There really is no Vajrayana without the guru. One doesn't have to have just one, although there again, it's generally thought to be easiest to start out with one main guru and later receive teachings more widely. But again, that's up to you. In the meantime, until one is ready for that step of becoming a lama's disciple and really focusing on such a connection, the Tibetan traditions have many Sutrayana methods of training and learning and I personally feel just about anyone would be better served actually exploring those, and meditating on such topics as the Four Thoughts That Turn The Mind (from samsara) before becoming a disciple (or at least before beginning to practice Tantra seriously).
I understand what you are saying. But I do not want to practice "standard" vajrayana. One reason being the observed attitudes of those who do (s. above) and another that I am convinced that the main issue with all practices is our current way of life which is incompatible with having significant success on any path. And vajrayana in this contexts just fosters delusive fantasies. That is (only) my opinion. Really. But I am very deeply convinced of that. After all one "only" needs recognition, realization and integration with emptiness of all phenomena.
So for me the golden approach currently consists of: Lamrim teachings, Prasangika Madhyamaka and some grains of Dzogchen and/or Mahamudra teachings added to this.

Kind regards

TMingyur

  • Guest
Re: Buddha nature
« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2009, 01:43:08 am »
I think there is no need to believe in every concept. Just to make things simpler :)
One point is to apply concepts in the correct way. And the other point is to apply the right concepts.

Kind regards

Offline Pema Rigdzin

  • Member
  • Posts: 220
    • View Profile
Re: Buddha nature
« Reply #22 on: December 12, 2009, 03:22:14 am »
It is more like "integrating the one with the other".
Well, my only advice would be to study the different expressions of Sutra, i.e. Prajnaparamita, Cittamatra, and Tathagatagarbha, and then the inner Tantric teachings - under a qualified master, once you're ready to enter into empowerment and thus samaya - and then you can see for yourself what all these traditions say for themselves as well as how they can all be integrated in one tase. I assure you they can, without trying to force them to all be saying the same thing to a single audience.
Sorry, Pema, but you have not understood what I said. I do not force them to say the same thing but the issue here is to integrate the different things that they are saying.
And as far as sutra is concerned here actually it is only one method of wisdom that I need and that is the view of Prasangkika Madhyamaka as taught by Tsongkhapa since this is the highest most perfect dialectical view from my perspective.
And as far as your advice as to vajrayana is concerned: Thank you for your advice. However - honestly - observing the discussions of "vajrayanists" on e-sangha I decided not to become like this ;) Too much of reificationist views expressed by these people. This is poison but not medicine.

Same result okay. However my concern is the path.
As I have already said: I do not plan to "choose". For me Gelug stands for the approach emphasizing dialectics and Nyingma stands for the approach emphasizing non-dialectics. Therefore they match perfectly.
This is not so. There is a very strong current of dialectics in the Nyingma tradition. See Mipham Rinpoche(especially), Rongzom Pandita, Kongtrul Rinpoche, Longchenpa, Khenpo Ngakchung, and many others.
Okay. But from my perspective the view they express is not (logically) consistent.
A dialectical view that is consistent must be compatible with all phenomena of life, be it "spiritual" or worldly aspects of life and this consistency necessarily includes all words and terminology applied.
The only point on which Tsongkhapa and the above Nyingma scholars disagree when it comes to Prasangika is the issue of whether or not merely refuting the "inherent existence" of a phenomenon is sufficient. Tsongkhapa, I assume gives good arguments as to why it is, and these Nyingmapas give good arguments as to why it's not. Any "incompatibility with all phenomena of life" you attribute to them is either pure fantasy or wild misapprehension of what they teach. Mipham Rinpoche, in particular, spent plenty of time at certain Eastern Tibetan Gelug monasteries and was highly regarded by them. The only significant difference one will ever find between the Nyingma presentation and standard Gelug presentation of inner or higher tantra would only be when Nyingmapas speak from the  Dzogchen view, and even that is not contradictory to what Gelugpas say. It's just a different POV, albeit one that is completely square with Prasangika, and a POV which is even shared in places in the Sarma tantras themselves, albeit not with the degree of emphasis (when it comes to the path) that they are in the Nyingma tantras.

Well as for my part I appreciate all teachers from all traditions. Teachers I have had contact with were from Kagyu, Gelug and Nyingma and regarding the traditions'  characteristic focus Gelug and Nyingma I like most because they match ideally. But as with traditions it is with teachers: currently I do not see a reason why to select one of them. Actually one of them resides "more often" in my heart than the others, but no need for a closer personal relationship on my side. On the contrary I feel for me it is better not to strive for a closer connection. Also currently I am not keen on doing "standard" Vajrayana practice because currently for me it seems to be more complicated than necessary.
There's nothing wrong with practicing two or more Buddhist traditions. It is easier, generally speaking, to at least get a grounding in one before exploring another, but that's your business. Do what works for you. As for the issue of guru goes, though. Simply stated, the guru is the heart of the Vajrayana path. There really is no Vajrayana without the guru. One doesn't have to have just one, although there again, it's generally thought to be easiest to start out with one main guru and later receive teachings more widely. But again, that's up to you. In the meantime, until one is ready for that step of becoming a lama's disciple and really focusing on such a connection, the Tibetan traditions have many Sutrayana methods of training and learning and I personally feel just about anyone would be better served actually exploring those, and meditating on such topics as the Four Thoughts That Turn The Mind (from samsara) before becoming a disciple (or at least before beginning to practice Tantra seriously).
I understand what you are saying. But I do not want to practice "standard" vajrayana. One reason being the observed attitudes of those who do (s. above) and another that I am convinced that the main issue with all practices is our current way of life which is incompatible with having significant success on any path. And vajrayana in this contexts just fosters delusive fantasies. That is (only) my opinion. Really. But I am very deeply convinced of that. After all one "only" needs recognition, realization and integration with emptiness of all phenomena.
So for me the golden approach currently consists of: Lamrim teachings, Prasangika Madhyamaka and some grains of Dzogchen and/or Mahamudra teachings added to this.
My friend, there's no "non-standard" Vajrayana. There are 4 classes of Tantra: Kriya, Charya, Yoga, and Anuttarayoga. Whether it's Tibetan, Mongolian, Bhutanese, or Japanese (the only cultures in which Vajrayana is natively extant), their practices come from the same group of texts which fall within these classes and they all say the same things about the role of the guru, empowerment, and samaya. There certainly is no Dzogchen or Mahamudra without a teacher. Does it really seem wise to judge these cycles of instructions based on the shortcomings of strangers on the internet? It seems much more logical and prudent to judge teachings on their content, followed by personal experience of practicing them as prescribed. Only then can one judge whether or not they're valid and beneficial. If you have no guru and have not received empowerment, then by definition you have not practiced Vajrayana and are therefore without any experience of it on which to base your judgments of its fruits. This is what Vajrayana texts themselves say. If one does not believe what Vajrayana teachings themselves say, then what Vajrayana is one left with to practice? What reason is there to wish to practice something one doesn't agree with? It's not an exclusive club, nor is it the only Buddhist path to Buddhahood.

Also, even Sutra Mahayana says one needs more than "just" realization of the emptiness of all phenomena. Sutra and tantra both say one needs the 2 accumulations - merit and wisdom.

Now, one is free to make up one's own approach as one wishes. One has free will and one is one's own boss. But when it comes to tantra, if one chooses to do that, one should not harbor illusions that one is practicing tantra as it sets itself forth, expecting the results the tantras promise through creating causes which don't match. If one is later dissapointed with one's results, one cannot blame a Dharma one has not practiced and hold it accountable. In any case, best wishes to you. Truly. I really do pray you may find lasting happiness and liberation through whatever methods you decide to pursue. If you could prove me or the tantra tradition wrong, I'd not be sad at all. That would just increase the odds for liberation for all beings, which could never be a bad thing.  :D  
« Last Edit: December 12, 2009, 03:43:55 am by Pema Rigdzin »

TMingyur

  • Guest
Re: Buddha nature
« Reply #23 on: December 12, 2009, 03:54:19 am »
Dear Pema

Now, one is free to make up one's own approach as one wishes.
Well. I follow exactly what has been taught by the buddhas and bodhisattvas. There is no doubt about that. That of course does not mean that I claim that I have realized what they teach in terms of insight and qualities to be attained. Also I certainly have not attained the quality of expressing my view in such a way as to avoid misunderstandings on the side of my fellow-beings. Why? Because I still have not rid myself of the obscuring afflictions. So "following" means "striving to realize in practice" under the circumstances of my worldy life and the burden of my karma.

Also, even Sutra Mahayana says one needs more than "just" realization of the emptiness of all phenomena. Sutra and tantra both say one needs the 2 accumulations - merit and wisdom.
Here we definitely agree. Let's rejoice in this! :)

Although I would prefer to call it "method and wisdom" instead of "merit and wisdom" since "merit" may be a result of "method".

You have overlooked that I referred to Lamrim and you have focused only on the one statement of mine about "emptiness". This may have caused the misunderstanding.


If you could prove me or the tantra tradition wrong, I'd not be sad at all.
Ups ??? I never asserted tantra tradition to be wrong. My conviction simply is that the "standard" vajrayana path (deity practice, path of transformation) is at odds with our modern way of life especially with the life of a housholder in modern society. Too complicated, too time consuming ... of course if one completely abandons the worldy life that would be something different.

Kind regards
« Last Edit: December 12, 2009, 06:23:21 am by TMingyur »

Offline humanitas

  • buddha's om-girl
  • Member
  • Posts: 2326
    • View Profile
Re: Buddha nature
« Reply #24 on: December 12, 2009, 02:46:22 pm »
I think there is no need to believe in every concept. Just to make things simpler :)

That may be the right elixir in some places and times.  It is not universally applicable to the complicated which is intrinsically complicated by its achieved conditions.  See Arundhati's quote below... :)  Some things just are simple and some are just complicated.  Karma and conditionality.  :) 
This post was made with 100% recycled karma

Chokyi Wangpo

  • Guest
Re: Buddha nature
« Reply #25 on: December 28, 2009, 06:53:07 pm »
[
If you could prove me or the tantra tradition wrong, I'd not be sad at all.
Ups ??? I never asserted tantra tradition to be wrong. My conviction simply is that the "standard" vajrayana path (deity practice, path of transformation) is at odds with our modern way of life especially with the life of a housholder in modern society. Too complicated, too time consuming ... of course if one completely abandons the worldy life that would be something different.

Kind regards
[/quote]

Though it may amount to the same I think it is the modern lifestyle that is at odds with the path. Yet I disagree that its substantially different from the past. Its all about right livelihood and how one spends one's time.

Jangchup Donden

  • Guest
Re: Buddha nature
« Reply #26 on: January 01, 2010, 10:43:45 pm »
Though it may amount to the same I think it is the modern lifestyle that is at odds with the path. Yet I disagree that its substantially different from the past. Its all about right livelihood and how one spends one's time.

I don't think there's nothing about our modern lifestyle that prevents us from having any progress on the path.  The only thing in the way is our own bad habits.  Finding an hour or two a day to practice really isn't that hard, if you really want to do it.  I bet many Buddhists spend at least that many hours a day THINKING about practicing but not actually doing it (myself included).

Also, I've found that many of the practices and teachings were designed in a way that they could be integrated into any lifestyle.  That's one of the amazing things about the tantric path.

Chokyi Wangpo

  • Guest
Re: Buddha nature
« Reply #27 on: January 04, 2010, 09:51:09 pm »
Though it may amount to the same I think it is the modern lifestyle that is at odds with the path. Yet I disagree that its substantially different from the past. Its all about right livelihood and how one spends one's time.

I don't think there's nothing about our modern lifestyle that prevents us from having any progress on the path.  The only thing in the way is our own bad habits.  Finding an hour or two a day to practice really isn't that hard, if you really want to do it.  I bet many Buddhists spend at least that many hours a day THINKING about practicing but not actually doing it (myself included).

Also, I've found that many of the practices and teachings were designed in a way that they could be integrated into any lifestyle.  That's one of the amazing things about the tantric path.

The rampant indoctrination of consumerism, and nihilistic scientific materialism that pervades the western world view is very much an obstacle to the practice of dharma. The point I was trying to make was exaclty  that modern society isn't so different from thae past that it makes it any more difficult.

Offline humanitas

  • buddha's om-girl
  • Member
  • Posts: 2326
    • View Profile
Re: Buddha nature
« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2010, 04:01:24 pm »
I find that everything I do is practice, down to washing the dishes and communicating with my 2-year old when she's having another toddler emotional meltdown.  How does anyone who claims to follow a Buddhist path practice 1 hour a day?  I'm practicing 24 hours a day even while sleeping... because I'm finding every bit of my life where I can change my attitude and apply the dharma... I practice mindfulness every moment I can, even when I'm angry - don't all Buddhists? I thought this was completely commonplace...  :scratch:

Or are you talking about meditation alone when you say practice?  :brick: in which case apologies for misunderstanding...
 
:headbow:
Ogyen
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 04:03:31 pm by 0gyen Chodzom »
This post was made with 100% recycled karma

Chokyi Wangpo

  • Guest
Re: Buddha nature
« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2010, 09:10:19 pm »
Practice should be 24/7. That said there is a world of difference between retreat situations (which some believe is the only setting in which you can actually maintain samaya) and daily life. I don't mean just meditation, but the vajrayana path which requires the maintenance of samaya, bodhisattva and pratimoksha vows. There have always been householders, and the human condition hasn't really changed, but the western world has been likened by lamas variously as similar to the God realm (absorption in such things as entertainment) and the realm of the pretas. For this reason Vajrayana is not right for everyone. A sense of renunciation is really a prerequisite for practice. IMO its really a matter of priorities. I think that one should have a clear sense of the commitments involved in taking an empowerment (and many don't). I can see TMingyur's point, but its really about how you practice.

Often times vajrayana teachings (particularly terma) are touted as just the medicine for this Kaliyuga. Now I agree with this because that is my disposition and I try to practice constantly (how pure that is I cannot say, but it doesn't approach being able to maintain divine pride like in a retreat situation), and I percieve there much wrong with the modern world. This sense, I think, is felt keenly by many and it can be channeled into sensing the defects of samsara, and subsequently Dharma practice. The west is becoming more and more open to Vajrayana because of the spiritual malaise that has affected and resulted in the dissaffection of so many in the west, and the Tibetan Diaspora has made these practices available.
I think that because of the modern lifestyle's fragmenting effect on the psyche that Vajrayana techniques are especially effective.

Well that is my  :twocents:

I

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal