This is the first post for Blathering Nonsense from my good Dharma friend Kyoshin and the first to kick off our discussion....
Thank you Jon for inviting me to participate in this informal discussion of the book The Words of My Perfect Teacher by Patrul Rinpoche. I have to admit that Tibetan Buddhism is probably my weakest area of knowledge and experience when it comes to the Buddha-dharma so I am very much looking forward to learning new things.
Like Jon my main practice-path is Jodo Shinshu and so that is the background that will inevitably influence my approach to the discussion. Bearing this in mind I was very much interested by a sentence in the Dalai Lama's introduction to my copy of The Words of My Pefect Teacher: "one cannot become enlightened through a contrived mind". This would make a pretty good summary of the realisation that is the starting point of Jodo Shinshu practice!
The Dalai Lama then continues; "rather, the basic mind is to to be identified, in relation to which all phenomena are to be understood as the sport of the mind." Athough this passage uses rather different terminology it seems to me that there are obvious resonances with the process of discarding the contrived mind (hakarai) and pointing out and receiving of the true mind (jp. shin jin) [of Amida], which is beyond self, in the Jodo Shinshu tradition.
Namuamidabutsu. Palms together, Kyoshin
(http://echoesofthename.net/)
Thank you Jon for inviting me to participate in this informal discussion of the book The Words of My Perfect Teacher by Patrul Rinpoche. I have to admit that Tibetan Buddhism is probably my weakest area of knowledge and experience when it comes to the Buddha-dharma so I am very much looking forward to learning new things.
Like Jon my main practice-path is Jodo Shinshu and so that is the background that will inevitably influence my approach to the discussion. Bearing this in mind I was very much interested by a sentence in the Dalai Lama's introduction to my copy of The Words of My Pefect Teacher: "one cannot become enlightened through a contrived mind". This would make a pretty good summary of the realisation that is the starting point of Jodo Shinshu practice!
The Dalai Lama then continues; "rather, the basic mind is to to be identified, in relation to which all phenomena are to be understood as the sport of the mind." Athough this passage uses rather different terminology it seems to me that there are obvious resonances with the process of discarding the contrived mind (hakarai) and pointing out and receiving of the true mind (jp. shin jin) [of Amida], which is beyond self, in the Jodo Shinshu tradition.
Namuamidabutsu. Palms together, Kyoshin
(http://echoesofthename.net/)
hi Kyoshin, great to have you on-board! curiously, i was reading your latest post of over on Echoes recently -
ReplyDeletehttp://echoesofthename.net/2010/07/22/tricycle-blog/
- and feel there's a further parallel to be drawn between Smith's comment that -
“We” are part of the mental processing of the mind. The thoughts of the mind and the sense-of-I are not two separate events. “We” exist only because the mind thinks us into creation.”
- and HH Dalai Lama's referring to all phenomena as "the sport of the mind".
It's interesting, because although both traditions recognise the teaching of non-self and acknowledge the illusory nature of phenomena, Shinshu seems to shy away from, or at least tread carefully around what would seem to be the next step - true self is Buddha. we receive Amida's compassion, true mind, even entrusting but it's always in the frame of Other and we'd never refer to self as Buddha.
We do however, often see those around us as Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, bringing us to the Pure Land. but it always seems that there is this tension born out in the duality...whereas, in my limited understanding of Vajrayana, this duality is to be transcended in this very lifetime (or at the least asap) and hence no problem reaching the step - "true self is Buddha"
Wow, a lot to unpack in your comment Jon! When I have time I'll dig out Sensei's essay on Buddha-nature and see what it adds to the discussion. In the meantime ...
ReplyDelete*** "what would seem to be the next step - true self is Buddha" ***
I think there's a lot of debate about this within Buddhism. See for example the Theravadin view (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/freedomfrombuddhanature.html) which would say - why does this conclusion follow?
I read the Dalai Lama's introduction to Tibetan Buddhism in preparation for this discussion and one thing that puzzled me is that he repeatedly states that Nagarjuna's Mādhyamaka is a superior view to Vasubandhu's Yogācāra and yet Tibetan Buddhist views of mind and self seem most often to be couched in kataphatic language (e.g. true self) closer to that of the latter. A query for our Vajrayana colleagues I guess.
*** "Shinshu seems to shy away from, or at least tread carefully around what would seem to be the next step - true self is Buddha" ***
I agree about the 'carefully' part.
Generally in Shinshu we use 'true self' to refer to our existential actuality rather than our illusory self narrative (How we really are, not how we think we are). Facing this actuality is to meet our own karma - so initially by 'true self' we actually mean the throughly defiled self. Yet in deeply encountering our karma and finding that, in Genshin's words, "Apart from delusion, there is no mind in us", we encounter the reality of true mind (shin jin) that is not 'in us'. You could maybe call this 'true self' in the sense it is meant in other traditions ... something pure and unconditioned. We still have our karma from the past though, and this true mind is something formless (Dharmakaya) and not-self. There is still, as you say a tension then. However according to Shinshu it is precisely at this point - where ki (seeker/intention) and ho (dharma) are totally opposed - that Amida / Buddha appears. So in shinjin it is not a case of self vs. buddha, or 'self is Buddha', but rather the Buddha appears as the unification of opposites - ki (seeker/relative) and ho (dharma/absolute) become one. This is very paradoxical and non-logical and in that sense seems to me like true non-duality, in that non-duality as a logical concept is actually illogical as it is always conceived in opposition to duality.
This is why non-contrivance is so important. Here I have an intuition that Shinshu, with its emphasis on jinen (naturalness) has some similarities with Sahaja yoga in Saraha's mahamudra lineage ... but we'll have to see.
Interesting discussion - I'm glad I happened on it. I'm a follower of Vajrayana - Tibetan, Nyingma lineage. I've spent years with Words of My Perfect Teacher and would very much enjoy discussing it with you all. I see you're opening with a very large topic from the introduction - and I have errands to run, so must wait til later to really contribute. I can say that the Vajrayana view, as far as I understand it, is different from the views that you describe. More later.
ReplyDeleteSusan
Hi Susan, great - looking forward to your input. Vajrayana is terra incognita for me so this discussion promises to be very interesting. Palms together.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the welcome - I composed a response, but couldn't get it posted - too long I think for a comment. Nor can I find an email address or such to just send it to you for inclusion. Fortunately I don't compose online, so let me know what to do and I'll comply.
ReplyDeleteSusan
hi Susan, great to have your input. sorry you've had difficulties. perhaps you can email it to me at jon_brown@talk21.com and i'll see if i can figure something out (perhaps we can split it into two parts if it's too long maybe)
ReplyDeleteThanks Jon -
ReplyDeleteLet me try a shorter response. Regarding Madhyamika vs Yogacarya - Kyo-shin says that though praising the former as superior, Tibetan Buddhists appear in fact with their " kataphatic language (e.g. true self)" to be closer to Yogacarya. As far as I understand it (and that's not far), all Tibetan Buddhist schools distinguish between sutric and trantric (esoteric, or mantric) vehicles. Some Tibetan Buddhist schools hold that the views of tantra and Madhyamaka are the same, but others (including the Nyingma, which is my lineage,) hold that they are not, and that the tantric is superior. Those holding the latter view make distinctions which I think, when seen in the Madhyamaka/Yogacarya perspective, seem to lean toward the latter, but in fact are different.
Tibetan Buddhists as far as I know simply would not use the term 'true self.' What we see is Buddha Nature, which many lineages consider to be the nature of every sentient being - but it could not be said to be our true self, or self of any sort.
Susan
Thank you Susan. This is helpful. I made a mistake to pick up the term 'true self' from Jon's post as an example of kataphatic language in the Tibetan tradition rather than going back to the book I was reading from for an example. Sloppy.
ReplyDeleteSetting that aside, I think what you are saying is that the Dalai Lama's book that I read is influenced by his Gelugpa perspective hence Madhyamaka and tantra are identified, whereas in the Nyingmapa tantra is held to be superior and relies more on Yogacarya?
I found a quote in the book 'Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain' (http://bit.ly/aGcXNA) that says:
"elements of the Gelug tradition have opposed Dzogchen because of 'its tendency to use positive imagery to describe the state of Enlightenement', a tendency that derives largely from the greater emphasis placed within the Nyingma upon Yogacara conceptualisations of the path than the Madhyamaka."
I am sure that being aware of these differences of emphasis will help us in approaching 'The Words of My Perfect Teacher'.
So what are the differences between the Dzogchen and Yogacara view of mind or Buddha-nature (if it isn't too big a topic)?
Thanks again, Palms together, K
Very clear Kyo-shin. Let me reiterate that I'm not at all a scholar - but I'll do my best to break out the books and find some answers.
ReplyDeleteThe Dalai Lama is Gelugpa, but like many great masters he has studied all the lineages, and in fact is also regarded by all the lineages as a Dzogchen master and has taught and written extensively on it. Even so, it is correct to say that the Gelugpa do rely mostly on the Madhyamaka.
I think it is not correct, however, to say that there is "a greater emphasis placed within the Nyingma upon Yogacara conceptualizations...." Rather, the Nyingma are focused more on tantric theories which they hold to be beyond both Madhyamaka and Yogacara - I think that's a correct statement, but I'll see if I can find some references.
I'll see what I can find on Dzogchen and Yogacara views of mind or Buddha-nature - it is a gargantuan topic, but maybe there is some simple statements that can clarify it a bit.
Susan
Hi Susan, i echo Kyoshin's request, it would be great to have an idea of how Nyingma tantra is seen as beyond Yogacara and Madhyamaka.
ReplyDeleteHi Susan. Yes a simple summary would be fine ... I feel bad about diving us in at the deep end (sorry Jon!)
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it Patrul Rinpoche was part of the Rime movement so I guess another underlying issue here at the start of the discussion is to what extent 'The Words of My Perfect Teacher' reflects specifically Nyingma concerns, and to what it extent it applies at an ecumenical level. (Incidentally what Nyingma lineage do you practice in if you don't mind me asking?)
I've learnt a lot already! Thank you, Kyōshin
Replying to Kyoshin first: "Words of My Perfect Teacher" is specifically Nyingma and within the Dzogchen tradition. It is a text that explains the ngon-dro (preliminary) practices - in particular, the Longchen Nyingtig. Alex Berzin says "the general training practitioners receive in each of the traditions is the same. Merely the styles of some of the practices are different. For example, most Kagyupas, Nyingmapas, and Sakyapas complete the full set of preliminaries for tantra practice (the hundred thousand repetitions of prostrations, and so on) as one big event early in the training, often as a separate retreat. Gelugpas typically fit them one at a time into their schedules, usually after they have completed their basic studies." There are hundreds if not thousands of different preliminary sadhanas - all following the same pattern, with shades of difference. I practice a variety of lineages, focused on the Longchen Nyingthig. The preliminary that I've done is the exact one in Words.
ReplyDeleteThanks Susan that is very helpful. I appreciate your time.
ReplyDeleteI have come across the view in some circles that it is possible to practice Dzogchen (and/or Mahamudra) as part of a tantric path, and also separately in its own right - where, in the latter case, one would only practice the 'ordinary/outer preliminaries' and not the tantric ones. I don't know whether this perspective is accepted in the Nyingmapa though?
On the subject of ngondro the section of 'Words' titled 'The Impermanence of Life' is so powerful isn't it! Especially lines like; "[Once dead] No matter how precious and well loved you were, now you arouse horror and nausea"."
(Part 1 of 3)Kyoshin - yes there are many sections of "Words" that hit hard.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Dzogchen, there are indeed people who consider that it can be practiced independently of the tantric path, and even independently of Buddhism itself. I think what and how they practice varies a lot. They are a very small minority (in my opinion) but have a large internet presence. I think it's a complex issue - I'll post a separate comment on it. Actually, Dzogchen has it's own specific preliminaries - a stage beyond what's given in "Words" - different mantras, visualizations, etc. Some of the Dzogchen-only folks may do these. I also ran across one teacher who taught a bunch of people who were very experienced in Vipassana - and found some of them entirely ready for advanced Dzogchen practice and just went ahead.
My impression is that nearly all Nyingma teachers have their students follow the traditional path - but in their teaching, they often throw out hints of the higher levels - if the student gets them, then they were ready for it; if not, they can just keep on with the basics. The issue seems to really be the readiness of the student.
(more to follow.)
(Part 2 of 3) Dzogchen practice requires a substantial foundation - I think to really get it, you need to have a real, experiential comprehension of emptiness, no-self, and vast compassion, and possibly your own Buddha-nature (tho if you get that, you won't call it your own.) The standard view is that you have to accumulate a great deal of both merit and wisdom - but maybe that's the same thing.
ReplyDeleteAnyhow - how is one to get these things? Within the Tibetan tradition, that's what the preliminaries are for - they require intense, persistent practice and, when done with the correct guidance and understanding, result in the growth and insight that lead to these qualities. I think all Buddhist paths can develop most if not all of the above qualities - so it's possible that experienced practitioners in other traditions could find that they were ready for Dzogchen when they encountered it - as with the Vipassana folks I mentioned.
In my own experience it takes years of practice to build the necessary foundation. That's the big issue - I think there are many ways a person can do this, but it has to be done somehow.
(more to follow)
(Part 3 of 3) It's said by some Dzogchen masters that Dzogchen is the only way to enlightenment. I believe they're not being exclusivist, but rather they are pointing to the fact that as you get close to enlightenment, you are in 'Dzogchen territory' - that is, Dzogchen is, in part, a description of a process - but it is not, as a practice, the only way to enter and go thru the process. That process, and the end point of it - which is also called Dzogchen - Great Completion - is itself beyond concepts and labels, and so that process does not belong to any tradition. I should add, though, that it's my belief that Dzogchen is a very precise and complete description, and as such is a rare, if not unique guide.
ReplyDeleteIf this all is correct, it also points to the problem with folks saying you can just practice Dzogchen by itself - it depends on a foundation that few people have without some kind of preparation - both conceptual and meditative. My own thought is that a lot of the Dzogchen-only folks are not at a point to benefit from Dzogchen. (Just my arrogant opinion.)
Susan
Thanks for this Susan.
ReplyDeleteYour comments take us nicely back to my post itself I think. I'm not a Dzogchen practitioner so don't have a horse in that particular race but it seems that the issue at stake is maybe about 'contrivance'. In all traditions we get people who are attached to practice (cultivation) and people who are attached to 'no practice' (naturalness). I guess the reality of the path as it is lived lies somewhere within the dynamic tension between the two.
ReplyDeleteContrivance - in Dzogchen thought, at least as I understand it (and please always include that modifier to everything I say about Dzogchen,) practice vs. no practice is not always a continuum, even though they are often spoken of in terms that imply a continuum, such as the five paths (accumulation, preparation, seeing, meditation and no more learning.)
ReplyDeleteIn fact the practice phase runs all through until a high level of enlightenment is reached. Then, no more learning, or no practice, or naturalness becomes the whole mode of being. In Dzogchen that also involves "lhundrup" - spontaneous presence - which means simply responding to everything that happens as is appropriate, and resting in "naturalness" when no response is required by the situation - and all of this is 24 hours a day. Another phrase often associated with this level is that "nothing needs to be done."
But before that stage, while we are still stuck in subject-object perception and thinking, naturalness (resting in the nature, etc.) is also there as part of the path - as one way of meditating. A recent very great master spoke of meditation as recognizing this level of mind beyond subject and object, etc., and then becoming accustomed to it. So as I see it, for all who are less than highly enlightened,less than fully accustomed to this naturalness, there still is practice, of quite a variety - tools, really, that can be released eventually - but not too soon. :)