Heading toward Tibetan schools

[Encephalon]

I'm currently in the middle of "Buddhism with an Attitude: The Tibetan Seven-Point Mind Training" by B. Alan Wallace. I've been wary of the Tibetan schools for several years, insofar as they represent the metaphysical arm of Buddhism, and I've been firmly in the camp of the Buddhist agnostics for most of my life, settling for the lessons of Buddhist psychology as they have been teased out in the dialogue between Buddhists from Asia and western Buddhist psychotherapists like Jack Kornfield, Mark Epstein and Howard Cutler. "Buddhism without Beliefs" by Stephen Batchelor sustained and oriented my practice for a decade.

 

But I've been compelled to shift gears of late thanks to Alan Wallace and am captivated by the further formal study of interdependency. I know this must sound rash but this orientation has been my main frame of reference - that all phenomena are interrelated and "empty" in the sense of having no permanent, independent existence - since I was a young teenager, before I even recognized its significance. It is no surprise to me that I studied geography and human ecology in college because, as Fritjof Capra famously said "The Western version of mystical awareness, our version of Buddhism or Taoism, will be ecological awareness."

 

As I count myself amongst the crowd who look for harmony between divergent patterns of ideas, I am obliged and excited to commence this part of my path, to more fully realize on a deeply spiritual level what I have long since intuited and studied formally in academia. I don't yet count myself among the enlightened, but I think I'm on to something, and as long as I can be less of a schmuck than the day before, I might just become an authentic human being before I lose the rest of my teeth.

 

I'm very lucky to have a wide selection of Tibetan representation here in Los Angeles. I'd be eager to hear any sincere suggestions about how to proceed from those of you farther along the Tibetan path.

Thanks.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Encephalon

[Chang]

[konchog uma]

[Encephalon]

I have to admit that I find many areas of Buddhism off-putting due to the sheer intellectualism of Buddhist thought and discussion.

 

I worry that Buddhists spend overmuch time talking about various concepts and dogma and that their actual practice suffers accordingly. It can become all cleverness with no depth of wisdom.

 

Zen is probably the exception, cutting through the wordiness with its sharpened blade of perception but the complexity and sophistication of some Buddhist thought can become mind numbing.

 

It is as though the wood has been lost in the trees. Can anyone else see this or have I somehow missed the whole point?

 

I don't think you're missing the point at all, although the record of over- intellectualism in zen offers pretty stiff competition to Tibetans. The Dalai Lama has said that becoming religious in the Buddhist sense is really nothing more than gaining greater control over one's mind, so it does seem that the tradition is predisposed to an intellectual hijacking by some.

 

I mostly stayed out of the Buddhist discussions in here because I found them impenetrably contorted and useless. People who cannot write a properly constructed sentence are fooling only themselves when they attempt to delineate higher states of consciousness for the rest of us. But it would be unfair to Buddhism and this board to argue that TTB self-described Buddhists represent the dharma or the sangha at large.

 

But what of interdependency? Much has been written of this subject in here, most of it impenetrable, but is it necessarily complicated or overly intellectual? Is it any more so than the Western notion of a human soul that is separate and permanent? Or does it make more sense that human beings are part of a global, interdependent ecosystem of living organisms, where the illusion of a separate and permanent self is simply the natural product of possessing a body and mind? Which tradition is guilty of overintellectualism? Is it any wonder that ecologists and ecopsychologists have a deep affinity for Buddhist and Taoist thought?

 

This is what blew the mind of Fritjof Capra decades ago when he began his writing career; that pre-modern Buddhists and Taoists could develop means of attaining states of consciousness that could intuit grasp basic ecological facts about how life on earth operates, including the human mind.

 

Actually, life IS mind. "In the emerging theory of living systems mind is not a thing, but a process. It is cognition, the process of knowing, and it is identified with the process of life itself. This is the essence of the Santiago theory of cognition, proposed by Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela."

 

The idea that the Tibetans have figured out a way of training the mind to know intuitively and experientially what ecologists observe in the wild and in their labs is the single most mind-blowing fact about meditation there could possibly be, IMO.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Encephalon

[Jetsun]

I suppose it depends on which school you are in but I find Tibetan Buddhism less intellectually orientated or at least they place as much emphasis on emotional practices. For example if you read the Pali Suttas they are quite repetitive and more oriented around straightforward analysis of mind and mind meditation, then compare that to the Tibetan suttas like Shantideva's Bodhissatvas Way of Life text and the first half of it is full of very emotionally evocative scripture which really inspires you to try to work for all beings, but then the second half is pure wisdom for the mind to absorb, so it is not all head they equally target the heart from the beginning. Other teachers like Atisha seem to teach more emotional practises than anything else with meditations such as evoking the love you have for your mother then equalising it with all beings. So using Fourth Way terminology I think many Buddhist paths only target the one centre which is the mental centre, but then Tibetan Buddhism targets two centres at the same time, the mental and emotional, so even though it ends up in the same place as the other paths it provides a two pronged route to get there, which is why it can be a rapid path.

[Jetsun]

Tibetan Buddhism also inspires me.

 

Curious...who in this thread has experiences with Tibetan Buddhist practices? Not books, not intellectual understanding of the Sutras, not beliefs.

 

I'm just trying to get experiential feedback of the practices themselves. Thanks.

 

I only have very limited experience and I think you probably need a long practice under the supervision of a Guru but I have been doing some meditations for generating Bodhicitta and compassion based on some of Atisha's teachings and I have found dealing with other people a bit easier and I found that I am more affectionate when drunk so I don't have the courage to be that open hearted without the assistance of beer yet but it does suggest that it is sewing more compassionate ground in my subconscious at least.

 

Also I found getting into a wide open compassionate state through this meditation loosens some of the knots in my nervous system that many other practices couldn't help with, especially those blocks which are associated with aggression. But there is still a long way to go before I can say with any real confidence that these practises are going to bloom.

[konchog uma]

most of my experience has been with samatha-vipassana, which i was taught is the practice of peacefully accepting whatever arises in the mind, while maintaining awareness of the breath. One simply lets thoughts float away as they arise, without grasping or rejecting. It leads to insightful thoughts, or if it doesn't, it leads to the insight that your ordinary thoughts aren't really worth thinking for lack of a better way to put it.

 

some of my experience has been with dzogchen, which is based on the foundational belief that one's own nature is already luminous and pure and that one doesn't need to do anything in order to cultivate that, but instead to let the conditioned patterns of thought and behavior shed themselves under the light of awareness as one sits, in order to "return" to the original state.

 

much of the practice at one sangha revolves around deity practice, invoking with chants and prayers and mala rounds of seed mantras, the deities such as Tara, Manjushri, Medicine Buddha, Samantabhadra, Avalokitasvara, etc, and then visualizing them dissolving into light, and that light entering us, and then we are transformed into that deity. That sort of practice is particularly Tibetan, and the only other place i can think of right now (im sure there are more) is in shaivism, especially with the mantra Shivoham and the ideas that surround it.

 

I have also learned some more basic buddhist meditations with the tibetan groups i practice with, like metta (loving-kindness generation), and counting the breaths til 7 and starting over again, among others. Many basic mahayana practices are found within TB, and some more esoteric vajrayana practices and tantric practices, as well as imports from Bon shamanism, like tsa lung exercises, which clear the subtle channels (ida pingala sushumna specifically) and the subtle centers (bon uses a 5 chakra system, one center for each element; space, air, fire, water, earth). Tenzin Wangyal has some free vids on youtube about tsa lung that are very good IMO

[rex]

Tibetan Buddhism has such an array of practices and perspectives that there is something for everyone. If one likes ritual then there's plenty of ritual. If ritual is eschewed then that's OK too as there's mind training and contemplation. In my experience philosophical and doctrinal debate is more evident in monasteries, academia and online forums than in Western sanghas though structured and detailed philosophical enquiry is available at shedras, formal instruction courses and specialised teaching sessions.

 

When one turns up at a sangha the teachings will be grounded implicitly in a particular Buddhist philosophical perspective that may not be explicitly stated but will become apparent over time or if specific questions are asked. A lot of the philosophical and metaphysical tenets can be discerned in the various practice liturgies but this comes with experience. It took me six years to find out that my first sangha's official viewpoint was Rantong Madhyamika. The information was not deliberately hidden but I was too involved in applying the teachings to relieve personal suffering and engage in altruistic practices to concern myself with what I considered to be an irrelevance. My reasoning went something like 'so what if one school says this or another says that, when it comes to actual practice they all recite the same mantras, they all do similar compassion practices and Tara and Chenrezig feature across the board'.

 

The utility of Tibetan Buddhism can be seen in its ability to accommodate practitioners of different capacities and understanding, so that the faithful and unsophisticated can practice alongside the sceptical and sophisticated with each finding something that engages and benefits.

 

Some elements may in all probability grate with a 'Buddhism without Beliefs' orientation, namely Refuge, Guru Yoga, Initiations, Deities, Protector practices and rituals that take the existence of spirits – the Eight Classes – as self-evident. All I can say is tread lightly, cautiously and don't commit to anything unless you are really sure and willing to make long term commitments.

 

It may take a bit of leg work, literally and metaphorically, to find out which areas of the Tibetan teachings satisfy your aspirations and aesthetics, that don't require initiation, commitment and/or belief in what modern folk would see as medieval ideas. So if my previous assertion on the utility of Tibetan Buddhism holds any water then the relevant teachings must be there. Undoubtedly there are vajrayana practitioners and teachers, the bridge builders, who engage meaningfully and productively with psychologists and ecologists without having to bring up the more faith based aspects of their tradition.

 

From my particular and possibly limited perspective the Tibetans were able to know intuitively and experientially what ecologists currently observe because they acknowledged, in their philosophy and practice, the living intelligences of the environment and the spirits of the land. Arguments of emptiness notwithstanding they are as real as you and I.

 

Sanghas can be funny places and like any human institution can exhibit foibles and petty politics. As long as you're not socially and spiritually ambitious it's relatively easy to avoid the politics. I've had good and bad experiences with sanghas, one in particular had a strong patronising and controlling element (in stark contrast to the teacher) while others have been and are a delight to associate with. Always take the word of the main teacher i.e. lineage holder over the dharma gossip and well meaning misinformation/superstition of some sangha members. Like the old saying that when the Bible is being quoted the devil is never far away, beware when someone starts off a sentence with 'Rinpoche says ...'.

 

Sanghas are practice based so you'll need to be clear with yourself and them about what you're looking for to see if an association would be beneficial, though any good sangha will let you attend to find what relieves suffering without any obligation on your part. While acknowledging that we can deceive ourselves and be our own worst enemy you'll also need to be true to yourself and what inspires and find that it takes contact with more than one sangha to find something that suits.

 

Edit: Tpyos corercted

Edited February 16, 2012 by rex

[Encephalon]

Mighty fine feedback, Rex. Thanks for that. I guess we Angelinos are fortunate to have experts in virtually any field one could imagine, so I think I'll be asking

Ken McLeod, author of Wake Up to Your Life and founder of Unfettered Mind, to steer me in a sound direction. He's a frequent speaker at our scrappy local Buddhist sangha Against the Stream.

 

Thanks for the Heads Up on navigation. You're the first person whose actually spoken to my concerns.

Regards,

Scott

[JustARandomPanda]

some of my experience has been with dzogchen, which is based on the foundational belief that one's own nature is already luminous and pure and that one doesn't need to do anything in order to cultivate that, but instead to let the conditioned patterns of thought and behavior shed themselves under the light of awareness as one sits, in order to "return" to the original state.

 

I've long believed this! In fact...I thought ALL branches of Buddhism taught these very things as I was under the impression this is a basic tenet! Uh...

 

If all branches of Buddhism do *not* believe the above then what the heck is it they believe?!

[Encephalon]

I've long believed this! In fact...I thought ALL branches of Buddhism taught these very things as I was under the impression this is a basic tenet! Uh...

 

If all branches of Buddhism do *not* believe the above then what the heck is it they believe?!

 

There are many, many lessons to be had from Buddhist psychology and social theory. If you did nothing else but make an agnostic investigation of the 4 Noble Truths, the 8-fold Path, and the Three Poisons you could spend your entire life studying these alone and never exhaust the process. Check out Jack Kornfield's modern classic "The Wise Heart: A Guide to the Universal Teachings of Buddhist Psychology" to get an idea of just how inexhaustible yet powerful these teachings can be, without any notion of higher consciousness involved.

As for me, it's on to see what spiritual states I can attain that intuit what I've learned from human ecology studies.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Encephalon

[rex]

Mighty fine feedback, Rex. Thanks for that.

You're welcome Scott - your contributions to the forum and honest question inspired the response. I've downloaded and listened to a couple of Ken McLeod's podcasts in the past and they were sheer quality. Looking at his background it augurs well for your inquiry. All the best

[Sunya]

Have you read Namkhai Norbu's Crystal and Way of Light? It's a great book for an introduction to Dzogchen. I'm not sure if he has a center in California, but I do know that it's possible to join the Dzogchen Community as a member and then access restricted manuals for practice. He also gives our regular world wide transmissions through webcast.

 

Ah, just remembered.. Namkhai Norbu will be in LA June 22nd for a 2 day retreat.. You should go

 

Ken McLeod is good for beginners, but he is usually talking about I AM and confuses that with Rigpa. Same with Surya Das. What they teach is not really Dzogchen

 

I'm sure there are Dzogchen masters in California, but since I live on the east coast, I'm not familiar with your neck of the woods.

 

Any Nyingma teacher will focus on Dzogchen. Gelugpa and Sakya focus on Mahamudra. Kagyu is sometimes focus on both. But Mahamudra and Dzogchen are pretty similar actually. Both are profound paths to enlightenment. Most important thing is to find a teacher you connect with because the essence of the Tibetan path is the pointing out or transmission that occurs between teacher and student. Since you seem practice oriented, I would recommend looking at Nyingma and Kagyu teachers. They tend to be more practice and less scholarly focused than Gelug and Sakya.

 

Also, check out this really cool interview by Daniel Brown, psychologist at Harvard Medical School and Tibetan translator/long time practitioner -- http://bcove.me/6gz19fhz

Edited February 20, 2012 by Sunya

[Sunya]

double post

Edited February 20, 2012 by Sunya

[xabir2005]

Have you read Namkhai Norbu's Crystal and Way of Light? It's a great book for an introduction to Dzogchen. I'm not sure if he has a center in California, but I do know that it's possible to join the Dzogchen Community as a member and then access restricted manuals for practice. He also gives our regular world wide transmissions through webcast.

 

Ah, just remembered.. Namkhai Norbu will be in LA June 22nd for a 2 day retreat.. You should go

 

Ken McLeod is good for beginners, but he is usually talking about I AM and confuses that with Rigpa. Same with Surya Das. What they teach is not really Dzogchen

 

I'm sure there are Dzogchen masters in California, but since I live on the east coast, I'm not familiar with your neck of the woods.

 

Any Nyingma teacher will focus on Dzogchen. Gelugpa and Sakya focus on Mahamudra. Kagyu is sometimes focus on both. But Mahamudra and Dzogchen are pretty similar actually. Both are profound paths to enlightenment. Most important thing is to find a teacher you connect with because the essence of the Tibetan path is the pointing out or transmission that occurs between teacher and student. Since you seem practice oriented, I would recommend looking at Nyingma and Kagyu teachers. They tend to be more practice and less scholarly focused than Gelug and Sakya.

 

Also, check out this really cool interview by Daniel Brown, psychologist at Harvard Medical School and Tibetan translator/long time practitioner -- http://bcove.me/6gz19fhz

Kagyu focus on Mahamudra, while Sakya and Gelug focus on the generation and completion tantric practices, though Sakya and Gelug also have Mahamudra practices.

 

Wiki: "Mahāmudrā is most well known as a teaching within the Kagyu (w. Bka´ brgyud) lineages of Tibetan Buddhism. However the Tibetan Buddhist Gelug and Sakya schools also practice mahāmudrā, as does Shingon Buddhism, the other major sub-school of the Vajrayana.[citation needed] The Nyingma and Bön traditions practise Dzogchen, a cognate but distinct method of direct introduction to the empty nature of mind. Nyingma students may also receive supplemental training in mahāmudrā, and the Palyul Nyingma lineage preserves a lineage of the "Union of Mahāmudrā and Ati Yoga" originated by Karma Chagme."

 

I don't know about Ken McLeod so can't comment. Lama Surya Das is at least clear about nondual but I don't think very clear about twofold emptiness.

Edited February 20, 2012 by xabir2005

[Encephalon]

[Jetsun]

We are fortunate to have the Dalai Lama putting out so many teachings on so many different levels. I enjoyed the "How to see yourself as you really are" book it is a really good explanation of impermanence and emptiness, some of the others are more casual but the humour and compassion always shine through, but if you don't want to buy anything there is plenty of material available on his website for free and on YouTube there are a few channels which have hundreds of hours of his teachings on both very advanced and simple subjects.

 

Ideally though if you have the opportunity it is good to meet a Tibetan monk in person to really get a taste of what Bodhicitta really means and it's power, for me that brought the teaching alive and gave me confidence in it's potential far more than any book ever could.

[Encephalon]

Ideally though if you have the opportunity it is good to meet a Tibetan monk in person to really get a taste of what Bodhicitta really means and it's power, for me that brought the teaching alive and gave me confidence in it's potential far more than any book ever could.

 

I'm working on it. Thanks for mentioning this important fact. Here's the list of Tibetan schools in Los Angeles. One of the few advantages of living in this city.

[Gerard]

I worry that Buddhists spend overmuch time talking about various concepts and dogma and that their actual practice suffers accordingly.

 

I would say Internet Buddhists are like that.

 

It is as though the wood has been lost in the trees. Can anyone else see this or have I somehow missed the whole point?

 

Before I did my first Vipassana retreat in northern Thailand, I asked to the head of the Vipassana instructors if reading the Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha would help me with my practice, he replied: sorry you are not allowed to read anything or talk to anyone in here as it is a silent retreat let alone about Buddhism or your spiritual experiences. When I arrived at the monastery I realised that Theravada Buddhism was about the following: prostrate, sit and walk progressively to the point of meditating 24/7 non-stop with no talk and only reporting to my nominated instructor once a day to check on my progress. I had to sleep in a wooden bed an a thin mat in order to sleep less and meditate more.

 

I forgot to say that my last meal was at 11am.

 

I quickly understood what Buddhism was really about and was glad I didn't bring any books with me.

[Jetsun]

I would say Internet Buddhists are like that.

 

I think the problem of over talking and discussing concepts rather than actually practising is a big issue, just see how many hundreds of thousands of Dharma books have been published and it is obvious that for many people it remains too cerebral and intellectual. I have been reading some books about Tantra by Lama Yeshe where he talks about this and he says it is common in Tibet too, he says that some of the old masters would sometimes send some of their students for Dharma lessons to illiterate beggars who had a better grasp of the Dharma than some of the monks who could write whole books on the subject, because the ideas had not fertilised their hearts yet and had not turned their ideas into actual practice.

[Encephalon]

I would say Internet Buddhists are like that.

 

 

 

Before I did my first Vipassana retreat in northern Thailand, I asked to the head of the Vipassana instructors if reading the Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha would help me with my practice, he replied: sorry you are not allowed to read anything or talk to anyone in here as it is a silent retreat let alone about Buddhism or your spiritual experiences. When I arrived at the monastery I realised that Theravada Buddhism was about the following: prostrate, sit and walk progressively to the point of meditating 24/7 non-stop with no talk and only reporting to my nominated instructor once a day to check on my progress. I had to sleep in a wooden bed an a thin mat in order to sleep less and meditate more.

 

I forgot to say that my last meal was at 11am.

 

I quickly understood what Buddhism was really about and was glad I didn't bring any books with me.

 

I think this is a good point and I think you've made it repeatedly over the years, but at the risk of sounding like I'm hairsplitting and over-intellectualizing, there is a nuanced difference between monastic training and "what Buddhism is really about," and I don't claim to have ultimate knowledge of either.

 

What I do know is that the reality of interdependence and emptiness is extremely difficult to conceptualize, let alone experience as a daily waking reality, because our separateness as individuals exerts such a powerful hold on our imagination, and we end up creating reified "souls" that are eternal and "selves" that are separate.

 

I guess I'm somewhere in the middle in here when it comes to intellectualism. It's critical that people get at least a conceptual model of interdependency and emptiness in order to develop the experiential side, and what I've seen in here doesn't often serve that goal; the conversation appears overly intellectual but is often full of obfuscation and misleading conjecture.

 

Along side this hyperintellectualism is a form of anti-intellectualism that to me appears more like the posturing of pure laziness and an unwillingness to ferret out understanding from the texts. At some point on the path to enlightenment, scholarship and practice must intersect and I believe those who deny this are not getting the whole picture.

 

I should point out that I never fully immersed myself in the threads of interdependence or emptiness because I found them unnecessarily impenetrable. I ask those of you who nailed the subject down to forgive me for not recognizing it; there was too much background interference.

 

Thanks Jetsun for recommending "How to see yourself as you really are."