The Great Divide (or is it?)

[Robin]

As I've mentioned in another post, I've been meditating for a long time in a particular tradition and am now exploring other paths. It's a bit overwhelming to see just how many teachers and traditions there are out there, each with it's own take on spiritual development.

 

One big distinction seems to be the (apparent?) Theravada/Mahayana divide, which I think represents a much more general categorization than is found just within Buddhism:

 

On the one hand there is self-reliance and seemingly "down-to-Earth" practices which don't involve much cognitive dissonance for the average western-atheistic-mainstream-scientific worldview.

 

On the other, there is reliance on blessings, transmission and lineage, and all manner of phenomena that are generally beyond the pale of the mainstream western mentality, such as psychic events and suspension of the usual behavior of the "laws" of physics.

 

I’m curious to hear which path some of you have chosen, and why. Or perhaps some of you make use of elements from both approaches, and this works for you too? I ask to help meet my needs for learning, exploration and sharing.

 

[Apech]

Hi Robin,

 

First, though its not really an answer to your question the Theraveda/Mahayana divide is not as great as it is sometimes portrayed.  And the origins of it were not in some kind of sectarian dispute like Catholic/Protestant as is sometimes suggested by western commentators.  Some of the rationality of insight and mindfulness practices which might be associated with Theraveda is actually quite modern - and a response to western rationalism as experienced during European colonialism.  Some of the stranger sides of Mahayana come from fusion with much older shamanistic practices.  But I know you are using it as a kind of illustration of different approaches to practice so I'll put that to one side for now.

 

I practice Vajrayana for the simple reason that I feel a strong personal connection to it and some of its teachers.  I don't have rose coloured specs. about Tibet or any other culture - I think that's an error based on exotic cultural appeal.  I like the practice I do because it works - it addresses the things I need to address and supports me.  If it didn't I would do something else.  In fact I do study many systems but mostly just out of interest not as a main path.  I even like to listen to or read any radical thinker including atheists and so on - not necessarily to agree with them but to get stimulating challenge to received ideas and so on.

[wilfred]

Ideally you want and may need both - intellectual understanding of the processes and transmission of indescribable concepts/states of mind. I don't know how common it is but there can certainly be transmission as part of Theravada teaching. In my experience it's used differently than in the more Tibetan Buddhist systems ie Dzogchen.

 

Regardless of the path there is an ongoing relationship to the 'basic ground of awareness' as well as systematic mind cultivation in order to be able to see clearly. The difference with the more esoteric systems being they focus more on this relationship as a direct approach, in Theravada it's something that will become self-evident when the mind is more purified.

 

I will say that it's still very useful and maybe even essential to have a reference point for the ground of awareness in the systematic approach. Such is the nature of us western people we really need all the help (namely transmission) we can get in order to be able to drop our stuff. Many people will be too scared to start dropping their stuff if they don't realize there's something beyond traditional notions of nothingness (this basic ground) there to fall back on.

[Nikolai1]

Hi Robin,

 

Though none of this was deliberate, I started by staying very much within a western philosophical worldview, and always looked askance at those who started wearing robes, changing their name and chanting in ancient tongues.  I always felt that truth is as open to me, an everyday 21st century Englishman, as it is to people from any other time and place. Therefore, why change?

 

Pure truth was what I wanted, and I was skeptical of any system. Or I viewed any system as being just another metaphorical attempt at truth, no better or worse than any other.  Now I can see that when we start to transcend the prejudice we all have of being an individual bound by laws of time and space, strange things can start to happen to us whether we deliberately aim for them or not.

 

The dissonance you spoke of has therefore grown within me as experience has taught me more and more than there is more to this life than just the conventional western worldview.  I've also seen that a lot of what gets called exotic and esoteric is actually more of the same convention and so can end of being a trap even for those who fearlessly sought it out to begin with!

 

My main practice has been simple sitting meditation, and I never viewed it as any different from the mental prayer that we see in, say, the Catholic tradition.

 

Best wishes from a fellow Devonian!

[thelerner]

My natural instinct is to 'just sit'.  Occasionally there is a fascination with interesting systems and individuals.  Sometimes I'll dabble in them, see what I can learn, but I always go back to just sitting. 

[Marblehead]

Yep.  "Sit down and shut up" has served me well over the years when I couldn't decide what I should do next.

[Apech]

Yep.  "Sit down and shut up" has served me well over the years when I couldn't decide what I should do next.

 

 

... but sometimes you forget the 'shut up' part of that  ....

[Robin]

My natural instinct is to 'just sit'.  Occasionally there is a fascination with interesting systems and individuals.  Sometimes I'll dabble in them, see what I can learn, but I always go back to just sitting. 

 

I think "just sitting" is a very useful practice and at times the best thing to do. However, I'm open to the possibility, which has been suggested to me by some fairly experienced meditators, that there is such a thing as an "hourly rate of pay" as a metaphor in meditation. The idea is that whereas some more foundational practices might provide 1 unit of benefit/progress per hour spent practicing, other more advanced practices can yield a MUCH higher rate, perhaps 100 units per hour. (Of course how well any practice is done will effect this too).

 

This could be nonsense, but if it were true, it would be a pity to miss out on the opportunity to go further and quicker to wherever we are trying to get.

 

I'm also aware that the desire to get somewhere is considered the very problem which creates the need to meditate in the first place...

[Marblehead]

 

I'm also aware that the desire to get somewhere is considered the very problem which creates the need to meditate in the first place...

Important.  Sometimes just living is enough.