Exploring and mixing traditions
 

Dear friends, I'd be interested in hearing your response to one or both of the questions below.


I.Should we explore all the different Buddhist traditions or - just get to know and practice one properly first?

2.Do you think its ok to take the parts we like from different traditions, and mix them up together?



http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/hands.gif

1. In this day and age, we tend to start off as Kalamas, or brahmins. If I was going to be as gracious as possible, I would say that Theravada tends to invite Western Dhamma-followers, whereas Mahayana tends to invite Western faith-followers. However, as a first step I expect reading and listening to a wide variety of Dhamma folk is important. Do this enough, and the flavor of Dhamma should become apparent despite the variety of presentations, which leads us to...

2. Most people do this most of the time, which is to say they aren't actually orthodox even if they claim to be. A Buddhist who chants a Sutta as if it were a magic spell for protection, the Catholic who uses birth control, the Muslim knocking back a bottle of wine among friends... they are all ignoring that respective teaching, but any performer of these heterodoxies will have a rationale despite the doctrinal contradiction.

Mixing and matching religions with the Dhamma, whether inter- or intra-Buddhist, seems to result in such contradictions exclusively, as the mix & match that is Tibetan Buddhism + Bon exemplifies: a precise reincarnation doctrine is allowed to operate (Bardo, et al) which is wholly at odds with the Dhamma. The lack of a Zen Vinaya is another such contradiction. In the Thai tradition, misogyny is rampant and wholly non-Dhamma. But yet, each of these groups has a reason for their variety... and, the hope is that each of these groups has enough of the Dhamma to be discerned and put into practice.

I would say that the task of the modern Buddhist was to eliminate belief and behavior which were inherently contradictory in the sense I've explained here.

1. I think we should have a good understanding of the basic teachings that are common (or common-ish) to all forms of Buddhism, and also what makes these "schools" different, before we first choose a tradition. That is where we should explore... prior to choosing. Once we have made a choice, we should be aware of those commonalities and practice diligently, barring any complete inability to benefit from the practice. Judge your tradition and practice thusly -- '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'.

2. I think it's okay, if you fully understand the "part" you are changing, adding to or removing from your tradition. The various practices are all meant to be skillful means to cultivating wholesome mental states and leading to liberation; or at least that's what they should be. If you don't understand how the "part" works, be wary. Most traditions are packaged as "everything you need", and should have practices that work in much the same way even if they are called something else. The division between the schools is growing with each new tradition; know what you want to get out of the practice before you begin.

Namaste

There are the teachings of the historical Buddha and I have become aware of how important is to know what the Buddha taught. This experience has brought me a more wide perspective of the tradition I have choose. So, in some way I like many of the understandings that Theravada has even when I practice Soto Zen.

On the other hand I think it is important to keep an open mind so to be cautious with a chosen tradition. First of all, there are the teachings of the historical Buddha as the fundamental ones if one is to be understood in the practice of the Buddhadhamma. After this comes the tradition. Then come the different schools within that tradition and then the teacher or "guru" of the school of that tradition. I think that the teachings of the Pali Canon can guide us and bring light into this labyrinth so not to get attached so tightly to any of those narrowing our perspective.

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

I haven't personally explored enough traditions to have a strong opinion about this as far as Buddhism and/or dharma practice are concerned, but I wanted to say that this thread is awesome and I am enjoying the responses. My thanks to Aloka-D for posting it, and to everybody who has posted these thoughtful and excellent replies.

You guys are super cool.

.

I found a short video clip of Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche talking about his aspirations for western Buddhism and about his hope that there would eventually be a melting of boundaries with all American Buddhist traditions coming together.

Ideally its a really nice thought - but I wondered how this was possible considering the lineage tulku system and strong emphasis on gurus which is present in Tibetan Buddhism but not the same in other traditions, and the sometimes quite big differences in some of the teachings and practices of the different Buddhist traditions in general.

http://www.rebelbuddha.com/2011/02/d...tern-buddhism/

I still tend to stick to one tradition, to keep the path as simple as possible. I guess if one has the ability to encompass more than one tradition without getting confused, it can be okay, if it is true to say that "all roads lead to Rome".

A lot of the time, statements made by monastics and other knowledgeable persons from a particular tradition seem not to contradict the teachings of other traditions; they seem transferable. In this case, there does not seem to me to be any harm. I am thinking in particular of the short emails I get daily from Tricycle magazine.

It was the Vajrayana tradition (Tibetan) that I happened to come into contact with, so that "how" I practice. But in terms of "what" I practice, My first readings were Japanese Zen. I have gotten some of my best instructions from a Korean Zen master. I have learned a lot from the Theravada tradition and many Bhikkhus who are friends of mine. And I also study what the Japanese & Chinese Pure land teachings have to offer. My own teacher (lama) taught me how to take every experience as a teaching. So, I think if somebody can learne from the various traditions without watering them down, that this is a good thing. But for some people, this can be confusing and not so productive. As one lama said, "It's like mixing oils paints and watercolors. You can choose to paint with one or the other, but combining them doesn't work". So it probably depends on the student and what the student and teacher think is a good idea.

My thoughts at the moment on this are that we have to really understand what the material is, or we could be doing ourselves more harm than good by making our "own" form of Buddhism. Imagine dropping karma, because we have the view that karma and rebirth are some kind of supernatural teachings that don't belong... =P

Good point... it made me think that this "ownership" or appropriation form of Buddhism at the end becomes in the foundation of so many traditions and also the schools within that traditions. Sometimes a group of people can have their "own" way of Buddhism. Don't you think that this is why I think it is important to know, at least, the original teachings of the historical Buddha sensing the intent of his teachings?

Yeah, if we don't know what he taught, where are we? We have to find some tradition, learn it and practice, and hopefully awaken to some measure of the truth so that we know what it's really all about. Only then, IMHO, should we "mix and match" bits of this and that from different traditions. Maybe not even then. I guess it depends. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

I personally think the Pali Canon is the best source, the closest to what the Buddha taught. Even then though, it's immersed in cultural trappings that you have to find your way through, and this can be difficult for a while. We have to remember that the Buddha was speaking to people in the way he felt best would get through to them, knowing their way of thinking (which would be different from ours today, especially in the west since people think differently in different parts of the world) and their beliefs.

In addition to all that (lol), since there's only one reality to be found in the end, different "masters" may express it differently and teach different methods of seeing it. If we attach to the Buddha's teachings as the "best" or only way, we limit ourselves. I think a lot of post-Buddha enlightening was going on and some of those guys came up with alternative ways. We should be open to these too! The only reason we wouldn't be is if we're clinging in some form. :)

Sure Cloud.

True, this is why the teachings of the historical buddha must be taken as a guide through the learning. I practice Soto Zen but the knowledge of the teachings in the Pali Canon has make a great complement for the practice of Dhamma. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/grin.gif

I like Zen. That and Thai Forest seem sensible to me. Straight-forward, no-nonsense, to the point rather than being lost in the past or future. That one is Mahayana and one is Theravada means little to me.

Yes, IMHO this disposition toward practice makes it very workable and grounded. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

PS: time to go to bed... see [all] you later.

I.Should we explore all the different Buddhist traditions or - just get to know and practice one properly first? I should think this is to be ventured only by those who are well grounded in their own first.
Then again, this is not a dogma and I am not Pope Pius X http://ekvinde.dk/forum/style_emotic...fault/rofl.gif

2.Do you think its ok to take the parts we like from different traditions, and mix them up together? I tend to view them all as connecting parts of the same Buddha Legacy/Tradition...not traditions/legacies...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....1-6.vaji.html
But in whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline there is found the Noble Eightfold Path, there is found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....072.than.html
'Those who teach a Dhamma for the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — their Dhamma is well-taught. http://img3.fkcdn.com/img/008/9780861715008.jpg
Great Tsongkhapa had this to say:
'They have studied much yet are poor in Dharma
Blame it on their not taking the Scriptures as instructions'"

I haven't found a tradition that suits me. My approach isn't for everyone, but it's to go back to the basics and read the oldest source of the teaching and try to understand that; and cultivate a wide variety of sources I can go to with questions; and wise friends; and practice.

I don't think we have to start with any school or tradition. many people start with "Intro To Buddhism" books, or with university classes on the subject. Practicing the basics, the Eightfold Path, mindfullness, compassion doesn't require adherence to a particular tradition. If one wants to deepen one's understanding, or one's practice, then one needs to choose a school. One can research the different schools and decide which is the best fit.