Shardrol and Buddhism

[Kevin Solway]

I'm not sure what you'd call a major realization, but probably not.

I was wondering if your understanding of reincarnation might have changed to what I call "the esoteric interpretation". You can see it explicated in The Questions of Kutananda.

By this understanding each of us is spinning off countless "future lives", simultaneously, each moment.

By the way, have you met Richard Hayes yet? I suspect he is the one behind foxylaythee, but I could be wrong.

[Shardrol]

I was wondering if your understanding of reincarnation might have changed to what I call "the esoteric interpretation". You can see it explicated in The Questions of Kutananda.

By this understanding each of us is spinning off countless "future lives", simultaneously, each moment.

My understanding of reincarnation has never been other than what you call the 'esoteric interpretation'. I call it the Dzogchen view.

I don't think I ever discussed my view of reincarnation in this forum but since I've been so rash as to identify myself as a Buddhist, everyone's concepts of 'a Buddhist' are unthinkingly ascribed to me. It was because of exactly this sort of thing that I left this forum some years ago.

By the way, have you met Richard Hayes yet? I suspect he is the one behind foxylaythee, but I could be wrong.

I encountered him during the brief time I subscribed to the BUDDHA-L list. He is a very witty guy but I'm not interested in academic Buddhism.

Yes I could see how it's possible he might have written the Foxylaythee posts though I'd be surprised if he had that level of awareness of interpersonal relationships. He seemed kind of a cats-only sort. I was surprised to see (in your link) that he was married.

[Kevin Solway]

My understanding of reincarnation has never been other than what you call the 'esoteric interpretation'. I call it the Dzogchen view.

My apologies, I must have been thinking of something else, like your more tradiitonal views on guru-yoga.

I've just read your thoughts on empowerment - at least I think that's you. And I'm not surprised the students are confused.

I would personally describe spiritual empowerment as something like "being empowered by Nature to advance in wisdom".

My problem with guru-yoga is that it depends on gurus. If gurus and guru yoga actually work to create wise people, then I have no complaints with it. But often there are no genuine (wise) gurus to be found, and still a person has to develop their own wisdom.

You could argue that, in the absence of gurus, a person creates their own gurus inside their own head - which is true. A person naturally creates an ideal image, say, of themselves, which they strive to emulate.

Even when one has a physical guru, one doesn't know for sure whether that physical guru really exists. The guru might be some kind of an illusion for all the student knows. So even a physical guru is in reality only a thought in the student's mind.

[Shardrol]

My problem with guru-yoga is that it depends on gurus. If gurus and guru yoga actually work to create wise people, then I have no complaints with it. But often there are no genuine (wise) gurus to be found, and still a person has to develop their own wisdom.

You could argue that, in the absence of gurus, a person creates their own gurus inside their own head - which is true. A person naturally creates an ideal image, say, of themselves, which they strive to emulate.

Even when one has a physical guru, one doesn't know for sure whether that physical guru really exists. The guru might be some kind of an illusion for all the student knows. So even a physical guru is in reality only a thought in the student's mind.

I don't disagree with what you're saying here. Everyone has to develop their own wisdom - it can't be conferred by someone else. My understanding of Buddhism is that it's a collection of methods to facilitate realization rather than a collection of 'truths' to be accepted. I would say that all Buddhist practice is method, guru yoga included.

[Kevin Solway]

Everyone has to develop their own wisdom - it can't be conferred by someone else.

I have met countless Buddhists who think that they can't achieve great realizations, or participate in advanced Buddhist practices, without having first received some kind of transmission, empowerment, authorization, from a physical teacher. So something terribly wrong has happened somewhere along the line.

I have always considered that the explanation for this phenomenon was that false teachers were creating this myth in order to keep themselves in a job. In just the same way that business people will create an unnecessary product, and then, through crafty marketing, will create a need for this product, so that the customer feels that they "have to have it", and so the guru/priest can make a living.

To recount an advertisement I saw recently, it's like telling people that having yellowish teeth (self-empowerment) is some kind of a disease, to which they can provide the solution, for only three easy payments of $49.95 per month (not including shipping and handling of $69.95).

I would say that all Buddhist practice is method, guru yoga included.

All the same, I would be a lot more impressed with modern Buddhist teachings if I met Buddhists who believed in self-empowerment, thinking for yourself, aiming for the sky, etc, rather than people who are afraid to make a move before conferring with their guru, and the furthest they are reaching for is . . . well, . . . they're not reaching for anything at all. The furthest they are reaching for is probably dinner, or their partner.

I don't want you to feel like you're an apologist for all things Buddhist here. We do value your input - no matter what the subject.

[David Quinn]

Kevin wrote:

I have met countless Buddhists who think that they can't achieve great realizations, or participate in advanced Buddhist practices, without having first received some kind of transmission, empowerment, authorization, from a physical teacher.

How do they imagine Buddhism arose in the first place? The original Buddha, by default, couldn't have had the benefit of empowerment or transmission from a physical guru. Or don't they ever think about things like that?

-

[Shardrol]

I have met countless Buddhists who think that they can't achieve great realizations, or participate in advanced Buddhist practices, without having first received some kind of transmission, empowerment, authorization, from a physical teacher. So something terribly wrong has happened somewhere along the line.

People who become Buddhists after having grown up in a Judaeo-Christian culture tend to have particular misunderstandings about Buddhism as a result of the ideas about religion they have absorbed (usually without being aware of it) from the background assumptions of that culture. The main one seems to be that Buddhism is a religion much like Christianity but somehow more 'pure' & less corrupted by whatever negative observations they've made about the Church. People see the Buddha as similar to Christ & relate to his teachings as The Revealed Truth. From this misunderstanding all others proceed. That's why I think it's so important to constantly reiterate that Buddhism is method rather than truth. None of the methods are absolute, & all of them need to be understood in their own context.

I should also mention that Eastern Buddhists seem to be as confused as Western Buddhists, though I think for different reasons. There is something about the mind of most people that tends to simplify things in order to make them more solid. In this way ideas which are not fully understood are transformed into simple rules & everyone can be happy knowing that they're doing it 'right' & that they can sneer at others who are doing it 'wrong'. This pattern can be observed in nearly all human endeavors.

I have always considered that the explanation for this phenomenon was that false teachers were creating this myth in order to keep themselves in a job.

Well that would be the cynical view. I don't actually think most of it is deliberate.

All the same, I would be a lot more impressed with modern Buddhist teachings if I met Buddhists who believed in self-empowerment, thinking for yourself, aiming for the sky, etc, rather than people who are afraid to make a move before conferring with their guru, and the furthest they are reaching for is . . . well, . . . they're not reaching for anything at all. The furthest they are reaching for is probably dinner, or their partner.

Which means they are not different from most other people. Well yeah! It's obvious to me that while many people desire some association with religion & what they conceive of as spirituality, the number of those who actually want it to change their lives is quite small. I don't imagine there are any more of them among Buddhists than in any other category.

I don't want you to feel like you're an apologist for all things Buddhist here.

It would certainly be ironic if I did. There are far more of the rule-following, "Buddha said it, I believe it, that settles it" style of Buddhists around than anything else. The ideas I mention above seem to be considered either completely nonsensical, irrelevant or annoying to most of the Buddhists I've come in contact with through the internet.

[Kevin Solway]

Buddhism is method rather than truth.

I would agree that it contains methods. Even simple explanations of the law and cause and effect cannot really convey the truth of cause and effect to a person whose mind is unable to generate that truth within itself. So the explanations are themselves a kind of method - a stimulus, or a preparing of the ground whereby something can germinate and take root.

But as to whether the methods of guru yoga bring wisdom, then we have to look to the fruits of the methods. And in my view, they tend not to bring wisdom. At least, not when taught by the Buddhist teachers I've seen.

It's more than likely that the methods are incorrectly practised, incorrectly taught, incorrectly conceived, incorrectly interpreted, etc. In other words, if the methods ever existed, they have been lost.

As you've probably noticed, I've moved this thread over to the main forum.

[Shardrol]

Buddhism is method rather than truth.

I would agree that it contains methods. Even simple explanations of the law and cause and effect cannot really convey the truth of cause and effect to a person whose mind is unable to generate that truth within itself. So the explanations are themselves a kind of method - a stimulus, or a preparing of the ground whereby something can germinate and take root.

What I meant is that it is all method. Even the view that it is all method is method.

There is one thing in Buddhism that isn't method & that is emptiness.

But as to whether the methods of guru yoga bring wisdom, then we have to look to the fruits of the methods. And in my view, they tend not to bring wisdom. At least, not when taught by the Buddhist teachers I've seen.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by guru yoga here. Is it the practice of relating to another human being as a guru, or do you mean something more specific?

It's more than likely that the methods are incorrectly practised, incorrectly taught, incorrectly conceived, incorrectly interpreted, etc. In other words, if the methods ever existed, they have been lost.

Whatever the method, there are still the factors of who is teaching it & who is practicing it. Mileage may vary.

[Kevin Solway]

There is one thing in Buddhism that isn't method & that is emptiness.

Yes, but that is in everything. Even if all understanding of Buddhism should disappear, and only the outer shell of "Buddhism" remain - a lifeless husk - Buddhism will still lack inherent existence.

I think perhaps you mean that true Buddhism is a collection of methods leading to, pointing to, suggesting emptiness, and stimulating a realization of it. I would agree that ideally that is the case.

But as to whether the methods of guru yoga bring wisdom, then we have to look to the fruits of the methods. And in my view, they tend not to bring wisdom. At least, not when taught by the Buddhist teachers I've seen.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by guru yoga here. Is it the practice of relating to another human being as a guru, or do you mean something more specific?

To quote a typical Buddhist teacher: "Now, Dharma practice, meditation, is much, much more deeper [than purely intellectual learning], and these spiritual realizations that we are trying to cultivate, trying to accomplish . . . it is very profound and delicate. Therefore we do need master or teacher or lama or guru who can show us how to do the practice properly and correctly."

Now this is actually wrong. Pure and simple. For the truth is that one does not necessarily require a physical teacher to help with such things. Sure, it would definitely be a help to have, say, a fully fledged Buddha or bodhisattva to converse with, but it is not a necessity. And in ages of darkness, such as the one that we are currently in, proper teachers/gurus are virtually impossible to find. So it is dangerous to tell people they require a guru - especially when they are too ignorant to be able to tell a genuine guru from a fraud. For the chances are that the person wll end up with a fraudulent guru (ie, at best, one who genuinely thinks he is a guru but isn't).

[Shardrol]

There is one thing in Buddhism that isn't method & that is emptiness.

Yes, but that is in everything. Even if all understanding of Buddhism should disappear, and only the outer shell of "Buddhism" remain - a lifeless husk - Buddhism will still lack inherent existence.

Yes. I didn't mean to imply that emptiness belonged to Buddhism or that Buddhism itself was exempt from inherent emptiness.

I think perhaps you mean that true Buddhism is a collection of methods leading to, pointing to, suggesting emptiness, and stimulating a realization of it. I would agree that ideally that is the case.

Yes that's what I meant.

To quote a typical Buddhist teacher: "Now, Dharma practice, meditation, is much, much more deeper [than purely intellectual learning], and these spiritual realizations that we are trying to cultivate, trying to accomplish . . . it is very profound and delicate. Therefore we do need master or teacher or lama or guru who can show us how to do the practice properly and correctly."

Now this is actually wrong. Pure and simple. For the truth is that one does not necessarily require a physical teacher to help with such things.

I would say that one does in fact require a physical teacher to practice methods which make use of a physical teacher. Not all Buddhist methods require a physical teacher, but in order to practice those that do, a physical teacher is necessary.

Sure, it would definitely be a help to have, say, a fully fledged Buddha or bodhisattva to converse with, but it is not a necessity.

Why would it help?

And in ages of darkness, such as the one that we are currently in, proper teachers/gurus are virtually impossible to find.

Age of darkness? Surely you don't accept all that superstitious mumbo-jumbo about the Kaliyuga?

Why do you say proper teachers are virtually impossible to find? I think one could learn something from anyone who has some degree of wisdom, even if they are not a perfect Buddha.

So it is dangerous to tell people they require a guru - especially when they are too ignorant to be able to tell a genuine guru from a fraud.

They only require a guru if they want to practice Vajrayana, where guru yoga is the central method (what I mean by guru yoga here is unifying with the mind of the teacher, usually through some sort of symbolic practice but also directly).

People have to use their own judgment to discern who is or is not a proper teacher for them - if they want a teacher. There's no reason why they can't do this in the same way that they make other decisions about which books to read or how to spend their time. There are no guarantees - we have to take responsibility for our own choices.

[Kevin Solway]

To quote a typical Buddhist teacher: "Now, Dharma practice, meditation, is much, much more deeper [than purely intellectual learning], and these spiritual realizations that we are trying to cultivate, trying to accomplish . . . it is very profound and delicate. Therefore we do need master or teacher or lama or guru who can show us how to do the practice properly and correctly."

Now this is actually wrong. Pure and simple. For the truth is that one does not necessarily require a physical teacher to help with such things.

I would say that one does in fact require a physical teacher to practice methods which make use of a physical teacher.

Yes, that would be a logical necessity - a truth by definition. But the "guru" I quoted (a Tibetan Buddhist) was saying that a guru is needed just to achieve profound spiritual realizations - which is wrong.

And there is a problem, since teachings that require the existence of a physical teacher are plagued with the problem that there is no way we can verify for certain that the physical teacher exists, even if we think we might have found one.

Sure, it would definitely be a help to have, say, a fully fledged Buddha or bodhisattva to converse with, but it is not a necessity.

Why would it help?

They might decide to try to influence us in certain directions which might lead us towards enlightenment.

And in ages of darkness, such as the one that we are currently in, proper teachers/gurus are virtually impossible to find.

Age of darkness? Surely you don't accept all that superstitious mumbo-jumbo about the Kaliyuga?

No, I wasn't speaking of the Kaliyuga, it's just my own observation. Over recent centuries the human race seems to be progressing into deeper and deeper spiritual darkness. The light shone probably twice as brightly a century ago than it does today.

Why do you say proper teachers are virtually impossible to find? I think one could learn something from anyone who has some degree of wisdom, even if they are not a perfect Buddha.

Certainly. I often get interesting spiritual morsels from, say, service station attendants or shop assistants. But as for guides to advanced spiritual realizations, they are extremely rare.

They only require a guru if they want to practice Vajrayana, where guru yoga is the central method (what I mean by guru yoga here is unifying with the mind of the teacher, usually through some sort of symbolic practice but also directly).

You don't need a living, physical teacher to be able to unify your mind with the teacher. For example, if you have a book by, say, the Zen Master Hakuin, it is possible for a gifted student to unify his mind with Hakuin, even though Hakuin no longer exists, and may never have actually, physically existed. "Hakuin" is really just an idea in the mind. This is the way it must necessarily be with all gurus. They are ideas in the mind.

Ultimately there is only one guru, and that is Nature, Buddha, the Dharmakaya (Buddha-body) - which can be physical or spiritual, depending on how you want to think of it.

People have to use their own judgment to discern who is or is not a proper teacher for them - if they want a teacher. There's no reason why they can't do this in the same way that they make other decisions about which books to read or how to spend their time. There are no guarantees - we have to take responsibility for our own choices.

All the same, while people have to take personal responsibility for their mistakes, they aren't at all helped by the kind of bad instruction given by guru I quoted. He is encouraging people to make bad decisions, just like the businessman who encourages people to spend money on tooth-whiteners.

[Shardrol]

I would say that one does in fact require a physical teacher to practice methods which make use of a physical teacher.

Yes, that would be a logical necessity - a truth by definition. But the "guru" I quoted (a Tibetan Buddhist) was saying that a guru is needed just to achieve profound spiritual realizations - which is wrong.

Well it's possible that what he meant was that a guru was necessary to achieve profound spiritual realizations through the methodology of Vajrayana - I don't know. I think we would have to know the context to understand exactly what he meant.

And there is a problem, since teachings that require the existence of a physical teacher are plagued with the problem that there is no way we can verify for certain that the physical teacher exists, even if we think we might have found one.

I don't think it's necessary to be able to verify for certain that the physical teacher exists anymore than it's necessary to verify for certain that we aren't all brains in jars in a laboratory somewhere hallucinating our experience. It's still our experience, whatever its source.

The methods which depend on a physical teacher have to do with getting input from outside the solipsistic kingdom of one's own rationale. You are right that if the teacher was a hallucination & the student wasn't, then the input wouldn't really be from outside at all so the method wouldn't work. To me this possibility seems too absurd to be interesting, but I understand that since to you all truth is based only on logical reasoning, you would need to consider it.

No, I wasn't speaking of the Kaliyuga, it's just my own observation. Over recent centuries the human race seems to be progressing into deeper and deeper spiritual darkness. The light shone probably twice as brightly a century ago than it does today.

That's a sad observation but I can't say I disagree with you.

I often get interesting spiritual morsels from, say, service station attendants or shop assistants. But as for guides to advanced spiritual realizations, they are extremely rare.

I have met several in my life. Maybe I'm just lucky.

On the other hand, I don't think anyone can objectively be identified as a guide to advanced spiritual realizations. It has to do with the relationship between the two people. One man's guru is another man's tedious freak.

You don't need a living, physical teacher to be able to unify your mind with the teacher. For example, if you have a book by, say, the Zen Master Hakuin, it is possible for a gifted student to unify his mind with Hakuin, even though Hakuin no longer exists, and may never have actually, physically existed. "Hakuin" is really just an idea in the mind. This is the way it must necessarily be with all gurus. They are ideas in the mind.

I don't disagree with this either but I think it can be greatly facilitated if the guru is interactive.

I'll be away from the computer for the next two weeks, so you can have the last word here.

[Kevin Solway]

The methods which depend on a physical teacher have to do with getting input from outside

I would be happy to define "guru yoga" as relating to input that may sometimes appear to come from outside. But it can often appear to come from inside. For example, an appearing teacher, who appears wiser than you, might convey something to you - a deep truth. But later, you realize that you misinterpreted what the teacher was saying. What you understood was indeed a deep truth, but what he was actually telling you was false. In this case your own understanding was in fact deeper than your teacher's.

But I think this is still an instance of "guru yoga".

Ultimately, everything finds its source "outside" - even the for solipsist, whose mind must be caused by something other than itself.