Greg/Zenbob/Question on Buddhism

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg and Zenbob,

I found value in the things you looked at, Zenbob, although for me

dismissing the Tibetan integration of Bon with Buddhism as "primitive"

seems somewhat polarizing, and might miss some of the richness there. For

me, the word "primitive" conjures up the idea of a civilization imposed

upon an "underlayer" of raw emotion and superstition. I'm not sure if

that's how things really work, although I have observed that when belief is

driven by emotional motivations, the truth can be obscured. However, this

emotional motivation for belief in what is true can occur in supposedly

"advanced" Western cultures, and I'm not sure it always occurs in

supposedly "primitive" nonWestern cultures.

 

The Bon religion indeed very much affected the Buddhism of Tibet that I've

been exposed to, which is essentially Dzogchen. I had a friend who studied

Vajrayana, and I'm not sure how different that is from Dzogchen - it seemed

similar, but perhaps having more rituals and visualizations. I think there

are four lineages of Tibetan Buddhism - perhaps someone on the list knows

these and can comment about the effects of the Bon religion. I know that

Tantra is another major influence, and some Theravadan Buddhists would see

Tantra as also getting away from the emphasis of the Buddha's original

teachings. And Tantric practitioners probably would see themselves as

having the most "pure" version.

So it goes, as Kurt Vonnegut used to say.

 

For me, a lover of art, the synthesis of Bon and Buddhist cultures gives a

unique and wonderful flavor to the images that resulted. Ch'an/Zen

Buddhism reflects a powerful influence from Taoism, another fruitful

alliance from the perspective of art and poetry. My wish is that when

cultures affect each other, that this occurs in ways that are peaceful,

harmonious, and enhancing to growth of people in the cultures involved. My

regrets, using the Zenbob technique of addressing the most significant

difficulty first, are far more for what occurred when China marched into

Tibet than what occurred when Buddhism met Bon.

 

I agree, however, that it is a very different apparent direction taken when

one expression of Buddhism relies on clarity of investigation and nothing

outside of the awareness of the individual investigator - and another

expression uses special mantras, images, secret doctrines, and

communications with spirit-beings (although all of this can be viewed as

archetypal expression of patterns in human awareness). I, like you, am

drawn to the idea of insight and clarity of investigation, yet rituals and

magic have a place in the human psyche and their potency is worth

understanding.

 

How do we reconcile these apparent oppositions in our human awareness and

expression -- for example between individual and collective, empiricism and

mythology? Perhaps the aformentioned Buddhist/Bon meeting and subsequent

integration can be viewed as an attempt at such reconciliation? Perhaps

all of our ways of understanding life reflect our humanness, and perhaps it

turns out to be an undivided awareness functioning here.

-- with love -- Dan

>Dear Greg:

>

>I have researched Dzogchen and Buddhism (consider Buddhism a fundamental

>basis for day to day philosophy) and I must conclude that the practice of

>Dzogchen in reality does not have it's basis in Buddhism at all.

>

>Also, Dzogchen, though in part, conceptionally akin to Taoism and Zen

>Buddhism, owes much of its history to the native early religions of Tibet

and

>the Bon religion, all of which have a rather strange fascination with

demons,

>spirits, propagating their good will and purport by use of prayers, mantras,

>the use of mala beads (like a rosary) mala prayer wheels, etc., where the

act

>of counting prayers (like a rosary) becomes an end unto itself, and the

>active path of Buddhism is in fact often forgotten.

>

>Dzogchen practitioners seek the nondualistic state of Rigpa, the "pure

light"

>but this is a personal and solitary effort based on meditation, prayer, and

>even severe renunciation and self induced suffering in some cases.

>

>Much of Dzogchen teachings divert quite fundamentally with the understood

>intents and purposes of Buddhism, and the Lotus Sutra and Eightfold Path are

>given but modest token approval, with actual practices relying heavily upon

>the Guru-Student relationship of passing on root teachings, prayers,

mantras,

>special protective spirits, demon incantations and other odd goodies which I

>personally find a bit primitive and absurd.

>

>Ah, my two yen's worth.

>

>Blessings

>Zenbob

>Greg Goode <goode

>Thank you Zenbob, for your inimitable informed clarity, laced with humor

>and plain 'ol good sense! It accords with what I've heard elsewhere about

>Dzogchen. I guess Lama Suyra Das is offering a stripped-down version,

>de-demonized, etc.?

>With love,

>--Greg

 

>>All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside

back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than

the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of

Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is

Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality

of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge,

spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to

a.

>

[Guest guest]

This link is from the Church of Tantra, and explains the development of

Tibetan Buddhism from Northern Indian Tantra.

If we examine any of the mystic paths of East (and West) we will

discover the similarities beneath the apparent differences in ritual,

approach etc. The source is the same for all - God, the Absolute,

Brahman....

 

OM Shanti

Michele

 

http://www.tantra.org/tibet.html

 

Dan Berkow, PhD wrote:

>

> "Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd

>

> Hi Greg and Zenbob,

> I found value in the things you looked at, Zenbob, although for me

> dismissing the Tibetan integration of Bon with Buddhism as "primitive"

> seems somewhat polarizing, and might miss some of the richness there. For

> me, the word "primitive" conjures up the idea of a civilization imposed

> upon an "underlayer" of raw emotion and superstition. I'm not sure if

> that's how things really work, although I have observed that when belief is

> driven by emotional motivations, the truth can be obscured. However, this

> emotional motivation for belief in what is true can occur in supposedly

> "advanced" Western cultures, and I'm not sure it always occurs in

> supposedly "primitive" nonWestern cultures.

>

> The Bon religion indeed very much affected the Buddhism of Tibet that I've

> been exposed to, which is essentially Dzogchen. I had a friend who studied

> Vajrayana, and I'm not sure how different that is from Dzogchen - it seemed

> similar, but perhaps having more rituals and visualizations. I think there

> are four lineages of Tibetan Buddhism - perhaps someone on the list knows

> these and can comment about the effects of the Bon religion. I know that

> Tantra is another major influence, and some Theravadan Buddhists would see

> Tantra as also getting away from the emphasis of the Buddha's original

> teachings. And Tantric practitioners probably would see themselves as

> having the most "pure" version.

> So it goes, as Kurt Vonnegut used to say.

>

> For me, a lover of art, the synthesis of Bon and Buddhist cultures gives a

> unique and wonderful flavor to the images that resulted. Ch'an/Zen

> Buddhism reflects a powerful influence from Taoism, another fruitful

> alliance from the perspective of art and poetry. My wish is that when

> cultures affect each other, that this occurs in ways that are peaceful,

> harmonious, and enhancing to growth of people in the cultures involved. My

> regrets, using the Zenbob technique of addressing the most significant

> difficulty first, are far more for what occurred when China marched into

> Tibet than what occurred when Buddhism met Bon.

>

> I agree, however, that it is a very different apparent direction taken when

> one expression of Buddhism relies on clarity of investigation and nothing

> outside of the awareness of the individual investigator - and another

> expression uses special mantras, images, secret doctrines, and

> communications with spirit-beings (although all of this can be viewed as

> archetypal expression of patterns in human awareness). I, like you, am

> drawn to the idea of insight and clarity of investigation, yet rituals and

> magic have a place in the human psyche and their potency is worth

> understanding.

>

> How do we reconcile these apparent oppositions in our human awareness and

> expression -- for example between individual and collective, empiricism and

> mythology? Perhaps the aformentioned Buddhist/Bon meeting and subsequent

> integration can be viewed as an attempt at such reconciliation? Perhaps

> all of our ways of understanding life reflect our humanness, and perhaps it

> turns out to be an undivided awareness functioning here.

> -- with love -- Dan

>

> >Dear Greg:

> >

> >I have researched Dzogchen and Buddhism (consider Buddhism a fundamental

> >basis for day to day philosophy) and I must conclude that the practice of

> >Dzogchen in reality does not have it's basis in Buddhism at all.

> >

> >Also, Dzogchen, though in part, conceptionally akin to Taoism and Zen

> >Buddhism, owes much of its history to the native early religions of Tibet

> and

> >the Bon religion, all of which have a rather strange fascination with

> demons,

> >spirits, propagating their good will and purport by use of prayers, mantras,

> >the use of mala beads (like a rosary) mala prayer wheels, etc., where the

> act

> >of counting prayers (like a rosary) becomes an end unto itself, and the

> >active path of Buddhism is in fact often forgotten.

> >

> >Dzogchen practitioners seek the nondualistic state of Rigpa, the "pure

> light"

> >but this is a personal and solitary effort based on meditation, prayer, and

> >even severe renunciation and self induced suffering in some cases.

> >

> >Much of Dzogchen teachings divert quite fundamentally with the understood

> >intents and purposes of Buddhism, and the Lotus Sutra and Eightfold Path are

> >given but modest token approval, with actual practices relying heavily upon

> >the Guru-Student relationship of passing on root teachings, prayers,

> mantras,

> >special protective spirits, demon incantations and other odd goodies which I

> >personally find a bit primitive and absurd.

> >

> >Ah, my two yen's worth.

> >

> >Blessings

> >Zenbob

>

> >Greg Goode <goode

>

> >Thank you Zenbob, for your inimitable informed clarity, laced with humor

> >and plain 'ol good sense! It accords with what I've heard elsewhere about

> >Dzogchen. I guess Lama Suyra Das is offering a stripped-down version,

> >de-demonized, etc.?

>

> >With love,

>

> >--Greg

>

> >>All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

> perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside

> back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than

> the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of

> Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is

> Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality

> of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge,

> spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to

> a.

> >

>

> > All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back

into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean,

all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does

not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is.

Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee

relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into

It Self. Welcome all to a.

[Guest guest]

Dear Dan:

 

I appreciated your carefully worded comments on Tibetan religious practices.

I certainly would agree that the diversity and richness of the Tibetan

culture is made more intriguing and complex by these ideologies, and did not

mean to suggest that this aspect was in any way negative.

 

My concerns, as you wisely ascertain, are that superstitious elements which,

as you tactfully suggest, may represent much rich archetypal material, also

have the effect of obscuring and even limiting the progression of the student

practitioner from fundamental baselines that are necessary for enlightenment

to manifest itself in.

 

This is of course, debatable as are all things of shadow, light, forms and

analogs of forms in the world of religious ideas, but history suggests that

dogmatic and insular beliefs that are based on abstract ritual devoid of

higher meaning can lead to intolerance, narrowness and even forms of mental

instability when incorporated by the highly suggestible, superstitious,

mentally unbalanced or emotionally super sensitive.

 

These, (sigh) I know to be words that may well inflame some

readers...(perhaps the emotionally super sensitive! LOL), but I view most

progressive forms of Yoga, Tantra, Buddhism and even some enlightened forms

of Christianity, Sufism (Islam), et al, as primarily systems of belief

founded on positive action, discipline and for the most part, free of the

impediment of superstitious fears and reactions based on a universe filled

with demons, goblins, spooks and malefic beings waiting at every corner to

ambush the unwary and devout believer.

 

I think we all have enough demons within us, and walking the planet in

perfectly common place human form to be concerned with on a daily basis,

without needing to create a pantheon of the absurd and malefic with which to

keep an entire populace held in sway, kept in awe and tormented mentally,

which, if memory serves, was the strategy of the Inquisition and the Salem

Witch Trials, perhaps the nadir of human compassion and tolerance, in

recorded history.

 

His Holiness, the Dalai Lama seems oddly in contrast to these more ancient

aspects of the Tibetan religious traditions, and has on more than one

occasion derided some schools of Tibetan Buddhism for relying on "Primitive

Superstitions designed to frighten and confuse" so, although I did not mean

to characterize the entire Tibetan religious beliefs as primitive (which all

are clearly not so), I was to some degree paraphrasing the Dalai Lama,

regarding certain particular practices which most "enlightened" peoples would

deem a bit crude or even scary.

 

As always, distinctions between various schools, root Guru teachings and

detailed written traditions are very complex, and apparent similarities

between Vajrayana and Dzogchen are perhaps more vested in the written

traditions, but much more divergent in the day to day practices. It is as if

Dzogchen Priests read with great interest and faithfulness, the early

Vajrayana texts, copied them carefully, then in bringing this new concept to

the masses, (reminiscent of early Roman Catholic Church practices of

Canonizing local Deities), amalgamated the local, ancient, tribal or

"primitive" (forgive that word) beliefs into daily practice, because that was

the only way that the average nomadic Tibetan would accept the new ideas.

So, like many religious "institutions" there develops and very sophisticated

religious practice for the "cognoscenti" and a much more superstitious and

"pagan" or "tribal" tradition for the average, simple villager.

 

After a number of centuries, this bicameral system of belief becomes it's own

unique flavor and the application of simple labels is impossible, since

Tibetan Buddhism is such a hodge- podge of Vajrayana Schools, Ch'an, Bon,

Tantra and other Hindu influences...and some even assert that early

Christians influenced the Tibetans as well!

 

We often err in thinking that the exotic, flavorful and complex must

necessarily be superior to paths that are simple, direct and free of excess

ritual, superstition, mind-wrenching dogma and a plethora of gods, demiurges,

sprites and djinn to keep us entertained. I believe that such thinking is

not mindful, not sound and can lead to grave dangers. Ancient is ancient.

Complex is complex. Neither represent necessarily clear virtues over

practical, simplified and uncluttered schools of thought.

 

We can arrive at an answer of 12 many ways, using simple or very complex

mathematics. However, all unnecessary routines should be removed from this

process, if one is going to fully understand the idea of mathematics.

 

Blessings

Love,

 

Zenbob