Jump to content
Dharmaling Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Wangmo

Buddhism outside religious context?

Recommended Posts

Tashi Delek!

 

I stumbled upon a reference to the usage of "Tibetan Buddhist teachings and practices outside the religious context" (I think this was the expression).

 

Can such practices work at all outside the religious context? And does this mean that there is no guidance from a qualified teacher? Or are there qualified spiritual teachers who are outside the religious context?

 

I have heard so many stories about people getting in big trouble after trying some practices just like that ... So - can using practices from Tibetan Buddhism become dangerous without the religious context, or without a qualified teacher :?:

 

Thank you, and best wishes.

 

Mojca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mojca,

 

there are certain tibetan teachers who've decided to present a what is called a secular path along with the more traditional religious Buddhist path - Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche and his son Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche are like that. Trungpa Rinpoche started what is called Shambhala Training which is geared towards presenting certain teachings in a way that would be accessible to people who have no interest in religious way per se, yet want to live a full and happy life, creating what is termed "enlightened society". Also, Vietnamese master Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh decided to follow a similar way with what he calls "mindfulness practice centers". This however does not mean that just anybody can teach these things, there is a rigorous training and certificaton involved, just as it is with more traditional teachings. Also, both of these teachers also teach in a more traditional way. I guess you could say this is one of the many skillfull means that teachers invent to be able to reach as many people as possible.

 

Warm regards,

Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hi Robert,

 

This however does not mean that just anybody can teach these things, there is a rigorous training and certificaton involved, just as it is with more traditional teachings.

 

Can you tell more about this trainings? Is their aim to reach complete enlightenment or "just" :wink: to pacify our mind and to become more compassionate - to live a better life? (I appreciate any kind of effort anyway.) :)

 

Warm regards,

Masa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek,

 

As well as Shakyamuni Buddha taught Dharma in several ways, to fit the aspiration of many beings, some Lamas decide to start some new lineage of teachings. Skillful means, as we say. To help all those who cannot commit themselves into a traditional way which would include all the Buddhist Path, with not only some "bit and pieces" of Buddhist philosophy, but the whole methods to reach Enligtenment.

Therefore, we shall distinguish those "skillful means" from Buddhism 'as a whole'. Shakyamuni Buddha has shown the Path to Enlightenment; it includes knowledges and practices, along with clear Ethical commitments and Perfected Motivation. The Buddha was a monk, and has established the Sangha, for people who are ready to engage themselves fully into the Path, without compromise. Not that it is not possible to practice and reach Enlightenment being a lay person, but clearly that the best way is by renuncing to the worldly activities. A proper Sangha starts when 4 fully ordained monks are gathered; this is what has been said by the Buddha. Then, 'Sangha' has been extented to all ordained practitionners. Lately, some would like to call 'Sangha' all Buddhists... In the same way, Buddhism should be qualified when it integrates the best of the Teachings (concerning not only the philosophy, but including Ethic, practice, Motivation), not just some pieces of it.

While, to help as much beings as possible, one can decide to teach some 'bit and pieces', mixed with local traditions or believes. But it should be clear that it is not "Buddhism". Buddhism is a religion, can cannot be taugh without 'religiosity'.

 

It is helpful to take this and that from Buddhism to help people who are not Buddhist; but it is clear that it is not a complete Path, as the Buddha has taught the Path to Enlightenment.

 

The confusion comes sometime from people who would like to oppose ordained to lay people. There is no opposition. According to one's possibility of life, and depth of renunciation, one will join the Sangha and an other will practice Buddha Dharma as a lay in the society. Both can practice the Highest of Buddha Dharma. Renunciating completely the wordly activities gives the advantage to be able to focus completely on the practices and studies; but surely someone living in the society can as well integrates some time for practice and study. Such possibility is clear, and has been clearly shown by the examples of well known Masters such as Naropa, Marpa, and many others.

 

Sometime, this opposition is created by people who cannot become monk or nun and want to 'prove' something to the others, to establish their popularity on the weaknesses more than on the pure Ethic. We can hear also some so called lay "lama" saying publically that monks/nuns belong to the old fashion and are useless! Those people are going against the Buddha; but this should engage only themselves. As, in reality, such opposition doesn't exist.

 

Hope this helps to understand better :)

All the best, Gelong T. Shenphen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek,

 

Trungpa Rinpoche started what is called Shambhala Training which is geared towards presenting certain teachings in a way that would be accessible to people who have no interest in religious way per se, yet want to live a full and happy life, creating what is termed "enlightened society".

 

Hum - this is what makes me wonder. Does one engage on the spiritual path to feel better, to live a full and happy life? My answer here would be definitely "no".

 

So I opened the book of Trungpa Rinpoche "Shambhala - The sacred path of the warrior" and found this text: "At this point, having completely renounced his own comfort and privacy, paradoxically, the warrior finds himself more alone. He is like an island sitting alone in the middle of a lake. Occasional ferry boats and commuters go back and forth between the shore and the island, but all that activity only expresses the further loneliness, or the aloneness, of the island. Although the warrior's life is dedicated to helping others, he realizes that he will never be able to completely share his experience with others. The fullness of his experience is his own, and he must live with his own truth. Yet he is more and more in love with the world. That combination of love affair and loneliness is what enables the warrior to constantly reach out to help others. By renouncing his private world, the warrior discovers a greater universe and a fuller and fuller broken heart. This is not something to feel bad about: it is a cause for rejoicing. It is entering the warrior's world." (Part one: How to be a warrior: 8 - Renunciation and Daring)

 

From this I understand that this is a path of self-transformation for the sake of others, to be able to create a society which benefits all. Which can be a bit rough and painful for the individual undergoing it.

But the motivation for such a quest is usually found in a religious context, isn't it? Or in an ideological context ... So if there is no religious context here to keep one going, what is it then? Why do it at all, then?

 

Or did I misunderstand, and this is a path to make the person more in touch with him/herself, cope easier with everyday problems etc.?

 

Thank you, and all the best.

 

Mojca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek,

I will let Robert to answer the question about Trungpa Rinpoche's Path of Shambala Warriors, because I don't know enough about it. I like Trungpa Rinpoche's books, but do not follow that particular Path.

Does one engage on the spiritual path to feel better, to live a full and happy life? My answer here would be definitely "no".
There are several level of motivation to practice. It is not at first that we come close to Bodhicitta.

At first, most people do engage into a Path to find the way out of suffering, for themselves and in short term (this life and further). Then, people wish to get rid of suffering for ever, to reach Liberation from the Samsara. The third level is the wish to reach Enlightenment, in order to help as many sentient beings as possible to reach the end of their suffering. And those Paths can be practiced at different depth; I mean, engaging into more or less practices....

 

It seems that a common mistake is to think that nothing needs to be changed in order to practice Buddha Dharma. While Shakyamuni Buddha always emphasized on Renunciation for example. While the "37 practices of Bodhisattva" point out the need to separate from wordly life.

So, surely one can start a spiritual life by taking here and there what one likes, some concepts, some laws which helps to understand, which please one's vision of the life... but further we walk, more we understand, deeper we go, and more we understand that we have to change our whole way of thinking and living. It is not necessarily that we have to learn more [as a matter of fact, I believe that we have to "un-learn" a lot!] but that we have to change our way to perceive the world, the way the phenomena do appear to us, do function. It is so close, and yet so far at the same time since we are blinded by veils and veils of ignorance, of learned erroneous concepts, through education, social environment, and so forth.

In such, I understand the need of skillful way to bring the Path at the level of as many beings as possible, but such teachings shall not bring shadow to the complete Path by using its name while not explaining all its concepts.

 

To answer one above (in the thread) question: I do not think we can reach Enlightenment without we get to know what is Enlightenment, and without practices of religious level (mantra recitation, prostration, prayers, meditations on Emptiness, on Bodhicitta, etc...).

 

All the best, Gelong T. Shenphen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Robert,

 

 

Can you tell more about this trainings? Is their aim to reach complete enlightenment or "just"  :wink: to pacify our mind and to become more compassionate - to live a better life? (I appreciate any kind of effort anyway.)  :)  

 

Warm regards,

Masa

 

Hello Masha,

 

it's a good question and one I'm afraid I will not be able to answer completely. My current understanding is that the two paths join at some point, when one gets into what are called the "graduate levels" one starts doing practices that Trungpa Rinpoche received as "terma" and are in fact tantric texts. Most people I know who are doing these practices are also doing Buddhist practices as well, so it is in fact hard to separate the two. I have heard opposing views though in the past - some say Shambhala Training's aim is not to achieve full enlightenment but i guess you could say "full humanness", just being a decent human being who cares for others and who is involved in society as it is helping to create/establish a vision of enlightened society.

On the other hand, during last summer's Vajrayana Seminary program at Dechen Choling in France, Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche taught about Shambhala as essential ground that enables Vajrayana teachings to really take root in the west. He taught about creating a culture, a Shambhala culture and he feels that is only through something like that that Vajrayana teachings can be presented in a proper way here in the West. I'm sure many will disagree about this, but it has really gotten me to think and contemplate about it. Why did he say this? How does Shambhala culture prepare the ground for Vajrayana teachings? I have to say I do not have the answers to these questions, but am very curious in continuing to explore this and to try to deepen my understanding. I have to say though, that in my experience he has a point. I've been to quite a few Vajrayana teachings in the West and also in India and none had such impact on me as this program that was taught withing the Shambhala setting. There is something about the upliftedness of the environment, the crispness and the discipline of it, that continually wakes one up, there's a sense of brilliance that i think enables one to make some connection to one's own innate brilliance of mind.

 

Warm regards,

Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tashi Delek,  

 

Trungpa Rinpoche started what is called Shambhala Training which is geared towards presenting certain teachings in a way that would be accessible to people who have no interest in religious way per se, yet want to live a full and happy life, creating what is termed "enlightened society".

 

Hum - this is what makes me wonder. Does one engage on the spiritual path to feel better, to live a full and happy life? My answer here would be definitely "no".

...

From this I understand that this is a path of self-transformation for the sake of others, to be able to create a society which benefits all. Which can be a bit rough and painful for the individual undergoing it.

But the motivation for such a quest is usually found in a religious context, isn't it? Or in an ideological context ... So if there is no religious context here to keep one going, what is it then? Why do it at all, then?

 

Or did I misunderstand, and this is a path to make the person more in touch with him/herself, cope easier with everyday problems etc.?

 

Mojca

 

Hi Mojca,

 

you're raising good points here. I think Lama Shenphen already answered some of this - motivation depends on the person, and i think if we really look at ourselves we'll see that throughout our day our own motivations can go from what if called "the small of the small" to the highest bodhisattva motivation (hopefully! ;-) )

So, does one engage in the spiritual path to feel better? well, depends on the person. In some way I sure hope so - if you don't even have the wish for yourself to be happy, it's probably impossible to wish that for others. But as anyone knows who's been practicing any length of time, the path is hardly painless, in fact it is extremely difficult and demanding. And if your motivations stops here, then I think it becomes problematic, because you really can't progress very far if you're in it just for your own sake.

 

however, i've seen a lot of people (including myself!) misunderstand the teachings on putting others before oneself so that they can in fact punish themselves, put themselves down as unworthy, feel bad everytime they feel good about something thinking that they're being egoistic and that they SHOULD immediately share every bit of goodness with others. Sometimes I feel pleasure is even worse for many of us western buddhists as is suffering or pain. Perhaps this sounds a bit weird, but i've been in this kind of hole for too long myself and have seen many many other practitioners doing some version of it as well. you could call it self-hatred or whatever, but it is very treacherous, because it can use excellect advice of Buddhism and twist it to actually bolster the ego. I've found out that the ego doesn't really care if "I" feel the best or the worst, in both cases I am very solid, very existing, and the star of the whole show.

anyway, perhaps this is a bit offtrack... ;-)

to go back to motivation, perhaps you can say what does religious context mean for you? for me, the motivation for the path comes from the longing for our own essential nature, which is present all the time, no matter what we call it. and i think as one practices more and makes friends with oneself and his own suffering, how can one not open up to others and start caring for others and wishing them to be free of this same kind of suffering that he realizes that he is in and that everybody else is also in? perhaps one could call this longing religious, but i think it is something that is not dependent on religion at all, but something that is innate in all of us. I guess I don't have a good definition what religious actually means! :-)

anyway, it's a good discussion and i think it can help clarify some things.

A an aside, my teacher Ani Pema Chodron tells a story of how her own teacher Trungpa Rinpoche used to tease her whenever he would see her

: "Don't be so religious!' he would say and she was always left there dumbfounded, dressed in her maroon robes and trying to figure out what on earth did he mean! ;-)

 

Warm regards,

Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, does one engage in the spiritual path to feel better? well, depends on the person. In some way I sure hope so - if you don't even have the wish for yourself to be happy, it's probably impossible to wish that for others.  

...

however, i've seen a lot of people (including myself!) misunderstand the teachings on putting others before oneself so that they can in fact punish themselves, put themselves down as unworthy, feel bad everytime they feel good about something thinking that they're being egoistic and that they SHOULD immediately share every bit of goodness  with others.  

...

to go back to motivation, perhaps you can say what does religious context mean for you?  for me, the motivation for the path comes from the longing for our own essential nature, which is present all the time, no matter what we call it. and i think as one practices more and makes friends with oneself and his own suffering, how can one not open up to others and start caring for others and wishing them to be free of this same kind of suffering that he realizes that he is in and that everybody else is also in? perhaps one could call this longing religious, but i think it is something that is not dependent on religion at all, but something that is innate in all of us. I guess I don't have a good definition what religious actually means! :-)

...

anyway, it's a good discussion and i think it can help clarify some things.  

 

Hello Robert,

 

I agree that this is a good discussion. :)

 

First, I think the term religious is usually used to define something which deals with what is holy or sacred, the experience of it, its manifestations and such. So to say, something bigger than what we see around ourselves, the hidden nature of things, the deeper meaning of life etc. (and also the presumption that life has a deeper meaning). What you call our essential nature surely is a topic of the religious domain, I think.

 

But what I meant when I asked about Buddhist practices outside the religious context was "Buddhist practices outside the context of Buddhism". Namely, if you have a staircase, and take only a few stairs out of it, it is questionable where they bring you - IF you can use them as stairs at all. Although they were perfectly well performing their function in the context of the staircase ... :wink:

 

If I come back to the definition of religious, I would say that every religion in its entirety describes the context of the sacred/holy and man's relationship with it. I am not sure if only some parts of it can do this too.

Because I think the whole context of a religion gives you a place in the world and tells you in which direction you have to look to see what is bigger than you and far more important than any of your little problems can ever be. So to say, it gives you a map and compass. If you fall into a hole, as you say, sooner or later you find your way out too.

 

But you gave me a valubale clue with your answer to Masha: what about this sacred/holy in our western culture? It seems this gradually dissapeared over the centuries. Or has been pushed out by the great technological development and such - I think many computers and household machines today can do much more than the huge and mighty deities of old times. :wink: So how would we seriously engage in any religion if we are convinced that we are almighty already? Here I think that a non-religious training which shows us a different experience of the world can be very helpful, that it can really bring us back to discover this more spiritual side of life.

 

All the best,

 

Mojca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is good to see this discussion here. Surely it will clarify much.

 

I believe that Vajrayana has been taught in the best way by the Buddha, and all Masters, and is available pure and complete mainly from Tibetan Lamas.

Yet, in the West, we have a differente attitude toward spirituality and faith. Since centuries, religion and society are separated, and the available sources of religion were such that many departed from any spiritual work and beleives.

Nowadays, more people seems open to alternative ways of thinking, more spiritual. But, most are not willing to change too much of their life. That is why many people would like to see Buddhism as simply a philosophy. To answer this demand, some 'new' paths have been initiated; this is as I would see Trungpa Rinpoche's action. It is a skillful way to bring the essence of Bouddha Dharma to people who at first are not so willing to transform their whole life. That is why Trungpa Rinpoche was a lay Lama and was not emphasizing on the so called 'religious aspect'.

I met an other such Lama; TseChokLing Rinpoche. Said to be an emanation of Milarepa. Lay Lama, manifesting a very "ordinary" existence, falling even into some excess of "good life" (as Trungpa Rinpoche). Yet, when the time was ready, able to show all the qualities of a Bodhisattva!

 

As Robert mentioned it, most followers, and all teachers that I could see the biography of, of the Shambala school are Buddhist practionners; and the well known Ani-la Pema Chodron is a nun.

Which brings me to say that however you start, enter in contact with Buddhism, or whatever way you choose, skillfully, to help the others to understand the Dharma, you end up into the religious practice, core of Buddha-Dharma, as it is the only way to really change something in depth within our mind.

 

What appears important also to point out is that to try to skip the practices, or to pretend that a lay, familial, full work life in the society is the same as dedicated religious life, by any fallacious and erroneous reasoning, is a trick of our lazy Ego :wink: Surely one can practice Dharma is any circumstances, but some are more 'secure' to give time and opportunity for the practices.

 

All the very best, Gelong T. Shenphen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

By the way / for comparation: similar debates are going on, already for some years, also on other fields of knowledge.

 

Example from classical music: crossover (classical compositions with techno arangements etc.), promotion of classical music through sexy image :oops: or linking to pop icones... I've come accross the same questions in science, other religions, medical and therapheutic approaches, humanistic sciences...

 

What do you think it tells about the time we are living in 8), specially about its general awareness 8O?

 

All the best,

Masha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By the way / for comparation: similar debates are going on, already for some years, also on other fields of knowledge
It shows that it is not only spirituality that is affected by this process, but all fields of knowledge :wink:

Unfortunately, it seems to mean that people tend to be less and less committed to work on their mind directly, but need "side motivation", as with children, to set up some other activities to bring them Dharma...

According to the Texts, we are in "degenerating time", where Dharma is more and more difficult to practice... That is where "skilfull means" might be more necessary than before! The main point is not to mix up everything...

 

All the best, Gelong T. Shenphen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek!

 

Nowadays, more people seems open to alternative ways of thinking, more spiritual. But, most are not willing to change too much of their life. That is why many people would like to see Buddhism as simply a philosophy. To answer this demand, some 'new' paths have been initiated; this is as I would see Trungpa Rinpoche's action. It is a skillful way to bring the essence of Bouddha Dharma to people who at first are not so willing to transform their whole life. That is why Trungpa Rinpoche was a lay Lama and was not emphasizing on the so called 'religious aspect'.

(..)

As Robert mentioned it, most followers, and all teachers that I could see the biography of, of the Shambala school are Buddhist practionners; and the well known Ani-la Pema Chodron is a nun.  

 

I think there is another thing here - the field of "spirituality" has been discovered as a new expanding market, a great possibility to earn profits, big money, for example with books and all sorts of products, courses, services etc. New "paths" spring up like mushrooms, and they are created in the same manner as any other merchandise - in accordance with "customer needs". Which in this case means - to offer satisfaction to people who would like to feel spiritual and not change much in their lives, or to people who would like to walk a spiritual path and not join any of the traditional religions (for whatever reason). The fact is that also many words and concepts from various traditions are used in these "paths", only without their proper context, or even with a quite distorted meaning.

 

In such a "competition", a non-religious path created and conduced by genuine practitioners, as I understood the Shambhala training, can also be a skillful way to protect people from false "gurus" or harmful "paths" and provide them with a good and healthy possibility.

 

Best wishes,

 

Mojca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...