Recent comments
What is Zen?
Commenting on: Yanas are not Buddhist sects
Hopefully comments on decade+ old posts are taken as complementary and not annoying - I was a child when you wrote much of this book, and it’s adding great value to my life today as a young adult.
Your Yanas posts throughout Vividness have greatly clarified the whole conversation for me. But one issue (and it’s almost certainly actually a non-issue) is the classification of Zen - and by that I mean the whole of Zen, including Chan, Seon, Thiên, and Japanese Zen.
It seems to me Zen could be considered a yana, developed from dhyana but now its own distinct yana inclusive of dhyana. Zazen is a specific approach to meditation, koan study is a unique method of pointing to, playing with, and integrating the understanding of emptiness, and there are unique rituals and devices that approach and play with emptiness in specific ways (Zen poetry, gardens and sculpture, ritualized living).
If Zen is considered a yana, then sects would be the schools and lineages, such as Sōtō, Ōbaku, Rinzai, Jogyesa - all of which primarily focus on Zen the yana, but also frequently incorporate other yanas, like sutra.
I do see, in my very limited understanding, Zen the yana as a cousin to Dzogchen - similar to your framing in Beyond Emptiness, particularly at the highest level of koan practice… So that begs the question of whether Zen as a yana fits within Mahayana or Vajrayana, or neither.
What unites Dzogchen and Tantra conceptually and mechanically under Vajrayana, beyond aesthetic and sequential development? Is the difference between core yanas purely the aim - Arhat through Hinayana, Bodhisattva through Mahayana, and Buddha through Vajrayana? If so, Zen might constitute a fourth core yana standing outside the traditional three - as often Zen seeks a goalless Buddhism, although this is controversial across practice lineages (the Bodhisattva-ideal runs deep throughout Zen-focused sects).
Vajrayana isn't tibetan
Commenting on: Vajrayana is not Tibetan Buddhism (and vice versa)
In climbing the big mountain we’re all facing, it really is irrelevant to me if Vajrayana is or isn’t Tibetan. What matters is that the person practicing Vajrayana is becoming a better, happier person for the benefit of others!
You could spend 1000 years analyzing dharma, histories, monks, tantrayana, and sutrayana and more, but still, it is, for me, connecting with the individual deities/archetypes that brings release, not academic speculation.
And meditation? Great, relaxing, clears the mind etc. However, meditation can never be more than an ephemeral solution to suffering. Quit meditating, and the suffering pops back up–every time–maybe it’s less because you disassociated from it somewhat for a time, but trust my experience, the only way to constantly be happy and in bliss, for me anyway, and probably you, is to constantly connect with a deity. Constantly. Then you become a part of their bliss. It’s unexplainable. The other huge advantage comes at death; you need to be commiserating with an advanced being when you enter the bardo; otherwise, you’ll be like a leaf in a windstorm–you’ll be at the mercy of your own accumulated energies.
You connect with a deity through visualization and their mantra, but this isn’t understood or believed by the masses.
Thank you!
Commenting on: The Dark Age and Buddhism’s future
I hadn’t seen that article! Thank you so much!
I can tell this whole site is going to be a great resource to help me articulate to my wife and friends a great deal of my spiritual outlook. It is very difficult to put into words for your typical western atheist or agnostic who’s only familiar with Christianity - a fundamentally different way of relating to and experiencing the world, the self and one another.
Thank you for all your work and elucidation!
Appreciation and Passing Thought
Commenting on: The Dark Age and Buddhism’s future
I really appreciate this blog, because it essentially summarizes much of my spiritual outlook. I formally practice Zen, but I have a deep fondness for Vajrayana and hope to deepen my understanding and pursuit of tantra in a parallel manner as time goes on.
One thought I do have, however, is on the difference between Vajrayana and Tibetan Buddhism. Obviously Tibetan Buddhism is a part, a derivative, of Vajrayana, but it is not the entirety of Vajrayana and Tibet does not own Vajrayana. I think a lot of resistance to our thinking comes from a desire to maintain indigenous culture and spirituality in the Tibetan tradition - we don’t want westerners appropriating and recreating “Tibetan” Buddhism according to their personal spiritual and philosophical proclivities. But we could develop distinct Vajrayana lineages in the west, potentially branching off from Tibetan lineages but explicitly reframed as fundamentally new interpretations distinct from traditional Tibetan understanding (say, western traditions branching from each of the 4 schools, with reinterpretations of myths and animus beliefs).
I think there have been a few attempts at this approach - like Diamond Way - but they tend to be marred by cultic behavior, sectarianism, western new age BS, and the general scandals and superficialities that tend to taint deliberate western reinterpretations of spiritual traditions. It might be useful for it evolve similar to western Zen, but retaining its myth, spirituality and symbology (western Zen is often so secularized and serious it can feel alienated from its spiritual and cultural roots). I think this could have organically happened if Chogyam Trungpa hadn’t gone so far off the rails in the 60s and 70s and made the horrid mistake of transmitting his authority to Osel Tendzin.
Who's the target audience?
Commenting on: Relating as beneficent space
Is this aimed at people who are already giving benefit of the doubt to vaguely-Buddhist metaphysics, so to speak? When I attempt a translation into my own, some of it does feel already familiar, but even so, there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of response to the self-posed “theoretical, abstract, implausible, or incomprehensible” charge.
There’s the notorious “Dodo bird verdict” that all forms of psychotherapies are equally effective, strongly implying their specific content doesn’t matter. Is there good outsider-accessible evidence that Buddhism-informed approaches fare any better in practice?
is the definition of spaciousness restricted to "freedom from fixed meanings"?
Commenting on: Spacious freedom
How about the sense of “spaciousness” that comes from having lots of unstructured time like during holidays?
Freedom from obligations and the have-to’s of day to day
Is that part of the spaciousness definition you have in mind here?
I also see how this spaciousness is closely linked to the awareness when you speak about the difference of awareness and mind elsewhere in vividness
In western psychology, awareness is a part of mind. Whereas in Dzogchen, mind is a part of awareness where awareness is like this infinite boundary-less vast space if i recall correctly.
Can you talk more about the difference between the awareness of Dzogchen and the spaciousness here?
It’s so simple!
Commenting on: Relating as beneficent space
Drop the involvement with judgment and subjective interpretation. So obvious and yet we find ourselves trapped in those constructs again and again. Crazy. Good stuff. Timely too.
Related?
Commenting on: A non-statement ain't-framework
I guess I was starting from the “difficult to describe” aspect. Now, of course, not everything that is difficult to describe is similar purely in virtue of it being difficult to describe. However, I felt a kind of connection, also felt alongside the Christian “apophatic” tradition. In my understanding of that tradition, one does not try to say what God is, but rather points, by saying what God is not. Or something…
Related?
Commenting on: A non-statement ain't-framework
https://psyche.co/ideas/what-happens-to-the-brain-during-consciousness-ending-meditation
Just curious, from a naive and pretty ignorant perspective....
Chöd
Commenting on: A non-statement ain't-framework
I think I’ll stick with summoning demons, at least I understand how that is supposed to work..
Thank you
Commenting on: A non-statement ain't-framework
I enjoyed this and thought it was laugh-out-loud funny. The second student’s description of why they’re interested in Dzogchen (vs tantra) helped me clarify my own interests.
I hope you continue to write dialogue, as it conveys (to me) some texture that seems otherwise hard to convey.
“If something bizarre happens and you can’t find your mind… you have an opportunity.”
What can one do when this opportunity happens? I recognized something that might be similar to it this morning.
Also:
- Why does the teacher say “Excellent! So now vee may perhaps to begin. Yes?” Is his mother Swedish, and does it come out when he’s feeling jaunty?
- Is “all-pervasive, unchanging, beneficent, luminous, impersonal space” a description of rigpa in terms of the elements? If so, are these terms which indicate what happens when form and emptiness are perceived as non-dual?
Thanks for the clarification
Commenting on: A non-statement ain't-framework
Ok, I think I see what you’re going for now. I still feel aversion towards this approach but that’s just me :)
liked it but found ending problematic
Commenting on: A non-statement ain't-framework
Quick comment: I liked this up until the ending which felt a bit “magical”. I feel like it might add unnecessary confusion.
For context: I’ve been practising dzogchen for 5 years and come from a similar background to you.
Re: Devotion
Commenting on: The learning relationship in contemporary Vajrayana
David,
Thank you for your extended reply. I appreciate the added context for Dangerous Friend, and the attempt to untangle the questions around devotion.
Re the pushback — it’s understandable to disregard if the criticism is coming from a refusal to acknowledge modernity, but what I meant was whether there is something that is diluted when the relationship shifts to coaching. For instance, I find it quite plausible that a typical coach will require more skill than a Lama in facilitating a shift in the student. Of course, the whole point is that a coaching relationship is more flexible and in principle can include even some of the wrathful display that certain Lamas have.
The presentation of the relationship, and the words used to describe the teacher have a markéd impact on progress. What I am curious about is whether there are crucial functions that traditional Lamas play that are not realized by this presentation of the coaching relationship.
Some questions about where you've gone...
Commenting on: What would “modern Buddhist tantra” even mean?
Hey David,
I’ve been slowly making my way through this site after being introduced to it by a friend in college a few years ago. I’m currently practicing and volunteering/studying full-time as part of the mandala of orgs founded by Tarthang Tulku. Although the org is highly non-traditional by Tibetan standards and makes secular forms of understanding emptiness highly accessible, it’s also been really useful to be able to read your presentation of tantra, as a way to consider what the essence of the practice is, and how it might be changed in the future.
As I’ve made my way through your website, it seems you’ve sort of chronicled your gradual move away of tantra (i.e. the totaled sports car), towards essence traditions in terms of your personal practice and intellectual interest. It’s been almost ten years or so since you’ve published much of what is written here, and I’m curious how your perspective (and practice) has changed since then. Do you still find modernizing tantra to be a worthwhile goal?
Like many young, anxious people of my generation, I was initially introduced to practice through Sam Harris, and his secular presentation of the dzogchen style, in the spirit of “just look at what is happening right now.” It changed my life, and I have been falling deeper down the contemplative rabbit hole ever sense. You mention that dzogchen may be too inaccessible for most folks to benefit, but I find myself wondering if this is really the case (many, many people seem to benefit from Harris’ presentation), and I wonder how your perspective on this has changed over the years?
If we really are really talking about distilling the essence of buddhist practice into that is as portable as possible, why ought a person interested in modernization bother with tantra at all? I think the project of cultural preservation is important of its own right, and I’ve fallen in love with much of what TT’s organizations do in this respect. But if modernity is what we are looking for, I can’t help but wonder if re-modeling tantra is barking up the wrong tree. Although more groundless practices may not be themselves ‘ennobling,’ I wonder if this is really what is important to preserve, or if it is generally better to leave that work to the individual, and to western psychological and philosophical approaches for actuating such changes, rather than forcefully trying to yoke it to non-dual experience.
Thanks again for all you’ve done on this site. Would love to hear your thoughts.
-Alex
So many coaches already
Commenting on: The learning relationship in contemporary Vajrayana
Great post, but I’d worry about the tight congruence between omnipresent coaches and current neoliberal economic logics, revolving on individualism, entrepreneurialism , adaptability, flexibility. Basically, little one-person shops to purchase one-on-one training, experience, and expertise. Also a semi-tragic facet in the vein of ‘humans of late capitalism,’ as the burn-outs of so many in prior professional or institutional contexts supplies the very capital for their reinvention of coaches for those who are still employees! Maybe the ubiquity of coaches is a cultural and economic symptom of sorts, not something to be taken for granted or idealized.
Situating this critique within modern teachings on the Lama student relationship
Commenting on: The learning relationship in contemporary Vajrayana
Thank you for sharing your and Charlie’s perspective. As usual, I find much insight in your writing.
I am wondering how you think the authors of such books as ‘Dangerous Friend’, a modern book which explores the importance of the Lama student relationship, would respond to this post.
If I recall correctly, they critique attempts to do away with the Lama but have little discussion of alternative arrangements, such as coaching. One thing I anticipate is that devotion will be far more difficult to cultivate with the proposed dzogchen-coach advocated here. I am recalling certain mahasiddha stories where it was devotion that allowed major transformation.( In developmental terms you might see devotion as a mechanism for disruption of a self centering stage 3 process into an institutionally oriented stage 4 process.)
I am very curious what, if any, you’d anticipate in terms of pushback f you presented this idea to extant Vajrayana Lineages.
Ineffability and incommensurability are great
Commenting on: The learning relationship in contemporary Vajrayana
Damn – I’m even more intrigued!
I’m only really passably familiar with Buddhism – via the various (mostly pretty superficial) glosses of what you describe as ‘Consensus/Modern/Western Buddhism’ – but I think I’m much more familiar with what I think you’re pointing-at/gesturing-to in the form of ‘Taosim for nerds’ via, e.g. the relevant works of Raymond Smullyan. (I also feel like my academic background in mathematics was frequently and, at the time, surprisingly similar in many ways.)
I think I can appreciate why one would want to preserve the possibility of experiencing “shock[s]” and their ability to put one into a “non-ordinary state”, so I don’t think I’m personally at much danger of falling into the trap of dismissing this kind of thing as “nonsense” or being not “worthwhile”.
I’m still curious tho about the kind(s) of ‘insights’ one might expect (or hope) to discover.
But I also think you’ve kinda-sorta demonstrated the very thing I’m asking about in this back and forth! I now think I’ve been ‘putting you on the spot’ – unfairly – because, if for no other reason, you don’t know what ‘insights’ I’m currently missing (or could usefully rediscover).
(I’m a little sadder now that I don’t expect to be able to just ‘try this out’ at one of the Evolving Ground retreats/events.)
Describing what one doesn't know
Commenting on: The learning relationship in contemporary Vajrayana
Are the kinds of things students learn via “transmission” generally/mostly/almost-always/always things that are difficult/impossible to describe, even after the fact? If not, are there any examples you can (and are willing to) share?
I – sadly – don’t expect to be able to just try this out myself, but I trust you pretty strongly about whether there ‘is something there’ about this kind of thing.
Seems neat!
Commenting on: The learning relationship in contemporary Vajrayana
I’m a little skeptical that this would help me personally much, not because I think I already know whatever it is this is intended to transmit, but because it’s sometimes very hard to imagine what one doesn’t already know (and understand, or think one understands).
On the other hand, I feel like you, David, have already transmitted some non-zero amount of ‘enlightenment’ to me!
Terrific stuff
Commenting on: Power
I’m new to your blog. I was introduced to Tibetan tantra at 17 by a small group in my home town in Ontario who had their own lama/guru. I’m now 52. I’ve studied directly with Namkhai Norbu, Sogyal Rinpoche, the Tai Situ Pa and others. I have not had a regular Tibetan “practice” as such, ever, although I did immerse myself in Burmese vipassana. Anyway, I’ve been aware of the political nature of Tibetan Buddhism for some time but I was not aware of Consensus Buddhism as a formal movement. I am very grateful for this article and look forward to learning more from your writings.
As per the "karma not existing" thing
Commenting on: No cosmic justice
I can offer a bit of pedantry here (as I myself am not really a practitioner or necessarily believe any of this stuff…), but as per the part about Dzogchen rejecting the law of karma, I just read “A Treasure Trove of Scriptural Transmission : A Commentary on The Precious Treasury of the Basic Space of Phenomena” by Longchen Rabjam – one of the most important (if not THE most important) text on Dzogchen – and he definitely says that karmic actions ripen unfailingly.
He also says neither karma, samsara, nirvana, or the mind itself actually exist. So I guess “awakening” in this context really is ultimately about loosening the knots of self-reifying illusions and then realizing that they, as well as their apparent functioning according to causal determinism, never existed to begin with (like waking up in your bed and realizing the dream you just had isn’t anywhere to be found).
It’s subtle and can easily be interpreted as nihilism (hence all the warnings).
Is Jed McKenna a Zombie?
Commenting on: Meditation risks, safety, goals, methods
If you are familiar with the works ascribed to Jed McKenna, would you describe him as someone whose pursuit of “enlightenment” (or “abiding non-dual awareness” as he describes it) resulted in him turning himself into a zombie?
above comment
Commenting on: The mindfulness crisis and the end of Consensus Buddhism
Above comment too long, i think its about how pizza relates to mindfullness, sadly it does not
Liberals peddling Mindfullness
Commenting on: The mindfulness crisis and the end of Consensus Buddhism
I respect Buddhists way more than I respect left-leaning liberals who push “mindfullness” onto me, considering that I’m an Eastern Orthodox Christian and these teachings and beliefs are foreign and heterodox to my Church’s teachings. We are taught to focus on Christ, the rest of the Trinity who is all equally God in 3 persons, His Saints and His Mother. Sure we have the Jesus prayer, but this is actually again focusing on God and not us and we are actually trying to achieve Theosis or likeness to God in His energies, but not His essence.
I’m sick and tired of the left forcing this “mindfullness” agenda onto everyone and everytime I hear someone say to “remember to be mindful,” I secretly get so annoyed and want to punch them honestly. It’s very annoying and you hear it all of the time!
I hear it as a term when people are trying to stop you from having any sort of opinion that differs from the let’s viewpoint or to control you, say telling you at work to be “mindfull” of how much perfume you should wear, when really we should wear whatever and as much perfume as we like, as long as we aren’t bathing in it.
I don’t know, many people compared to the past have become real special snowflakes now and you’re not allowed to be yourself or say anything anymore and every little thing you say is offensive, even if it isn’t. Like the Aladdin movie or the story of Cinderella being offensive for some weird reason… And oh we have to be mindul and introduce non-gendered play to kids at a young age, when we should just let kids be kids and let them play with whatever and without making a big deal of it.
And I don’t want to look at my thoughts or a slice of pizza I’m eating and think how it makes me feel and count how many bits of pepperoni are on the pizza or such silliness. I feel like if you think about things too much, you start to lose your sense of humor and also are actually no longer in the present moment when you think too much, ironically. Many people I meet who practice “mindfullness” even shrug off sarcasm and any sort of criticizing of anything, too. What a bore!
Author Attribution Error on Cambodian Vajrayana
Commenting on: Tantric Theravada and modern Vajrayana
Hi David,
Thanks for your post - it’s very valuable in this subject area where there’s scant research.
I just wanted to point out an error I found in the section
“See blog posts by Bhikkhu Gavesako: overview; history; meditation methods; texts. He also contributed to a useful forum thread.”
Bhikkhu Gavesako did start the forum thread, but the links he included were not his own blog writings. The blog posts were written by Santidhammo Bhikkhu (Thomas Flint).
Thanks again!
Zen's classification is unclear (to me)
Commenting on: Yanas are not Buddhist sects
Hi T, thanks for an interesting and perspicacious comment! Definitely not annoying.
This is somewhat surreal to me, but yes, it’s been fifteen years… I’m glad you are finding it useful!
I agree that this would make good sense. I don’t know of anyone having said this (apart from you). Generally, Zen is counted as Mahayana, but it also describes itself as “a special transmission outside the sutras,” and it seems to have a different fundamental attitude than Indian Mahayana. On the other hand, the Pure Land Schools are also counted as Mahayana, but have an even more distinctive principle and function, so the category “Mahayana” is confused and confusing and ideally would be abandoned. The Tibetans continued the Indian academic practice of clearly distinguishing yanas, in theory at least, but East Asia didn’t even try, and the innovations there don’t fit into the Indian scheme.
Yes. In fact, in their early development, they are historically intertwined. The Wikipedia article on semde (early Dzogchen):
Yeah, kinda mostly that.
Also that. Although… Dzogchen basically refuses to take the category “Buddha” seriously. Everyone is beginninglessly enlightened, so there’s nobody here but us Buddhas.
Yup. Nobody here but us Buddhas, so there’s nothing to be gained. “Therefore, Shariputra, since the bodhisattvas have no attainment, they abide by means of prajnaparamita.”