Are you a Buddhist Fundamentalist?
I was speaking to a guy on Quora the other day. His credential was ‘practising Buddhist’ and he was attempting to get people to question any Buddhist practice that came later than the original Buddha Shakyamuni.
From what I have seen, the view that only the Buddha’s original teachings are pure is quite common among Buddhists.
The view starts off as an intent to get people to ‘question everything’ in the words of the Buddha himself, but at some point slides right of that point into an area where question everything suddenly means, only listen to my teachings.
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it — The Buddha
In my opinion, if you compare everything to what Shakyamuni taught, that makes you a Shakyamuni-ist, not a Buddhist. The word Buddha roughly translated means awake, and if you think the Buddha was the only person who achieved this level, you are announcing that the Buddha’s teaching was an outright failure.
If, however, you believe Shakyamuni’s teaching was successful, then you will understand that there have been many lineages of awakened beings from his students over the years.
People wonder why the Buddha was constantly contradicting himself.
The Buddha gave 84,000 teachings supposedly. Some people will say it aligns with the 84,000 channels in the body. It is more likely that it corresponds to the vast number of beings he met during his lifetime, and each is a direct response to the particular delusion of each being.
People want the Buddha to have a ‘view’ that he didn’t have. Everything he said was a direct response to the beings in front of him at that time — a customised method for that particular audience.
Let’s assume the Buddha’S teaching was successful, and there have been other awakened beings since him. Do you think that the 84,000 teachings of the Buddha would be enough to cover the various delusions of the infinite number of beings in the universe? Or do you believe that, like the Buddha, awakened teachers in the future might give teachings that correspond with the delusion of the being that is in front of them in their particular place and time?
Rather than be a critical thinker, it is more important to have a genuine teacher.
Many people argue whether Buddhism is a religion, or a way of life or whatever. If you understand the four noble truths, you understand that Buddhism is a series of methods to understand wisdom. The methods used to awaken that wisdom are the Dharma.
Buddhism survives because beings who have understood the wisdom of the Buddha pass it on to others using whatever methods are appropriate for that time.
One important way teachers differ is how much authority we give them over our practice and life. In the Theravada tradition, the teacher is an elder who guides us, trains us, and inspires us by their example of following the eightfold path. In Mahayana schools, such as Zen and Chan, the master is likened to a powerful and skilled doctor who does what has to be done to cure our spiritual illnesses. In Vajrayana Buddhism, the teacher is a guru. Tantric gurus are seen as manifesting enlightenment mind in this world for our benefit, and through our devotion we discover that their mind and ours share the same enlightened nature. That’s the theory at least, but personality and teaching style are also important. In practice, a Theravada elder can mind your business as fiercely as any Zen master, and tantric gurus can be the very embodiment of gentleness. (Lion’s Roar)
How to select a teacher is a matter for another discussion, but a genuine teacher will give you precisely what you need at that moment based on your delusion and situation.
Buddha’s 84,000 methods are proof that Dharma is not a one size fits all matter. In Buddhism, there are many traditions with many different outfits and methods that manifested at one time or another. The critical point is not to focus on the make-believe words that separate each tradition but on the realised beings within each tradition who are trying to pass on the wisdom of the Buddha.
Buddhanature is the ground of all being. It is neither good nor bad, although it is not neutral. It has the flavor of compassion and clarity and promises relief from the mind that creates division and clings stubbornly to a separate self. Sometimes we say that everyone already has buddhanature, or in the words of Eihei Dogen, the thirteenth-century Japanese Zen teacher, everyone is buddhanature. — Zen teacher Melissa Myozen Blacker
The potency of a teaching is not based on the teaching itself but on how much it matches the specific and complex delusion of the being who is practising it.
From this perspective, Christianity or Sufi-ism or even Scientology can be a form of Buddhist practise if the person’s delusion corresponds to that.
There is some danger in saying this since it could open the door to legitimising potentially dangerous systems. But still, we must remember that there are two halves to danger: the danger itself and the person in danger.
Taking Scientology as an example, we have to look at the political and corporate level, which has significant flaws. But you could easily say the same about any religion. Who would deny that organised religion as a whole is just a terrible idea? Indeed many Buddhist masters agreed, choosing to boycott monasteries and places of religious, political structures.
As for the method itself, can we honestly say that no one has benefitted spiritually from Scientology? Who can know that?
According to the Buddhist tradition, only a highly realised master can understand what is helpful for a student’s spiritual progress.
This is why it is taught that everything becomes a spiritual practice when studying under a genuine teacher. It takes courage for a teacher to give a student what they want rather than what they need since this directness can upset a student and ultimately, if the commitment and understanding are not there, it can end with the student breaking ties with the teacher.
I will not get into the complexities of the teacher-student relationship here since it is a very rocky conversation. This idea of direct teaching, which seems to be a characteristic of Vajrayana Buddhism, has it’s dangers.
If a student picks the ‘wrong’ teacher who does not have the qualities to teach them on this deep level, these teachings can be used as a vehicle for abuse in many forms.
Also, if the student does not have the total commitment, it can result in a damaged relationship and a certain degree of trauma.
Perhaps this is partially why these things are not discussed very often.
How are we meant to select an appropriate teaching for our delusion when the very delusion itself (ego) makes the selection?
Studying under a teacher can be a painful process. If a teaching makes us feel good, the likelihood is that it is wrong for us. A true teaching is painful because it reverses the delusion (ego), and it is the very ego that suffers that fate.
The aim of far too many teachings these days is to make people “feel good,” and even some Buddhist masters are beginning to sound like New Age apostles. Their talks are entirely devoted to validating the manifestation of ego and endorsing the “rightness” of our feelings, neither of which have anything to do with the teachings we find in the pith instructions. So if you are only concerned about feeling good, you are far better off having a full-body massage or listening to some uplifting or life-affirming music than receiving dharma teachings, which were definitely not designed to cheer you up. On the contrary, the dharma was devised specifically to expose your failings and make you feel awful. — Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche
So, it is essential to understand that Shakyamuni’s teachings were relevant for a particular audience at a specific time.
While still very suitable for some people, the traditional Buddha offers more of a model of hope and devotion for most people in this age. Why are traditionalists down on people who recite mantras or bits of text with an empty mind? Why should people have to sit and use their rational minds to ‘critical think’ their way into further delusion?
The practice of Shamanta is the foundation of Buddhism that aims to quiet the thinking mind ‘to see into the vast pool ‘. If the enlightened state is primordial, why should you need to think the clouds apart or do any mental construction instead of resting and allowing them to part naturally?
I understand that most of the time, people’s intention to refer back to the Buddha is to get people to consider what they are doing. This intention is honourable, but it is crucial not to transform yourself into a fundamentalist in the process.
There are many traditions of Buddhism on this planet, and I, for one, will be respecting them all until I see something, with my own eyes and ears, that undoubtedly reveals them to be detrimental, which is unlikely since I am not enlightened.
Photos: Suraphat Nuea-on, Pixabay
If ya think this was alright, sign up for my free newsletter. That’s where I put all the really good stuff.
Also, do you like books, kind Sir/Madam/Other? How about bald, penis rocket spacemen who sell books? If so, visit my author page at the cracked head gasket of the economy AKA cockrocket.com.
More from Frank T Bird (That’s me):
