Comments on “The structure of Buddhism”
Adding new comments is disabled for now.
Comments are for the page: The structure of Buddhism
Nyingmapa view
Great chart I find it interesting how the Nyingmapas see the whole system. The Kagyus would use a very similar chart but some different words and a slight difference of the Tantra classes.
I am not so offended by the word wrong. I think I can see what was meant here. For example everything that one does is not 100% correct all the time.
I have a question do you really think that the Hinayana and ahartship is really technically different from the vajrayana enlightenment?
My chart would likely have included some spaghetti sauce because I like spaghetti :) .
QP
Replies
I have a question do you really think that the Hinayana and ahartship is really technically different from the vajrayana enlightenment?
Yes, I think so. They seem to describe different experiences. Examples that go into some detail in an attempt to describe the result seem valuable.
My chart would likely have included some spaghetti sauce because I like spaghetti 🙂 .
That’s funny! Nobody who knows me would be surprised to hear that it’s a coffee stain on my chart ☕️
Vajrayana vs. Theravada
I am having a discussion with a dharma friend about this very important difference between vajrayana and Theravada right now. Do you have any examples. I only know that there is a difference between enlightenment and liberation, and that there are very little teachings about helping others for example boddhisattva actions. If you know more it would be helpful.
Exploring differences between Vajrayana and Theravada experience
Difficult to know what would be helpful for your discussion. I’ve never come across a systematic comparison of anecdotal accounts from different paths. That might be an interesting and useful thing for someone to do…although descriptions of experience tend to couch themselves in the language inherited from particular traditions, so it wouldn’t be easy.
Maybe some discussion forums would give some useful experiential accounts. There’s very little from the Vajrayana perspective; I think there’s a norm of not talking so much about one’s practice experience there, whereas practitioners of Theravadan-derived meditation do tend to discuss practice.
There’s the pragmatic dharma discussion board:
https://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/recent-posts
And on stream entry:
https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry
On the Bodhisattva way, there’s always Shantideva’s guide…
https://www.tibethouse.jp/about/buddhism/text/pdfs/Bodhisattvas_way_English.pdf
but it needs an awful lot of parsing to summarize into some guidelines that would have contemporary resonance.
Good luck, it sounds like an interesting discussion!
Wow
Wow you are fantastic! Have a wonderful week.
Hi Rin'dzin
Hi Rin’dzin, I’ve been following your work and @Meaningness for a while.
I’m appreciative of the chart, and the view of distinctions, functions & principles that underly and in-form the chart.
The only thing I would add to the discussion is that I think it’s useful to understand the cross-fertilization that Buddhist Tantra experienced with Shaiva tantra during its development. The best way to do this is to introduce a historic - evolutionary - etic perspective. I think for any modern/post- or metamodern practitioner, it is more useful than not to look at one’s practice from this perspective.
Check out this thread (in a niche vajrayana discussion group on reddit). There’s a link to a scholarly article examining the co-evolution of Buddhist and Shaiva tantra, and then in the comments below I riff a bit on how the Indic cultural matrix influences the development of Buddhist yanas at three crucial points their development.
Replies
I think it’s useful to understand the cross-fertilization that Buddhist Tantra experienced with Shaiva tantra during its development.
Agreed, good point. Tantric history is complex and has multi-faceted, interweaving threads. From your comment later in the thread you link, I think you may already have come across Geoffrey Samuel’s book on the Origins of Yoga and Tantra – but I’ll mention it here for other readers to check out too. It follows different cross-fertilizations in Tantric history, including the interplay of Yaksa, Jain and Buddhist strands with Saivism.
Check out this thread (in a niche vajrayana discussion group on reddit). There’s a link to a scholarly article examining the co-evolution of Buddhist and Shaiva tantra, and then in the comments below I riff a bit on how the Indic cultural matrix influences the development of Buddhist yanas at three crucial points their development.
Thanks for the pointer, I hadn’t come across that discussion group before.
Appreciation
Hello Rind’zin.
I found your blog, linked from David’s, just a few days ago and have read most of it. It has been great, at moments even a bit puzzling, to see a complete stranger say things in the same way I would. Your posts are common sensical, without much, if any, religious identity, which is very rare in the world today. That you openly ask and try to find out what actually is the problem and how the problem is actually solved, is the very essence of spiritual life, which few paths are able to give answers, without getting all tangled up in religious thought. So thank you and looking for to read more.
-Kim Katami
Lotus Buddhas
Buddhism today has gone too far from the path of enlightenment and liberation from suffering that Shakyamuni Buddha guided.
All models are wrong
George Box: “All models are wrong. Some are useful.” Jajaja. That’s a good try of a sentence!
Maybe we can moderate the first statement to avoid both becoming one sided and this idea of write and wrong. Moving to the scenario of usefulness is a good start, like translating samma (ditthi, sankapa, vaca, and so on) for suitable or appropiate instead of right or wrong.