Subforum: Traditions > Tibetan Buddhism > Tibetan Buddhism General Forum
Thread title: Goenka vs. Vajrayana? Did this happen?
Date: Dec 1st 2006
Forum member:
I did a Goenka style Vipassana 10-day silent retreat a few years back,
and during the final “talking” day a few people when they found out
about my Tibetan practice told me a story, which seems to have
different versions:
Goenka either challenged the Dalai Lama saying the practice he was
teaching trumped Vajrayana methods in terms of results, and the Dalai
Lama responded by having very experienced monks from his monastery
enroll in a 10 day course, -or the Dalai Lama had heard about the
Goenka courses, was intrigued, and likewise sent senior monks to give
it a trial.
In both versons, the outcome was declared that all of the monks reported back that it was a
very profound practice.
I’m just wondering if there is verifiable evidence/validity to these
stories, or if they are rumors, -and if they are valid, if anyone knows
any more specifics in terms of the monks’ views on the technique.
Addtionally, I heard that Pema Chodron recommends people to do a
Goenka retreat at least once a year, and I was wondering if this was
correct too.
I’m wondering because I feel that I got a lot out of it, and I am
interested in doing another one, and wanted to know if other Tibetan
Buddhists have experience with Goenka’s
practice and teaching and if so, if they’ve have found them helpful and how so, etc..
Also, if anyone managed to secretly keep certain tantric commitments while there, etc.
A second forum member:
I learned Vipassana before encountering the Vajrayana. When I explained
this to my teacher Trungpa Rinpoche, he taught me a practice to
incorporate both approaches. He clearly saw no problem with this.
A third forum member:
I’ve been practicing Vipassana meditation taught by SN
Goenka and sutta, sutra study for the last 16 years. My teacher told me
it is an excellent foundation to start from regarding Vajrayana
practice. I meditate one hour a day and go to Vipassana retreat once a
year.
The only conflict that may arise as I see it is if you mix vipassana
with other methods. When I do vipassana meditation one hour a day that
is all I do in that one hour. I do not believe Vipassana meditation is
for everyone, my Dharma teacher felt it was best suited for my needs.
A fourth forum member adds:
I first started practicing Vipassana Meditation in 1985
and have done many courses both here in Australia and in India. Over
that period I have completed in excess of 21 ten-day courses and
numerous other ’special’ courses for more experienced practitioners.
Your report is news to me! I have never heard of that story until
now. However, I must say that I have witnessed many clerics of other
religions, as well as many more practitioners of other religions,
including Buddhist monks and lay people from varying traditions, attend
SN Goenka’s ten-day courses. And the vast majority of them report
profoundly positive results. Sometimes, the monks, priests, nuns,
imams, are sent under the instruction of the leader of their
institution, abbot, etc.
While I have been a respectful and interested observer of Tibetan
Buddhism, I cannot verify that Goenka’s Vipassana ‘trumps’ Vajrayana. I
guess you should practice that which you have confidence in, however, I
would encourage you to do another ten-day course if you are so
inclined.
A fifth forum member provides a reference to the text of the interview with vipassana teacher S.N. Goenka from Shambala:
the interview from Shambala
Namdrol (Former E-sangha global moderator):
It’s all bullshit.
Further discussion, then Namdrol makes the following point:
The idea that vipassana is a more effective method than Vajrayana is simply absurd.
I am sure HHDL sent some people to a ten day sit– why not? This
whole thing actually started appearing as a story because Steven
Batchelor felt he benefitted from a ten day sit more than years of
doing Vajrayana practice.
It’s basicall a bunch of nonesense
Some more discussion and then Namdrol again:
Even the best and smartest paramitayana practitioner is very dull compared to even the dullest Vajrayana practitioner.
Why? Because they have chosen a path than cannot lead to awakening in less than three incalculable eons.
Just do the math: 3 interminable eons vs. at most 16 lifetimes even if you do not practice.
There is really nothing to discuss– this is simply a matter of fact
from a Vajrayana point of view, and one stated through the Dzogchen
tantras as well.
On Ven. Thich Naht Han ...
Subform : Traditions > East Asian Buddhism > Chan/Zen/Seon General Forum
Thread title: Right View… the Beginning of the Path…, what is it? and who’s is it?
Page no: 36
Date and time: 1st April 2008
Forum member:
I was just reading something about the enlightenment of non-sentient
things. it is an idea advocated by Pureland’s founder and which
Tung-shan the (nominal) founder of Soto struggled with before his final
awakening. You might ask, how could such things gather wisdom or merit?
In the record of Tung-shans and Yun-yens discussion I think they make
it clear how it is about obstacles to hearing the ‘turning words’ so to
speak, the causes of enlightenment, rather than about attainment (or it
simply being the natural state or ‘Buddha nature’ of things - an idea
later reviled by Dogen)
Namdrol (Former E-sangha global moderator):
Right, it’s completely impossible. No mind, no awakening.
Forum member:
All beings are Buddha. This means all beings.
Namdrol (Former E-sangha global moderator):
The last I checked, trees and so on are not sentient. They are therefore not Buddhas, never will be, never were.
Forum member:
Thich Nhat Hanh in No Fear, No Death says that we have all lived as trees, probably through many lifetimes
Namdrol (Former E-sangha global moderator):
Sorry, this assertion by TNH is completely and utter nonsense.
Forum member:
Sorry, if I don’t take your word over his.
Namdrol (Former E-sangha global moderator):
His assertion is merely that– an assertion that has no backing in any sutra, or any commentary at all.
As far as you taking his word over mine– it seems that it is popular
to accept the words of some famous teacher, even when those words
totally violate common sense and the Buddha’s Dharma. In this case it
is a trivial issue, but it is amazing the extent to which people follow
things on blind faith with no investigation of sources for assertions.
Trees, grass, algae, seaweed, are not sentient beings, they never
have been, they never will be. They do not engage in action, they do
not think, and so on. They are part of the container universe, but they
are not sentient beings since they do not have minds. In other words,
trees, etc., are only made out four elements, they do not have any of
the mental aggregates.
On Reginald Ray ...
Subforum: Traditions > Tibetan Buddhism > Tibetan Buddhism General Forum
Thread title: Reginald Ray, Qualified Dharma Teacher?
Date: Oct 4 2008
Page No: 3
Namdrol (Former E-sangha global moderator):
Ok, that’s it for me.
I heard a statement by Ray tonight:
“The whole belief in past lives is something that Buddhism inherited
from Indian Tradition. And I think, as with many things in Asian
Buddhism, we need to take a critical look at this and see…you know, the
Buddha said to his own students “…anything that I teach you, don’t take
it at face value, don’t believe it just because even I said it– you
have to look at it and evaluate it within your own framework and see if
it makes sense. And if it doesn’t make sense, dump it, get rid of it.”
And I think that incarnation, ah… reincarnation, as a literal teaching,
I don’t find it helpful for anybody because it takes your focus away
from this life. But if incarnation is viewed as a sort of metaphor for
the fact that we humans are on some kind of extremely long spiritual
journey that happened before we were born, and it’s going to keep on
going, then I think it’s helpful.”
This person is not a qualified Buddhist teacher.
Forum member:
Do you feel that you are qualified to say who is a qualified teacher? If so, how?
Namdrol (Former E-sangha global moderator):
Yes. How? Because I know what Dharma is and what it is not, and
dispensing with rebirth as a metaphor is not Dharma and is harmful to
the Dharma.
Forum member:
When you say that you know what Dharma is, do you mean
that you have become the Dharma and that it is now how you experience
the world, or that you are familiar with what has been taught about the
Dharma. If it is how you experience the world, would you be so kind as
to look around where you are and from your own experience tell me how
objects appear to you.
Namdrol (Former E-sangha global moderator):
I mean that I know the difference between Dharma and
Adharma. That is sufficient. Teaching that rebirth outdated, that it is
better to focus on this life, is simply wrong.
Forum member:
You mean that you know intellectually between the Dharma and Adharma.
That is not sufficient, because what you know intellectually may in
fact be far removed from the actual experience of Dharma. Opinions
about things are not the things themselves. A realized person knows
that realization can be found only now. Could Reggie have been trying
to accentuate that point? Could he have been trying to point to the
fact that what is here and now is all there is and to spend one’s time
on an idea which for most is unproven by experience, such as rebirth,
may be an inferior way to spend one’s time? i don’t know and i don’t
really care that much; i’m not a knee jerk Buddhist. But what i do care
about is smearing a teacher on an international forum. Reggie Ray, who
i know personally and who is not my teacher, has devoted his life to
the Dharma; he introduced a very close friend of mine to the Dharma
while he taught at CU and he has done so with many, many others both at
Shambhala Mountain Center and in Crestone. I have read two of his
published works on Tibetan Buddhism and found them helpful. Do you
really feel comfortable dismissing out of hand a teacher who has made
those kind of contributions to the Dharma, because he doesn’t fullfill
one intellectual stance that you have chosen to assume.
Namdrol (Former E-sangha global moderator):
You mean that you know intellectually between the Dharma and Adharma.
No. I mean that I know Adharma when I see it.
Do you really feel comfortable dismissing out of hand a
teacher because he thinks that rebirth is something that can be
discarded?
Absolutely.
The very fiber of the Dharma absolutely depends on the Buddha’s
teaching of rebirth. If you do not understand this, then you do not
understand Buddhism.
This one point is the basic one upon which the entire Dharma hangs,
the realizations of stream entrants through Arhats, the realizations of
Mahayana bodhisatvas that require three incalculable eons to perfect;
or even the profound teachings of Vajrayana which concern how to
achieve complete liberation in the bardo, and if not that, then at
least within 16 lifetimes.
Basically, as Dzogchen Khyentse Rinpoche recently pointed out, it is
quite impossible to have Buddhism without rebirth, and if you are
someone who does not believe in literal rebirth, it is much better for
you _not_ to be a Buddhist.
So, having said that– I will repeat myself. Reginald Ray is not a
qualified Dharma teacher because he teaches that rebirth something
which may be dumped out, thrown away.
That one thing is sufficient to render all of the rest of his so
called Dharma complete and utter nonsense. He is not a teacher who can
lead one to liberation. He is just another one of those Barnes and
Noble “Buddhist” teachers like Stephen Batchelor, Kalsang Gyatso and so
on who do far more harm to students than good.
Various forum members join in the complaints against Reginald Ray:
there seems to be a blur in Dr. Ray’s thinking between
literal acceptance of rebirth and the utility of rebirth as a stimulus
to practice.
Namdrol continues:
In fact, his comments expose the presence of a form of
intellectual racism against a so called “Asian Buddhism”, a constant
theme in is his discussions of Buddhist topics.
It is a little strange to insist on such a distinction– as of this
writing there isn’t a single highly realized teacher of western origin,
not even one.
The so called “American Buddhism” movement is characterized by a deep hubristic immaturity.
On Rev. Nonin's "Words of Mara" ...
Subforum: Traditions > East Asian Buddhism > Chan/Zen/Seon General Forum
Thread title: just sitting
Date: Jan 14 2009
Rev Nonin (Forum member) :
No one is free from delusion forever. Nothing is permanent. Delusion keeps coming up.
Anders Honore (E-sangha administrator)
That is really at odds with how this is usually taught in Buddhism, of any kind really.
Rev Nonin (Forum member) :
Not really. Nothing is permanent, Anders. This is basic Buddhist
teaching. The absence of delusion is a mental state, and all mental
states are impermanent. The second bodhisattva vow is “Delusions are
inexhaustible; I vow to end them.” Inexhaustible means inexhaustible.
The vow is to end them whenever we are afflicted by them. Buddhist
practice is an ongoing process with no end.
This is how it is taught in the Buddhism I’ve studied and practiced.
Hands palm-to-palm,
Nonin
Namdrol (former E-sangha global moderator)
This is an unacceptable position, these are the words of Mara, Adharma,
False dharma, and may not propagated here at E-Sanga, in any forum.
People who present themselves as Buddhist teachers here should not
enunciate such falsehoods, lies and slanders.