Hinayana, Mahayana or Vajrayana

Excellent video! Totally clear. Great link Jake!

Interesting that he says compassion & loving kindness (pretty much silla) is the motivation and prerequisite to move through the door of non-duality to awakening.

Perhaps this aligns with third gear, compassion and loving kindness are leading characteristics of true surrender.

I personally think (as a first approximation) of psychodynamics and (back to topic) vajrayana as more or less strands of elaborations and sophistication of Silla.

Wildly deluded?

" conscious.tv/nonduality.html?bcpid=46208...01&bctid=23850802001

right, there you go! almost forgot the link !

"

Thanks for the video Jake.
Excellent stuff

"
This also really says something about those who say that the preliminaries are not necessary and that only the 'high' practices are key.

"

I heard a funny quote in an NPR interview the other day with a dharma teacher involved in addiction recovery: "it takes what it takes",. This applies to the ngondro and all secondary practices (i.e., everything but the "high" practice), too, I think.
And we don't need to see it in a linear fashion either: first this, than this, than that. If it were that simple, then the great Tibetan masters wouldn't have done the ngondro practices throughout their lives-- they'd have done 'em and moved on.
Likewise, even if on most days (in most moments) we find a secondary practice most useful, we needn't assume that this puts us beyond the scope of the "high" practice, the non-doing practice.
My capacity to understand directly in any given moment what my actual condition is, is key in this regard: am I naturally relaxing in true nature and leaving it at that? or do I need a bit of mindfulness to subtly re-connect and maintain that connection? or do I need to "work back" into true nature more carefully-- i.e., work with concentration and opening, in formal sitting or movement? or do I need to work willfully with body and speech to try and minimize the effect on others of my negative mind-state? and etc.
Also, great point about the ngondro not being simply cultural artifacts. Same goes for Tantrism in general, to which this ngondro belongs. It's a comprehensive psycho-physical "work" which includes all of life and connects everything in a human life to the highest view beyond practice, which is also the case with Mahamudra and Dzogchen, using different methods in each case.
It should be pointed out though that the more one size fits all series of practices in Tibetan Buddhism is of later origin, however.

"Wow. That was probably the best dharma interview I have heard which didn't involve either Kenneth or Daniel. That guy talks about our path in a way more direct than 95% of western thereava teachers. Gotta give him props for that. Jake, have you read his book? "

Yeah, I wonder what his personal familiarity with Thera practice is? And no- I haven't, but it looks interesting. Generally this sort of teaching is where I'm coming from, this is the sort of stuff that I really resonate with. This is basically aTibetan essence tradition presented by and for Westerners.

"Excellent video! Totally clear. Great link Jake!

Interesting that he says compassion & loving kindness (pretty much silla) is the motivation and prerequisite to move through the door of non-duality to awakening.

Perhaps this aligns with third gear, compassion and loving kindness are leading characteristics of true surrender.

I personally think (as a first approximation) of psychodynamics and (back to topic) vajrayana as more or less strands of elaborations and sophistication of Silla.

Wildly deluded? "

It's interesting to me that some Theravada teachers present metta as an insight practice having to do with discovering a natural metta- a basic, un-contrived metta-- intrinsic to our natural state and then dissolving the egoic barriers to it's expression, widening the sphere of its radiance. This is so similar in outline to many non-dual practices!
So here we're getting into an area where the barriers between the three trainings, so essential to orthoprax Theravada, are dissolved. I would say this total interweaving of the three trainings is essential to Mahayana and Vajrayana. From this perspective, you could say that the true samadhi of the natural state is the primordial wholeness of prajna and karuna/sila!

"Yeah, I wonder what his personal familiarity with Thera practice is? And no- I haven't, but it looks interesting. Generally this sort of teaching is where I'm coming from, this is the sort of stuff that I really resonate with. This is basically aTibetan essence tradition presented by and for Westerners. "

Dan Brown is someone whose name was mentioned to me a couple of years ago-- he teaches a couple of folks I know, and I was studying a very succinct practice guide written some centuries ago by a Dzogchen / Mahamudra master named Dakpo Tashi Namgyal. He also wrote an encycopedic tome called "Moonlight of Mahamudra", which I believe is one of DB's sources for his own equally large book, "Pointing Out the Great Way". I think that the 'Thera'-like elements of DB's teaching derives in large part from his 'stages of the Path' training with his first teacher, a Mongolian Geshe [PhD- equivalent in Vajrayana, usually from the Gelug school] where the emphasis is on a very methodical practice working one's way 'up' through the yanas. In both the Gelug school and among the Kagyud, Dzogchen is approached via the Tantric ngondro-- which, in turn, characteristically comes after years as a monk, holding all those monastic vows, debating Madyamika philosophy-- a LONG course.

[cont.] More recently, DB has been teaching the Mahamudra pointing out instructions [to his students who are at that level] under the guidance of Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, who has been guiding many of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche's longtime students-- he seems to be one of the most senior among the Kagyud lamas. CTR had set up a series of 'seminaries' that took his students, year by year, through the yanas-- and he, too {although his teachings were always from the Dzogchen or, in his terminology, Maha Ati, view] got there via the Tantric ngondro. He famously convened the participants of one of these 'advanced' seminaries in the middle of the night to tell them, with great intensity: "NEVER forget the Hinayana!!!"

-- which brings me to the little change I made in the thread caption, above: for a practitioner, the yanas are not a choice of competing paths. They are what the same totality of practice looks like from different angles. The overarching principle is that you practice where you are -- or so I've been told, and it seems true to me, so far.

Thanks for that information. NEVER FORGET THE HINAYANA!!! haha... yeah from beginning to read his book he talks about studying with the burmese dudes. I would imagine he got some path doing the insight approach before he switched over to the vajrayana, just a guess though...

"It's interesting to me that some Theravada teachers present metta as an insight practice having to do with discovering a natural metta- a basic, un-contrived metta-- intrinsic to our natural state and then dissolving the egoic barriers to it's expression, widening the sphere of its radiance. This is so similar in outline to many non-dual practices!
So here we're getting into an area where the barriers between the three trainings, so essential to orthoprax Theravada, are dissolved. I would say this total interweaving of the three trainings is essential to Mahayana and Vajrayana. From this perspective, you could say that the true samadhi of the natural state is the primordial wholeness of prajna and karuna/sila!"

"the yanas are not a choice of competing paths. They are what the same totality of practice looks like from different angles. The overarching principle is that you practice where you are"

"My capacity to understand directly in any given moment what my actual condition is, is key in this regard: am I naturally relaxing in true nature and leaving it at that? or do I need a bit of mindfulness to subtly re-connect and maintain that connection? or do I need to "work back" into true nature more carefully-- i.e., work with concentration and opening, in formal sitting or movement? or do I need to work willfully with body and speech to try and minimize the effect on others of my negative mind-state? and etc. "

aha!

but if my capacity to judge my own condition leaves something to be desired, it would be handy to have some fully realised dudes in the house who are up for a cup of tea and a chat!

This thread clarifies a bunch of stuff for me....thx all

And perhaps in contrast...from Kenneths "You cant script enlightenment":

"JG: And what about the brahma-viharas and metta practice and all of that stuff?

KF: All of those have to be seen as ways to make society run better. It is very good to cultivate positive mind states because it helps society function when people are treating one another better. Those practices work. If you are really serious about becoming a nice person you should definitely do the brahama-viharas. They are only tangentially related to enlightenment. Because on the one hand we are talking about training the mind to think in a certain way with these practices like the brahma-viharas'”otherwise known as the divine abodes, which are, by the way, metta (loving-kindness), karuna (compassion), mudita (sympathetic joy at the good fortune of another), and uppekha (equanimity). So cultivating those is a very beautiful thing to do. This is humanity at its best. I practice those. I encourage people to practice them, and that has nothing to do with enlightenment."

The contrast is
"the brahama-viharas .... are only tangentially related to enlightenment."

with DanBrown saying that metta/sila is prerequisite & motivation for moving through the door of non-duality through to awakening.

Discuss!

"... the yanas are not a choice of competing paths. They are what the same totality of practice looks like from different angles. The overarching principle is that you practice where you are -- or so I've been told, and it seems true to me, so far."


Yes, yes, and yes.

Every view is... just a view. Reality is an enormous, amorphous, unknowable thing. We perceive it, though not directly. Mind tries to make sense of this to the extent it can. It invents views, stories, hypotheses, perspectives, theories, and concepts. Best to get your arms around the notion that EVERYTHING you can think is just another view. This applies to the "yanas" as much, maybe more, than anything else.

So Dan Brown has his view, Kenneth has his view, you have your view and I have my view. There is no "right" answer. Find what works for you. Stick with that. You will have the same awakening that is available to all human beings.

"Every view is... just a view. Reality is an enormous, amorphous, unknowable thing. We perceive it, though not directly. Mind tries to make sense of this to the extent it can. It invents views, stories, hypotheses, perspectives, theories, and concepts. Best to get your arms around the notion that EVERYTHING you can think is just another view. This applies to the "yanas" as much, maybe more, than anything else.
"

Yeah! Freedom from mind. The exploration of views is best done from no view.
Thanks Chris

Gary, there is no such thing a no view so the best we can ever do is to know that there is no such thing as no view

"
Gary, there is no such thing a no view so the best we can ever do is to know that there is no such thing as no view

"

How about "no fixed view?" An open, flexible mind?

"How about "no fixed view?" An open, flexible mind? "

I would say that is still a concept and that it can't be conceptualized at all. It is also present right now.

"How about "no fixed view?" An open, flexible mind?

I would say that is still a concept and that it can't be conceptualized at all. It is also present right now."

It strikes me that maybe we don't all mean the same thing by 'view' [ or View ], nor do the teachers to whom we refer. There is 'view' meaning opinion or concept-- and there is an understanding of 'view' as just reality as it is, and is to be seen, when practice has resulted in clarity of perception. And since reality is kaleidoscopic in its manifestations, that view will not be anything like 'fixed'; it will be infinitely and intimately responsive: a mind almost inconceivably open.

That's no doubt true, Roomy. My own understanding is that none of us actually experiences reality as it is in an absolute sense as that is unknowable. What we're experiencing is the echo, the "just after" and the best guess. While there is an underlying reality it is so huge and complicated that we only see tiny snippets, as if through a straw. When I used the term "view" that is what I meant. All of our theories about reality, how it works, and our "yanas" are just that. Best guesses. Thin slices through an enormous, dense and complex "reality cake."

And the term "reality cake" is patent pending

"
That's no doubt true, Roomy. My own understanding is that none of us actually experiences reality as it is in an absolute sense as that is unknowable. What we're experiencing is the echo, the "just after" and the best guess. While there is an underlying reality it is so huge and complicated that we only see tiny snippets, as if through a straw. When I used the term "view" that is what I meant. All of our theories about reality, how it works, and our "yanas" are just that. Best guesses. Thin slices through an enormous, dense and complex "reality cake."

And the term "reality cake" is patent pending

"

Maybe i'm misunderstanding but it seems to me that you're saying that there is a 'real reality' that exists yet is unknowable. What we experience is not reality because it is only a 'part' rather than a 'whole' (such as the whole reality). I wonder if there is such thing as a 'whole'. Maybe each part IS itself a whole. By part I mean view. There is no 'true' view.

An example is quantum physics. On the quantum level everything is nuts, chaotic. Everything falls apart. But through my regular perception, things seem Ok and laws work. Which view is 'real' ?

"I would say that is still a concept and that it can't be conceptualized at all. It is also present right now."

there is always that point where these kinds of discussions move one step ahead of my ability to continue to understand what is being said and this is that point in this discussions.
I mean, to me, of course when I write about something called 'no fixed view" the writing is to conceptualize what I am talking about but I always think that that is a given and that the reader will know that I am referring to a non-conceptual real experience that we can then talk about.
What am I missing? I think we have to kind of use our imaginations here a little bit and not get too hung up on the intellectual aspect.

My "current" view is that it is impermanent and it will probably morph into another "view" in the future and will be equally impermanent and eventually morph into another view and so on and so on. At the moment my "current" view is that the hole in my crown has gotten bigger and now I seem to be able to "dip" into fruition whenever I want for short periods, and before I couldn't cos that hole in my crown was too narrow. WOOOT!

"... it seems to me that you're saying that there is a 'real reality' that exists yet is unknowable."

Yep. That's pretty much what I'm saying. I was actually thinking about quantum effects when I wrote that because quantum effects cannot be pinned down and only in huge aggregates do they provide the more or less reliable reality we think we experience all the time. And even those quantum effects are just theories - more views. Those views have some predictive value and that's the way we test them, but who knows what's really going on? This gets to the heart of what I think is meant when some folks say we create our reality. We do by slicing it up and agreeing on how to represent it, talk about it, and so on. From one perspective, without consciousness, there would be no universe as there would be nothing here to observe it.

Mike, I get what you're saying and there definitely is a common terminology that we all use every day that assumes parts of our understanding. However, in this case I think we need to be more explicit and careful because those common assumptions can lead us in the wrong direction.

"there is always that point where these kinds of discussions move one step ahead of my ability to continue to understand what is being said and this is that point in this discussions.
I mean, to me, of course when I write about something called 'no fixed view" the writing is to conceptualize what I am talking about but I always think that that is a given and that the reader will know that I am referring to a non-conceptual real experience that we can then talk about.
What am I missing? I think we have to kind of use our imaginations here a little bit and not get too hung up on the intellectual aspect. "

Well, I could sense your approaching 'that point', Mike; and it seemed a shame to me because my take is that you misunderestimate your understanding-- which is beautifully illustrated in [just one example, and not the only one] the 'Tears' thread. I think we are all groping our way-- individually and together-- to put into words what many people, over centuries, have said is 'beyond words.' -- which didn't deter their own often quite noble attempts! This forum is one of those noble attempts; compared with some of the other offerings out there, there is less posturing and more compassionate communication [cue Kenneth, et al, acknowledgements].
Part of the challenge is that the practice experience at the root of what's being expressed is uncommon; trying to put it into the common scientistic/materialist frame of reference... seems unlikely to work. Imagine trying to 'prove' something about those moments of everyone and everything being perfectly themselves...

"there is always that point where these kinds of discussions move one step ahead of my ability to continue to understand what is being said and this is that point in this discussions.
I mean, to me, of course when I write about something called 'no fixed view" the writing is to conceptualize what I am talking about but I always think that that is a given and that the reader will know that I am referring to a non-conceptual real experience that we can then talk about.
What am I missing? I think we have to kind of use our imaginations here a little bit and not get too hung up on the intellectual aspect. "

Fully agree Mike, my view; the expression of views can be hone in minute detail, which is fine as far as it goes, but there will never be a statement to perfectly express reality.
The pointy end for me is the recognition views are appearing with all THINGS. ALL that is SEEN is empty and hollow, there can only be SEEING. This seeing is non-conceptual and as you put it the only "real experience".
To be aligning and judging views so as to have the "right one" to get "somewhere" will only result in another view with another place to go, it is all pushing in the wrong direction.
We are not the seen, this recognition is being present, and what I called having "no view". There is no pushing involved.

"
Part of the challenge is that the practice experience at the root of what's being expressed is uncommon; trying to put it into the common scientistic/materialist frame of reference... seems unlikely to work. Imagine trying to 'prove' something about those moments of everyone and everything being perfectly themselves..."

Well said! And it bears repeating that in the context of Tibetan essence traditions such as Mahamudra and Dzogchen, "View" is not "opinion" or even "perspective"-- it's relaxing completely in the natural state, or else a minimally structured opening into that natural state. The Yanas then in ascending order represent less structured, less restricted openings into "View" in this ultimate sense. It's neither a matter of saying one view is better than another nor that they are all merely equal as opinions, rather in practice- as Kate (Roomy) points out-- they are skillful means which can be employed at appropriate moments in a given practitioner's life: we practice at the level we're on in THIS MOMENT and part of the practice, for me anyway, is getting more immediately clear about my actual condition in this moment, thereby optimizing my practice (or non-practice practice...) They are definitely different, with different fruits, yet can be practiced by one practitioner in different moments of a single afternoon. This is how it is presented by the Tibetan teachers with whom I'm familiar, not that there aren't other ways of relating the Yanas.
-Jake

"How about "no fixed view?" An open, flexible mind? "

nice, Mike! This is really to the heart of the matter!