Is Theravada more attractive for serious practitioners than Mahayana?

General Dharma Dharma in the West
1

Whenever I read in Dharma discussion boards and groups it always strikes me how much more serious Western Theravada practitioners seem to be about their practice than followers of Mahayana/Zen or Vajrayana. You find much more discussion on actual meditation practice and exchange of personal experience between Theravadins than you’ll read from the Mahayana crowd.

Actually, you don’t really see much exchange about actual practice from Mahayana folks at all. They seem to generally be more interested in posting quotes of their favourite Zen or Tibetan Buddhist teachers or engage in pointless discussions about correct understanding of Dharma terms than discussing actual practice. They talk more about their orthodox ideas of “how Dharma has to be done” than actually doing it.

Western Theravadins on the other hand seem to be much more concerned about their meditation practice and deepening their understanding thereof by seeking exchange with other practitioners.

As a Vajrayana practitioner this has always puzzled me because I never saw the point of following Theravada when you have Vajrayana teachings and practices available. However, my perception of this has probably been biased because I early on had the good fortune to meet a pragmatic and non-dogmatic Vajrayana teacher. I also started to read the very precise classic Mahamudra manuals when I started to fully immerse myself in the practice so I never had any other impression of Vajrayana than being extremely practice-oriented and precise in the instructions.

Looking at the state of Vajrayana and Mahayana in the West besides my own experience however gives a completely different picture. Compared to the “call to action” approach of Theravada teachers with a clear outline of what to do, the wide majority of Mahayana, Zen and Vajrayana teachings of today is incredibly blurry. It is not presented as clearly outlined path to follow at all. Often, it seems to be more of a religious denomination than a spiritual practice to achieve a transformation of mind.

So I wonder, do you have made similar observations? And why do you think, Theravada is more appealing to serious practictioners in the West so far?

May all beings be free.
Ugi

2

Theravada teachings are simple and therefore easy to translate to other cultures or to secularize which has been done to great extent. We need to remember though that most of the theravadan world is as un-pragmatic (?) as the rest and from what I remember hearing from Dan Ingram, traditional theravada folks are not fans of pragmatic dharma.

My experience of zen is that any open or public discussion about attainments and meditation experiences is discouraged for various reasons. All that is kept just between teacher and student. There are some exceptions but in general, this is a big factor.

If I imagine how mahayana and vajrayana looks in the eyes of westerners, the zen methods and their expressions (soto and rinzai) might seem irrational and strange which is the opposite of the western mindset. Tibetan vajrayana on the other hand appears and actually is very religious (=unpragmatic) and exotic. Not all but mostly.

Ugi: “my perception of this has probably been biased because I early on had the good fortune to meet a pragmatic and non-dogmatic Vajrayana”.

Biased, definitely. You refer to Gampopa so I wonder if there is actually any lama in tb who focused on his master works?

Ugi: Often, it seems to be more of a religious denomination than a spiritual practice to achieve a transformation of mind.

This is so strange to me… To replace one religion with another. Makes no sense whatsoever.

3

Oh that is very helpful. I now see that I was wrongly infering what I’ve seen in pragmatic Theravadan discussions to Theravada in general. I can easily picture that the state of things in the traditional western Theravada scene is not any different.

Actually just recently someone who has frequently done silent Vipassana retreats (but stopped now) told me that in his last retreat, there was professional hypnotherapist among the participants. And she -the hypnotherapist - got told by the teacher on the first day that she has to make a decision. Either she drops the hypnotherapy (which is her job) and goes for the buddhist path or she keeps working in that field but then she can’t go the buddhist path. I was shocked to hear that.

My personal experience with Zen folks is that they regard the Zazen practice as the highest spiritual practice there is but lacking any insight into emptiness, they often miss the point and they pretty much turn the practice itself into a thing of worship. I’m not kidding, I’ve heard Zen practitioners talk about Zazen like it’s the holy grail. It’s supposed to be that magical practice that might lead you to awakening if you’re lucky and diligent enough …

Actually, by the “pragmatic and non-dogmatic Vajrayana teacher”, I was refering to you and Pemako. But you asked an interesting question regarding any lama in Tibetan Buddhism who focuses on Gampopa’s master works. I only know of Ringu Tulku who has written a commentary on some of those talks by Gampopa and also Thrangu Rinpoche has studied those works a lot I think.

However, I don’t think there are any Kagyu teachers who actually teach in the original pragmatic style of Gampopa today. I think Tulku Urgyen is the one modern teacher who came closest to the teaching style of Gampopa. And maybe today’s Kagyupas are actually following Gampopa’s teaching that only someone who is at the stage of great One Taste can point out the nature of mind to students. Such a level of realisation is regarded as extremely hard to achieve in today’s Kagyu world. At least that’s what I’ve read and heard many times.

4

UgI: Actually just recently someone who has frequently done silent Vipassana retreats (but stopped now) told me that in his last retreat, there was professional hypnotherapist among the participants. And she -the hypnotherapist - got told by the teacher on the first day that she has to make a decision. Either she drops the hypnotherapy (which is her job) and goes for the buddhist path or she keeps working in that field but then she can’t go the buddhist path. I was shocked to hear that.¨

Makes you speechless… Was the teacher a monk or a layperson? Where did this happen? West, East? The teacher probably didn’t even know what hypnotherapy means. He was just scared and condemned it at the spot, a classic move of the religious people. I’ve heard young men being told that they’d need to choose between being in a relationship or enlightenment. That’s the male monastic propaganda talking.

My personal experience with Zen folks is that they regard the Zazen practice as the highest spiritual practice there is but lacking any insight into emptiness, they often miss the point and they pretty much turn the practice itself into a thing of worship. I’m not kidding, I’ve heard Zen practitioners talk about Zazen like it’s the holy grail. It’s supposed to be that magical practice that might lead you to awakening if you’re lucky and diligent enough …

I did zen for 4 years with very highly regarded teachers out there and have done sesshins afterwards with few teachers, last time in Dec 2018 in Japan. What I learned from zen was extremely high work ethics because no one sits as much as zen buddhists do. They are really hard workers. That’s why it is a pity that most zen out there today has been reduced to mere mindfulness practice. I think zen would need it’s own thread…

But you asked an interesting question regarding any lama in Tibetan Buddhism who focuses on Gampopa’s master works. I only know of Ringu Tulku who has written a commentary on some of those talks by Gampopa and also Thrangu Rinpoche has studied those works a lot I think.

In one of his posts Jon Norris made the point that those utterly amazing works by Gampopa are no longer studied in the kagyu mahamudra syllabus and that they have been systematically put aside because they can’t be used to support the kagyu religious system. I joined Ringu Tulku’s event once and had a private chat with him. Thrangu Rinpoche I’ve always liked.

I think Tulku Urgyen is the one modern teacher who came closest to the teaching style of Gampopa. And maybe today’s Kagyupas are actually following Gampopa’s teaching that only someone who is at the stage of great One Taste can point out the nature of mind to students. Such a level of realisation is regarded as extremely hard to achieve in today’s Kagyu world. At least that’s what I’ve read and heard many times.

Tulku Urgyen was really awesome. Straight to the point, keep it simple and easily approachable.

I didn’t know that advice reg. greater one taste. In terms of bhumis, that’s around the perfection of higher bhumis, 8-9-10. With the perfection of 6th one starts getting one taste but the development with each one from 6 to 7 to 8 and so on, those are subtle but profound and subtle changes. However, I don’t agree with Gampopa about this.

As you know, in tibetan buddhism, grounds are achieved in different way than in Pemako. One open, one perfect, second open, second perfect and so on. This way is very slow. I could make a list of old tibetan lamas alive now and if you were able to read their energy, point out that it has taken over five decades of practices, in most cases more than that up to 70 years, for them to reach the stage of greater one taste. So yes I can understand perfectly why they say that it is “extremely hard to achieve”. For one, you run out of time.

Some people, usually those who have practiced meditation for a number of years, who have 11 bhumis open have true recognition and can therefore point it out. This is not the case with every single person who opens 11 but in many cases yes.

It is of course an necessary point to mention that not all kinds of transmissions given by anyone from advaita, to neo-advaita to Indian tantra point out the nature of mind. But still, even a seasoned meditator, i.e. some purification of the 10 bhumis, together with 11 bhumis open can point it out.

5

I don’t know if the teacher was a monk or a layperson but it happened in a 10 day Goenka retreat here in central Europa. I’ve also heard that they completely dismiss psychotherapy and only regard their version of buddhist practice as fruitful.

Those posts by Jon Norris are truly excellent. There definitely must have happened something like that. Gampopa had several students achieving buddhahood like the first Karmapa, Phagmo Drupa and others so his Mahasiddha-style of teaching was very effective. And also his disciples had many students who achieved buddhahood. Yet, the momentum of monasticism probably caught up again and swallowed the flexibility of Gampopa’s style into a stiff monastic curriculum. Not to mention that there were influential teachers during and after Gampopa’s life who completely dismissed, fought against and in their opinion “destroyed” Gampopa’s approach.

Sadly that’s just another example of how true Dharma has always provoked strong opposition. Same goes for Milarepa. When Gampopa was still a Kadampa monk, other Kadampas warned him of Milarepa and cautioned him not to go meet this madman. Thank god, Gampopa listened to his own feeling!

I agree about this. I hope I didn’t misquote Gampopa here. What he also mentioned reg. this, was, that on the stage of One Taste, you begin to see in people whether they have correct emptiness recognition or not. From my experience, there’s truth in that. At this stage, you naturally begin to intuit if a teacher or anyone really is speaking from emptiness or if he’s just talking about emptiness.

Of course, Gampopa probably didn’t know the skill of Bhumi reading where this insight into someone’s realisation can be had long before one attains One Taste/6th Bhumi. Bhumi reading is definitely a genious and immensely beneficial innovation in Vajrayana.

6

Ah, Goenka, of course. I believe most of their staff are laypeople. Remembered this bit by Christopher Titmuss: https://www.christophertitmussblog.org/10-day-goenka-courses-in-vipassana-time-to-make-changes-12-firm-proposals

Of course it is effective. Why? Because that’s the way and the only way to get enlightened.

Dr. Nida gives a short description of “mahasiddha-style”: [A point about academic/scholarly-style and yogic/experiential-style by Dr Nida. Mahasiddha-style for me, please. | By Amrita | Facebook](https://Dr. Nida Guru Viking interview)

The orthodoxy will always fight against the unorthodox. It’s a mass psychosis of types. Blind belief on established authority. It is unavoidable that it will be challenged again and again over time.

That-is-spot-on. I couldn’t agree more on this. Strictly speaking selflessness/anatman of the first vehicle and emptiness/sunyata of the second vehicle are two very different things, though some think they are very similar or even exactly the same. They start at the same place but at one point, exactly at the perfection of 6th bhumi, they separate, or the former comes to an end stop of arhathood, while the latter keeps going towards buddhahood.

As emptiness of all phenomena begins to dawn after completing the purification of bhumis 1-6, and shifts and insights keep progressing to mahayana terrain (7-8-9-10), the flavour, tone, feel and energy of the person changes subtly but radically. This is why mahayanis make it clear that hinayana and mahayana are two entirely different vehicles. They do this not because they look down upon hinayanis or frown upon them but to make it clear that the vehicles travel to two different kinds of places.

I use the term hinayana that I think many people think is derogatory but in doing so I have no negative intentions or feelings at all. However, theravada however is not a vehicle, a yana, but only one school of hinayana. Maybe I should switch talking about arthatyana or shravakayana to avoid misunderstandings about this.

I do not know when was the last time in history when someone read bhumis like we do but simpler versions of “bhumi reading” is common today and undoubtedly must have been in the past.

For example, some yogi comes to meet another yogi in a temple in a cave or wherever. They have tea, talk and at least spend moments in silence, maybe even meditate together. How could they not get a feel of each other’s energy = mind = realisation? It happens to us having tea and it happens to everyone, and it is common sense that yogis who develop sensitivity to energy feel it with more understanding, i.e. they’re able to analyse some of the sensory data coming in.

I’ve experienced being measured or being investigated by zen teacher when I told her I might have had kensho. She looked me up and down, got a sense of my energy without yet saying a word, then asked me a few checking questions and concluded that it wasn’t a kensho but “taste (of kensho) on the tongue”. And she was right. This is bhumi reading.

Erik Pema Kunsang told me Tulku Urgyen had told him that someone’s realisation can be seen in that person’s eyes. When I asked him how exactly, he couldn’t say.

I love the fact that with bhumi and energy reading, a lot of personal secrets are all out in the open. I think this has immense potential for upgrading vajrayana. At the same time I know there is an army of buddhists out there who loose their peace even hearing this mentioned. Rigid religious beliefs cause conflicts at the first light of scientific analysis.

7

Just reg teacher teaching Gampopa. I think Garchen Rinpoche has some videos online comentaries on Gampopa as well as others, like also series on longchenpas writings.

Just a side note as its one of the topics here. It would be interesting to see how many ways there are to “check” a students insight in different lineages. I sometimes experience some koan suddenly makes sense, in a different way than before, and say is it the same insight a person realize reg a koan, or is this completely individual, in that case other ways as questioning or energy reading (or other?). Should be used. Simply currious how traditions goes about this, as its sounds pretty essential :slight_smile:

  • Osk