Dzogchen

[camerata]

I wonder why former Theravadin monks and authors Laurence-Khantipalo Mills and Paul Breiter turned to Dzogchen later in life? There must be something about it that appeals more than other types of Tibetan Buddhism (and more than Theravada), but I can't figure out what.

According to one web site, practicers "commit to the rimé (nonsectarian) tradition of the Dzogchen Lineage by supporting the transmission of Dharma to the West in a way that is truly nonsectarian, psychologically astute and exploratory, community oriented, socially and ecologically concerned, meditation-based and experiential, lay-oriented and integrated with modern life, egalitarian, and essentialized. In combination, all of these interact in a manner that provides an ever-deeper “vessel” to fulfill the mission of transmission."

[Abandon]

I started off learning about Zen, and then some of the Dzochen teachings (Namkai Norbu) but ended up in the pragmatic and clear Theravada school. It seems to me that every school somehow makes itself 'higher' than others. The Goenka gorup comes across this way ("our way is the fastest") - the dzochen is supposed to be 'higher' than the other 8 levels of Tibetan Buddhism.

Personally I have not seen much difference between the schools; in fact I see differences between people mostly. I have met some really impressive Catholic teachers, and find very helpful great spiritual works such as the Ascent of Mount Carmel, St Teresa d'Avila, I Am That (Nisargadatta) and others.

I feel that after a while of practise you go past reliance on a 'teacher' or a 'method'.

One thing I noted about Kapilavadhu (the first Westerner to become a monk in thailand) was that he practised the Dhammakaya method, but later taught the Mahasi Sayadaw method. He never changed his own practise, but did find that the latter was easier to teach and more useful for his students.

My best guess is that people move across schools depending on meeting people who have inspired them, teachers they like, or geographical location etc... rather than rejecting one ting for another.

[sabaijai]

I wonder why former Theravadin monks and authors Laurence-Khantipalo Mills and Paul Breiter turned to Dzogchen later in life? There must be something about it that appeals more than other types of Tibetan Buddhism (and more than Theravada), but I can't figure out what.

According to one web site, practicers "commit to the rimé (nonsectarian) tradition of the Dzogchen Lineage by supporting the transmission of Dharma to the West in a way that is truly nonsectarian, psychologically astute and exploratory, community oriented, socially and ecologically concerned, meditation-based and experiential, lay-oriented and integrated with modern life, egalitarian, and essentialized.  In combination, all of these interact in a manner that provides an ever-deeper “vessel” to fulfill the mission of transmission."

I've been mulling this Q over since I returned from Sri Lanka. I know that several well-known Western mediation teachers in the Theravada tradition - perhaps more properly the mostly American 'update' that makes satipatthana vipassana the central focus of Buddhism (although in terms of the Tipitaka, satipatthana is mentioned/described in only a couple of suttas) - have gravitated towards dzogchen in recent years.

One of the more prominent of such teachers is Joseph Goldstein, who I've done retreats with, and who is one of the teachers I've respected the most over the years I've been stuck on Buddhism.

Here's an interesting online interview with Goldstein where he delves into his experiences with dzogchen:

Dharma Life interview

and another:

Purify Mind interview

I know very little about dzogchen although I know Keith Dowman, the Tibetan Buddhist scholar mentioned in the first interview and have talked with him about it on occasion while visiting Kathmandu (where Dowman lives, or at least he still did a few years ago). I've also had discussions with Robert Thurman, another renowned Tibetan scholar, about dzogchen.

These folks tell me their dzogchen teachers accomplish everything through 'pointing out' the way, basically through dharma discourse.

This accords with the view of many abhidhamma teachers and their followers who believe that right view can't be attained through meditation but only through 'learning' the dhammas. Thailand's famous Ajahn Sujin is one such teacher. I'm not saying the approach is the same as dzogchen - I don't know enough about the latter to go that far.

In some ways the philosophy behind dzogchen appears to tackle the age-old question of how necessary and efficient meditation is in achieving stream entry.

One impression I have about Theravadins coming to dzogchen later in their practice - again, due to lack of knowledge about the subject I can't say how accurate my impression might be - is that dzogchen practice may be something that folks who are 'advanced' (for lack of a better term) along the Theravadin path find useful and effective.

[Suthep_Steve]

As individuals people will naturalely seek many paths and follow many different avenues of meditation and insight but maybe Buddhism in the minds of westerners is too young to start an open dialogue about mixing traditions to find something new.

From the point of view of Dharma as a whole in the West maybe what is needed is more qualified teachers in all the traditions that currently exist in the East. They can then present what is already there to a Western Buddhist comunity. Maybe later enlightened westerners will arise who will create traditions of their own.

From the point of view of the individual practisioner of course we are free to study and try what ever we feel is appropriate but I was very interested to here Mr Goldstein say in one of the interviews that Sabaijai kindly listed

'Whatever way you are proceeding (within one tradition or a number), the guidance of skilful teachers is really helpful. Because it's easy to get stuck and not even realise it. This has happened many times to me. So, having somebody guiding keeps you moving along.' He also suggests that you don't ask a Zen teacher for guidance on your Tibetan practice and vice versa. 'It's best to consult a teacher on what they have devoted their lives to. But the tendency not to do that is amazing!'

If we want to become a Doctor we go and learn from people who are already medical practisioners. I think if we want to become meditation masters, stream enterers or fully enlightened beings. Then we need teachers who are those things otherwise how can we have confidence in the path if we have no examples of it having born fruit.

I've always been warned off Dzongchen and must admit to not knowing much about it, but I think I heard that it was to some extent pre Buddhist. Reading between the lines in Mr Goldsteins article it does appear to be somewhat simular to other practises found in Tibetian traditions but that is just a very roughly based guess.

Also I think that many Theravadian practisioners attain the states practised in these Tibetian style meditations naturaley but for some who have certain obstacles who knows perhaps a Tibetian angle would be helpful and vice versa.

[sabaijai]

From the point of view of Dharma as a whole in the West maybe what is needed is more qualified teachers in all the traditions that currently exist in the East. They can then present what is already there to a Western Buddhist comunity. Maybe later enlightened westerners will arise who will create traditions of their own.

I tend to agree with this. It was interesting that in one of the interviews Goldstein says he avoids using the term "rigpa" when adding dzogchen to his usual vipassana teachings, because he doesn't want to mislead anyone into thinking he's teaching Tibetan Buddhism. A fine line is being walked here ...

[chownah]

I've been reading the links to the Goldstein interviews and I now have a question...satipatthana vipassana is a theravedan type of mediation..are there other types of meditation advocated in Theraveda Buddhism? When someone refers to 'satipatthana' do they mean 'satipatthana vipassana' or is there another meaning? I have downloaded an abridged version of SATIPATTHANA VISPASSANA MEDITATION by The Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw Agga Maha Pandita (and by the way is this where Pandit got his name?) and was planning on using it as my guide for beginning a regimen of meditation.....I thought it would be good to ask about other meditative forms first before proceeding.

Edited September 29, 2005 by chownah

[Abandon]

Has anyone noticed that American Buddhists tend to have teaching fads?

I mean that there are fads of certain teachings or teachers who suddenly become popular, and the next new thing. Then there is a race to write a book about it, after which it is 'old hat'.

I could be wrong there, America is a big place.

But Goldstein and others began in India, then flocked to U Pandita; after that it was Poonjaji (who I also went ot see); and I'd guess it was Sai Baba, Nisargadatta, and Krishnamurti before that .....

My name does mean the same as U Pandita - it means wise man, or sage (as in a 'pundit' - one with inside knowledge) The name was given me by a Thai Abbot. I was quite pleased until they told me that names are given according to what the Abbot thinks you ought to try and develop, an aspiration rather than a compliment. it stuck because Thai's cannot pronounce my real name.

As for different meditation methods. In the Suttas there are not really different methods described. It is almost always concentration to jhana (absorption), 4 foundations of mindfulness, and finally the 3 supermundane insights. The passion for 'systems' seems to be a modern one. I recommend that people use the 'system' for which they find either a teacher for, or a mediation group. It depends more on your own person, determination, committment, and a suitable mind than it does finding the 'best' system. Naturally different systems can suit differnet characters too.

personally I went on retreats when I could in different schools, and read lots of books. Keeping an open mind, my practise developed from what I found resonated and useful.

[sabaijai]

I've been reading the links to the Goldstein interviews and I now have a question...satipatthana vipassana is a theravedan type of mediation..are there other types of meditation advocated in Theraveda Buddhism?  When someone refers to 'satipatthana' do they mean 'satipatthana vipassana' or is there another meaning?  I have downloaded an abridged version of SATIPATTHANA VISPASSANA MEDITATION by The Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw Agga Maha Pandita (and by the way is this where Pandit got his name?) and was planning on using it as my guide for beginning a regimen of meditation.....I thought it would be good to ask about other meditative forms first before proceeding.

Despite what a TV member posted a few weeks ago, the discourses of the Tipitaka focus mainly on sila (morality) and dhamma (philosophy/ontology).

Mindfulness meditation is the main focus of only two suttas of the Tipitaka, the Anapanasati Sutta (which deals with mindfulness of breathing) and the Maha-Satipatthana Sutta (four foundations of mindfulness, ie, mind, body, feelings, mental qualities). When people speak of satipatthana vipassana they're referring to techniques based on the Satipatthana Sutta.

Meanwhile samadhi (concentration/tranquility) meditation is discussed in the Samadhi Sutta and Samadhanga Sutta. Meditation also receives passing mention in a handful of other suttas - Jinna Sutta, Sedaka Sutta, Hitta Sutta, Dhammaññu Sutta, Rathavinita Sutta, Samiddhi Sutta - but only to describe the benefits of meditation for one's self and for the world at large.

The Abhidhamma Pitaka goes into far more detail on refined mental states and perception, while the later commentary Visuddhi-Magga (Path of Purification) - based on the Rathavinita Sutta - contains detailed commentary for concentration meditation and vipassana.

The various 'systems' that have evolved over the years have been devised to help translate these suttas and commentaries in a more practical and accessible way. Why? Because a novice reading the Maha-Satipatthana Sutta for the first time will get very little out of it. That sutta didn't really make sense to me until after I'd been learning and practicing under various teachers for several years. In fact I couldn't comprehend most of the suttas - even those not concerned with meditation - until I'd been practicing for a long time! They're written/compiled at a very high level of wisdom, despite the apparently simple discourse structure, which incorporates 'spiralling' repetition. That repetition itself is difficult to get beyond for readers with low concentration or short attention span. Meditation opened my heart to the words in the Tipitaka, which previously seemed empty and lifeless.

Tipitaka- and Visuddhimagga-inspired techniques for meditation have probably been around as long as the Theravada Sangha has been in existence. Although the two main streams known to westerners are the Mahasi Sayadaw and SN Goenka systems, there are many more around. There's a lot of common ground between them, so trying more than one doesn't always mean starting over from square one.

I agree with Pandit that many western Buddhists - probably Asians too - leap from one teacher or tradition to the next following spiritual 'fashion'. I don't think Joseph Goldstein is one of the faddists, though. He's adhered to Theravada since the early 70s and any other explorations have been undertaken to gain context for that Theravada core, I think.

I started with Theravada-style samatha meditation in 1970 under an American professor with a Buddhist studies degree from India. When I moved to Thailand in 77, I studied dhamma and Mahasi Sayadaw-style satipatthana vipassana weekly for a year under the Ven Sangharaja (Supreme Patriarch of Thai Buddhism), Phra Khantipalo and others at Wat Bowon. Around the same time I began attending abhidhamma classes semi-regularly with Ajahn Sujin Borihanwannaket. In the early 80s I practiced anapanasati under Ajahn Buddhadasa at Wat Suanmok while translating his written lectures for my MA thesis ("The Politicisation of the Thai Sangha," on the exploitation of Buddhism by the Thai communist insurgency - which Buddhadasa was unfortunately associated with at the time - and the Thai right's corresponding exploitation). The Sangharaja, Ajahn Sujin and Ajahn Buddhasa remain my main inspirations, but since the 80s I've sat at retreats in Thailand, Burma, the USA and Sri Lanka with a variety of teachers (most memorably Sayadaw U Silananda, Taungpulu Sayadaw, Pakistan Sayadaw, the Mahasi Sayadaw centre in Rangoon, U Ba Khin centre in Rangoon, Joseph Goldstein, Jack Kornfield). Every one of them taught meditation in a different way - even when they were purported to be following the same system.

I do think intensive retreats can help some people make significant breakthroughs in their understanding of Buddhism. Where you take that understanding from that point is another matter. The 'keen and calm' after-effects of a meditation retreat fade pretty quickly. Nonetheless, learning to meditate has immense practical value in helping one develop concentration and relative detachment to be applied to everyday life. When I attend retreats nowadays I go to practice alone, not to find a new teacher, and I do it for the aforementioned practical benefits rather than succumbing to the illusion that I'll become enlightened during the retreat (though you never know ).

Whether meditation brings you closer to stream entry or not - for me the jury's still out on that question. A retreat does allow more time to ponder the dhamma than one might otherwise devote in a non-retreat situation. Buddha's initial five disciples all achieved stream entry by listening to and considering the dhamma, and there were other cases as well.

Of the meditation teachers I've had, Goldstein and U Silananda gave me the most, but for straight dhamma, the teacher who has given me the most to chew on over the years is Ajahn Sujin. I don't think one would have meant as much without the other though. On the other hand, both are just nama and rupa arising ...

Sujin still teaches a weekly class in English in Thonburi, and her methods are probably the closest thing to dzogchen in Thailand, loosely speaking. Her 'pointing out' engages students in dialogs about their perceptions of the present moment, stripping away mental constructs to get at the paramattha dhammas, namely, nama and rupa. The objective is the same as we find in the Satipathana Sutta. Sujin always says that ultimately right view has to occur outside regular meditation practice for the fruit of the path to ripen. As long as there's someone meditating, there's no right view.

The common perception is that the Buddha attained enlightenment while meditating but another view says enlightenment occurred when he stopped.

[Suthep_Steve]

I also agree with Pandit and Sabaijai that there are many people on many levels who are quite faddie within Buddhism.

Again like Sabaijai I wouldn't put Joseph Goldstein in this category. Maybe he is an enlightened teacher showing skilful means to his disciples, let’s hope so. At worst he sounds like a sincere practitioner with a good heart. This is a level I have yet to attain.

I think meditation is a means by which we create a blue print for enlightenment within our own minds. In a sense it's like the mind recreating it's self as a generic image of an enlightened mind bit by bit. Then when we have merit and remove our obstacles that generic image can become a valid direct perceiver where we view the actual object of meditation directly with our mind as if we are seeing it with our own eyes.

If we have already built up the blue print within our mind but still have obstacles or lack merit then the moment of break through may be outside of meditation. If we have merit and no obstacles then maybe the break through will come in the meditation session.

From a personal point of view when I meditate on objects that I have been practising for 14 years I can say for sure that the object has changed it's more developed now and I feel that it has more room for development in the future. If this is true then I haven't actually found the object of meditation yet and I need to contemplate, study, purify, accumulate merit and practise meditation more. When we stabilise the object of meditation then I think we gain the first level of meditation training.

We then progress through the 9 levels of meditation until we attain Tranquil abiding where our concentration is complete. Based on this we can develop Superior Seeing. This is the ability to examine the object of meditation with out losing our concentration. If we can do this then we learn more about the object through meditation. So our insight into say emptiness increases within the meditation session rather than through contemplating analytically or listening/reading. In this way we reduce the generic image of the object created within our mind and see the object directly so the mind and the object mix like water mixing with water. When the generic image has completely faded then we have achieved that realisation and if say our object is emptiness we arise from the meditation session as a superior being.

Also to add another option to Sabaijais list of what happens when the Buddha attained enlightenment.

The common perception is that the Buddha attained enlightenment while meditating but another view says enlightenment occurred when he stopped.

Perhaps when the Buddha attained enlightenment he was able to interact with the ordinary world with out having to stop meditating. He sees the two truths of ultimate reality and conventional appearance at the same time with out them appearing to contradict one another and thus never has to leave his meditation on emptiness.

[chownah]

I think I want to stick with Theravada Budhism for now.

I have downloaded an abridged version of SATIPATTHANA VISPASSANA MEDITATION by The Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw Agga Maha Pandita and I'm going to use this if I do satipatthana vipassana. Based on sabaijai's last post should I also find some similar reference that discusses Anapanasati Vipassana and Samadhi Vipassana if I want to know about all of the main types of theravada meditation? I think I'll not pursue the Abhidhamma Pitaka for now because it is my understanding that it was written in a way that is more distant from Buddha's teachings...sort of a derivative and for now I'm wanting to stay closer to the original teachings. Perhaps in the future when I feel more secure in my understanding I'll check it out....for now I don't want to get overwhelmed...there's plenty to do and study just within my limited scope!!!

I see that I'm off topic here and would gladly move this post to some other topic or even create a new one. If some moderator wants to do this it would be fine with me.

Edited October 1, 2005 by chownah

[Abandon]

.......[we] need to contemplate, study, purify, accumulate merit and practise meditation more.

There is a good Tip of the Day for all of us.

Just to clarify things Steve, what school of Buddhism are you referring to?

Chownah - I have read all kinds of books, and feel they have all added (or hopefully, taken away) something to my practise, so I wouldn't worry about limiting yourself. There are even some good abhidhamma books, especially by Nina Van Gorkham. But it is a good idea to limit the actual meditation practise to one particular style, even if you later you change or go taste some other styles.

[sabaijai]

Based on sabaijai's last post should I also find some similar reference that discusses Anapanasati Vipassana and Samadhi Vipassana if I want to know about all of the main types of theravada meditation?

Ajahn Buddhadasa's book on anapanasati is clearly written and available online for free at several locations, including:

Buddhadasa on Anapanasati

A thorough summary of samadhi meditation, ie access concentration, the jhanas (absorption states), etc:

The Jhanas in Theravada Buddhism

About the Abhidhamma Pitaka being somehow 'distant', all but one chapter (of the seven chapters in the AP) were compiled at the 1st council, concurrent with the compiling of the Vinaya (which came first) and the Suttanta. Only one book of the Abhidhamma, the Katthavatthu (Points of Controversy) was later compiled. Hence most of the AP is the same age as the Suttanta and Vinaya.

The Tipitaka was subject to revisions during the 2nd and 3rd councils, and it was only during the 3rd council (ca 250 BC) that the Tipitaka was finalised (and this is when the Katthavatthu was added to the Abhidhamma). The Pitakas were only committed to writing in 80 BC, and they were originally written in Sinhala, not Pali. It wasn't until the 5th C AD that they were translated into Pali by Buddhaghosa.

While in Sri Lanka earlier this month, I visited the monastery cave where Buddhaghosa is said to have lived and wrote during the 5th C, now part of a large monastery complex.

Many Buddhists feel the AP contains the most explicit rendering of the Buddha's philosophy, particularly for meditators. Admittedly it's a steep read, and is probably best undertaken under the guidance of an experienced teacher.

[Suthep_Steve]

Just to clarify things Steve, what school of Buddhism are you referring to?

I've studied Kadampa Buddhism very lazily for the last 14 years. To be honest I have practically no knowledge outside of this tradition. Vipassana, and most of the Theravadian ways of talking and thinking are quite alien to me. If your interested to look more take a look here.

Kadampa Buddhism

[sabaijai]

Haven't seen you around here in awhile, Suthep Steve, welcome back.

[Suthep_Steve]

Haven't seen you around here in awhile, Suthep Steve, welcome back.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks sabaijai, good to hear that you are back from your retreat and still doing your good work on the forum.