Comments on: Emergent Dharma: By Any Upaya Necessary

By: Millicent

Millicent — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 23:30:29 +0000

This was so hpelful and easy! Do you have any articles on rehab?

By: eepfvdkr

eepfvdkr — Wed, 25 May 2011 14:12:29 +0000

8bOPo1 pcwmiecevqpe

By: » The Three Pathways of Awakening – Class 1 Rough Notes Open Buddha

» The Three Pathways of Awakening – Class 1 Rough Notes Open Buddha — Mon, 02 May 2011 23:35:26 +0000

[...] The readings given before class provide some basis for perspective for the class (see here and here). [...]

By: Kayla Hewitt

Kayla Hewitt — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:33:37 +0000

Loved this article!

Wonderful site BTW Geeks! I've only been reading and listening for a week now and I'm hooked! Getting caught up!

Metta,

Kayla

By: William Bainbridge

William Bainbridge — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:39:11 +0000

Speaking strictly from the standpoint of Tibetan practice, which is the only kind of Buddhism I've practiced seriously, I try to evaluate ideas, whether they're East-West, lineage, 21st-century Buddhism, or whatever, based on the experience of whether they seem to be deepening, clarifying and simplifying my practice. One of the things that sometimes does this is connecting with a really good lama and doing the stuff he/she suggests doing, with an attitude of trust and confidence in the teacher. This doesn't seem to work with all of the lamas, but it works really well with a few of them. Some absolutely great stuff can happen through doing this that does not seem to happen through "innovation" and trying to figure out what 21st-century or American Buddhism ought to look like. I guess I'm fine with innovation as long as the people guiding it are coming from a basis of real, deep realization, but one way or another, it's the connection with realized teachers that improves things the most for me, not the cultural context or relative age of the concepts being discussed.

By: Ryan Oelke

Ryan Oelke — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:18:15 +0000

thanks, Hokai. Just glancing quickly at Reggie's article, I can see the distinction of the three lineages being extraordinarily helpful. It seems that the concept of lineage often holds people back from innovation (and I have a feeling this is even more the case in Tibetan Buddhism). To pull out these three different meanings of lineage – primordial, transmission, and organization lineages – I think encourages the innovation we need. When they are lumped into one it becomes more sacrilegious to talk about change.

By: Hokai

Hokai — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:06:52 +0000

Hey Ryan:) There are certainly both good and bad aspects to every possible trinity, and it's our job to make sure we employ them in useful ways. The way Zen-Tibetan-Theravada has been used so far is mostly to make sure each remains distinct and self-contained. It's surely good to know that, what we call "Theravada" is mostly some variant of vipassana meditation in diverse ideological, institutional and cultural contexts, and the teachings and methods used also vary. The same goes for Zen in the West, and "Tibetan" may mean so many different things. In short, we need a more accurate, more nuanced taxonomy to reflect this dizzying diversity, but also to re-affirm the underlying unity for which the four noble truths are hardly an adequate basis. To look at the notions of "tradition" and "lineage", this comment space is hardly sufficient, so I'd like to recommend the article "The three lineages" by Reginald Ray. Link: http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2005/winter... Yes, I believe focusing on more pure elements, as you say, is essential at this point. Also, letting go of some superficial traditionalism would also help us more openly recognize valid innovations that have taken place. Whatever happens, tradition will take root in the West only through continuous evolution. That is the primary meaning of the Middle Way for us here and now.

By: Robert Van Kirk

Robert Van Kirk — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 04:31:11 +0000

Very good article, I definitely think more critical inquiry of Buddhism in America (and in general, around the world) is necessary to maintain and grow a vibrant faith. Thanks again!

By: Vishal Lama

Vishal Lama — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:24:43 +0000

What a terrific and timely article!

By: Ryan Oelke

Ryan Oelke — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 22:53:03 +0000

Hokai, thank you for this very timely article. Observing and being part of Buddhist Geeks, being in Boulder with quite the diverse group of Buddhist friends, I feel this every day in my life. It's extremely nascent. I wonder if you wouldn't mind commenting a bit more on this observation of us having moved from focus on view/mediation/action to Zen, Tibetan, Theravada. What does that mean for us more specifically? Is it overall a good or bad thing?

In reading over your section on Post East/West Buddhism it dawned on me that it might be good. It seems that we are moving to a focus on more pure elements, if I could say that, of practice, those pieces that transcend our traditions, through which I and my friends can easily connect to one another, and in fact, in more powerful ways than limiting ourselves to a tradition. That being the case, if it continues in that manner, I wonder what role tradition will play in the future.

By: VinceHorn

VinceHorn — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:08:54 +0000

Hey Mark. Great to have you hear brother. I hope you enjoy catching up on the episodes.

By: Mark McDonnell

Mark McDonnell — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:59:03 +0000

I'm really glad I came across this site, Integral Buddhists is exactly what I needed Thanks to @stuartdavis who mentioned you in one of his tweets. I've got a whole lot of podcasts to catch up on!