mods: is this against the rules because it is a meta-analysis of the effects of this thread on others? or can this be just awareness of the nature of how these internet threads work, and therefore valid discussion of the topic? there's a long wind-up here, but the point is specifically relevant to this thread - the wind-up is necessary to try to accurately portray my thoughts on the matter, since they have not been received.
introduction and notes
what do we do when we write texts as ‘buddhists’ that are broadcast over the internet to a wide variety of people?
which is more important?
1. the methods taught by the buddha.
2. compassion, non-attachment, and freedom from ‘dissatisfaction’ or suffering
3. both equally.
a common mahayanist statement is that each person has a different level - karmic, intellectual, etc - and therefore, each person needs their own medicine. forcing medicine upon a person without knowing what ills that person is bad medicine.
i’ve been thinking very hard about this issue of rules, the presentation of buddhist ideals through the internet, and forbidden categorizations of ‘essence of somethings’, like drugs.
i’ve also reread one book, several sutras, commentaries and exegisis, and of course some of the original scripture while reflecting heavily on this thread.
imho, this forum thread, available to any internet user as the second search result for ‘entheogens and buddhism’, showcases a real divide within ‘buddhism’, with an overlaying of problems arising from ‘westernization’.
to help myself think this out further, i’ve come up with a rough, speculative and officially non-authoratitive mapping of sectarian tendencies within ‘buddhism’.
the goal is to break down the false divide between mahayanna and theravada, place the sectarian divides in the correct sorteriological rather than metaphysical or canonical context, and to emphasize the lay rather than the elite forms of buddhism which of course make up only a smal percentage of practicing buddhists.
i’ll be placing the word ‘buddhist’ in quotations to note it’s conceptual origins as a interdependent, social construction. this is simply because i was chastized for using the word ‘buddhism’ on this forum. of course all words and concepts in all time and place originate from interdependence and social construction, but i won’t be air-quoting every single word.
if you would like to know the sources of the information, i’ll be happy to provide citations. they are omitted due to time constraints and concerns for brevity.
NOTE: please open this image in another browser window, the whole thing is not showing here.
Why did the schools emerge?
all ‘buddhist’ sects read and maintain the original teachings of the buddha.
‘buddhist’ sects did not divide because of theoretcal, metaphysical differences - that is a western scholarly mistake based on the western academic separation of ‘religion’ and ‘philosophy’. ‘metaphysical’ differences are in fact differences over meditation practice.
‘buddhist’ sects are not divided over the inclusion of ‘secondary’ texts in the canon. the abhidharmas and commentaries in the abhidharmic tradition and the sutras and commentaries in the mahayana tradition were all written well after parinirvana (death of the buddha), even if both traditions maintain that these texts were in fact spoken by the buddha.
‘buddhist’ sects divided over issues of practice.
The chart
the chart is organized along these lines. the rows are aligned along ‘meta-praxis’, or prescriptions for incorporation the word of the buddha into practice. the columns are aligned along actual practice.
‘underneath’ this chart would be a map of dots, eacho representing the literature of various monks and scholars, which would roughly correspond to this format. another layer of this chart would be monastic rules as they relate to the each tradition (all mahayana schools vinaya are based on early schools, as are theravada), or a map of mythologies relating to each practice (whether jatakas or mahayanist)
another interesting feature is that most sectarian division occurs within a small part of the buddhist praxis - an area concerning mostly monks, scholars and others in the elite literary realm.
the divisions in practice and meta-practice are of course, doxology, and therefore biased, speculative, and ultimately false - as all categorizations are. here, i based the conventional categorizations on three particular texts that explore sectarian divisions. if anyone would like more information, i’d be happy to provide it.
Meta-praxis
the practices are defined by the rows of meta-praxis.
the first meta-praxis is agnostism - this is a meta-praxis that has no opinion. these could be disciples of the buddha focused on the four noble truths, pratyekabuddhas focused on interdepedenct origination, or something else.
the second meta-praxis is abhidharmic - each sect in this abhidharmic sphere believes that their abhidharma is the absolute correct guide to mediation. the abhidharmic traditions relies solely on their own schools absolutely correct abhidharma - higher teaching.
the third meta-praxis is upayyic - sects derived in this meta-praxis hold that there is no one correct teaching, but many. often times, sects derived in this meta-praxis become so attached to their own practices that they become abhidharmic. i’m thinking primarily of yogacara before shantaraksita and chan before the 6th patriarch. the practices derived from the upayyic meta-praxis are usualyl based on the six paramitas.
ritual and recitiation in the uppayic sphere differ from other rituals and recitation, which might simply be to generate good karma, protect the state, or something else. the uppayic notion that there is no way, just the Way (the single taste), allows for methods besides meditation to acheive enlightenment.
for the vajrayana, this means ‘results-based’ practice - their method is the result itself.
for the pureland sect, this means faith in the ‘without-self’, faith in the wisdom and compassion of the buddha.
of course, does this mean that the theravada tradition is solely abhidharmic and meditation-based? of course not. many rituals and recitations exist for the lay people of this tradition and of course, conduct and reflection is also common to all buddhist sects.
Mahayanist perspective
the split, originating between the Sthvirvada and Mahasamgika and continued by abhidharmic and mahayanist traditions, is explained here in various quotations from a western writer (for a western audience, but rejecting previous western approaches) :
“The problem for the early Mahayanists is that if Buddhism is restricted to a set path then it fails to take into account the various types of illness and suffering of sentient beings, which in turn hinders compassionate activity.
The Four Noble Truths are supposed to be medicinal "rafts" that help specific sentient beings overcome their attachments, but if one becomes attached to the practices of nonattachment then one has missed the entire point of Buddhism.
Nagarjuna's complaint with the Abhidharma traditions should be seen in a similar light. Like Lin-chi's "thief," Nagarjuna is trying to "steal" something from the Abhidharma philosophers. In their desire for liberation they have become attached to the teachings and have therefore missed the most significant teaching in Buddhism: nonattachment.
On the other hand, what disturbs Hui-neng is that Shen-hsiu seems to focus exclusively on how to attain enlightenment rather than enlightenment itself. and therefore reduces all of Bucidhism to a fixed methodology.
The seated "mind-polishing" medita tion of Shen-shiu is no less essential than Hui-neng's "sudden" approach, just as Nagarjuna's "emptiness" is no "truer" than the Abhidharma philosophy of svabhava. The problem is in thinking that only one of these practices will lead to lib eration.
In this sense, Nagarjuna, along with the Lotus Sutra, the Prajnaparamita, and Vimalakirtinirdesa, takes a strong philosophical stance: there are no fixed or absolute metapractical criteria in Buddhism, and the attempt to jus tify any single practice for all people under all circumstances not only contradicts Buddhist doctrine, but goes against the spirit of compassion that meditative praxis is trying to facili tate.
In this sense, Nagarjuna, along with the Lotus Sutra, the Prajnaparamita, and Vimalakirtinirdesa, takes a strong philosophical stance: there are no fixed or absolute metapractical criteria in Buddhism, and the attempt to jus tify any single practice for all people under all circumstances not only contradicts Buddhist doctrine, but goes against the spirit of compassion that meditative praxis is trying to facili tate. While thi:; may look like simply one more "view" among all the others, it is not a metapractical-or metaphysi cal-"view" that seeks to totalize Buddhist praxis under a single heading. In this respect, Nagarjuna has no "view.”
a common mahayanist statement is that each person has a different level - karmic, intellectual, etc - and therefore, each person needs their own medicine. forcing prescribed medicine upon a person without knowing what ills that person is bad medicine.
imho, this is exactly what is being done on this internet forum thread. discussions of rules should be kept to private messages or private boards. the buddhas teachings are not about rules.
Compassion an drug use?
Amida Buddha is invoked as "Other Power" {t'o-li} be cause Pure Land recognizes that not everyone is capable of relying on themselves for liberation. Amida is therefore described as a deity with an infinite abundance of compassion who extends his ray of light upon saints and sinners alike.
While such theological and devotional elements may sound completely non-Buddhist, especially if one thinks of "pure" Buddhism in terms of "non-self," "emptiness," and "one-pointed concentration" (samadhi), Pure Land thinkers see themselves fully within the basic teachings and practices of traditional Buddhist thought
According to Pure Land thinkers, the Dharma contains "other power" and "self power," and, depending on the spiri tual levels and karmic disposition of human beings, both teachings are effective. The problem is in thinking only one of these teachings is "true" Buddhism, or, like Shen-hsiu, that there is only one soteriological guide for everyone. This form of attachment denies liberation to all those "lower" beings and, more importantly, destroys the message of compassion that is central to all of the Buddha's teachings. Amida's compassion, on the other hand, extends to everyone.
can you imagine that? that the buddhas compassion extends to everyone? drug users, prostitutes, workers with no time or energy for study, people dying of illness, people living in times of war or in extreme poverty, people who grew up as orphans or were otherwise abandoned, people who have done terrible things and live with demons, people who can’t read, people who don’t have the internet.
can you imagine living in a time of war, where your village is constantly attacked and you can’t risk going to get food much less poring over scriptures, knowing you are going to die shortly. is there no compassion in saying the name of the amidabul buddha, thinking of enternal bliss, and not suffering because of the arising of mental objects such as the fear of death. buddha’s wisdom can not be found here? this is not buddhism and the hundreds of thousands of buddhists are not buddhists?
one must follow this rule because it is a rule and without the rule one doesn’t serve the buddha?
is having enough compassion for possible drug users so that you do not reject them without even seeing them what the buddha would teach?
shouldn't 'buddhists' be having more conversations like this, rather than separating the dhamma from the dharma?