Chöd and other Buddhist approaches to practical demonkeeping

[Taigu]

Re: Chöd and other Buddhist approaches to practical demonkeeping

Stephanie,

Boring priest!!! :wink:

I do respect Chod and I relate to a lot of Tantric teachings, I actually see in Trungpa one of my root teachers and study his works all the time...
It is not about saying that Shikantaza or Tantra or this or that is superior...It is to not mix up practices. There is no fusion Buddhism as you may find in fusion cooking. Combine football and basket ball, and you ll end up with a funny game. I was reading an old text of Ejo, the Dharma heir of Dogen,Check the very end of the Absorption in the Treasury of Light'

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhis ... 0Light.pdf


It is dead clear . It is not about the respect of orthodoxy. I think there is a huge gap between the techniques you use and Chod, which is a very complex and engaging ritual. Of course, one may use various tools when one is off the cushion... I also name my delusions and use the Work of Byron Katie. But the more I go, the less I do it. If I just come back instantly to the nameless, everything else vanishes.

gassho


Taigu

[Dorje T]

Re: Chöd and other Buddhist approaches to practical demonkeeping

Hi Jundo,

Let me make clear that, if Shikantaza is practice correctly, nothing more is needed or should be added upon it. Only people who are not, or cannot, practice it correctly would be in need to run for something more ... because there is nothing more. By definition.

I agree with this, Shikantaza is both complete and limitless - the "one thing" the Buddha taught.

I would probably put it however that it is the particular "disposition" of a person that makes "correct" shikantaza attainable or not. It is not like communism, not universally applicable by force.

However, many people do not know how to sit with "what is" and thus chase after their own tails......Sometimes I will recommend someone to enter a 12 Step program, see a doctor ....

Yes, compassionate teachers such as Jundo, and techniques, and directions, and explanations, various approaches are essential - all, within the context of "relieving suffering".

HOWEVER, for the average person with normal, everyday fears and worries ... a practice like Chod may actually create the demons by making one think that they exist (much like those pharmaceutical company commercials seen most nights on the evening news make many of us think that we actually have "restless leg syndrome" and need to get some pill from our doctor.

It is my understanding and experience that the kind of person you describe here is not "normal" and would be USUALLY "vetted out" and not allowed to practice Chöd. Tantric practices are really not lets say 'thrown out there' for anyone to simply start using. Of coarse we now have illegitimate teachers both on the internet and in real life who simply try to impress or control their students with these practices. That is unfortunate. Probably even those books already mentioned are unfortunate in that way

In a way Jundo, your compassionate "wrath" pertaining to this topic is greatly welcomed by me - a tantric practitioner. In old Tibet, these things were taught only within certain contexts both cultural and psychological. I was told that most of these practices were kept only for those who had demonstrated a certain deep level of understanding of "emptiness" and had generated such deep compassion that they only wished to "learn" these techniques to bring benefit to others. In modern times these are much lacking - especially here in the west.

I hope anyone reading this thread and possibly considering practicing Vajrayana Buddhism in any manner takes to heart what Ive said in my previous post - I think if you don't know much about this other way, it is vital that you understand the points made there and it really comes from my heart. Maybe I was just fortunate to have good teachers in this regard.

What is more, traditional Chod seems to be based on a dance of hocus-pocus, with funny hats and mytical incantations ... ....... The only good I see in the above description is that, on some level, it is saying that the demons and trumpet blowing and fancy words are a fairy tale. It seems basically like a kind of exorcism for very superstitious folks. Fine, if it is helpful to someone. But it would only be helpful to someone who did not understand how to "Just Sit" ... letting go, and letting be.

Gassho, J

I remember the first time I saw my zen teacher, bald head, brown and grey robes - I thought "Is this guy serious? He looks like he is playing David Carradine in Kung Fu!" And there was the time that my psychologist wanted me to play with toys in front of her so she could analyze my subconscious. I supposes it is hocus-pocus after all.

Just to finish the thought then, tantra approaches the "one thing the Buddha taught" in a different way from Shikantaza, but it is Buddhism none the less. Some have explained this as working at the "cognitive" level of mind. If that is true then I would say that FIRST you MUST understand the prajanaparamita teachings of the Buddha before you practice tantra. You need to have at least a conceptual understanding of madhyamaka to accompany your tantric practices. Most teachers put it in that context when they teach it anyway because they know how essential that is.

Should these practices of Zen and Tantra be combined? I think clearly the teachers in this forum say no. As this is a Zen Buddhist forum I must respect that. I do hope however we can focus also on the commonality between these diverse paths. If we don't understand something about anothers path, why simply assume we do when we can simply ask that person who has some experience with it? A little understanding never hurts... well at least if it is "genuine" understanding

gassho

[Jundo]

Re: Chöd and other Buddhist approaches to practical demonkeeping

I couldn't disagree more, however, with the dogmatic position that "nothing more than shikantaza" is needed. OK, I can respect, and possibly agree with, the position that nothing more than shikantaza is needed to wake up to the truth. But nothing more is needed for dealing with relative world stuff if you do shikantaza "right"? My goodness, hopefully I'm not the only person with sense and knowledge enough to know that generations of Soto teachers have amply demonstrated that is not the case.

Hi Stephanie,

I most certainly support and recognize that Shikantaza is not "all one needs" in the sense of cooking your lunch, changing a flat tire or curing your tumor. A cookbook, a jack and a doctor's chemotherapy are best for those. All Shikantaza will allow is for one to be fully present, mindful and embracing of one's meal, broken car, cancer.

But for the central lesson of this Practice ... non-attainment, emptiness hand-in-hand with the sacredness of all things, dropping "inner demons" and allowing all of life to "just be" ... nothing more is required. Adding Tanka paintings, talk of spirits and demons, funny hats and thighbone horns is much like adding laser lights, special effects and synthesized music to the simplicity of the sound of the wind (not that Soto Zen does not have its own share of funny hats and horns etc.).



Nor, if Shikantaza Buddhist Practice is understood correctly, is anything more required for us to live as gentle folks, seeking to abide by the Precepts ... forsaking greed, anger and ignorance.

I wish those who choose the Tantric path all the best, as I would wish anyone from Orthodox Jews to Born Again Christians to Scientologists. I hope that they find what they need. Nor do I say that one is superior or inferior, and let each person find their own way. As I said, if I felt that such a path would be effective, I would recommend it (and I encourage everyone to find out for themselves). I would not dare say that "one size need fit all", and recognize that various people may benefit from each of those paths and from Tantric practice. However, I do not see how such a way can but distract from the simple, pure, right before one's eye's lessons of the Shikantaza Way ... which needs to be thoroughly experienced as whole, complete and ever arriving in order to be "Shikantaza". Adding some intricate dance of spirit possession can do little but confuse, obfuscate and weaken what is simple, clear and powerful.

Let me add that, traditionally, most practitioners did and do take the deities and demons as real, and it is only modern interpretations which emphasize that these are just "archetypes and symbols for our inner mind" (much as Taigu and I often speak of the reality of "Kannon" in the very Compassion and generosity found in each of us and, thus, in this universe ... whether or not "He/She" really exists somewhere as a being ... As you may know, Taigu and I are big "Kannon Fans" http://www.shambhalasun.com/sunspace/?p=14889). If these practices are simply being taught as "symbolic archetypes for the human condition" (as Dorje T frames it above), I am with you and can get it. But I feel that, for most practitioners, a line is crossed in such practice that can only be described as confusing the simplicity of Buddhist teachings with magic, hocus-pocus, soothsaying and exorcism (symbolic perhaps, but probably not for most people involved).

That strikes me as counter-productive to the path of just letting go, letting be and being with.

Gassho, Jundo

[will]

Re: Chöd and other Buddhist approaches to practical demonkeeping

Nice post Dorje .

Gassho

[Grizzly]

Re: Chöd and other Buddhist approaches to practical demonkeeping

I don't know anything about Chod but from the description you gave Stephanie it sounds like a ritualised version of one approach I use with my clients.
We take a troubling "demon" like depression or anxiety, and by working with it and finding out its purpose we either transform it into its deepest state, which usually brings up a very deep love, peace or other "spiritual" state, or we find new ways of it fulfilling its stated purpose that are productive emotions or behaviours. The purpose is something that arises from the unconscious and often surprises both the client and myself, because we couldn't have guessed what it is.
Of course, whether the "purpose" was "real" or generated by the methods used is debatable, but being pragmatic the result is what's important.
If the client goes home without the problem and feeling OK, and in follow up calls is still Ok and engaging with life in fulfilling ways now, then I find that deeply satisying and worthwhile.
In terms of zazen and this description I think there are only conflicts when we think.
Lets say a guy sits with anxiety for a year. Let's say he doesn't get rid of it but gets to a point of acceptance or a "peace" below that anxiety on some level so he can live with it, but he still can't meet people and he's scared going out. He's got to a point accepting this and fully living with it. In therapeutic terms we might use the words "mixed states" if such a thing happened (I don't know as i've never seen that one). Then he meets a person who says that he can possibly be free of the anxiety for good. Two months later it's gone. He still sits, he still accepts his new experience. Its just like accepting the car was broken and accepting now its fixed and fit for purpose again.
I think all this conjecture about what works together, what pulls apart etc. is sometimes very relevant (practically) but sometimes just attachment to a view. Surely when you sit there is no zazen, no enlightenment, no practice, no time, no this or that.
If I said to an "accomplished" sitter that I could take them to a place where they were likely to get traumatised- and we know by our reactions to "small things" that something much bigger would affect us- would they agree to it just so they could prove that sitting with anxiety, PTSD etc. can be OK? If they did I'd call them deranged. Its the "about face" of the same coin. By avoiding that situation they keep their life healthier- by curing anxiety etc. someone makes their life better. Sitting is just sitting all through that.
I'm sitting with anger. Its OK. Its still there though and quite strong. I'm not "perfect" and I've got to go to work in a few hours and the person the anger is with is there. As I get closer to the time the anger is still very strong. Its OK for me, but I might just do something I'll regret when I am in the context it was triggered. So I use a practical tool to change it- perhaps I temporarily suppress it using a therapeutic method (metta practice might do it)- and then go back to sitting with it after work. Perhaps I use a method that does indeed root it out- not the seed of anger in general, but just this situation. Either way I can still sit and accept AND I can be kinder (or at least non-harming) to my colleague. Practical..this very life. Beyond concepts and ideas..just living the best we can.
Rich

[Rich]

Re: Chöd and other Buddhist approaches to practical demonkeeping

Of course, one may use various tools when one is off the cushion... I also name my delusions and use the Work of Byron Katie. But the more I go, the less I do it. If I just come back instantly to the nameless, everything else vanishes.

gassho


Taigu

Yes, like magic 'everything else vanishes' but it takes a lot of practice. I have this ball of energy that I can apply to mental and physical afflictions but the 'the more I go, the less I do it.' So I may be a little tantric or maybe just a little crazy. Right now I'm dealing with a very crazy woman and people keep calling me to help with the situation. The police take her to the mental hospital but she always returns after a week or two and the cycle repeats. Even the police have asked me to make her 'go away'. In addition to the legal actions I must take to protect everyone, I will attempt an energy transfer but I don't use bells, horns, costumes or elaborate rituals.
/Rich

[Stephanie]

Re: Chöd and other Buddhist approaches to practical demonkeeping

Wonderful discussion here... Thanks all. And Jundo and Taigu, for keeping things on point :wink:

All this circles around one of my "personal koans," which I have not resolved. It is sort of a riff on Dogen's "If things are already perfect as they are, why practice?" Mine is more like, "If realization is seeing that nothing needs to be changed, why then change anything?" Are our impressions that certain things should be changed--such as the inequalities in human cultures that lead to, what seems to me to be, unnecessary suffering--just delusions? Conceptions superimposed on a reality which needs not, and cannot be, truly changed?

Basically, I have so far been unable to accept, or wrap my head around, Jundo's "acceptance without acceptance" formulation. I can see how, from a Soto approach to practice, any "active" practice would run contrary to the heart of just sitting, which is letting go of the ego's endless, rapacious thirst to control and change everything. But then no one (at least not that I have seen) takes it as far as suggesting one shouldn't stop murdering small children, if that's what one is into doing. So there's a point where action is called for. Where do we draw that line?

I really cannot reconcile both these views. Perhaps that will come with more practice and understanding through experience. But for now, I just can't see how one can accept life as it is while at the same time deciding certain things need to be changed.

It's funny, I used to subscribe to some real utopian ideals. I thought it was our human duty to create "Shangri-la." But even in the midst of my most passionate visions of an enlightened brotherhood of man, underneath it was an opposite inclination. Being an avid fan of nature documentaries, encounters with wild animals, and time spent in wilderness, I hold wilderness as a great teacher. And the wild is absolutely ruthless. It does not matter whether you like it or not, if you are not strong, fast, or clever enough, you will die. Our world is a violent one and has always been; the rules of nature will always be the ground of our experience, no matter how much technology we will develop.

Lately I'm more in that sort of view. Living in the New York metro area for a few years has made me a lot more ruthless than I've ever been. I don't defer to others the way I used to, and my attitude is, "If I'm faster, or more clever than you, I deserve the prize!" Even if it's a Sisyphian non-prize like rolling the rock to the top of the hill :lol: So I'm pretty far away from "Shangri-la" in my thinking these days.

But I'm haunted by a sense of loss as I wander now without a clear guiding ideal. I wonder if I shouldn't do more to sand away my rough edges or corral my demons. I have a lot of appreciation for the rough edges of reality; I think Planet Earth would be a dull and lifeless place if "the lion lay down with the lamb." There's a beauty in a lion eating a lamb; there's a beauty in the vibrant array of neuroses patrolling the street at any given moment; there's a beauty in the way the garbage collects in the gutter.

But should I just lazily let my neuroses and my aggression pile up? Just relax and let go of wanting to clean things up a bit? Or should I clean them? I don't really see how I could hold both perspectives at the same time. Either I clean up the mess, or I don't.

One of the things I like about the Chod approach (as far as I understand it) is that it comes as close to a medium or meeting of these opposite approaches as I've seen. One acknowledges the "demon-ness" of the demon, and recognizes it needs to be addressed; but one befriends it and enlists it as an ally, rather than trying to kill it or chase it away. Maybe I can get all my neuroses and fears to help me clean up the mess and enjoy a less trollish existence, instead of letting them keep dragging me into the gutter. I don't know. I can taste, in fleeting moments, the perfection, the "thusness," of my current state of affairs, but it also feels often like my "thusness" needs to take a shower... :lol:

[Grizzly]

Re: Chöd and other Buddhist approaches to practical demonkeeping

I can taste, in fleeting moments, the perfection, the "thusness," of my current state of affairs, but it also feels often like my "thusness" needs to take a shower... :lol:

If I could be semantic and remove the "the" from thusness, I can't think of a better one liner, Stephanie

The tyre's flat- suchness
The tyre's being fixed- suchness
The car's working again- suchness
The feelings are turbulent-suchness
The feelings are being changed-suchness
The feelings are calm-suchness

I feel that Taigu's quote is perfect too, By way of genetics, nurture, the two together, long time practice or all of those things he can just let go instantly, or very quickly at least. Maybe one day, those of us that don't do that yet, will also. If not we can continue with practical change. Things aren't right as they are/neither are they wrong- if I understand correctly experience tells me they just ARE. In the relative world though I want to see world peace, fix the tyre, feel happy, see others happy. Letting go may be happiness for me in terms of non-resisting (and/or other ways of speaking), but I have to continue to work for others too. I really don't see the duality/separation. Neither do I see difference between my tyre and my feelings on one level. Both are conditoned phenomena like everything else. I think this is where pre-Abhidhamma Suttas (please correct me if I'm wrong as I got this from a Buddhist scholar's work and have not read the texts enough to know this myself) are useful in not mentioning the Absolute/Relative difference. The Suttas speak of everything as being conditioned, even consciousness is just piled in there. Unconditioned back then, as I mentioned before, apparently related to something....unconditoned by greed/hatred and delusion. Sometimes today it gets talked about as a "thing", "state" or "place". My glimpses of "it" (lol) show it is eternity/just now, but I still need a watch to be on time. I was never born- what's birth?- I can't die- what's death? and yet I'll be gone someday. The feelings aren't a special case, as opposed to the tyre, consciousness, the body.........

Rich

[Grizzly]

Re: Chöd and other Buddhist approaches to practical demonkeeping

I'd like to add something to my previous post.

If the tyre doesn't go on properly, or the feeling doesn't change for the "better" isn't that the real test?
If we then spin off, get averse etc. then I think we'd have a problem.
That would prove the prior acceptance (or not), before and during the change, of anything "relative" wouldn't it?

Rich

[Rich]

Re: Chöd and other Buddhist approaches to practical demonkeeping

Wonderful discussion here... Thanks all. And Jundo and Taigu, for keeping things on point :wink:

All this circles around one of my "personal koans," which I have not resolved. It is sort of a riff on Dogen's "If things are already perfect as they are, why practice?" Mine is more like, "If realization is seeing that nothing needs to be changed, why then change anything?" Are our impressions that certain things should be changed--such as the inequalities in human cultures that lead to, what seems to me to be, unnecessary suffering--just delusions? Conceptions superimposed on a reality which needs not, and cannot be, truly changed?

Because it is the letting go of the thinking about things that let's you see the perfection of things. for me It's sometimes stronger than letting go, it's a cutting off. Then your actions are more in the realm of the essential because you see something that needs doing and you just do it. Don't get too far ahead of yourself.

So there's a point where action is called for. Where do we draw that line?

I really cannot reconcile both these views. Perhaps that will come with more practice and understanding through experience. But for now, I just can't see how one can accept life as it is while at the same time deciding certain things need to be changed.

Most of the things requiring your action are happening right now in front of you. Making plans for those 'big' changes in the future is OK and necessary but even those turn out to be as mundane as pushing a button or cleaning the toilet.

Being an avid fan of nature documentaries, encounters with wild animals, and time spent in wilderness, I hold wilderness as a great teacher. And the wild is absolutely ruthless. It does not matter whether you like it or not, if you are not strong, fast, or clever enough, you will die. Our world is a violent one and has always been; the rules of nature will always be the ground of our experience, no matter how much technology we will develop.

Yes, the odds of dying are much greater if you are not paying attention to what you are doing. Another great benefit of zazen practice because it applies to all of life, not just sitting. This is the great matter of life and death.

there's a beauty in the vibrant array of neuroses patrolling the street at any given moment; there's a beauty in the way the garbage collects in the gutter.

But should I just lazily let my neuroses and my aggression pile up? Just relax and let go of wanting to clean things up a bit? Or should I clean them? I don't really see how I could hold both perspectives at the same time. Either I clean up the mess, or I don't.

Thank you. It's good to know someone appreciates my neuroses. The cleaning up is the practice. It's like you take a shower every day and you think you are clean, but you always get a little dirty again and you have to take another shower. Practice is cleaning up the mind, but it always gets a little dirty and you have to practice again.

/Rich

[Jundo]

Re: Chöd and other Buddhist approaches to practical demonkeeping

The tyre's flat- suchness
The tyre's being fixed- suchness
The car's working again- suchness

Hi Grizzly Rich,

This is right. We are at one with the flat tire, at one with fixing the tire, at one with the tire fixed. All along, we know that there "is nothing in need of fixing" even as, hand-in-hand, there is "something in need of fixing" (both tasted at once, not two). And as with a perfectly just as it is flat tire, so it is with human conditions of fear, panic disorders, anger, addiction, depression and the like.

Shikantaza may help with or fully cure some of it (it may lessen or allow the full droppiing of the fear, the anger, addiction, depression etc), or it may not, and simply allow us to be "at one" with our flat tires of fear, anger, addiction, etc.

In such latter cases, something more than Shikantaza may be required and ... IF IT IS EFFECTIVE ... I fully support that.

Thus, I do sometimes suggest that people pursue, hand in hand with Shikantaza, a "12 step" program for addiction, anger management classes, medical treatment by a reputable doctor for a physical condition, anti-depression medication (if effective), psychotherapy (if effective), Metta Practice and Nurturing Seeds Practice (if it is helpful) and the like.

Thus, for the same reason, I do NOT suggest that people pursue fortune tellers, quack miracle medical treatments from Tijuana, distance healing, seances, crystal gazing, exorcisms, faith healing, psychotherapy (if not effective and only self-perpetuating), medical treatments cooked up by pharmaceutical companies to sell pills, and anything that is magico-supersticio hocus-pocus bunkum. I mean, even exorcisms and the like might have some "placebo" effect ... so anything might be helpful and therapeutic in some way ... but one is more likely to run into quacks and charlatans than a "cure".

Sometimes it is hard to draw the line between the two categories ... so I leave that to each person.

Most Esoteric Buddhist practices seem, from my viewpoint, to fall closer to the latter category (although some may be able to see them as something else, something deeper or symbolic of the human condition. I think more ordinary practitioners just take them for the magic and spiritualism that they appear to be on the surface).

But whatever supplementary path is pursued, nothing should take away from the central message of Shikantaza practice ... to wit, there is nothing in need of fixing, never was. Just be and let it be ... even as ya might need to fix something.

Gassho, J

PS - I was going to post about the same response over on the "Concentration practice incompatible with shikantaza?" thread ...

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2389

[Grizzly]

Re: Chöd and other Buddhist approaches to practical demonkeeping

Hi Jundo

I like Grizzly Rich (always wanted to be Grizzly Adams as a kid lol.....never put the Grizzly forum name and mine together before ha ha)

Anyway, I am 1000000% in agreement with everything you say in your post.

Rich

[Stephanie]

Re: Chöd and other Buddhist approaches to practical demonkeeping

But if things are already perfect as they are, why would we change anything? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it..." So why fix anything that ain't fundamentally broke?

Some cases are more obvious. We must fix the flat tire for our car to be able to go. So we do it, and keep rolling. It's less obvious when it comes to "character flaws" or "personal issues." If my anger is perfect, why utilize a tool to reduce it? If we say, "to reduce harm or suffering," why do that? If this world, as riddled with suffering as it is, is already perfect, would not only a deluded being want to try to fix it? Isn't the idea of fixing it or making it better the product of a delusion? If we are opening, blossoming, to reality as is, if we see the perfection in the gunfire and the child prostitution and the broken glass of this painful world, how can we simultaneously take the guns off the streets, take the child prostitutes to safe havens where they no longer have to be exploited, and sweep up the broken glass? Either it is perfect, it is thus, or it is not. Is it our duty to make this Earth the "Kingdom of Heaven," a place that is kinder and more just, or to let go of the striving and realize that it is already perfect and was all along?

[Grizzly]

Re: Chöd and other Buddhist approaches to practical demonkeeping

Hi Stephanie
That is the wordless paradox beyond thought.
Both are true, neither are true etc etc.
Thats why the only solution is to act practically. If we dont manifest our compassion- socially engaged Buddhism- then I think we are just dead Buddhas, certainly not Boddhisatvas.....
Ram Dass once said, "I see the perfectness of the universe all the while my human heart weeps for the suffering of (people in that perfection)" (or words to that effect). While perfect isnt the best word to use IMO as its a conceptualisation still, and reality is unwordable (ha ha), he sums up the situation beautifully and with compassion.
I think its important to realise that while we can use the word perfect for suchness that if we do we are still caught in conceptual reality. Just seeing, just doing, just loving..no words nor ideas..all the while words and ideas are still there. The absolute and relative- just words- not two, not even one, not none either.
Rich

[Grizzly]

Re: Chöd and other Buddhist approaches to practical demonkeeping

Can I add:

Any position we take, or view we subscribe to, is wrong (etc) from one "level". Taking no position as position, taking no view as view.....
We can't talk about this, or think about it.
If you are crying though I'll give you a handkerchief and ask if you are OK.
If I am crying I might ask you for a hug.

This came up on the other thread when I was arguing for the side of sorting all our problems out.
Jundo said that the alcoholic might be better at helping folks because of his experience.
He was absolutely right too.
In fact some young people I know call me the bad Buddhist because they over heard me telling a risque joke to one of their mums. We live near a new age community, where some dour folks are Buddhists. The young think they are all a bit weird- one even thought they might be dangerous ha ha. Now they think Buddhists, at least, aren't bad and the one who thought the community down the road was dangerous is not worried anymore.
Good and bad huh?

Rich