Nice posts. Imo this means 一门深入 should be complemented and
balanced with 广学多闻。
As long as you have a very clear direction in your practice,
anything (from the right sources) can complement your practice and
understanding.
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t…
Caz wrote:
I appreciate they may reinforce one and other but how is it
necessary to study Lamdre in order to improve your understand of
Guhyasamaja or Dzogchen, Surely if one accomplishes the results of
one perfect clarity and understand will come naturally regarding
the rest ?
Malcolm wrote:
Such accomplishment is rare. Studying all teachings impartially
improves our chances for realization because it improves our
prajñā.
Further, we never know what circumstances we will be born in. If
we are familiar with all teachings, and make a connection with all
teachings, then we have more opportunity and it will be easier to
study and practice in the future. For example, even if we want to
be a Kagyu in life after life there is no guarantee.
M
....
Re: A directive for a non-sectarian approach to practice
(HHDL)
by JKhedrup » Sun Aug 05, 2012 7:09 am
I think it is no coincidence that the greatest and most
impressive lamas of history studied broadly in different
traditions. Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thaye, the Dalai Lamas, The
Karmapas, Gampopa, Lama Tzongkhapa – these great masters looked at
a broad corpus of literature. Now surely they did have to make some
decisions in terms of their daily practices, where their focus
would lie. But they did so after having a broader knowledge of the
various sectarian philosophies.
Here at Sera the monks who only study the yig-cha, monastic
manuals of their college, who do not devote much time to the Indian
treatises and who never look into the opinions of lamas from the
other monasteries, are considered to be doing the “bare
minimum’.
HH Dalai Lama on a recent visit exhorted the monks to focus on
the Nalanda texts themselves, as a Lama’s commentary was only one
interpretation. Similarly, he said they should investigate
themselves what Lama Tzonkhapa said, not what one of the
commentators said he said. And then, to look into the forerunners
of Tzongkhapa, like Sakya Pandita.
I think the same standard applies in modern education,really. If
I am studying at a university and only use the school’s texts
books, or quote from a few sources, without investigating the other
opinions, citing them and integrating them, my essays and
presentations would be considered below par.
Let’s take Atisha as an example. He held the Madhyamika
Prasangika view. His teacher Serlingpa (Suvarnadvipi), did not.
Now, if he had the outlook “I will only go to the teachers
upholding the view of my (Middle Way) tradition”, he would have
missed out. Because although he considered Serlingpa to hold a
so-called “lower view” of emptiness, he said he was the kindest
teacher because it was through his instructions that he was
actually able to give rise to bodhicitta.
For myself, the teachings I have received from the Theravada and
Kagyu traditions have contributed greatly to my ability to
understand, study and translate Gelugpa teachings. It also means
that when people from other traditions mention particular views or
masters, I don’t draw an embarassing blank, as I used to.
The institutional loyalty on which some masters insist for me is
a little bit suspect. Because in a university if a professor said
“You should only read books by so and so”... he would be
censured.
A true master is not threatened by their students learning with
others. Fortunately my teachers have always given me that freedom.
Focus is one thing, bias is another.
If Lama Tzongkhapa had not studied with a broad variety of
masters, would he have been able to produce the vast corpus of
literature that he did? If Gampopa had not studied with the Kadampa
teachers as well as Milarepa, would he have produced his magnum
opus “Jewel Ornament of Liberation”. Would Jamyang Kongtrul Lodro
Thaye have been able to revive a true and integrative practice
tradition that was failing?
History tells us again and again that far from diluting
Buddhism, syncretism actually vitalizes it, reinvigorates it.
