Gurus, Authority, and Free Market Buddhism.

Via on Sep 7, 2011

The Marketplace of Ideas.

The Statue of Liberty stands as a proclamation of Western, secular freedom and dignity, welcoming all with the words of Emma Lazarus:

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”

This principal is what underlies the ideals of the American experiment. American culture is an amalgamation of other cultures—the melting pot—fueled by the freedom of experimentation and the primitive mandate or right to express your true self in an open and creative way. America is an open exchange of ideas, information, and experience—a marketplace of ideas.

I am not referring to the “economic” market place. Rather, by free market I am referring to the cultural space that accommodates experimentation and evolution. The free market of ideas is not guided by fame or profit, but by a practical realization of personal truth. Intellectual speculation is transformed into direct experience, whether confused or sane, through an experimental process guided by the intelligence of trial and error.

Progressive Buddhism.

Buddhism as a whole is entering this chaotic, powerful American free market. The Theravadin, Zen, Korean, Tibetan, Vietnamese, and Pure Land traditions are all planting roots here in the West. In addition to the traditional lineages, academia is making a contribution. Intellectuals are evaluating these Eastern traditions from the point of view of medicine, psychology, and sociology, and submitting their opinions. As a result, American Buddhism is emerging as a unique mixture of this wide array of disciplines. It is an American, or progressive Buddhism.

This progression seems to be at somewhat of a crossroads. For the first time in this process, we are beginning to see a significant number of American practitioners offer their experiences back into the marketplace of ideas, and something else is beginning to emerge. This “something else” is distinctly our own. However, this “something else” is producing a great deal of friction. There are those who understand that Buddhism is a timeless and culturally universal vehicle of human realization that isn’t, fundamentally, in need of modification—the mind and heart’s experiences and meditation practices developed around them are timeless. On the other hand, there are others who see that Buddhism is in the midst of a reformation—the evolution of a tradition in search of its Western expression, just as a unique Buddhism has emerged within every country or culture it has come to. This is the American-Buddhist experiment.

All experiments seek to produce an experience. This experience is an evolving product, which is dependent upon an open exchange of ideas, practices, and insights. Progressive Buddhism is not a “brand” of Buddhism. Some people call it “Integral Buddhism,” which seems to place the emphasis on the form. I appreciate the term Progressive Buddhism, as it places emphasis on the process. Through experimentation, Western practitioners develop some familiarity with the teachings and practices offered to them by their Asian brothers and sisters. Then, they turn around and share their experiences. Their contribution fundamentally changes the landscape, as the landscape is fluid. It is nothing more than the flow of information. Over time the atmosphere has changed so much that a distinct example of Buddhist spirituality is revealed. It is still Buddhism, but it is no longer “Asian Buddhism.”

For a lot of Westerners, Asian Buddhism is an approachable practice, but there are reasons why Asian Buddhists developed the cultural leanings seen in the various traditions developed in the east. It is through culture that the practice is made directly relevant to the audience. The union of culture and practice begets ritual and symbolism, which introduces the practitioner to the primordial Truth that sustains a movement. This is a natural process of assimilation that every religion goes through when it is introduced to a new culture. Padmasambhava utilized the existing Bon tradition when introducing Buddhism to the Tibetan people; Taoism played a huge role in the development of Zen; Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche dug deep into the western psyche, utilizing concepts of chivalry, dignity, and courage—all principles associated with the legends of King Arthur and other medieval myths—in order to communicate his Shambhala lineage.

As we, the American people, study these practices and develop our own experiences, we feel compelled to share our insights, humble as they may be. So, we reintroduce the practices to the marketplace of ideas, but this time with a different cultural slant. This slant enables more people to relate to the practice, which invites even more people to experiment with the process. This is what fuels the evolution of the market.

This evolution is further exacerbated by the technology at our disposal. Westerners are experimenting with these ideas in their formal practice and their daily lives. Then, sharing their insights with the network of people at their disposal, which for the first time in Buddhism’s history, includes the internet. Your average Joe Blow could, theoretically, reach more people with the click of a mouse than Milarepa did in his entire lifetime! (However, Milarepa has continued to inspire despite his absence…good luck Joe Blow!)

The technology of our modern society, coupled with our laissez faire approach, leads to a drastic shift in the presentation of the collective experience in a relatively short period of time. As Western practitioners develop autonomous ideas that are verified through practice they cease to be dependent upon their Asian counterparts for validation. So, as the practitioners become autonomous, the tradition becomes autonomous—within the context and thread of lineage and devotion—as the tradition is nothing more than the expression of the collective experience.

Who can contribute to the marketplace of ideas?

In short, anyone and everyone.

Why doesn’t the market become flooded with bad ideas?

Buddhism is practical. Eastern Buddhism is immensely practical—particularly for the cultures it grew up out of. People are interested in a spirituality that relates to their daily life. In the long term, it is practical results, not fame or profit, that drives the free market of ideas:

“The defining characteristic of the emerging Western Buddhism is a basic pragmatism, rather than an adherence to some philosophical system or sectarian viewpoint. What most characterizes the One Dharma of the West is an allegiance to a very simple question:

What works?

What works to free the mind from suffering? What works to accomplish the heart of compassion? What works to awaken us from the dream states of our ignorance?”

~ Joseph Goldstein


What works?

This is what guides the progressive Buddhist. What are these ideas working towards? A fundamental experience of the human condition. Regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, or nationality, there is a tendency to experience ourselves in a narrow-minded and unsatisfactory way. In the west, we tend to be trapped between our ears—we experience ourselves as if we were a series of ideas. From the depths of our being emerges a primitive force that seeks fulfillment—an uncensored and unmediated direct experience of our ever-expanding larger Self. The emerging Buddhism will be a path that provides this force with a relevant and practical way to actualize itself. If it does not strike a chord in the heart of the American people, it will soon be discarded. Charlatans may gain fame and profit in the short term, but only those messages that contain depth and weight will endure.

“This institution will be based upon the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it” ~ Thomas Jefferson

This allegiance to Truth suggests that Progressive Buddhism will not only be practical, but also non-sectarian. First, practitioners study the dharma in a variety of different contexts. Then they test their ideas in their practice and daily lives. Next, they begin to contribute their amalgamated experience to the market place of ideas. Often times, their points of view draw from non-Buddhist sources, such as Christianity, Judaism, and the sciences. These “non-Buddhist” points of view are successful in the market place of ideas, because they make the content all the more relevant and accessible to their audience. Finally, a new trend emerges in the world of Buddhism.

Within this emergent Buddhism, which seems to be guided by an abstract intelligence (the market), not a tangible institution, who is considered a teacher?

In short, a teacher is anyone who has a relevant and practical message that inspires people to experiment with Buddhist ideas in their daily life and formal practice, bringing them to a deeper and more fulfilling way of life. Their capacity to teach is certainly contingent upon their own level of realization, but the idea that “authority” is copyrighted by the institutional lineage and safeguarded by transmission is, in my opinion, a facet of Asian Buddhism that will not survive on American soil. In fact, it is Buddhism’s experimental nature that is so attractive to many westerners:

“Believe nothing on the faith of traditions, even though they have been held in honor for many generations and in diverse places. Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it. Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past. Do not believe what you yourself have imagined, persuading yourself that a God inspires you. Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests. After examination, believe what you yourself have tested and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.”  ~ The Buddha

Institutional Authority vs. Inspired Guidance

A lot of people are put off by the emergence of western teachers and the process by which they are discovered. These people feel more comfortable preserving the image than allowing the tradition to evolve or change. It is almost as if Buddhists fundamentalists believe that Buddhism is the one thing immune to the laws of impermanence. The establishment is dependent upon regulating who is allowed to contribute to the market place, as the power of the institution rests in its monopoly on authority. But if you look closely you will see that you—the subscriber—are the source of the guru’s or institutions authority:

“What is the source of a guru’s authority? (He or she) can tell you that (he or she) can speak from experience; that (he or she) has experienced states of consciousness which have made (he or she) profoundly blissful, or understanding or compassionate, or whatever it may be. And you have (his or her) word for it. And you have the word of other people whom likewise agree with (him or her.)

But each one of them—and you in turn—agree with (him or her) out of your own opinion and by your own judgment. And so it is you that are the source of the teacher’s authority. That is true whether (he or she) speaks as an individual or whether (he or she) speaks as the representative of a Tradition or a Church.” ~Alan Watts

Regulating the market negates our freedom to choose what is most relevant to our situation through a chaotic process of experimentation. It ignores the intelligent spirit of trial and error that not only produced the brand of Buddhism they hold so dear, but also managed to guide the universe as it evolved from a mass of energy trapped in a singularity to an amazingly diverse spectrum of intelligent life, of which, we are an example.

I want to be clear: I am not advocating a new method. I am simply describing an already existing process. The “market place of ideas” is a theory that recognizes the fact that evolution, by way of a natural process of selection, guides your intellectual life to a direct experience of Truth. It is sanity in motion.

Evolution is vital, not only to physical life, but to the world of ideas as well. Buddhism, being a system of ideas and practices, is just one particular manifestation of this process. When asked to describe Buddhism in a single sentence, Suzuki Roshi said, “Everything changes.” This change is facilitated by space. In other words, space or the lack of “thingness” is the true nature of all “things.”  However, this space is not dead. It is alive. It is the purest form of intelligence. This intelligence initiates change. If evolution is saying anything, it is saying that it is this capacity to adapt that enables life to persevere. In short, emptiness inspires evolution. The moment this relationship ceases to function the universe will come to a crashing halt.

Only organic forms of regulation are allowed to govern the expression of intelligence. Otherwise, it is regurgitated knowledge. True intelligence is inspired by an unmediated relationship with reality—freedom. Authoritarian regulation undermines creativity, and creativity is the energy that brings an idea to fruition.

There is only one form of intrinsic regulation and that is basic experience. What determines whether or not a practice or teaching is practical and relevant? Direct experience. Who determines whether or not a teacher has the capacity to teach? Reality. Everyone is quick to subscribe to the maxim, “When the student is ready the teacher will appear.” But when the tables are turned and we say, “When the teacher is ready the student will appear” everyone gets their panties in a wad. The American Buddhist experiment is a process of trusting chaos, which means that we have to be willing to let go of organization and our tendency to lean upon dharma credentials:

“Meditation is the practice of stepping out of ego’s game of constantly reaffirming its own existence.

Study is the critical intellectual examination of ego’s mode of operation.

Action is the application of the other two in everyday life situations.

From this point of view, maintenance of the organization, reliance upon credentials, becomes irrelevant. Nothing external is needed; things-as-they-are are their own proof, self-existing.” ~ Chogyam Trungpa

Guidance and instruction are indispensable components of the spiritual journey. So, I am not advocating the elimination of teacher / student relationships. I am simply saying that reality will establish a natural hierarchy, and we would do well to trust it. As long as there are students there will be teachers, and as long as there are beginners there will be students. So, with pragmatism and relevance as its guide, how does the market determine which teachers it will support?

There are four essential qualities that every sincere teacher—credentialed or not—possesses:

1) Realization or an awakening that is relevant to the culture they inhabit.
2) The capacity to articulate their point of view.
3) The skillful means to guide others to a similar discovery.
4) An honest desire to be of benefit

The market sends students to insightful, inspiring, and practical individuals who are guided by a sincere desire to be of service to others. These people have a drastic effect on the process of evolution. As their students begin to experiment with the path and see results, they turn around and themselves become contributors. However, this process stays alive only through the willingness of the teacher to remain teachable. The moment their open-mind collapses, the process of transformation dissolves, and they are dead in the water, as the water is in a constant state of fluctuation. In other words, an effective teacher is always “anxious to learn”:

“The early texts tell us that far from settling on one method or “program” for transmitting the awakened state to others, the Buddha spent his entire teaching career developing different “gates to awakening” that reflected his disciples’ differing capacities and needs. By the time of his death, so we are told, the Buddha had developed 84,000 different methods of transmission of the awakened state.” ~ Reggie Ray

Teaching and direction are essentials on the spiritual journey, but the idea that experience needs to be vouched for by tradition is just another impoverished example of the pervasive insecurity set in motion by the belief in our limited self.  For so many people, authority comes, not from the teacher himself or his message, but from the person standing behind him saying “I approve this message.” Of course, this person also needs someone validating their claim to authority.

This creates an endless line of Gurus standing on the shoulders of a first cause, which can only be resolved through inferential faith or direct experience:

“Take nothing I say on faith or on my authority. Be willing to test it and see for yourself.” ~ The Buddha

Transmission is a skillful process of accreditation that has preserved a wisdom tradition for 2,500 years. I respect the tradition of transmission and the integrity of lineage. However, I do not think it has a patent on insight, nor is it the only effective way to assist others in their search for fulfillment.

The transmission of authority is neither perfect nor outdated. It need not be replaced, nor is it the only way. Just as joining the PTA does not make me a parent, religious memberships and lengthy resumes do not make me realized. There have been far too many gurus, complete with authentic credentials, who have fallen flat on their face, and an equally astonishing number of people who, without any credentials, have managed to help an amazing number of people more fully relate to their lives. We have to muster the courage to judge a tree by its fruit, and not the person who planted it.

The Buddha taught a process of experimentation. Buddhism is a collection of old ideas. Your basic experience trumps some process of certification. If your practice has produced genuine insight and you wish to share your point of view with others, do it! If you are capable of articulating it in an inspiring and coherent fashion I will publish it right here on elephant journal, especially if it is a rebuttal to this article (just leave a comment below). Let’s work together to fuel the market place of spiritual ideas and watch as our little experiment works to fashion an enlightened society.

I will leave you with the Buddha’s final words to Ananda:

“Those who, either now or after I am dead, shall be lamps unto themselves, relying upon themselves only and not relying upon any external help, but holding fast to the truth as their lamp, and seeking their salvation in the truth alone, and shall not look for assistance to any one besides themselves, it is they, Ananda, among my bhikkhus, who shall reach the very topmost height! But they must be anxious to learn.”

“Elephant Spirituality” is now on twitter… Click here to follow us!

Elephant Spirituality is an example of Elephant Journal’s commitment to the Mindful Life. We look to provide a fresh and practical perspective on traditional spirituality. If you would like to follow Elephant Spirituality on FaceBook click here and become a fan of Elephant Spirituality by clicking the “Like” tab at the top of the page.

About Benjamin Riggs

Ben Riggs is the director of the Refuge Meditation Group in Shreveport, LA. Ben writes extensively about Buddhist & Christian spirituality and politics for The Good Men Project, Elephant Journal, The Web of Enlightenment, and is the editor & chief for Henry Harbor--an online magazine concerned with art, culture, spirituality, & politics in the deep South. To keep up with all of his work follow him on Facebook or Twitter. Looking for a real bio? Click here to read my story....

2,192 views

Appreciate this article? Support indie media!

(We use super-secure PayPal - but don't worry - you don't need an account with PayPal.)

23 Responses to “Gurus, Authority, and Free Market Buddhism.”

  1. yogiclarebear says:

    Wow Ben, there is so much here. I can translate so much of this into the Yoga community.

    This is a very intelligent article. You've taken those fundamental teachings and practices of Buddhism to make your points. There is no argument! "It is almost as if Buddhists fundamentalists believe that Buddhism is the one thing immune to the laws of impermanence." Really a brilliant statement.

    You offered a bit about Asian culture and their Buddhism practice. I would be interested to read more about how it differs from the Western "progressive" Buddhism and more specific cultural influences and examples.

    Great writing Ben. I enjoy learning from you!

    • Benjamin Riggs BenRiggs says:

      Well, if you look at every form of Buddhism–Zen, Tibetan, Forrest tradition in Thailand, etc–each has its own unique ritual and symbolism. While the essential message is more or less the same, the shell is very different from one tradition to the next. I would say the most original is the Tibetan tradition.

      However, comparing these traditions to the forms emerging in the west are difficult, because Buddhism in the west has yet to take on any distinct forms.

      One of the things I am trying to address with this article is the tendency to transplant Asian Buddhism onto American soil. We have to be given the space to discover our own expression of Buddhism. I am pointing out that space and maybe even trying to defend it a little bit.

      Glad you liked the article Clare.

      Have a great day.

  2. Lori says:

    Works for me. : )

  3. Benjamin Riggs BenRiggs says:

    I would love to hear from some people who disagree… I know they are out there…

    What do you find disagreeable about the article? Why is this point of view invalid? Where is this approach lacking? Or whatever you might find problematic about this approach.

    Lets get a discussion going!

  4. Padma Kadag says:

    Ok Ben…If you insist on disagreement…(chuckle). Of course depending upon which school of Buddhism we are talking about…lets talk…vajrayana…Tibetan…and so on. Everyone who knows very little about Tibetan Buddhism will point to forms in which the vajrayana is practiced ritualistically and in sadhana. That these are not western forms. Well why do they still work on western minds? Because the form is not the goal. Even the form of the Buddha is not awakened. So why are you placing so much energy in defending "forms" of Buddhism? And why do you feel that Buddhism needs to be "accessible" to all? It seems that you are promoting that the patients should be dictating their own form of healing and medicine . Afterall, who among the western "Buddhist" authors, intellectuals, and self anointed teachers are still not "patients" requiring a Lama qualified to guide them?

  5. Benjamin Riggs BenRiggs says:

    Padma Kadag,

    Thank you very much for the discussion.

    "Well why do they still work on western minds? "

    I am not saying here that Asian Buddhism is irrelevant to the western mind… I am saying that it is not as relevant as it could be to the western mind. As you say, ritualistic vajrayana practice is not communicated in western form, which suggests it is communicated in Asian, more specifically, Indo-Tibetan form. Why did the enlightened masters of Tibet, such as Padmasambhava, cultivate a culturally relevant vehicle?

    "form is not the goal."

    I would agree. The form is a yana or vehicle, but that vehicle is made all the more efficient through culturally relevant language and symbolism. This is something Padmasambhava was well aware of when he introduced the Tibetan people to the practice of Buddhism. Interestingly enough, this is usually an accomplishment that Guru Rinpoche is praised for, but when we look at his example in the west, it seems to be conveniently overlooked.

    "So why are you placing so much energy in defending "forms" of Buddhism?"

    I am not defending "forms"; I am defending the space that expresses itself as form. You seem to be defending forms, no?

    "And why do you feel that Buddhism needs to be "accessible" to all? "

    I do not think it needs to be accessible to everyone, but I definitely believe that we need to do what we can to make it as relevant as possible so that all those who want to access it can. No different than what took place in Asia many times…

    "After all, who among the western "Buddhist" authors, intellectuals, and self anointed teachers are still not "patients" requiring a Lama qualified to guide them?"

    I am no talking about creating an American form of Tibetan Buddhism. Nor do I believe that strict guidance from a lama is indispensable… After all, Tilopa manage to achieve enlightenment without a human guru… I do not believe that Tibetan Buddhism has a monopoly on Truth.

    • Padma Kadag says:

      Ben…we can find examples which are not the norm for any argument as in Tilopa. No I am not defending form…that is as much a waste of time as " defending the space that expresses itself as form". In actuality I am really not sure of the necessity for an article like this. Yes, westerners may join the band wagon as exemplified by the comments by Lotus, this view point is understandable being a "westerner" myself.

      • Benjamin Riggs BenRiggs says:

        If you are not defending form, then please tell me what you are defending…

        And I believe that your, and many others, answer to the Tilopa question is no different than a fundamentalist Christian saying Jesus had an advantage because he was, as Alan Watts said, "the Bosses Son."

      • Benjamin Riggs BenRiggs says:

        Oh, and to say, "we can find examples which are not the norm for any argument." means that the argument is not completely true or full-proof, which is what I was trying to do with this article… I am not trying to disprove Buddhist tradition,; rather expose the fact that Truth is bigger than the Buddhist tradition…

        • Padma Kadag says:

          Where did I say you are disproving Buddhist tradition? No where. You are intellectually considering buddhism's alleged inability to relate to westermers on it's own terms…but you, a patient, who has not traveled the complete path want to set the terms or shall I say consider setting the terms for Buddhism. You are side stepping your "vajrayana has no monopoly on the truth"….How do you know? I do not read Alan Watts so save those pearls for others.

    • Padma Kadag says:

      The only other point I find interesting is your comment "I do not believe that Tibetan Buddhism has a monopoly on Truth." I find this interesting because either you are saying that there is one Truth with many paths or there are numerous Truths which would yield many paths and that Vajrayana is one of many paths to the same truth. If one has not completely followed Vajrayana to completionment how can one make that statement? How do you reference your view and to what? Unfortunately, these days, if one says that, for example the Vajrayana, does not ultimately yield the same Truth or God, as other paths, that is seen as elitest. Rather, it is based in empirical logic. For one must have traveled all of the paths to their respective ultimate goals, which are being compared, inorder to support such claims. So then please tell me why Vajrayana does not have a monoply on Truth. I want to hear.

      • Padma Kadag says:

        I would also say that Lotus's point for less "display" for Buddhist practice is as genuine as the Vajrayana's use of more "display" as a path. Vajrayana is for those who have some kind of previous karma to meet with those teachings. As do the more austere practices. Also…everyone says that Padmasambhava "created a culturally relevant vehicle for Tibet" …I have never heard this from any of my Tibetan teachers. Please show me where Guru Rinpoche said, "now I will make a culturally relevant vehicle for Tibet.

      • Benjamin Riggs BenRiggs says:

        Nope. I am going to regurgitate Krishnamurti: "Truth is a Pathless land." Before there is enlightenment all paths, even the precious Buddhist path, must be abandoned…

        Padmasambhava didn't discard Bon, he recast it…

        • Padma Kadag says:

          Ben…Your article is questioning the "Buddhist" authority of the Guru. Then how is it that you will use the example of Padmasambhava when it suits you. Now, let me be clear…all of your questions are reasonable in that they mirror western thought and it's independent spirit where no Guru is required. Yet, you still are willing to throw all paths together as ending in the same truth. You talk as if you know Vajrayana thoroughly and have attained all that the path has to experience with statements, "varayana has no monopoly on the truth". Then you throw out a Krishnamurti quote which negates "the path" yet your entire article is spent solidifying a need for a more "Progressive Buddhism" path. Do what you will. This is another example of the patients needing a doctor but when they meet that doctor, who can cure all of their ills, they want to tell that doctor how to treat them and then write a book about it having never taken the regimine of medicines to completion.

          • Benjamin Riggs BenRiggs says:

            "Your article is questioning the "Buddhist" authority of the Guru."

            I never questioned the authority of a guru… I questioned whether or not Buddhist institutions have a monopoly on authority…

            " you throw out a Krishnamurti quote which negates "the path"

            If you do not negate the path sooner or later you will find yourself walking around with a raft on your back for the rest of life…or so says the Buddha.

            "yet your entire article is spent solidifying a need for a more "Progressive Buddhism" path."

            Once again this article had nothing to do with the content of a path, but the freedom to allow the content to be discovered through a natural process of experimentation. I believe I explicitly said, "Some people call it “Integral Buddhism,” which seems to place the emphasis on the form. I appreciate the term Progressive Buddhism, as it places emphasis on the process." It is the experiment that is of importance.

            "This is another example of the patients needing a doctor but when they meet that doctor, who can cure all of their ills, they want to tell that doctor how to treat them and then write a book about it having never taken the regimine of medicines to completion."

            Actually, it is more like I am saying that a degree in medicine does not make you a competent doctor. I realize there are competent doctors and incompetent doctors. I am simply saying it is their work and not their credentials that establish them as such… Nothing more nothing less.

          • Padma Kadag says:

            "I agree , i find the whole ritualistic-dogmatic part of buddhism annoying and it really doesnt work for me"
            Ben…this quote taken from Suri Kate is an example of why your view does more harm than good. If you are writing to allow Buddhism to just be Buddhism then why write at all and confuse those who do not already have a strong foundation in Buddhism? Question all you like…I do as well…but skillfull means tells me that this is not the forum. Your ideas of "evolution" and "experiment" are sounding elitest and intellectual and do not resonate with not one teacher, and I do not consider Surya Das qualified, from whom I have received teaching.

  6. Lotus says:

    Hi Ben,

    I am sorry to disappoint you and say that I fully agree with your points of view. :-)

    As a practitioner who started off in the Tibetan tradition, I have been gravitating more and more towards a simpler practice because I just couldn´t find any good reason, in my heart of hearts, to do the empty rituals and to chase gurus for transmissions. I have friends who are older practitioners who believe that I am really missing out by not racking up transmissions. Really? How? I just cannot find anyone to explain to me exactly why that is. Perhaps it is my ignorance, who knows. But it seems to me that taking a simple, pithy instruction to heart and to put it into practice everyday is the Dharma.

    Thanks again Ben!

    • Benjamin Riggs BenRiggs says:

      "It seems to me that taking a simple, pithy instruction to heart and to put it into practice everyday is the Dharma."

      Very well said, Lotus.

      The relevance of ritual is a relative matter. I had to, in a lot of ways, become Tibetan before I could get at the heart of the matter. It was way too round about. The frustrating thing to me about this entire issue is that religion is the only arena on the planet where this would even be a debate…

      Glad you liked the article. Have a great day!

  7. Suri kate says:

    I agree , i find the whole ritualistic-dogmatic part of buddhism annoying and it really doesnt work for me….i definitely prefer the westerner friendly , simpler , easily aproachable budhist version…..it is more open And flexible and you really can choose what teachings work best for you without having to touch the religious part (postrating , chanting,etc) and you dont have to define yourself as a "buddhist"… which is nice….its just 100% work with yourself no dogma , no guilt , no problem.

  8. Just posted to "Weekend Wisdom" on the Elephant Spirituality Homepage.

    Braja Sorensen
    Lost & Found in India
    Editor, Elephant Spirituality
    Please go and "Like" Elephant Spirituality on Facebook

Leave a Reply