Is Tibetan Buddhism world-denying?

[DGA]

This comes up in some of the other sub-fora. I'd like to know what others think. Here's part of a representative post:

I think the issue is entirely class-based; white upper middle class people like Zen, Vipassana and Tibetan Buddhism, which is rather austere, world denying and requires money. TB is fashionable as liberals are pro- Tibet.

read the whole thing in context here:

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f= ... 40#p255065" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


So, what do you think? Fair assessment or no?

[Astus]

Buddhism itself is world-denying. Just look at the life story of Gautama.

[Karma Dorje]

This comes up in some of the other sub-fora. I'd like to know what others think. Here's part of a representative post:

I think the issue is entirely class-based; white upper middle class people like Zen, Vipassana and Tibetan Buddhism, which is rather austere, world denying and requires money. TB is fashionable as liberals are pro- Tibet.

read the whole thing in context here:

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f= ... 40#p255065" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


So, what do you think? Fair assessment or no?

Tibetan Buddhism is austere? Well aside from all the thangkas, prayer flags, tormas, brocade, lama dances, ritual music, hundreds of meditational deities and ritual implements, I agree... pretty austere. World-denying is a pretty strange term to parse. What could such a term possibly mean in a religion where the root of the path is renunciation? Isn't it a given that one gives up on addiction to samsara?

Tibetan Buddhism is fashionable because we manage to keep the angry feminists at arm's length. That's the only reason.

[treehuggingoctopus]

This comes up in some of the other sub-fora. I'd like to know what others think. Here's part of a representative post:

I think the issue is entirely class-based; white upper middle class people like Zen, Vipassana and Tibetan Buddhism, which is rather austere, world denying and requires money. TB is fashionable as liberals are pro- Tibet.

read the whole thing in context here:

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f= ... 40#p255065" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


So, what do you think? Fair assessment or no?

The austerity thing and the idea that practising TB requires more money than practising, say, Nichiren are complete nonsense.

Also, I'd say that the Vajrayana proper (HYT and Dzogchen) 'schools' of TB make up the Buddhist tradition that is actually furthest from being world-denying. To put it in stronger terms: relying on transformation and self-liberation instead of renunciation, it is the Buddhist tradition which is explicitly, and self-professedly, not world-denying. Though obviously it all depends on how you construe the key phrase.

It's a pity Rory puts such a face on feminism.

[Myoho-Nameless]

I don't want to speak for Rory, and don't really like to venture out of the Nichiren bubble on Dharma Wheel much, but what is probably meant by "world denying" here is the stereotype of ditching society, running away from daily life, living in a cave or on a mountain (not just for a retreat but more long term), or otherwise pretending you can turn off things you are biologically programmed to want. Rather than say, embracing daily life, finding meaning and indeed manifesting your awakening in doing so. the path of renunciation is not required for us, nor is it held in higher esteem (generally speaking), make of that take on Buddhism what you will, arguing that with yall is not my point or purpose here, just clarifying what Rory might have meant. If she means something different I hope she will clarify. But thats normally what is meant in the Nichiren context of this statement. We are generally clear in that, we do not believe you can get rid of your desires, and you should not "desire" to do so in the first place, and you can show your awakening and still have them (I think thats in the Sutra of Innumerable Meanings...maybe somewhere else). Once again, thats us, if your take on Buddhism is more the stereotype I wont quarrel with that. The opposite of that, is seen as "world denying". Escapism.

My own impression is that, at least for the laity, Tibetan Buddhism is in no way world denying (insofar as family life is very important), but I may have been wrong with that impression. Part of this might be that as westerners, we are apt sometimes to listen to the advice targeted at monks and nuns, rather than the laity, but I might be speaking out of my rear in making that statement....just an impression I have. But what Rory meant by world denying/what I take it as, and what it might mean to you folk might not even mean the same thing, I don't know.


Dzogchungpa: I am sorry again you walk away with that impression of us, I think your issue is specifically with the Rory who to my knowledge practices nichiren Buddhism but blends it with other practices. Like me, is a non sectarian (I have nichiren specific flavor of non sectarian shtick, other than the occasional bout of breath observation but we as Buddhists have no ownership of that practice anyway and Nichiren Shu does it) and her views do not necessarily represent the views of all nichiren buddhists etc etc.

Do we have bigots? Yes. So does Tibetan Buddhism, so does everyone. But we also some of the if not the most diverse sanghas on the planet (maybe thats why we have a reputation).

Me again, your friendly neighborhood aspirant pokemon master/sith lord/furry fan and Lotus Sutra devotee, MN.

[Malcolm]

So, what do you think? Fair assessment or no?

Utterly clueless when it comes to Tibetan Buddhism...

[madhusudan]

I think the issue is entirely class-based...

People often reveal more about themselves than the topic they are discussing. This statement speaks volumes.

[Punya]

you are biologically programmed to want...

This is equally clueless in a buddhist context.

[Myoho-Nameless]

thats a whole other debate, and one that does not belong here. personally, to me, though I am not a materialist, what we might call "science" comes before what we traditionally receive as "Buddhism".

Didn't the Dalai Lama say something like that? oh well, its what I am saying.

[Johnny Dangerous]

So, what do you think? Fair assessment or no?

Utterly clueless when it comes to Tibetan Buddhism...

I second this. IMO If anything Vajrayana and It's Indian Mahayana roots has a good claim to be less "world denying" than many other forms of Buddhism, with notions of purified aggregates, pure vision, transformation rather than external renunciation, etc.

Actually, as class stuff goes what I see more often marketed to people who are culturally white and upper class is world-embracing Buddhism in some sense, though not always a positive one, where you are either doing Dharma practice to make Samsara better, or even worse just to make your own trip through it better. Just pick up a Tricycle or something, not that it is all bad by any means, but a huge number of articles tend to be geared towards simply making one's life easier.

My (Tibetan-taught) Sangha is really inexpensive, and in fact, free if one chooses to go that way. It's the only place in town i've been where i'm guaranteed to see non-white people, in my super-white town.

The initiations/empowerments have been to elsewhere were also all quite affordable (these are big named teachers too), and attended by an exceptionally diverse range of people both ethnically and (as far as I can tell) in terms of class. I once saw a Cholo (at least that would be the slang in the southwest) with a double-Vajra necklace..awesome.

The fact is that Buddhist adherents on the whole in terms of westerners not born into Dharma lean towards be white and upper-class, and that should come as no surprise to anyone, been known for a while. That is an issue that is part of the whole Mahasangha in this country, when it comes to people not raised in Buddhist traditions.. and is not unique to Tibetan Buddhism.

[Myoho-Nameless]

If Johnny is indeed based in Olympia WA, as to his Tibetan taught sangha, I can confirm, if you want it does not cost anything, I think I may have been to it once.

I only had 7 bucks to spare at the end of my visit.

[Konchog1]

Buddhism has always been advanced by the upper class. It has nothing to do with race. In India: The Buddha was a prince. Most of his followers were from the upper castes. Most of the 84 Mahasiddha were upper caste. Indrabhuti was even a king. Padmasambhava was a prince as well. In Tibet: Milarepa and Ra Lotsawa were from land owning families. Gampopa was a well educated doctor. Any monk you see in the lineage was likely rich and influential etc etc.

[LastLegend]

Or we could say the world is denying of truth not Buddhism. I thought no inherent of self is pretty clear, no independent entity, everything is dependent. As for the path of transformation, from reading on this forum Tibetan Buddhism is big on it. As for the path of renunciation, with deep understanding and studying of Dharma and eating habits, one can work with desires. At least not nurturing desires and let them become powerful; while we think we cannot get rid of desire, it does not help to intensify it-my perspective does not reflect Tibetan Buddhist view, from my perspective of renunciation. Renunciation produces favorable conditions for liberation. Eating certain vegetarian food will decrease sexual desire or decrease it. "You are what you eat" is true, no doubt. Certain plants have medicinal properties when ingested. It is clear that things we ingest have effects on our body and mental states. I am basing my opinion on the book called Zen Macrobiotics.

[Hieros Gamos]

I think we'd all rather piss in each others' cereal than be chakravartins.

[Johnny Dangerous]

On this subject, i've read a few books (Traleg Kyabgon's Lojong book springs to mind here - there are great passages in it on this subject) that mention specifically the ways in which Westerners misinterpret the concept of renunciation. I don't remember the specifics of those, only the general gist -that many people don't seem to get what exactly they are "renouncing", because they are unclear on what Samsara is, or they have incorrectly reduced it to simply mean a world of phsyical objects to be avoided.

It's my perception that as westerners plenty of us come to Buddhism with a whole of of baggage of worldview mostly from Protestant Christian forms mingled with scientific materialism - even if we are not Christian specifically. Namely, Samsara becomes synonymous with The World (tm), and so renunciation or weariness with Samsara becomes weariness with a (perhaps even "sinful") really existing world, with really existing beings, and really existing physical substances that you must renounce. this ends up seeming closer to Gnosticism or something.

Of course this view is confused, as there is no concrete, separate outside world of things, entities, temporal states to "renounce".

Personally it's something i've noticed from all corners of Buddhist thought where those of us who are raised a midst mainstream Judeo-Christian notions of reality prevail. I don't think there is any brand of Buddhism where i've seen regular joes do this more or less (unless you want to count literal renunciation only, in which case Therveda or others practicing serious seclusion have it), I think it's probably a general tendency when one's view falters, and it seems (again from teachings i've read here and there) that some teachers do think it's a particularly strong impulse to "deny the world" in a way that the teachings don't necessarily intend.

[LastLegend]

I was referring to monks and nuns when speaking of the path of renunciation. Lay Buddhists hold a different standards.

[tlee]

Tibetan Buddhism is world denying in some ways, not in others. It depends also on what is meant by world denying.
Tibetan Buddhism advises and has practices to correct irrational priorities. This causes practitioners to disregard the unimportant and sacrifice the less important for more the important with respect to their priorities. To people priorities limited to this life this appears like denial.

And there's also countless people in it for the ego trip. You know, the ones that don't practice unless someone's watching and sees how much better they are than everyone else! lol

On a sub point brought up in the thread:

I don't acknowledge SGI as being Buddhist because I never bothered learning about it. How can I say it is valid Buddhism when I haven't even checked?
Why should I endorse a new philosophy made up by a stranger I have no reason to trust?

To endorse something I have not checked out thoroughly would be unethical.