HH XVII Karmapa Ogyan Τhinley quote

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

Last year HHK 17 (O.T.) gave a Green Tara Wong and teaching in NYC. He ended the talk by saying.

The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now.

I think that’s an exact quote.

So if something that is taught in Dharma conflicts with how you or I see things, maybe it’s because our minds are the problem. The possibility exists. If that’s the case, imo defiance is the worst possible way to react.

Just sayin’...

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

I’d like for my previous post, and therefore this thread, removed. It’s inappropriate.

If not, then let me walk it back by saying that if someone is being defensive about a Dharma subject, that says to me that idea in question is not appropriate for that person at that time. Dharma should not be imposed on someone. They should want it.

[Matt J]

The assumption for many is that there is a dharma-- -i.e., an objective, fixed, permanent single idea of truth and dharma teaching. Which is ironic, given emptiness as a foundational teaching. I've noticed that online, people often take as orthodox dharma whatever happens to be their opinion. If you disagree, you are adharmic is some way-- obscured, deluded, wrong.

But this is not how I see it at all. In my mind (and I would say this is consistent with how I've been taught, or at least my interpretations), the dharma manifests in the way most accessible to people. Some take to the firm shamatha/vipassana approach of Theravada. Some prefer to free flowing, spontaneous style of Zen. Some have moved away completely from self cultivation into other power practices. Others have come to Vajrayana, which is actually just as broad as Buddhism itself. On the surface, these may appear to be contradictory, but really, it is just the Buddha appearing in different ways to different people. Even with the same teacher, people will experience things differently.

[Simon E.]

The assumption for many is that there is a dharma-- -i.e., an objective, fixed, permanent single idea of truth and dharma teaching. Which is ironic, given emptiness as a foundational teaching. I've noticed that online, people often take as orthodox dharma whatever happens to be their opinion. If you disagree, you are adharmic is some way-- obscured, deluded, wrong.

But this is not how I see it at all. In my mind (and I would say this is consistent with how I've been taught, or at least my interpretations), the dharma manifests in the way most accessible to people. Some take to the firm shamatha/vipassana approach of Theravada. Some prefer to free flowing, spontaneous style of Zen. Some have moved away completely from self cultivation into other power practices. Others have come to Vajrayana, which is actually just as broad as Buddhism itself. On the surface, these may appear to be contradictory, but really, it is just the Buddha appearing in different ways to different people. Even with the same teacher, people will experience things differently.

Amen.

[Lingpupa]

... free flowing, spontaneous style of Zen

I do agree with the spirit of your post and much of what you said - but in my limited experience Zen is one of the last styles of spiritual practice that could be graced with those adjectives. The tight formality, the minimalist visual style, the schooling in koans (for those parts of Zen that do koans), the strictness of long zazen sessions...

Of course, it does suit some people, but I don't think free flowing or spontaneous are quite the words, if I may say so.