Why Thai Dhutanga teachings are easier to practice than Mahayana Buddhism for me
It is far simpler for me to eradicate kilesas and grow my compassion from living amongst birds and bugs than is it to use the modern Western-orientated Mahayana teachings. However, I recognize the Bodhisattva as superior to the Arahant. I have also been making progress in generating compassion and have got to the point where I believe that someday it might work for me to aim at the Bodhisattva option. Yet the lessons taught by those aimed at Arahantcy are much more at my level and can be practiced with better result. For this reason is is hard to stick to either pathway completely. It is currently as if I wish to graduate as a Bodhisattva, whilst using teachings made for Arahants.
It is difficult for me in that I seem to have started my education at high school level. Half the lessons I am taught are directed at kindergarten students and half at university graduates - I find it difficult to find teachings that are suited to my 'mixed' level.
For an example:
If understanding emptiness is to eliminate self-grasping, then why not simply eliminate self-grasping? Would it not be simpler to view every living being as a lump of Buddha nature covered in the clothing (think & emote-mind/body) of karmic shit, and concentrate on helping people to become nudists, whilst climbing out of one's own karmic residue? If I already know where my self-grasping originates and can work on canceling it, it is far quicker than using the emptiness method. It is not that I am opposed to emptiness, merely that my personal understanding and experience of it lead me to believe that it would be a far slower path to use it than alternate methods.
No comments:
Post a Comment