Good Friends:
Vajrayana Buddhists like to say that the Vajrayana is the quickest path to enlightenment. Using their vehicular analysis; the hinayana is a slow vehicle, the mahayana a good four-door, and the Vajrayana is a souped up sports car. What is the basis for this assertion?
As far as I can tell, this assertion is simply sectarian posturing. No actual evidence is brought forth to substantiate this claim. It is simply an article of faith for the practicing Vajrayanist.
Every Buddhist tradition argues for the excellence of their path to awakening. This is standard. But in the case of the Vajrayana I would suggest that there are reasons to be sceptical of their claim that their's is the quick path. For one thing, it doesn't seem to be the case that Vajrayana practitioners are any more advanced in terms of insight and compassion than any other group of Buddhists (or, for that matter, non-Buddhist practitioners). That is to say, I have not observed in the actual behavior of Vajrayana Buddhists a significant difference in these areas when compared to other, non-Vajrayana, groups of people. It might be interesting to conduct some kind of sociological survey on this subject. I am imagining a survey with questions designed to bring out the altruism and insight of the people questioned. I think such a survey is theoretically possible. At least with such a survey there would be actual data to discuss. I wonder if practitioners would be willing to participate?
My observation has been that Vajrayana practices are often complex and require much dedication. Access to these practices is often granted only to those who have done "preliminary practices", such as 100,000 prostrations. In what sense, then, given the complexity of the practices and the preliminary requirements, could one say that Vajrayana is the quick path, or even quicker than say Vipassana, or Zazen, or Daimoku? In fact, it seems to me that the opposite is actually the case. In the case of practices like Zazen and Daimoku, the view is that the practice directly manifests its benefits, without preliminaries; and in the case of Vipassana, which is more graded in its approach, the benefits nevertheless are perceived fairly quickly as access to various dhyanic states unfolds.
May our practice of the Dharma quickly unfold. May the Wonderful Lotus of the Dharma blossom within the hearts and minds of all beings.
Dharmajim
Several years ago, when I first began to explore Buddhism, it was into the Tibetan tradition that I first began to look. There were a couple of reasons for this. One, that has already been mentioned, is that it's the most visible school of Buddhism in the US in recent years. The other, is that I was coming from a background of Sri Ramakrishna's Vedanta, the only religious expression that had ever found a place in my heart, and the Tibetan approach had a familiar "feel" to it.
It didn't take long to conclude that those aspects of Vedanta which made me look elsewhere for spiritual growth were even more abundant in the Tibetan schools. I maintain to this day that this type of Buddhism represents to some significant extent the "re-Hinduization" of Buddhism. It's not for me, and as Brian has said, it's probably not for most modern westerners.
The claims made by the Tibetans, one suspects, are valid primarily for - and accepted primarily by - the Tibetans. Then there are those westerners who are attracted to exotic oriental ritual or mind numbingly arcane philosophy and have plenty of time on their hands, but it's not clear to me whether that is an entirely different sort of thing.
Whatever the case may be, for me Buddhism is either immensely practical, or it's just another pastime.
Posted by: Harry at September 1, 2004 08:15 AMHi Harry:
I didn't catch your comment until today. Sorry about that.
One of the reaons that Tibetan Buddhism looks a lot like Hinduism is that it lacks the basic Discourses which are foundational for both Theravada and Chinese based forms of Buddhism. Lacking the Nikaya/Agamas has tilted Tibetan Buddhism in a highly occult direction and left it open to interpretations that are primarily Hindu in nature. At least, that's how I see it.
It's not that I think Tibetan Buddhism is valueless. But I could say the same for Christianity or Judaism or even Theosophy. It's just that the more I learn about Tibetan Buddhism the more it seems to me to be remote from the central concerns of the Dharma as taught by Shakyamuni.
Thanks for your observations.
Dharmajim