Mixing Traditions

thumbnail
Wes Harris, modified 14 Years ago at 4/16/09 12:09 AM
Created 14 Years ago at 4/16/09 12:09 AM

Mixing Traditions

Posts: 0 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Forum: Dharma Overground Discussion Forum

I would like to get people’s perspective on finding the way between the two extremes of exclusively practicing within one tradition, and being superficially over-eclectic. Most of the perspectives I’ve heard aren’t extreme, but do seem to be oriented towards one extreme or the other. I would like to hear some commentary oriented towards finding a balance.

This is some of what I have been considering recently. It is difficult to make general statements about this issue since every individual’s situation is different. I think what would be beneficial for a beginning practitioner might not apply to an experienced practitioner. Is there a point where increasing your familiarity with a variety of traditions necessarily becomes an obstacle for progress? Does exclusivity potentially deny us the chance to draw distinction to our approach, or develop a greater appreciation for our approach? I think the mixing traditions issue is especially important for people from historically non Buddhist countries. We refer to this “tradition” and that “tradition” but once transplanted out of its historical context the meaning of tradition gets weird. Does that mean that a particular tradition’s stance on mixing needs to change when the cultural context has changed?

Thanks, wharris
thumbnail
tarin greco, modified 14 Years ago at 4/16/09 12:39 AM
Created 14 Years ago at 4/16/09 12:39 AM

RE: Mixing Traditions

Posts: 658 Join Date: 5/14/09 Recent Posts
i don't have answers for the though-provoking questions you bring up, but i do want to add a practice-oriented angle to this thread by saying that, imo, getting a strong foundation with one good technique is helpful beyond belief, and cushion-jumping should be saved for a little bit later. aside from that, im for doing whatever you think helps you in this very moment.. whether it's mixing or sticking to one thing exclusively. if the question arises, the answer can be sought on a case-by-case, or moment-by-moment, basis.
thumbnail
Wes Harris, modified 14 Years ago at 4/16/09 2:16 AM
Created 14 Years ago at 4/16/09 2:16 AM

RE: Mixing Traditions

Posts: 0 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
I like the idea of focusing on one technique at the beginning, and then once a solid foundation is established integrating other approaches if it feels beneficial. It seems like that attitude puts the balancing point not at the hypothetical mean between the two extremes, but more towards the picking one approach side, and then branching out however feels right in the moment.
thumbnail
Vincent Horn, modified 14 Years ago at 4/16/09 2:47 AM
Created 14 Years ago at 4/16/09 2:47 AM

RE: Mixing Traditions

Posts: 211 Join Date: 4/20/09 Recent Posts
My current sense of "mixing traditions" and "finding a balance" is that this can be done, but it usually has to happen over many decades, not just a couple months or even a couple years. In order to really go deep, in say the insight meditation tradition (which itself has many different related, but different practices) it takes at least a few years for most people. I would say the minimum for "going deep" is attaining stream-entry and then working from there as a platform. Even better though, is the next major shift (Daniel calls it 3rd path, I call it 2nd) where one begins to see emptiness in real-time. That, I think, is a much better platform out of which to begin exploring new traditions and divergent practices. Even better might be arhantship, which based on all the data points I have, usually takes 5-15 years of committed practice (though it can take less and can take more).

All that said, my view of balance now, is that one must to go one extreme and then swing back in another, and so on. Perhaps each extreme swing gets a little less extreme, but I see balance as the process of swinging through the middle, not resting nicely in the middle. By going to each extreme one acquires incredible depth, but as you say the danger is in then not bringing that depth to bear somewhere else, or not having the courage to swing in another direction. The same is true with wanting to stay near the middle and acquire no depth in anything. Anyway, this is just an abstract way of making sense of what I've observed so far as the most "balanced" and "deep" individuals I've met in the spiritual arena.

Thanks!

-Vince
Hokai Sobol, modified 14 Years ago at 4/16/09 5:35 AM
Created 14 Years ago at 4/16/09 5:35 AM

RE: Mixing Traditions

Posts: 4 Join Date: 4/30/09 Recent Posts
Hi Wes, I see and suggest an hourglass approach as useful for most people. One begins by sampling the characteristic types in the vast territory, in terms of both practice-styles, and a broad, not in-depth study of surveying the teachings and views of different traditions. Introductory education is paramount for balance. In that process, one will most likely find a lineage that resonates with one's spiritual inclination (as opposed to naive idealistic projections and expectations). I would then suggest going for it until one breaks into continuous, strong, pristine awareness. After coupling this awareness with good conceptual understanding (and a good grasp of the dual nature of conceptuality itself), it's great to begin looking around again, if nothing to better understand one's own tradition of choice, and thus acquire additional enriching perspectives.

So, this is probably just a simplified, 3-step version of what Vince proposes to be a continuous process of expansion and contraction, i.e. broadening and narrowing one's approach to the matter.
thumbnail
tarin greco, modified 14 Years ago at 4/16/09 8:26 AM
Created 14 Years ago at 4/16/09 8:26 AM

RE: Mixing Traditions

Posts: 658 Join Date: 5/14/09 Recent Posts
man this thread has so much win in it. every post so informative, so nicely put. 'It seems like that attitude puts the balancing point not at the hypothetical mean between the two extremes, but more towards the picking one approach side, and then branching out however feels right in the moment.' <-- thats exactly it - accept the existence of contradiction and duality, and live as if both sides of the same coin, both options, flipping round and round and round, were the same one. picking the appropriate side without dualistic hesitation.
Nathan I S, modified 14 Years ago at 4/16/09 3:20 PM
Created 14 Years ago at 4/16/09 3:20 PM

RE: Mixing Traditions

Posts: 0 Join Date: 8/26/09 Recent Posts
Let me see if I can ruin that!

Anyway, one thing worth considering is that some "spiritual" traditions have an overlap at the "absolute" level, but not much practically speaking.

E.g., you could probably practice internal/esoteric kung-fu, Western magick and Zen all at once, with the three having little overlap. You'd need a lot of free time, obviously, but in practical execution, you'd be able to keep them separate.

That said, I think it's easiest to stick to just one tradition, at least initially, as one's source for depth and theoretical understanding that enables depth. I.e., working with one dominant framework, while having enough looseness that you could transition into the others.

And that said, you wouldn't want to mix things up too much for intensive practice, I don't think.
thumbnail
Wes Harris, modified 14 Years ago at 4/17/09 1:24 AM
Created 14 Years ago at 4/17/09 1:24 AM

RE: Mixing Traditions

Posts: 0 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
My view on this topic has gained a lot of vitality by integrating other people's perspectives. I like the common theme of continual change, moving from broad to narrow focus in relation to ones stage of development. Balance seems to come from breaking away from a static ideal which is too rigid for the continual change taking place.

The idea of building a foundation before branching out makes a lot of sense, as nathan28 said "...some "spiritual" traditions have an overlap at the "absolute" level...". I think this is particularly true among most Buddhist traditions. As Hokai said, once one has developed a "continuous, strong, pristine awareness. ...with good conceptual understanding..." then fundamentally there isn't much of a jump to cross the line between traditions. The practical methods may differ drastically, but one’s foundation will span the gaps existing on a grosser level. Without a foundation it could be really destabilizing to continually uproot and move to brand new territory.

I see a lot of interdependence in this dialogue as well. With such a dynamic balance being struck depending on the conditions of the moment, skill seems important. I would say skill depends on concentration and wisdom. Just as with so many attainments sought by practitioners, the need for concentration and wisdom seem central. If we consider concentration and wisdom to depend on moral discipline and compassion, then we get a nice micro (balanced mix of different practices, or any other specific goal) macro (enlightenment) synthesis of dharmic experiences all playing into each other.

Breadcrumb