Gil Fronsdal on Living Two Traditions (Zen/Vipassa

Some may have seen this before, from 2002 - interesting discussion from Gil Fronsdal on teaching and studying in both Zen and Vipassana traditions:

www.tricycle.com/interview/living-two-traditions

Q: Did working within the two different traditions bring up any conflicts for you?

A: I struggled a fair amount, trying to reconcile goal-less Zen practice—in which practice and realization are thought to occur together - with the goal-oriented Theravada tradition, in which you work toward later realization. Eventually I came to understand that these approaches not only complemented each other but could be seen as two sides of the same coin. Soto Zen taught me to emphasize the purity of the moment-to-moment process of sitting in meditation; Vipassana taught me how that process opens to greater freedom even when we don’t fixate on freedom as a goal. My Vipassana practice taught me that the radical acceptance of myself and of things-as-they-are that I learned in Zen included an innate, natural impulse toward liberation. I didn’t have to be goal-oriented as much as I needed to let go of any obstacles to this innate impulse. One of the hindrances I had faced in Zen practice was complacency - a comfortable, lightweight acceptance—in which I lacked the motivation to see the ways in which I was still subtly attached or resistant to reality. Vipassana, especially with its emphasis on seeing clearly what is happening in the present, helped break me out of my complacent state.

[I’d like to include more chanting ... Chanting both invokes and expresses people’s faith in practice, and the inspiration that comes with faith. Some people chant to aid in concentration. But mostly I see it providing a heartfelt connection to the lineage, the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. For some people that’s very valuable. And, aside from faith and concentration, chanting—if you understand what you’re chanting—has a powerful effect on the psyche. The chanting voice can awaken the meditative mind, allowing the words and their meaning to sink in quite deep.

Q: I guess this raises the question of whether something is missing from the practice of Vipassana without some of the more traditional Buddhist rituals. Can you say something about that?

A: Ritual is helpful in better integrating our lives, as well as in building a community that supports practice. It’s very hard to practice Buddhism, especially all the way to enlightenment. A community can help us integrate our Buddhist practice with all aspects of our lives.

yay!

Q: Can you give me an example of an innovation, and whether you think it’s a helpful one?

A: One example is the way the American Vipassana movement emphasizes interconnectedness when teaching anatta, or “not-self.” This is emphasized so much that a person might get the idea that realizing interconnectedness is the ultimate goal of Buddhism. It’s not; this is a very American emphasis. I think interconnectedness is inspiring to us as an antidote to American individualism and the pain of alienation it can cause. For many traditional Asian Buddhists, especially in Indian and Southeast Asia, these teachings on interconnectedness would be unfamiliar. They may not even be useful because in Asia lack of connectedness is generally not the problem that it is in the West. In the Pali discourses of the Buddha, interconnectedness is not seen as of ultimate value; liberation is not contingent on the interconnected world. So here’s where understanding the Asian tradition and worldview helps expose a difference in the teachings in the West.

Once we see that difference, we can ask ourselves why we are teaching differently. What’s the meaning of emphasizing interconnectedness? Why is it so important? We can also ask how the American emphasis aligns with core Buddhist teachings. People will give a variety of answers. Some say the emphasis on interconnectedness is a deviation from the dharma; others, an improvement on the dharma. Another view is that it is simply an accurate translation of the dharma appropriate for our culture. Or it may highlight aspects of the teachings that are in the background in Asia. I am not particularly interested in settling on one of these views; they may all have some truth to them. I am interested in understanding the Asian tradition so we won’t fool ourselves into thinking that what we’re teaching is how Buddhism has always been taught.

There are bits I disagree with but find interesting too:

[three characteristics teaching] seemed like a dogma or a view that people adopted not because they had insight into the three characteristics but because it was what they were told ... insight is not a view.

I tend to think we can get a sense of three characteristics from daily life, and that it's meant to apply not only as a result of insight but as apparent in daily life. Also, I'm dubious that 'insight is not a view,' at least as expressed in words...

Sometimes both agree and disagree:

My interest in the academic study of Buddhism was intellectually liberating. It helped me understand much more clearly what views I held, where I made generalizations, what assumptions underlay them. On what authority did I take something to be true? Some of my questioning came from my Zen training, where in a sense the idea was to abide with no views at all.

I like the stuff on academic study which rings very true for me... but personally I've found that Zen can be really dogmatic, and the more so for having an ideology that it isn't; but of course that's only some cases!

Anyway, all very though-provoking and a discussion at a more interesting level than many dhamma talks/interviews!

Thanks for this. I'm appreciating the pointers of "natural inclination toward awakening" these days.

There are bits I disagree with but find interesting too:

[three characteristics teaching] seemed like a dogma or a view that people adopted not because they had insight into the three characteristics but because it was what they were told ... insight is not a view.

I tend to think we can get a sense of three characteristics from daily life, and that it's meant to apply not only as a result of insight but as apparent in daily life. Also, I'm dubious that 'insight is not a view,' at least as expressed in words...

I think he is saying that some people get hung up in applying a "three characteristics as a mindset" to life... as opposed to understanding the pointer and then simply going into experience, having very full experiences, which naturally reveals the 3 C's as they really are in reality. Similar to how people might use an "emptiness mindset" to go around saying 'it doesn't matter, it's empty" to their experience, rather than actually seeing how experience arises as (paradoxically) "flavored emptiness". The flavor (sight, sounds, emotion, etc.) is inherent and so is the emptiness. So I guess if by view he means "mindset", I understand how that's dogmatic. If view means "insight" then I agree, it is hard to agree.

Just musing over my morning cup of coffee... thanks for posting something that get's the thoughts going!

Tom Otvos wrote: Thank you for posting that. When I first started practicing, I absolutely LIVED on the Audio Dharma podcasts and courses. Gil rocked my world, and I remember thinking at the time, if I ever met him I would ask him how come he went to Vipassana from Zen. It seemed to me at the time that a bunch of the higher profile teachers all started in Zen and then "left" to go the insight route. Curious.

Tom,
Thanks for bringing this up. I've been curious about this myself, as I've noticed several teachers, who studied in the supposedly higher Zen/Mahayana and Tibetan/Mahayana/Vajrayana traditions, who then switched to the supposedly lower/deficient/incomplete (according to those same traditions) Theravada/Insight tradition.

I can't imagine they would switch if they thought they were going backward into teachings that wouldn't bring you to the goal of awakening & compassion. Perhaps it could have something to do with ditching the cultural trappings found in each of the other traditions, ie, robes, brocade, fancy hats & certain rituals.

because of this fairly common attitude i continue to be mystified by my love of brocade, robes and hats. what went wrong?

I think this reflects your repressed craving to express your essential self through fashion. You can't avoid these cravings, but must make peace with them.