-
Content count
1,928 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
23
Everything posted by forestofclarity
-
I didn't say it was illogical. I said I couldn't make sense of it. In this case, I mean phenomenologically, i.e. as a matter of experience. Analogically, perhaps the best metaphor to use is space given it is unchanging, attribute-less, etc. It seems to me that the term "chidabhasa" can be applied differently: 1. To "pure awareness" or "pure consciousness," i.e. the unchanging, objectless, awareness that is ever present like a golden thread connecting all experiences, and yet never apart from any object or experience which arises; or 2. Some sort of object. This could be the mind, the "I am," the ahamkara, etc. My feeling is that it is pointing to #1 in an effort to reconcile our experience with the proclamations found in the Vedas. Our experience is never universal. For example, I may experience a waking state centered on my body-mind; a dreaming state centered on a fluid body-mind; or deep sleep that is not centered on any body mind. However, I never experience looking out from some one else's eyes. Nor have I ever had the experience of looking out through all body-minds. So I suppose I would say that it appears to be saying Brahman + upadhis = jivatman = chidabhasa. In other words, Brahman under the limitations of ignorance is not really Brahman (the sun) it is a pseudo-Brahman (the reflection). However, you all seem to be saying that it is pointing to a #2. Commendation
-
Thoughts on Energy Arts / B.K. Frantzis
forestofclarity replied to forestofclarity's topic in Daoist Discussion
Well, I decided to take a chance. I just finished the first week. The other night, I came home fairly late. My wife asked how it went. "Well," I said, "It was something I haven't had at these classes for a long time." "What's that?" she asked. "It was--- fun," I said. "You never say that," she said. It's true. I have taken different MA classes over the years, and with the exception of a kick boxing class in college, none of them have been any fun. They may be fun at some parts, but certainly the entire experience is more work than fun. Some have been informative. Some have been useful. But none of them have been any fun. Usually, they are hard work. Or boring. Or a bit of both. It was also easy. They have obviously put in a lot of thought on how to teach people. And also multi-layered, with a heavy focus on meditation and mindfulness of the body. The teaching seemed pretty in line with what I have encountered at some other reputable schools. Obviously, it just started, but just thought I would share some of my initial impressions. I may have a different opinion in a few months. -
Basic human models that are repeated over and over with minor variations
forestofclarity replied to dwai's topic in General Discussion
From a bio-evolutionary perspective, we as humans tend to develop stereotyped, abstract thoughts because it is quicker and more efficient than conducting a thorough individual analysis. So when we see something that looks gross, we don't eat it. The gross thing may be high in nutrition, but we would rather reject too many things than ingest something bad. One odd result is the phenomenon of seeing faces in things, like Jesus in a tortilla. We are wired in some ways to see faces, even if there aren't any, because it is better to see a face that isn't really there than to miss one that is really there. So do we see patterns because they are there, or do we impose patterns because it makes it easier to navigate the world? -
Occultism vs. shamanism, as usual: a Siberian shaman is arrested for trying to exorcise the "evil spirit" from the Kremlin
forestofclarity replied to Taomeow's topic in General Discussion
Well, there are some fairly clear connections between the political right wing and occultism. Gary Lachman wrote a book all about it, talking about the "occult" influences with Trump and Putin. Many occultists have been a part of their inner circle. Steve Bannon was (to my surprise) a vocal supporter of Julius Evola. Putin has Alexander Dugin. Both Trump and Putin promote a chaotic, "truth is what I say it is" combined with an sense of absolutism that is useful in implementing a strong, facist type of government. This is not to say that they are practicing occultists in the traditional sense, but Trump traces many of his ideas to Norman Vincent Peale, who presents a sort of "occultism" for the masses. Mitch Horowitz out the occult influences on America in his book "Occult America." Both books are fairly straightforward examinations of occult ideas on modern culture and politics. https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Star-Rising-Magick-Power/dp/0143132067 https://www.amazon.com/Occult-America-Seances-Circles-History/dp/0553385151 -
Just to toss it out there, in Tibetan Buddhist circles it is considered extremely poor taste to speak poorly of the dead during the 7 week bardo period.
-
What is the criteria by which to evaluate that a person is awakened?
-
First, I would be careful about being too quick to judge teachers --- they will typically not live up to our book/movie conditioned expectations. Teachers aren't perfect. I wouldn't reject some one because they had a cough. Second, I worked with open source Kriya in the past. I have been the definition of a spiritual dilettante, jumping from practice to practice. I think there is a lot of wisdom in picking and staying with a single practice, but the problem is uncovering what that practice is. Some people pick a practice that doesn't really suit them, and so don't do it. The reason I became a Buddhist isn't because Buddhism is the best, greatest, etc. It is the practice that I kept doing, day in and out, over a long period of time. All other forms of practice eventually fell away. In my opinion, I think there could be a conflict. First, the visualizations are different. Kriya is more based on classical Indian models whereas qigong is based on Chinese models. While there is some overlap, when conditioning the mind into the tradition, it may introduce an element of confusion. I don't think this would be same if you were well grounded in one tradition, and then learned another. Second, the methods may be quite different. Classical India concentration practices may be more focused, excluding, and active than some Chinese models. It is possible that these would work at cross-purposes. So you may be building skills in one that you undo with the other. Again, I think this is less likely with a strong grounding in one practice. One way to experiment is to try one method for a short period of time--- two weeks or a month. Then try another. See which one you like. Some models suit people better than others and appeal more than others. No technique works in a vacuum. A final point is that if you really want to go deep into these practices, you will need guidance from a live teacher. So availability of a teacher may be another factor to consider.
-
Thoughts on Energy Arts / B.K. Frantzis
forestofclarity replied to forestofclarity's topic in Daoist Discussion
I think there are two aspects of Daoist arts that we mix up: martial arts and spiritual arts. Personally, I am more interested in spiritual arts. I have spent a number of years in various fighting-based clubs. I am always unsure what to think about CMA (Chinese Martial Arts) students who talk about fighting ability. As I recall, in the heady, madcap 1990's the Gracie family decided to put to the test which martial art was the best. As it turns out, it is probably a combination of Western boxing, Brazilian jiu-justu, and Thai kickboxing. Usually CMA people who I have known to be fighters are already scrappers, but I have almost never heard of some one using CMA against an aggressive and unwilling opponent. Nor have I heard of a CMA initiate putting the slap down on well-trained MMA fighters. If that were the case, professional fighters would be training CMA. In addition, most people who actually fight a lot (i.e. police and military) tend to take up MMA rather than CMA. Most of the fighting discussed in this thread appears to take place between two CMA practitioners in a limited environment. As I recall, Bruce Lee realized this as a limitation of CMAs and adjusted his own fighting accordingly by drawing on other fighting styles. The only exception to this for me was a person who trained under Mike Patterson. He allowed for fairly free flowing sparring in his classes which often degraded quickly. A nth degree Tae Kwon Do black belt/instructor took a hit to the face and never returned. The teacher however, could take on MMA guys half his age. He had ability, but it only came with years of hard, full time training and exercise. I have heard of CMA folks who also fight, but it is not clear to me whether they were utilizing their CMA or if they were just brawlers. In addition, they seem to be looking for fights (most adults do not ever get into fights), which suggests that their spiritual development is lacking. And given that most people do not get into fights, many of these "in the world fights" may be against untrained, out-of-shape people. -
Circular breathing vs breathing with pauses (Bruce Frantzis related)
forestofclarity replied to markern's topic in General Discussion
Interesting. I was raised Catholic and actually became quite deeply involved with Christianity in my late teens. I took refuge as a Buddhist about 15 years ago. I still like to dip into the Christian pool from time to time, especially the works of David Bentley Hart. I like the mystics, but I can no longer understand the lay believer. But I was listening to an old high school friend who is now a pastor on a podcast. He was meeting with another pastor. The first thing they said was "Well, what do you believe?" It seemed so strange to me. They then proceeding to discuss their beliefs intellectually, referring to the Bible. The whole thing struck me as surreal. Usually, when I meet other spiritual practitioners, we typically talk experiences. It seemed weird to hear people discuss things that were so far from their daily experience (such as whether Jesus did such and such or Paul said so and so). They spent a lot of time discussing whether the Bible taught whether people were chosen to be saved or not. I don't know about that. When I was a young Catholic, I felt guilty a lot. A LOT. As a Buddhist, I never feel guilty. I may feel ignorant, or non-compassionate, or detached, or miserable but not guilty. As a Catholic, that mankind was inherently impure and could only be cured through the sacrifice of God's blood. As a Buddhist, I have come to realize that people are inherently good, and that right or wrong are a matter of perception. It is not a matter of sin but of ignorance. I'm sure there are some Buddhists who fall in the same sort of Catholic line, but not the ones I have known. When I took refuge, the nun explained that if you were trying to quit drinking, and you cut down from drinking 7 beers a day to 6, you were making progress. As a Catholic, a sin was a sin. End of story. So I would warrant that you're reading "sin" awfully broadly. Every spiritual system identifies an issue--- even the Daoists. Otherwise, what is the point of cultivating? -
Thoughts on Energy Arts / B.K. Frantzis
forestofclarity replied to forestofclarity's topic in Daoist Discussion
That sounds interesting. Too often in internal arts circles it seems to set the person against the flow of the world-- absorbing, expanding, dominating. The emphasis on surrender sounds very appealing. -
Thoughts on Energy Arts / B.K. Frantzis
forestofclarity replied to forestofclarity's topic in Daoist Discussion
@Walker, tall tales aside, do you have any thoughts on his methods? Legit or bullshido? -
Thoughts on Energy Arts / B.K. Frantzis
forestofclarity replied to forestofclarity's topic in Daoist Discussion
From her Facebook: Since my Yigong teacher passed away, I can say now that I am the Yigong lineage holder, but so what? I am many things with countless encounters in this world; it does not mean I have to take every encounter to be my responsibility. All the practices, if there are true practitioners out there and take their practice seriously, there is no practice will be lost. You will be taught in unexpected ways. A teacher will be looking for you. If all the practices are out there but no one in their heart has any of its essence, that practice has already vanished from this world. Form does not mean much without essence and its manifestation. What people want is one thing, what people can give to obtain it is another. A spiritual practice is not a wanting method to soothe one’s momentary needs. Who cares one’s changeable needs? That is a root of suffering. All existence is based on needs and conditions. I learned by my own experience. If you are ready, you will not be passed over. Even humans do not see you, a higher being will find you, because your causal body is glowing which cannot be missed. Be a good practitioner. First of all, try to possess a good human quality: be honest, sincere, truthful, devoted, dedicated, trustworthy, kind and wise and persevere… -
Thoughts on Energy Arts / B.K. Frantzis
forestofclarity replied to forestofclarity's topic in Daoist Discussion
To fill out my internet research, I would point out that SF Jane (i.e. Jane Alexander) stated that she cured herself of serious mental illness using Frantzis' methods. There are some reports online of healing as well. Over at rumsoakedfist, some people were impressed with him and some were not. Many of his detractors indicate that he has some ability. I am surprised that he has been around for so long and there is so little on him. The class I would take is with one of his students. You are right--- I may have to decide for myself and provide a report. He is also a Dzogchen practitioner and appears to be focusing more on meditation/healing, which is appealing to me. Sifu Jenny has stopped teaching completely and now only practices Buddhism. Some people have asked her to pass down the arts she knows, but she is not interested. -
Thoughts on Energy Arts / B.K. Frantzis
forestofclarity replied to forestofclarity's topic in Daoist Discussion
Denver, but not far from Boulder. -
Thoughts on Energy Arts / B.K. Frantzis
forestofclarity replied to forestofclarity's topic in Daoist Discussion
Well there appears to be quite a split. He does seem like a polarizing figure. Some folks spoke well of him in the early days of TTB. He does strike me in some ways as being overtly commercialistic and often arrogant, but I also feel there may be something there. Maybe not. Well, the intro is qigong and wu tai chi. I have had a taste of Tai Chi and Xing Yi, but I am not going to spend enough time practicing to really get any benefits. To be completely honest, I haven't found qigong to be useful either, but that may be due to laziness or lack of good teaching. I know that there's something there, but it is hard to find. May I ask if this is from personal experience? -
The issue with paths is that they need to be taken on their own. I think there is a fine line between finding a path that fits you, and trying to fit a path into one's preconceived concepts. Buddhist meditation practices, at least according to my teachers (inc ChNNR), developed within a Buddhist framework. That means a strong emphasis on emptiness and not self, which can be subtle and quite difficult. So difficult that the Buddha almost didn't even teach. ChNNR did have a lot of respect for Bon Dzogchen. He also had a lot of respect for Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, who has at least three sons who carry on his style. Arranged from most to least traditional, they are Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche, Mingyur Rinpoche, and Tsoknyi Rinpoche. In addition to TWR, you may want to check these teachers out. Chokyi Nyima allegedly did a webcast pointing out last year, but I did not receive it. The other two require in person pointing out. I actually think if you are serious about this, it is better to get pointing out in person in a retreat setting. I also cannot explain it, but there does seem to be something transmitted by taking a formal empowerment in a Buddhist tradition. If you have an established Platonic outlook, I think there may be issues down the road if you try to reconcile Plato with Buddha. The closest thing you find in ancient Greece to a Buddhist outlook in Pyrrhonism. As far as I know, Pyrrhonism formed the basis for Skepticism, which pretty much overtook Plato's academy in its later years and forced neo-Platonism out. However, Buddhist and Hindu Tantra developed around the same time and area, and took off in separate directions. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of realized teachers who teach non-dual Shaiva Tantra, but there are some and they may be worth checking out. The most accessible non-dual tradition from the Indian matrix that is still alive, outside of Buddhism, is probably Advaita Vedanta. If you are at all interested in Advaita, you can start at home with the large body of videos by Swami Sarvapriyananda.
- 36 replies
-
- 6
-
- nondual traditions
- mahamudra
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
The Importance of Anatman/Anatta in Buddhism Many people question whether the Buddha secretly taught a self. Although the vast majority of Buddhists suttas and sutras deny the existence of a self, some people believe that this is a provisional teaching and not to be taken as an ultimate teaching. I offer some conceptual thoughts on the matter, understanding that concepts cannot really capture the teaching. After many years of study with great masters, I have come to realize that not only is no self important to Buddhism, it is at the very heart of the teachings. I encourage people who are really interested to find a proper teacher and practice to fruition. 1. From a Mahayana point of view, the self is empty. People often mistake “emptiness” and think “nothingness.” In English, when we say the glass is empty, we mean nothing is in the glass. But this is not what the Buddhists mean. Buddhist usually explain emptiness in one of two ways: a. Emptiness means the lack of an independent, unitary, permanent self. b. Emptiness means that what appears is not graspable. These two are not opposed. If something is graspable, then it would have an independent, unitary, permanent self. Likewise, if something has an independent, unitary, permanent self, it should be graspable. If we can grasp something, it should be fixed and findable. 2. The first consequence of emptiness is change or impermanence. Because nothing is fixed, everything changes. If things has fixed, permanent selves, they would not change (i.e. they would be permanent). In other words, ice would always be ice. Atoms couldn’t change position or move. Our bodies would never age, grow sick, or die. From a spiritual point of view, this is good news. If a person is ignorant, such a person would always be ignorant. If a person is bound, such a person would always be bound. But because these things are empty, this is not the case. Freedom is possible. Even more important, creation is possible. From a Buddhist point of view, because there is nothing fixed, anything can arise. In this case, the universe has arisen. 3. The second consequence of emptiness is dependent origination. Dependent origination means that everything is interdependent. Remember, emptiness means there is no independent self. If things were independent, they could not have any effect on one another. An ice cube in a glass would never melt, or cool the ice because the ice would always be ice and the water would always be water at a certain temperature. Consider all the causes and conditions that led me to write this and you to read it: first we need a universe, a sun, the earth, a body, parents, civilization, etc. Everything has come together to produce this moment. Emptiness allows for relationship. Without emptiness, two things would never relate to one another. Things would either be permanently the same, or permanently different. There could be no interaction. 4. The third consequence of emptiness is karma. Actions have consequences. If people had fixed, permanent, immutable selves, then there would be no point in spiritual practice. One would be as one is, and there is nothing that can be done about. There would be no problem with murder, theft, and lying. 5. The fourth consequence of emptiness is dissatisfaction, or dukkha. Because nothing is permanent, nothing can give us permanent satisfaction. 6. The fifth consequence of emptiness are the Four Noble Truths. The Four Noble truths state that there is suffering, there is a cause for suffering, there is a cessation to suffering, and there is a way to end suffering. From a Buddhist point of view, the problem is clinging and grasping. However, because things are empty, we cannot cling or grasp onto them. This fundamental ignorance is the cause of suffering. Accordingly, we try to cling and grasp onto what cannot be clung to or grasped. The solution in this case is to see things are they are (empty) and cease clinging and grasping (cessation). 7. As stated, emptiness is also not nothingness--- this would be nihilism. So how to things appear? The typical Buddhist examples are to compare the mind to space and phenomenon to a dream. a. The mind is compared to space. It has no fixed characteristics. Because it has no fixed characteristics, anything can appear. Unlike space, the mind has an ability to know the objects that arise within it. Some people are unable to understand this, because they think that one prevents the others. If the mind knows, it must have a self. Or if it is empty of characteristics, it must know. However, experience shows that this is not the case: the mind is empty, and yet it knows. Consider the electron that can appear sometimes as a wave and sometimes as a photon. Things don’t always fit into tidy boxes. b. Objects are compared to dreams. When we dream at night, we may have bodies, eat, swim, run and play like we would normally do. The substance of dreams and the substance of the waking state are the same: we experience colors, sounds, sensations and so on. However, it is easy to see that a dream is completely unreal. Accordingly, the doctrine of emptiness is woven very deeply into Buddhist teachings. If we eliminate emptiness and no self, then the entire teaching is incoherent. There is a lot of resistance to some of these Buddhist teachings. One of my teachers has said that when we find resistance to a teaching, we often find the ego trying to steer us away from teachings that threaten it. And there is no more threatening teaching to the ego than no self. I know other paths take other approaches. I am not putting forth the Buddhist path as the supreme or only path, but only as one possibility.
-
I'm at a certain age now to have lived through several moral panics. The following have all been blamed for violence in my lifetime: - Dungeons & Dragons - Heavy Metal - Rap music - television - movies - video games Usually, the culprit is often linked to thing young people like to do. Quite frankly, by now the world should have been destroyed by millions of psychopaths who grew up in the 1980s and 1990s. But instead, violent crimes are down in the U.S.: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/03/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/ Maybe video games lead to decreased violence? It appears the whole thing is a myth. It is an easy talking point to deflect from the real issue, in my opinion, which is gun control: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/analysis-why-its-time-to-stop-blaming-video-games-for-real-world-violence
-
Tantric Buddhism and Archetypes
forestofclarity replied to SirPhillipJFry's topic in Buddhist Discussion
Well, I don't really want to push an argument with other Buddhists. So rather that pursue the argument, I want to tell a story. The whole self/no-self issue has been at the core of my spiritual journey. When I started as a Buddhist, I spend quite a lot of time at Bhante Gunaratana's retreat center. They have a giant wooden Buddha with a sly smile of his face in their meditation hall. One of my early teachers said "the purpose of the Buddha's teaching is to trick the mind out of the mind" and "there is no subject knowing an object, or an object known by a subject. There is only knowing." I did not know what he meant, but I was sure that the teachings on anatta (anatman) were false. They had to be false, right? I mean, what could be more obvious than our own existence? Cogito ergo sum. Or more precisely, ego sum. He also said there comes a time when you develop complete faith in the Buddha's teaching. It is one of the fetters in Theravada. But I had doubts. But every time I tried to find the self, I felt haunted by the sly smile of the Buddha. And I searched high and wide to get to the bottom of this issue. Since having a self was so obvious, why did the Buddha deny it? And why make it so central to his teaching? I sat with, studied, harangued, and harassed any number of lamas, roshis, acharyas, khenpos, bhikkhus and spiritual friends. I saw red robes, brown robes, black robes, and plain Western clothes. I sat many retreats and practiced. I investigated koans. I just sat. I took many teachings and read many books. Here and there, I would find a glimmer of self--- the tathagatagarbha perhaps, a strange Zen statement, an occasional monk. There are Buddhists who don't want to take their anatman maximum strength, and try to find a compromise. But when I talked to teachers I really trusted, they all said the same thing: THERE IS NO SELF. Finally, I stopped looking for a self, or for a no self. Rather, I relaxed and followed the teachers instructions. Instead of looking for answers, I asked questions. Instead of questioning teachings, I applied them. And what I found: THERE IS NO SELF! YOU WERE RIGHT YOU STUPID OLD BUDDHA! So when you say there is a self, or that the mind is real and so on, you might as well tell me I have two heads. While I am very far from Buddhahood, or even the first bhumi, I have no doubt about what the Buddha taught. I can look as see the truth whenever I want. In addition, I have complete faith in what my teachers have taught me. Finally, I have confidence in the lineage.- 33 replies
-
- 4
-
- archetype
- archetypal
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
I don't think there is anything wrong with asking questions, or even questioning Buddhism. My personal, subjective sense of your posts was that you were not so much interested in learning about Buddhism, but rather you wished to fit Buddhism into a model you had already constructed. The tricky thing about Buddhism is the language and the many traditions. The same words mean different things in different contexts. In other words, there is a type of secret code that is usually only explained in person by a teacher. Not only that, but the meanings are very contextual--- words don't stand by themselves. They are a part of an interconnected web of meanings. One reason why Tibetan Buddhists study so many Buddhist philosophies is to tease apart these meanings and avoid the numerous pitfalls to spiritual practice. It gets even more confusing with the same word is used by other traditions. For example, atman in a Yogacara Buddhist context merely refers to the (illusory) subjective side of experience. But in Vedanta, the meaning is much different-- atman is Brahman for example. In addition, atman can also just mean the mere "I" as in "I walked to the store." Some people hear the Buddha in the Pali Canon saying atta (Pali for atman), atta and think that means he is obsessed with a permanent soul! Many Vedantins and Shaivites that I've known and studied with have taught that emptiness is Buddhism is roughly equivalent to the experience of the anandamaya kosha or causal body. Yet this would be roughly equivalent to the alaya vijnana in Mahayana Buddhism, which is clearly a state of ignornace. But then vijnana is Vedanta may refer to something else--- a specific part of the mind for example (vijnanamaya kosha). Then the alaya vijnana may mean something else entirely in Kagyu Mahamudra. And it gets even more confusing in Pali, because the equivalent for manas, citta, and vijnana are all mixed up, but these have precise definitions in Vedanta. So you can see, it can be quite challenging without the guidance of an experienced teacher. And given the ambiguity of the words, it is easy enough to read what we want into them. [snip]
-
Tantric Buddhism and Archetypes
forestofclarity replied to SirPhillipJFry's topic in Buddhist Discussion
You're welcome and I thank you for your forbearance. Of course, it really isn't for you--- I am sure that you have thoroughly vetted your views with your teacher(s) before publicly proliferating them. But there are people on the forum who are interested in Buddhism but have not yet engaged in a teacher, or do not wish to. In addition, many members here seem eager to find evidence that Buddhism teaches a permanent, true, soul. In addition, copying the words of teachers I admire is always an education for me.- 33 replies
-
- 3
-
- archetype
- archetypal
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
Tantric Buddhism and Archetypes
forestofclarity replied to SirPhillipJFry's topic in Buddhist Discussion
I have not heard that emptiness teachings are provisional. I tend to focus primarily on the Kagyu school, where it is quite clear that emptiness teachings are not provisional. However, I have had great fortune to take Dzogchen teachings from several teachers. Of course, I will not share the secrets they revealed, but I can share some public information from both schools in widely available books. Perhaps your teacher(s) do teach that emptiness is merely provisional, and mind ultimately exists. Would you be willing to share with me which teachers have taught so? Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche: https://buddhismnow.com/2013/05/11/recognising-the-thinker-by-tulku-urgyen-rinpoche/ His son, Tsoknyi Rinpoche: https://tsoknyirinpoche.org/9182/two-truths/ Ju Mipham, when analyzing the Mind Only view that asserts the mind truly exists, states: From Light of Wisdom, Commentary on Distinguishing Phenomenon and Suchness, 626-27, trans. Duckworth He also tied emptiness to both the Madhyamaka path and purity in his Beacon of Certainty, trans. Petit: To add in some other commentary by Kagyus who follow the Shentong view of emptiness: In Buddhanature, p.343 Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche writes: Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche states (in Tony Duff's The Other Emptiness p.178): Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche in Shentong and Rangtong, p.115 says:- 33 replies
-
- 1
-
- archetype
- archetypal
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
May I ask a side question? If you are not a Buddhist, your practices are much different than Buddhism, and I assume you are happy with said tradition and practices, what is the point of wasting time learning about another path? Wouldn't your time and energy be better spent on clarifying and deepening your current path? I say that because an unwillingness to engage in Buddhism on its own terms, coupled with a demand that it disclose to you its precious secrets, is a bit---- misguided? Having said that, Tibetan Buddhism is not anti-conceptual. In fact, obtaining the proper concepts is considered quite essential to reaching the proper non-conceptual. Of course it must be so or we would be enlightened when we went into deep sleep, or a drunk stupor, or some similar state.
-
Tantric Buddhism and Archetypes
forestofclarity replied to SirPhillipJFry's topic in Buddhist Discussion
That's an interesting thing to say, CT. A few questions and points of clarification: 1. You state that Tantra can enhance anyone's path. Accordingly, it would seem to follow that one may safely remove it from the Buddhist path-- i.e the teachings on morality, refuge, the Bodhisattva vow, bodhicitta, and so on--- and inserted into any religious path. You do not view the Buddhist path as an organic one, with its own rules and logic that should be followed? And that any spiritual traditional provides the proper context for Tantric practice? I must say this is an astounding conclusion! 2. You state that all is mind is a finality. Do you find that emptiness is then a merely provisional teaching? If so, are you following Dolpopa? Or perhaps a more traditional Yogacara point of view? That would be an interesting position for a Dzogchenpa. 3. Jamgon Mipham Rinpoche famously held that proper concepts were necessary to point to the non-conceptual ultimate, and that without proper concepts, reaching the nonconceptual ultimate would be impossible for nearly everyone. Do you disagree with him? If not, do you find that I am misstating his position? If you do not disagree, does that modify your position? I know my position is going to be widely unpopular in this modern age and specifically on this forum, but it seems to me that a tradition should be best approached on its own, without viewing it through the conceptual filters of other traditions. In other words, we should not mix them up based on personal preference. I wish there were an anti-like button so I could measure how unpopular such a position would be.- 33 replies
-
- 2
-
- archetype
- archetypal
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
If you want to see as a Buddha sees, there is only one way: become a Buddha. Building a mental model of a state that is beyond conception is not going to be helpful. I think a lot of confusion arises when we start at the most subtle teachings without first cultivating other teachings, like Abhidharma and Madhyamika. YMMV.