"Non-dual" misnomer

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

Good.  Do you understand the my reasons for my basic position?  If so, please articulate them?

 

You are caught up in subject-object duality and the limitations of language, and resorting to intellectual gymnastics. 
 

I had told you on another thread that nondual teachings are pointings - they are meant to be contemplated/meditated over to recognize the essence of our being.  
 

So when someone says “all beings are essentially our own Self”, it is to be contemplated and meditated over until there is direct recognition of that.
 

People are, of course,  free to believe or disbelieve that statement.
 

Most of who hear it, laugh at it. Some think there is something to it but don’t follow it. Of the few that acknowledge, only a few actually follow the pointings.
 

Why? That is the way of duality - the mind tends gravitates towards differences. The intellect is a great cutting instrument - it likes to dissect everything. The ego likes to appropriate identities, labels, separation of us and them, and so on. 

[Nungali]

22 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

The mind and a dream are separate in the same way that water and a glass are separate.

 

Now you have quoted me , quoting your failed syntax  and then commenting on it  ?

 

WTF ?

[Nungali]

22 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

You clearly are not following the conversation.

 

This is another Daniel trick, to single out a few words in someones post , or one word , delete the rest , cite it and then make some obscure comment about it like it proves something or makes a point .

 

I have pointed out the fallcy of this to him as a point within an argument  ... his response ?

 

To post    '  I WILL DO WHAT I LIKE ' '

 

Loose cannon .

[Nungali]

22 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

No.  The original context is non-dual reality. 

 

 

 

 

No, the original context in that part of the conversation .

 

Do you communicate like this in your life outside DBs ?

[Nungali]

21 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Likewise.  Although in our conversation, your posts are the ones which are illogical.  Not mine.  How many times have you described reality in terms of a dichotomy yet incorrectly claim is it non-dual?  5?  6?

 

How many times did you raise completely irrelevant diversions?  An event doesn't exist because it's insignificant?  That's completely illogical.

 

Did you make a personal statement about me to cover up for it?  Yes, you did.

 

Errrmmm  .... YOU have been doing that actually .

 

Looks like you really cant see it   , as I have difficulty believing ANYONE could be this obstinate  ..... but then again, maybe I need to broaden my horizon

[Nungali]

21 hours ago, Shadow_self said:

 

In my opinion, I  find the rationality ship sailed some time ago  

 

When you get to a point of "thats not what those words mean (though in plain English)

 

THIS is what they mean (insert  unusual soliloquy here)

 

It, at that stage has passed the horizion, and is clearly out of sight   

 

Not only past the horizon, but so far gone he went into orbit !

 

 

 

Thats one  huge step for man , but a small one for a sealion .

[Nungali]

21 hours ago, steve said:

I have one foot in the world of science and one in the world of spirituality, particularly dzogchen. It’s been gratifying to see researchers in many different disciplines discover, accept, and support the non-dual nature of being through their work in many disciplines - physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, etc… Non-duality is anything but a misnomer, however talking and thinking about it are fraught with pitfalls and contradictions, much as quantum mechanics is. And yet quantum mechanics is, by far, the most precise and effective description of reality in the history of physics.

 

Indeed ! and this is close to my study of  ' Neo - hermetics', in that many old precepts and thoughts and arrangements  now seem valid (or symbolically similar ) due to further findings in 'far science' .

 

Of course Daniel hates hermetics and has  tried to argue against that as well   

[Nungali]

19 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

I agree, but the analogy is a bit flawed if you're referring to my conversation with some of the others.  I'm not asking for an explanation in that way.  

 

No, I think the idea is if you are eating pizza  ....

 

you will not be able to talk .

[Nungali]

17 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Not true.  I'm using natural deduction to evaluate the likelihood that it is unknown.  Then I supplement this with your inability to answer simple questions.

 

Okay ... I need to find out about this ; how does one use natural deduction  that is outside of one's consciousness ? 

  ( He is NEVER gonna answer that one !   'Your on ignore Nungali ! )

 

Example:  you go to the market and pick up an apple.  Where is the particular branch which produced that apple? 

 

it would still be on the tree .

 

When did it blossom? 

 

Before the fruit formed .

 

 

When was it picked?  

 

After the fruit formed . jeeze , you dont know much about fruit do you, the fruit market must be a huge mystery to you !

 

In the above example there are several events which occured beyond consciousness.  The blossoming and the harvest.

 

Well, not my consciousness , but I see you have trouble extending your consciousness beyond some false dichotomy that you got stuck in .

 

Another example:  this one is more difficult.  Right now, what is the trajectory and rate of speed of the water droplets melting off of the Hubbard glacier?  How many are there?

 

 

In this example the number of events beyond consciousness are very large.  Yes it's possible to imagine these events in general, but, that is not the actual event.  

 

So far, you have not been able to address these questions in any other way besides:  "I don't care about that, let's talk about dreaming."

 

Thats not how every one else sees it .

 

[Nungali]

7 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

I thought this was a beautiful expression of non-duality, as I hope one day to "experience" it.

 

The True Meaning of Self-Love: How to Love Yourself and the World Around You (substack.com)

 

yes ... 'love ' is 'dissolving the illusory boundary of duality ' , a merging , a moving into unity .  The Aboriginals have it .

 

One intersting thing recently , an Aboriginal woman entered a painting in our Archibald prize portrait competition - there where protests as the painting was a landscape .. no she said ' This IS me I am the landscape and it is me '    .. and thats a bond forged by love ... just see what happens when they are taken from their beloved  . Anyway the painting was considered valid, entered and won a prize .

 

In Thelema , that bond , like the one with 'landscape / country' is with Nuit ; the source of life , so also the 'return ' after life , 'space and stars ' ,  ( Nut  - Egyptian )  but also '' nothingness ' . 

 

Nuit; ' I am divided for the experience  of Union .'

[doc benway]

11 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

I agree 100%.  It's a huge and wonderful topic to explore.  I've started doing some writing about it very recently.  Have you heard of the Yeshivah of Shem?  ( Like Shema )?

 

No, not familiar with the Yeshiva of Shem.

Always happy to learn something new.

 

[Daniel]

22 hours ago, steve said:

No limitation. It points to what embraces all differences and distinctions without bias or obviation. When we talk about it we are reading and writing the menu. When we have experiences of it, experiences like unboundedness and the stability of open, ungrasping attention, it is more like tasting the food. When we try to impute our ideas and descriptions onto it, we are already disconnected and pointing the wrong way. And yet, we are never a hair’s breadth away from it and can never point at anything that is not it.

 

"... can never point at anything that is not it."  contradicts with "without bias or obviation" and "pointing the wrong way when ideas are imputed to it."  Truly limitless is expressed as a "non-exclusive or".  In English it's most simply stated in the form of "... or not."

 

No limitations:

 

• embraces all differences and distinctions without or without bias or obviation.
• experience unboundedness or not
• experience ungrasping attention or not
• Imputing ideas or not
• Imputing descriptions or not

 

22 hours ago, steve said:

When we talk about it we are reading and writing the menu.

 

I agree this ^^ is limitless.   

1. No ideas,
2. no descriptions,
3. no grasping,
4. no bias,
5. no differences,
6. no distinctions

This ^^ is the opposite of limitless.

1. All ideas
2. All descriptions 
3. All grasping 
4. All bias
5. All differences
6. All distinctions

This ^^ is truly limitless.  This is because the negating assertions are special cases included in the above.

1. "No ideas" is an idea
2. "No descriptions" is a description 
3. "No grasping" is a form of counter-intuitive grasping
4. "No bias" is a bias
5. "No differences" is a difference 
6. "No distinctions" is a distinction

 

22 hours ago, steve said:

In dzogchen parlance, we are reminded to always remember that we are practitioners, not the nature of mind, even though, at the same time, we can never be anything but that. The nature of mind is the essence we are manifesting but our experience is that of finite beings, no matter how close we are to complete liberation. If we are ever able to completely free ourselves from all limitations and restrictions of any type - physical, mental, etc… that is what I consider a reasonable description of enlightenment. This is why in the dzogchen teachings even the physical body is said to liberate into rainbow light, the essence of the five elements which are, in the Tibetan paradigm, the foundation of our physical, mental, and energetic embodiment.

 

Yes.  Makes perfect sense.  

 

"The nature of mind is the essence we are manifesting"

 

Essence?  Manifesting?  I was taught differently.  What do you think of this idea?

 

Essence emanates.  Forms manifest. Not vice versa.  The physical body is a manifestation of the essence which is emanating.  This explains rainbow light phenomena ( teaching ) when the physical body is liberated.  The underlying mechanism is the dual emergency "above" and "below".  "Above" and "below" are in quotes because it's not literally "above" nor is it literally "below".  The emanation is happening, simultaneously, always and forever, concurrently, and omnipresent with the manifestation.  The difference is valence.  The emanation is abstract becoming particular.  The manifestation is particular becoming abstract.  Both are happening simultaneously and concurrently such that it is almost impossible to distinguish any significant difference between them.

Edited August 22 by Daniel

[doc benway]

10 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

"... can never point at anything that is not it."  contradicts with "without bias or obviation" and "pointing the wrong way when ideas are imputed to it."  Truly limitless is expressed as a "non-exclusive or".  In English it's most simply stated in the form of "... or not."

 

That's OK... I embrace contradictions when speaking of the ineffable. 

One of my favorite speakers/authors once said something that sticks with me.

“And if you want a point of departure for this new journey of soul, don't choose an intention, don't choose a prayer, don't choose a therapy, and don't choose a spiritual method. Look inwards and discover a point of contradiction within yourself. Stay faithful to the aura and presence of the contradiction. Hold it gently in your embrace and ask it what it wants to teach you."

---- John O'Donohue

 

 

10 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

No limitations:

 

• embraces all differences and distinctions without or without bias or obviation.
• experience unboundedness or not
• experience ungrasping attention or not
• Imputing ideas or not
• Imputing descriptions or not

 

 

I agree this ^^ is limitless.   

1. No ideas,
2. no descriptions,
3. no grasping,
4. no bias,
5. no differences,
6. no distinctions

This ^^ is the opposite of limitless.

1. All ideas
2. All descriptions 
3. All grasping 
4. All bias
5. All differences
6. All distinctions

This ^^ is truly limitless.  This is because the negating assertions are special cases included in the above.

1. "No ideas" is an idea
2. "No descriptions" is a description 
3. "No grasping" is a form of counter-intuitive grasping
4. "No bias" is a bias
5. "No differences" is a difference 
6. "No distinctions" is a distinction

 

 

Yes.  Makes perfect sense.  

 

"The nature of mind is the essence we are manifesting"

 

Essence?  Manifesting?  I was taught differently.  What do you think of this idea?

 

Essence emanates.  Forms manifest. Not vice versa.  The physical body is a manifestation of the essence which is emanating.  This explains rainbow light phenomena ( teaching ) when the physical body is liberated.  The underlying mechanism is the dual emergency "above" and "below".  "Above" and "below" are in quotes because it's not literally "above" nor is it literally "below".  The emanation is happening, simultaneously, always and forever, concurrently, and omnipresent with the manifestation.  The difference is valence.  The emanation is abstract becoming particular.  The manifestation is particular becoming abstract.  Both are happening simultaneously and concurrently such that it is almost impossible to distinguish any significant difference between them.

 

Kind of hard to follow to be blunt...

I've long ago let go of using my limited intellect to explore that which is beyond intellect.

It's just not an effective modality for me at this point.

I do appreciate the conversation and your insights but I don't have much to add to what you posted.

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

Good night my non-dual friends

[Mark Foote]

On 8/20/2024 at 5:44 PM, Daniel said:

 

  On 8/20/2024 at 4:23 PM, Mark Foote said:

I sit down first thing in the morning and last thing at night, and I look to experience the activity of the body solely by virtue of the free location of consciousness. As a matter of daily life, just to touch on such experience as occasion demands—for me, that’s enough.

 

 

Ok.  ~nods~. I'll try it.
 

 

 

Any bent-knee posture will suffice.  Sometimes I don't have a clue for 25 minutes.  I feel blessed that lately I mostly do have some feeling for "by virtue of the free location of consciousness", at some point.

I know, I know, the Jewish guys just rock forward and back.  That probably works too, but I'm not familiar with it..

 

 

Quote

 

  On 8/20/2024 at 4:23 PM, Mark Foote said:

Nondual action of mind is the cessation of volition and habit in feeling and perceiving--can't say I have experienced that, consciously.  

 

The conscious is free?  Do you expect to experience it consciously?  ( Were you making a pun? )

 

 

 

Well it's a tricky thing.  Activity of the body in inhalation and exhalation can be solely by virtue of the location of consciousness, even as the location shifts and moves.  Nevertheless, it can be distinct,  the switch from activity of the body that coordinates by virtue of the location of consciousness, to activity of the body solely by virtue of the location of consciousness.

Gautama's stuff is odd.  Is it useful?  I describe his declension of the three states where activity coordinates by virtue of, and his description of the state where activity actually occurs by virtue of, here.

 

I do write about the first of the further states, "the infinity of ether":
 

When the free location of consciousness is accompanied by an extension of the mind of compassion, there can be a feeling that the necessity of breath is connected to things that lie outside the boundaries of the senses.  That, to me, is an experience of “the infinity of ether”.

(The Inconceivable Nature of the Wind)

 

So how is it then, when the activity of feeling and perceiving takes place from an absolute freedom of consciousness that encompasses what lies beyond the boundaries of sense?

Sure, it happens all the time... sort of...
 

 

 

Quote

 

  On 8/20/2024 at 4:23 PM, Mark Foote said:

Looking to define "nondual" in words ignores the fact that it's really a kind of action.

 

Makes good sense.

 

  On 8/20/2024 at 4:23 PM, Mark Foote said:

the automatic activity of the body comes forward, and as that relationship comes forward

 

Is there a name for this?  The impulse?  If that's a proper word for it?
 

 

No, it's a peculiar thing.  Being the place where I am as the place shifts and moves can get up and walk around, but mostly the place just returns to breathing.

 

 

 

Edited August 23 by Mark Foote

[Cobie]

7 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Good night my non-dual friends

Wow brutal, not everyone on this thread is “non-dual” you know.  
 

 

Edited August 23 by Cobie

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

3 hours ago, Cobie said:

Wow brutal, not everyone on this thread is “non-dual” you know.  
 

 

The duality of man

[Daniel]

11 hours ago, steve said:

Kind of hard to follow to be blunt

 

Sure.

 

11 hours ago, steve said:

That's OK... I embrace contradictions when speaking of the ineffable. 

 

I feel the same way.  This is the nature of paradox.  Just as your comment ( "hard to follow" ) is not insulting, my comment ( "contradiction" ) is not an insult though many take offense at it.  

 

11 hours ago, steve said:

I've long ago let go of using my limited intellect to explore that which is beyond intellect.

It's just not an effective modality for me at this point.

 

With all due respect, this is blaming "intellect".  Demonizing and avoiding.

 

First, a very simple question:  Is it, ( whatever "it" is ) truly, absolutely, limitless?  Or is it limitless is some ways but not others?  If it's the first, "it" is simultaneously inclusive and exclusive which is a paradox, but not contradictory.  If it's the second, "it" is disjunctive which is neither a paradox nor contradictory.  In both cases:  "limitless" is not ineffable.  It can be decribed accurately without contradiction.  The benefit to using language rigorously in this way is that it permits collaboration.  Team-work.  Two individuals from different cultural backgrounds can share their collected wisdom. 

 

There is a great deal to be gained from this.  Two or more distinct, simultaneous, vantage points are an opportunity to observe with clarity what is not possible to be observed with a solo observer.  It's no different than depth perception which requires two physical eye-balls.  However, naturally, there is going to be extreme reluctance for the self-declared "enlightened" to accept that they need anyone or anything for clear perception which does not already exist in their own mind, which already exists in their own physical skull.  Often, the self-declared "enlightened" denies that anything exists outside of the grey-matter in between their physical ears.   I object to this for several good reasons in spite of the fact that this will not be considered friendly or welcoming of the individual who is coming to an internet forum in anonymity to try on the title of "enlightened" and try to gain social acceptance for their acheivement.  How much more so for those who have already established themselves in a community which has validated their acheivement and labeled it "enlightement".   

 

The reason that what I've written is difficult to follow is because what I wrote is describing a simultaneous immaterial phenomenon.  There is no "following" it.  It cannot be "followed" without splitting one's attention, splitting one's awareness,  breaking the phenomenon into pieces then re-assembling it and considering it in total, simultaneously.  These split pieces of the phenomenon,  which are at first considered in isolation, are not occuring in sequence on a time-line.  The finite human mind is not accustomed to operating this way.  However, the human heart ( metaphorically ) does this 24/7.  This segues nicely into the next point.

 

What you're describing as an inherent limitation of intellect is an inherent limitation on "knowing" not on "understanding".  Most people are, forgive me, clueless of the mechanations of their own heart-and-mind.  In Judaism we are, perhaps, the best in the business in this regard.  Buddhists are the best, the gold standard, in regard to suffering.  Hindu are the best, the gold standard, in regard to bliss.  Jews?  We're great with details.  It's what we do, and we do it well.  It's what we practice everyday.  These details which we study and admire and appreciate in the natural world and in ourselves is not limited to intellectual matters.  We also embrace the differences and distinctions, the beauty, the rich texture of diversity which exists in the realm of emotion, the metaphorical human "heart".  

 

If I were to draw a diagram of the human psyche, it would be divided into two major sections:  mind and heart.  At the border between the functions of the mind and the functions of the heart exists a very peculiar and misunderstood aspect of the human psyche which is best known in english as "understanding".  ( Yes, understanding is misunderstood. )   Its placement on the diagram on the border is significant because in addition to understanding with the mind, there is also an emotive / spiritual understanding which is not at all intellectual.  This is: understanding with the "heart".  It's absolutely true and consistent, the heart understands long before the mind, but, few realize what is happening when it is happening.  Further, the heart is easily, and in relative comfort, accustomed to understanding many things simultaneously.  This is one of the properties of "understanding".  It connects to all the others simultaneously.  It includes all the others, and itself, simultaneously.

 

11 hours ago, steve said:

let go of using my limited intellect

 

Right.  And when that is happening, there is an opportunity for connecting with these concepts in an all-inclusive manner?  Not limited?  All-inclusive?  Connecting to all?

 

Connecting to all AND including all?  That's non-duality?

 

11 hours ago, steve said:

explore that which is beyond intellect

 

Exploring that which is beyond the limited intellect but also includes the limited intellect?   If so, then I think it's very fair to confidently state: you and I are desccribing the same phenomenon but approching it from two very different directions.  If so, hopefully the other readers will appreciate that the non-dual is no longer ineffable.  We can truly discuss it.  It's no longer off-limits.  If the language is specific, and words are carefully chosen. 

 

For the Hindu and the Buddhist who have slaved and sacrificed to jetison any and all differences, dictinctions, and preferences from their concsious mind, this regimented behavior will probably feel like a spiritual regression, and, it is.  But the benefits are profound.  This feeling of regression, which is simultaneously progress, is something I tried to address in the previous post which was difficult to follow.  Hopefully I will do a better job explaining what I mean this second time.

 

There is a very important dichotomy which is studied by almost everyone approaching the age of Bar-Mitzvah in my community.   This dichotomy is:  emanation as contrasted with manifestation.  Essence is emanated not manifested.  Forms are manifested not emanated.  Particular forms are manifesting below and are rising to the heavens, so to speak.  Their generalized, softer, subtle, essence is emanating from the heavens and descending into the forms, so to speak.  Both are happening simultaneously.  This is important for this discussion because the Hindu and the Buddhist which demomizes differences, distinctions, preferences, and is denying diversity is truly "going" to heaven.  They're not wrong about the "acension" and the spiritual acheivement.  They're absolutely right.  ( "Going" and "acension" are in quotes because they're not actually going anywhere. )  The problem is, the method which is employed ( forgettting, demonizing, denying, crippling the intellect ) is erasing the path which they took to acheive their liberation. 

 

It's fine for an individual to choose to compromise, or even to obliterate, their intellect for the purpose of acheiving their own enlightenment.  There's nothing wrong with that, except, lacking those intellectual faculties, they will never-never be able to teach others effectively or communicate what happened to them along the way.  It seems that this is accepted among the dharmic practioners as unavoidable, but, it's not.  Not at all.  The misunderstanding is coming from neglecting the divinty of the "downward" emanation of spiritual essence which is equally significant to the particular form ( the human concsiousness ) which is ascending, reassimilating, back into its essential source.  Once this is understood, that emanating is the opposite of manifesting, yet they are sympathetic, non-dual, partners operating in harmony, which is necessary, then, the intellect is no longer demonized.  The cognitive functions which permit accurate teaching and sharred expression is no longer abandoned.  Many more can be liberated.  The world is a better, happier, and more peaceful place for everyone.  It's a non-dual "win-win" so to speak. 

 

And that's why, I made the point of distinguishing between an emanation and a manifestation.  It's very very important.  An essence doesn't manifest.  Manifestation requires differences, distinctions, preferences, etc.  These things are demonized and neglected in error to almost everyone's detriment in a social setting.  The solo practioner who lives as a hermit and never desires to teach or share is excluded.

 

Hopefully that explains much much better what I meant in my previous reply.    

 

Edited August 23 by Daniel

[dwai]

5 hours ago, Cobie said:

Wow brutal, not everyone on this thread is “non-dual” you know.  
 

 

Whether you believe or not, you too are nondual consciousness  

[old3bob]

 

here is the ultimate solution,  just take the stairs...

 

Edited August 23 by old3bob

[dwai]

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

And that's why, I made the point of distinguishing between an emanation and a manifestation.  It's very very important.  An essence doesn't manifest.  Manifestation requires differences, distinctions, preferences, etc.  These things are demonized and neglected in error to almost everyone's detriment in a social setting.  The solo practioner who lives as a hermit and never desires to teach or share is excluded.

 

Those are very noble thoughts, but your premise is flawed. Your perspective only applies if there is a separation between the essence and the witness. Since there is no separation, just like in a dream, there is an appearance of separateness, but in reality there is none. Subject and object are non-dual - and the object appears in the subject. 

Ultimately, nothing ever happens  

[snowymountains]

2 hours ago, dwai said:

Since there is no separation, just like in a dream, there is an appearance of separateness, but in reality there is none. Subject and object are non-dual - and the object appears in the subject. 

Ultimately, nothing ever happens  

( Bold is mine )

 

I think that's the crux of non duality. I wasn't planning to write on this as not in a mood for long posts but in short, what we see in a dream or vision in non-dual.

 

The experience of archetypes is a non-dual one. As we all share archetypes and have a shared core, there is an element of non-duality in our experience.

 

The real world is dual though, it's not a dream, so there is an element of duality in our experience as well.

 

This is an important distinction.

[dwai]

20 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

( Bold is mine )

 

I think that's the crux of non duality. I wasn't planning to write on this as not in a mood for long posts but in short, what we see in a dream or vision in non-dual.

 

The experience of archetypes is a non-dual one. As we all share archetypes and have a shared core, there is an element of non-duality in our experience.

No idea what archetypes are, but sure. 

20 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

The real world is dual though, it's not a dream, so there is an element of duality in our experience as well.

Transactionally, the waking world is certain dual. But it too is an appearance in nondual consciousness

20 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

This is an important distinction.

And is resolved from the perspective of non-dual consciousness. 

[doc benway]

5 hours ago, Daniel said:

With all due respect, this is blaming "intellect".  Demonizing and avoiding.

 

It’s not blaming, demonizing, or  avoiding at all, although I acknowledge that others may see things differently. It is a superb tool and I am deeply grateful for it. It took me as far as I needed it to take me on my spiritual path and I continue to use it daily in most other areas of life.

 

It would be more accurate to say it has been exhausted in me in the realm of spiritual investigation. I followed it until it was clear that it was no longer of value for me in this arena. No doubt it is useful for many and I’m not judging what is better or worse but for me it is not very useful or interesting at this point. I found what I was looking for and found my path.

 

I will read the rest of your words when time allows and reply if I have more to offer to the conversation.

Thanks for the response.

[Sherman Krebbs]

On 20.8.2024 at 10:06 AM, Nungali said:

We all have our totemic animals

 

Mine is a gopher  --  I did not pick it. 

 

38 minutes ago, steve said:

I acknowledge that others may see things differently.

 

Happened across this quote yesterday:  "Vajrayana Buddhism [...] has no future in the West because of deeply conditioned (genetic or cultural) assumptions about the nature of reality and because it entails a transmogrification of western social values and lifestyles, and an assimilation of rituals, practices and yogas too alien for anything resembling the original to eventuate."  -Everything is Light (Forward), Keith Dowman

 

I think I agree with this.  Most will never be able to accept or understand it (and will probably object to the notion that it is something to be accepted and understood), and that is probably okay.