|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: TomTom Date: Feb 8, 2008 11:46
"If we do not know the material with which we are working, then our study is
useless; speculations about the goal become mere fantasy. These speculations
may take the form of advanced ideas and descriptions of spiritual
experiences, but they only exploit the weaker aspects of human nature, our
expectations and desires to see and hear something colorful, something
extraordinary. If we begin our strudy with these dreams of extraordinary,
"enlightening" and dramatic experiences, then we build up our expectations
and preconceptions so that later, when we are actually working on the path,
our minds will be occupied largely with what *will be* rather than what
*is*."
|
| Show full article (10.83Kb) |
|
| | 54 Comments |
|
|
Author: Patrick SchaafPatrick Schaaf Date: Feb 10, 2008 07:28
"Tom" comcast.net> writes:
>Before we can properly review the Six Realms, however, Trungpa introduces us
>to the monkey. Tibetan literature is replete with tales of the monkey as a
>metaphor for the development of the ego and the discovery of the awakened
>state. The problem the monkey faces in escaping from the various kinds of
>traps and prisons is the problem we all face on our spiritual path. Monkey
>is clever, grasping, inquisitive and acquisitive. He's enthusiastic,
>hedonistic, opportunistic, and impulsive. He's clever but he's not wise.
>He's a lot like us.
>Monkey hallucinates the Six Realms as he struggles to escape from the
>boredom of his situation. The hallucinations range from Heaven to Hell.
>Serene and jealous gods, ordinary human beings, ghosts, and demons inhabit
>the realms and Monkey must pass through them all. It's going to be quite an
>exciting adventure, even for an hallucination.
>"Q: What happens to the monkey when he takes a little LSD or peyote?
>A: He has already taken it."
|
| Show full article (1.27Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: ChadeChade Date: Feb 10, 2008 15:52
Thanks, I'll get to grips with this tomorrow.
Tom wrote:
> "If we do not know the material with which we are working, then our study is
> useless; speculations about the goal become mere fantasy. These speculations
> may take the form of advanced...
|
| Show full article (11.17Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Monkey MindMonkey Mind Date: Feb 11, 2008 03:36
"Tom" comcast.net> writes:
> They hope that they can find some way to effectively manipulate
> something they don't understand without trying to understand it at
> all.
Actually, this is the human condition at large.
> The fantasy is that magick is a technology, a device that smart people
> discovered and that stupid people can then use without understanding how it
> works. But magick is not a technology. The real effects of magick come
> from a deep understanding of reality. There are no substitutes for this
> understanding, no short cuts.
Very similarly, many people come to Buddhism in the hope that
awakening will somehow solve all their personal problems, that there
is a shortcut.
> In Trungpa's view, the understanding of the ego is the foundation of
> Buddhism. In order to discover the awakened state, one must first
> understand what we are and accept what we are.
|
| Show full article (4.82Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: TomTom Date: Feb 11, 2008 09:26
> "Tom" comcast.net> quotes Trungpa:
>>> "Therefore, in dealing with this subject, we are not condemning or
>> attempting to eliminate our ego-psychology; we are purely acknowledging
>> it,
>> seeing it as it is."
>
> A huge problem in western Buddhism. Many otherwise peaceful and
> loving Buddhists will get quite violent attacking the Ego.
The desire to conquer the ego arises in the same way as the desire to
conquer the world.
In the mythology of Aleister Crowley's Thelema, there are three gods, Nuit,
emptiness, Hadit, creative energy, and Ra Hoor Khuit, divine force in
manifestion. Ra Hoor Khuit is the young aspect of Horus, often given by
Crowley the title "the Crowned and Conquering Child". He may, if one
chooses to interpret it that way, represent idealized ego consciousness, a
child-king desiring to own and control everything.
|
| Show full article (4.39Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: mikamika Date: Feb 11, 2008 10:04
On Feb 11, 3:36 am, (Monkey Mind) wrote:
> "Tom" writes:
>
>> The first Skandha is called "Ignorance-Form". As consciousness evolves and
>> emerges from the "blackout" between the basic ground and the realization of
>> self-consciousness, we forget that we *are* the open space as much as we
>> *are* the dancer within the space. It is this forgetting that is called
>> "Ignorance".
>
> Well, the border around my "form" shifts and flickers. I can have a
> fight with my wife - she is "other" then. When someone else picks a
> fight with her, she becomes "mine".
I don't understand your wife analogy in this context, can you explain
further? Especially your use of the words "other" and "mine".
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: mikamika Date: Feb 11, 2008 10:16
On Feb 11, 9:26 am, "Tom" wrote:
> "Monkey Mind" wrote
>> How is the divine energy characterized in Quabbalah?
>
> Perhaps the most obvious characterization is the Shekinah, the Presence of
> God, especially in the tabernacle. Christians with an esoteric bent
> identify the Shekinah with the "Holy Spirit", the third aspect of the
> Trinity. It is usually depicted as a feminine entity or force, the Bride of
> God.
'divine energy' in Qabala is also characterized as the 'spark', the
kernel of divinity that is within all of us. It's a different concept
from the Shekinah, where the spark is a 'direct' 'part of' God within
us from when we're born, and the Shekinah is the aspect of God that we
draw into us from without. Perhaps an evocation/invocation kind of
distinction.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Monkey MindMonkey Mind Date: Feb 12, 2008 01:40
> On Feb 11, 3:36 am, (Monkey Mind) wrote:
>> "Tom" writes:
>>
>>> The first Skandha is called "Ignorance-Form". As consciousness evolves and
>>> emerges from the "blackout" between the basic ground and the realization of
>>> self-consciousness, we forget that we *are* the open space as much as we
>>> *are* the dancer within the space. It is this forgetting that is called
>>> "Ignorance".
>>
>> Well, the border around my "form" shifts and flickers. I can have a
>> fight with my wife - she is "other" then. When someone else picks a
>> fight with her, she becomes "mine".
>
> I don't understand your wife analogy in this context, can you explain
> further? Especially your use of the words "other" and "mine".
Within open space, where do "I" end, and where does "other" begin?
Viewing experience in terms such as this is ignorance.
|
| Show full article (1.91Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: mikamika Date: Feb 12, 2008 09:32
On Feb 12, 1:40 am, (Monkey Mind) wrote:
>
> "I", "me", and "mine" are very vague concepts,
I'm with you there...
> hence my analogy:
>
> When someone picks a fight with *my* wife, *I* am attacked, since what
> is *mine* is in danger - the boundary separating "me" from "other" is
> inflated to include my wife. But when she gets on *my* nerves, this
> boundary contracts to exclude her.
Maybe it's simply the language you are using, but I don't follow you
here at all. Your wife is never *yours*, it is impossible to possess
another person.
|
| Show full article (1.64Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: TomTom Date: Feb 12, 2008 10:06
> On Feb 12, 1:40 am, (Monkey Mind) wrote:
>>
>> When someone picks a fight with *my* wife, *I* am attacked, since what
>> is *mine* is in danger - the boundary separating "me" from "other" is
>> inflated to include my wife. But when she gets on *my* nerves, this
>> boundary contracts to exclude her.
>
> Maybe it's simply the language you are using, but I don't follow you
> here at all. Your wife is never *yours*, it is impossible to possess
> another person.
Ego seeks to possess everything. It doesn't matter what. My body, my
house, my wife, my enemy, my country, my planet. It doesn't matter if it's
impossible. Whatever is desireable, ego grasps. The concept of
impossibility is a more complex and abstracted concept than the feeling of
possession. Feelings trump thoughts more often than not.
|
| Show full article (1.68Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
