tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post4707362569971595128..comments2024-03-22T14:47:42.501+02:00Comments on Tibeto-logic: Generating Sacred SymbolsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-26581708636581689322012-04-11T16:42:28.383+03:002012-04-11T16:42:28.383+03:00Words are for stretching for all they're worth...Words are for stretching for all they're worth in the attempt to get them to say what you mean.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-61322838310910798282012-04-03T10:00:43.700+03:002012-04-03T10:00:43.700+03:00Obfuscation is a nice one too. Although it is inte...Obfuscation is a nice one too. Although it is intentional there. I got obnubilation from Stéphane's Arguillère (http://s.arguillere.over-blog.com/). He picks his words carefully and thoughtfully. I use some of them. Isn't that what words are for? ;-)<br />JoyJanushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13818341476501505611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-47362643936998123182012-04-02T22:00:06.048+03:002012-04-02T22:00:06.048+03:00I think obnubilation, as it obviates obfuscation, ...I think obnubilation, as it obviates obfuscation, thoroughly justifies our jubilation. J, where do you get these words? Can other people use them?Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-53166817237953405132012-04-01T16:44:45.293+03:002012-04-01T16:44:45.293+03:00Thank you Dan, Thank you Janus!
Yes, I think I’ve...Thank you Dan, Thank you Janus!<br /><br />Yes, I think I’ve been familiar with the Mahâyâna-soteriology - roughly, that is. But definitely, something unclear has been hiding there - and nagging my mind - if not elsewhere, in this translation-terminology, all the time. It was a great delight to me to see Dan’s formulierung! And with the fine piece of clairvoyant archaeology presented above by Janus I can feel my personal state of obnubilation (!) regarding the subject - the chos-can (?) - under consideration getting slightly thinner at the moment. At least my question has been clarified now one step further! Would you, too, agree with Janus, Dan?<br /><br />Would you say that we are dealing here with the (chos-nyid) ji lta ba mkhyen pa and the (chos-can) ji snyed pa mkhyen pa, more or less?<br /><br />Unfortunately I have not yet found access to the Linji yu lu, to check where we are a-heading.<br /><br />Cheers, <br /><br />Yours,<br />Tan-TanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-24656572132240736362012-04-01T10:19:10.713+03:002012-04-01T10:19:10.713+03:00Dear Dan and Tan-Tan,
I think translations of she...Dear Dan and Tan-Tan,<br /><br />I think translations of shes-bya'i-sgrib-pa are often ambiguous. In my opinion it is not "obscurations to omniscience", as it is not "obscurations *to* klesha". Reality (tathâtâ) is obnubilated *by* kleshas and *by* knowables. And it is not as much All knowing as Global knowing, knowing both knowables and their nature. <br />The difference between sravakayana and mahayana, as explained by mahayana, is that the former only manage to get rid of the obnubilation by klesha, wheras they conceive the knowables to be real (not empty). Thus they are blinded by the same naive realism that byis pa are said to be prone to. Real dharmas are countered by real antidote dharmas.<br /><br />If a wise mahayanists teaches emtiness to a naive realist sravaka and he still persists in considering dharmas as real, continuing to be obnubilated by knowables, than he will be called a blun po.<br /><br />"There is no worse blind man than the one who doesn't want to see. There is no worse deaf man than the one who doesn't want to hear. And there is no worse madman than the one who doesn't want to understand."<br /><br />BTW I just read a great quote by Linji about the the five inexpiable actions (mtshams med lnga) (Linji yu lu nr 36 translated by Démiéville in French). Our whole discussion seems to be there.<br /><br />JoyJanushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13818341476501505611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-57037236187250975652012-03-31T23:39:48.355+03:002012-03-31T23:39:48.355+03:00Correction. I was writing from my faulty memory. I...Correction. I was writing from my faulty memory. I had a doubt and checked. It is not bâla, but the apabhramsa ba.dha (sanskrit muu.dha), which is translated as rmongs pa.Janushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13818341476501505611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-58263803472077381922012-03-31T23:14:20.176+03:002012-03-31T23:14:20.176+03:00Dear T-T,
Yes, it's exactly on topic what Ste...Dear T-T,<br /><br />Yes, it's exactly on topic what Stein says in his Tibetica Antiqua (McKeown's translation, pp. 10-11). The Lanka was translated in the 9th century by 'Gos Chos-grub (Facheng), who always translated from Chinese, I think. They say he was Chinese, and that the Tibetan form of his name was a direct translation from the Chinese.<br /><br />I've noticed some extracanonical quotations (actually 3 of them, all dated between late 12th and late 13th centuries) of this same passage that don't match the canonical (Dergé) version, and look like they were taken from a completely different translation. I haven't noticed any information on a reviser of Chos-grub's translation. Stein says that despite translating from Chinese, he "always employs the Ind. voc., but sometimes he has recourse to the Chin. voc." My suspicion is that some unnamed person might have revised Chos-grub's translation, trying to fix the Sinitic vocabulary, but not always succeeding at it, which would explain why some Sinitic vocabulary remains... (I think Christina Scherrer-Schaub is saying something like this in her introduction at pp. xxv-xxvi when she comments on that same statement by Stein.) This testimony does thicken the plot, and I'm still waiting for the light to come streaming through, so perhaps we ought to delay judgment.<br /><br />You know that Mahâyâna often describes the Buddhist goal as [1] Disentanglement and [2] All Knowing ([1] Thar-pa dang [2] Thams-cad-mkhyen-pa), which just means to do away with [1] obscurations due to kleshas (detrimental emotion&thinking complexes) on the one part, and [2] on the other, the obscurations due to knowable objects / dharmas. For these you need [1] merit (bsod-nams/punya) and [2] full[er] knowledge (ye-shes/jñâna). Was there something unclear hiding in that?Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-72184500408892440722012-03-31T22:16:57.481+03:002012-03-31T22:16:57.481+03:00Althought I am rather convinced it is not going to...Althought I am rather convinced it is not going to be great news to the distinguished participants of the discussion - since it happens to be the case that I have been reading Rolf Stein's Tibetica Antiqua during these days (and encouraged by your sympathetic attitude towards the byis-pa) - I cannot resist mentioning in this context that what would be called in Sanskrit bâla seems to have been translated - in the active days of Dunhuang, at least - as blun-po in manuscripts adhering more closely to the 'Chinese vocabulary' while byis-pa became the standard translation for the 'Indian vocabulary' as represented by Mahâvyutpatti. Though not giving explanation to the use of "sems-can" here maybe this kind of history could provide some background for the different readings of the perhaps - more or less - different "original" texts? <br /><br />And, speaking of "culture", the always interesting terms gtsug-lag and chos, among many others, are studied in some length there as well, just to mention, though I'm sure you know.<br /><br />In any case, what strikes me as truly interesting here - in what and how you write - is the question of "the obscurations due to knowables"! We all know that according to the, let us say, "standard modern understanding" the shes-bya'i-sgrib-pa seems to be accepted to mean "the obscurations to omniscience". Be that as it may, I strongly vote for digging deeper into the meaning of "obscurations due to knowables".<br /><br />Yours humbly,<br />Tan-TanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-52853360274691012822012-03-31T19:24:30.964+03:002012-03-31T19:24:30.964+03:00Thank you Dan. Bâla is indeed translated as byis p...Thank you Dan. Bâla is indeed translated as byis pa. I see it often translated as immature one, or naive. I guess children are prone to naive realism and take things at face value, unlike prajnaparamita writings and Yogacara works. I have also seen bâla translated as rmongs pa in Saraha's dohakosa, where blun po also sometimes seems to be used as a sort of synonym.<br /><br />།གང་གིས་ཚད་མར་འཛིན་པའི་དབང་གིས་སུ།<br />།བླུན་པོས་བྱེ་བྲག་རྙེད་པ་སྟེ།<br /><br />(I hope the tibetan will be rendered properly). Otherwise gang gis tsahd mar 'dzin pa'i dbang gis su// blun pos bye brag rnyed pa ste//<br /><br />Theses verses were added in the Tibetan version and don't exist in the original version. "Someone apprehending things as valid (through pramana) is a fool who will only find details." These terms seem to be more or less interchangeable (is that proper English?). But you are right that Sakya Pandita makes it sound harsher. In his works they are fools because even when taught properly by wise men like him, they resist and persist in their mistaken ways. Whereas byis pa lack the stubbornness that a blun po definitely has. As you point out, they can be educated, wheras a blun po refuses it.Janushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13818341476501505611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-64881172070594430102012-03-31T17:17:25.015+03:002012-03-31T17:17:25.015+03:00Dear J,
Your comment made me run out looking for ...Dear J,<br /><br />Your comment made me run out looking for a Sanskrit copy of the Lanka Entrance Sûtra, since I don't have any in print here at home, and what should I find but the very strikingly printed Nanjio edition from around 90 years ago, sitting up on the web here:<br /><br />http://archive.org/details/MN40145ucmf_2<br /><br />You can download the PDF or read it online.<br /><br />If you go to page 135 and count down 5 lines you will find the word bâla in the genitive plural, meaning of the children, or of the immature. This, too, has quite a different meaning than the 'fools' or 'ignorant sods,' though, doesn't it? Children not only have potential, they practically define the concept. Children can be foolish and wise, ignorant and knowing, can't they?<br /><br />It happens sometimes you can see that the Tibetan translators didn't have the same Sanskrit text in front of them as we have today. (Which is one thing that makes Tibetan translations so important to Buddhist Sanskrit philologists.) But I doubt it was due to a scribal problem. Bâla (Tib. *byis pa) and sattva (Tib. sems-can) don't resemble each other closely enough to get confused. It must have been a conscious word substitution going on there. Anyway, Tibetan byis-pa translates bâla, but the word for 'fool' in Tibetan is blun-po, which has a harsher tone to it. (Sakya Pandita uses both in his Three Vows text.)<br /><br />Yours,<br />DDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-72532730987430949072012-03-31T15:10:34.112+03:002012-03-31T15:10:34.112+03:00Dear Dan,
I agree with your wise suggestion and ...Dear Dan, <br /><br />I agree with your wise suggestion and with the link between kleshas and knowables...<br /><br />As for the Dergé version, you discovered a real gem! I simply followed Patrick Carré's French translation from the Chinese translation (Shikshânanda in 702). It reads "C'est l'affirmation d'aucun véhicule/ Que j'appelle 'véhicule unique',/ Et pour attirer les sots que j'enseigne/ Différents véhicules."<br /><br />Fools or sentient beings is quite a difference, although the target (the ones to be attracted) is identical. I think the denigrating "fools" is not directed at the beings, but at the different vehicles and at the fact that sentient beings require different "vehicles" for them to enter the One vehicle. I don't know what the sanskrit word for "ignorant" was, but since Suzuki translated from the sanskrit, I expect it to be closer to fools than to sentient beings. <br /><br />And then the Tibetan choice becomes more interesting... Is it out of respect for the vehicles, that the term was changed in translation? Out of fear of moving towards a quietist (gcig char 'jug pa) approach?<br /><br />Oh my, this thread keeps spinning and spinning.<br /><br />JoyJanushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13818341476501505611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-38735295975353881142012-03-31T13:23:01.945+03:002012-03-31T13:23:01.945+03:00J,
You say "fools," Suzuki says "i...J,<br /><br />You say "fools," Suzuki says "ignorant," but the Dergé version of the <i>Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra</i> (fols. 173-174) has no such thing at all. It just says "sentient beings" (<i>sems can</i>) — <i>chos kyi sku bsam gyis mi khyab pa la dbang byed pa rab tu 'thob par 'gyur ro || de la 'di skad ces bya ste | lha yi theg dang tshangs pa'i theg | nyan thos kyi'ang de bzhin te || de bzhin gshegs dang rang rgyal gyi || theg pa de dag ngas bshad do || ji srid sems can 'jug pa'i bar || theg pa dag la thug pa med || sems ni shin tu gyur pa na || theg pa med cing 'gro ba'ang med || theg pa rnam par gzhag med kyang || sems can rnams ni drang ba'i phyir || theg pa tha dad ngas bshad de || theg pa gcig tu ngas bstan to</i>.<br /><br />I think seeing through educational conditioning might involve first going through it (perhaps needless to say). But that 'seeing through' would in itself be a hugely significant kind of liberation, at least as far as the obscurations due to knowables are concerned (the kleshas might require some other strategies, which I wouldn't intend to imply that they are an entirely separate issue, or that they aren't heavily invested in the realm of knowables... au contraire!).<br />DDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-14545017696040379212012-03-30T14:41:56.208+03:002012-03-30T14:41:56.208+03:00I am sure we can combine Kant and Vico, and use th...I am sure we can combine Kant and Vico, and use the best of both worlds. As long as it serves our purpose (please don’t ask me what that is). Who cares whether something really existes, providing it produces the proper effect (don’t ask me what proper is, but you probably now by now not to ask me anything). Perhaps what Dharmakīrti calls pragmatic effectiveness (S. arthakrīya T. don byed). « A state of awareness is valid (pramāṇa) only if any activity that we undertake on the basis of it could, in principle, lead us to results consistent with the expectations we form on the basis of it. » (Lawrence J. McCrea & Parimal G. Patil in Buddhist philosophy of language in India).<br /><br />I am afraid freeing ourselves from what we have been made into by education and other forms of conditoning and (self) indoctrination could be a hopeless enterprise. But again, we shouldn’t underestimate the pragmatic effectiveness of hope. So let’s go for it !<br /><br />I have been writing on my blog on Buddhism and how it absorbed and integrated local cults while spreading and developing itself and was wondering what were actually the cults of the country I live in, la République laïque de France. Actually Reason, Cartesian logic, Secularism are the gods that have to be taken into account for Buddhism to not displease the local gods and really grow its roots here. So I dare to experiment with that a bit following Kant’s advice. As you point out, none of our decisions are made on the basis of logic, we take them on gut level and make them palatable through hineininterpretieren. But don’t Oracles simply confirm (after having been properly interpreted) what we already decided on gut level ? No point in fighting the god Logic, I try to give him his due. <br /><br />Yes the Lankavatara Sutra ("It’s to attract fools that I teach different vehicles") is honey to my ears (or is it to my eyes ?), but I am a hopeless mixture of conflicting emotions, a lively imagination, a heavy handed education with corporal punishment and poor logic. <br />JoyJanushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13818341476501505611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-46854170417841870302012-03-29T19:25:19.589+02:002012-03-29T19:25:19.589+02:00PS: I meant chapter 2 of the Lankavatara Sutra. B...PS: I meant chapter 2 of the Lankavatara Sutra. But you knew that!Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-34553893892638179872012-03-29T17:36:01.373+02:002012-03-29T17:36:01.373+02:00Dear J,
Actually, not Kant's sapere aude, but...Dear J,<br /><br />Actually, not Kant's sapere aude, but more Vico's verum factum was on my mind. Because we are humans, and because humans created human culture, we may have better hopes to know these things than we could ever hope to know the things of nature that humans have not made. (And for Vico that goes for the human mind as well, which he regards as a fairly hopeless thing for us to know...)<br /><br />But if it's about being brave enough to face what is, then we could reformulate it a bit to say that since human beings have produced the education cultures that have formed us, we (being also human) can hope to see through that education and free ourselves of its relentless power over us. Maybe sapere aude and verum factum are not so widely separated in intention. I'm not sure.<br /><br />Why, just today I was cursing myself for having such an ingrained sense of (thinking I know what is) logic left over from my school days. Like someone I know likes to say, None of the most important decisions in life are the result of logic. It's not necessary to think about that very long before thinking it's way too much of a truth to deny (or, we could say, to go on denying).<br /><br />But no, I wasn't thinking of White's book which I haven't read. I'll put it on my to do list.<br /><br />I've been looking into some of the sources for the yâna idea, as chance would have it. Especially interesting the verse near the end of chapter 2 that supports the idea of 'no vehicle.'<br /><br />Yours,<br />DDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-52526044652260646652012-03-29T12:03:10.603+02:002012-03-29T12:03:10.603+02:00Dear Dan,
Good points. Kant's sapere aude was...Dear Dan,<br /><br />Good points. Kant's sapere aude was taken to go into one direction, that may be mutilating humanities now through science methodologies and more importantly through budget allocations. But sapere aude has no obligatory direction. In France we have people like Bertrand Méheust (Somnambulisme et médiumnité) trying to rehabilitate what science methodology has trying to get rid of since the 18th century. Frédéric Nef is trying to rehabilitate metaphysics. Paul Diel's psychology was an attempt to integrate more spiritual concerns, but very prudently. To be honest, these efforts were/are not very succesful, but have the merit to exist as the French say. <br />I agree with your conception of vâhanas. It reminds me of David G. White's Flight of the Yoginis, in Kiss of the yogini and of Khecari practice. Is that what you were thinking of?<br />Yours,<br />JoyJanushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13818341476501505611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-45360712765339040742012-03-28T13:23:23.904+02:002012-03-28T13:23:23.904+02:00I visualize the vâhanas more like hovercrafts that...I visualize the vâhanas more like hovercrafts that move with the power of breath and thought, really. The animals are just symbolic of that more subtle form of motility. I think Van Daniken had a true insight that led him to follow the clue into that huge area of error about them having to do with alien spacecraft. But of course if you read Ezekiel's vision with UFOs already in your mind, there's no way to prevent the confirmation of the existence of UFOs that is bound to result. So my problem is that I just don't sufficiently believe in alien spacecraft. It may be an experiential problem that could be easily overcome if I were to be confronted with one. I do believe in imagining and weighing all sorts of possibilities, however. No matter what it may or may not do to such egotistical bullshit as 'scholarly reputation' or that even much bigger (bigger than just one ego) delusion of subjecting humanities to science methodologies as if that would guarantee truer or more useful results for humanity.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-4936050046803439222012-03-22T17:19:28.321+02:002012-03-22T17:19:28.321+02:00J, Did the link not link up? Here it is in long f...J, Did the link not link up? Here it is in long form:<br /><br />http://benedante.blogspot.com/2010/07/harpocrates.html<br /><br />Oh, you mean How did I get there? I searched the web for "Harpocrates."<br /><br />We're all clueless Buddhas? Or we're all clueless to our Buddhahood? Either way, I guess. <br /><br />Yours,<br />D<br /><br />-DDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-31332244630933643852012-03-22T16:27:34.644+02:002012-03-22T16:27:34.644+02:00Tibetology, Egyptology, Indology... Kumara,Skanda,...Tibetology, Egyptology, Indology... Kumara,Skanda, Baby Krishna (licking honey from his finger)? Thank you for the great blog address. How do you find them?<br /><br />The blog about Freud is just a quip, I have only respect for Freud and Adler... and for Jung's lively imagination (his autobiography). He definitely beats me at it.<br /><br />We are all clueless Buddha's. And with a yâna, clueless Buddhas with a yâna, perhaps driving a vâhana :-)<br /><br />JoyJanushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13818341476501505611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-67214265179903621632012-03-21T14:21:06.665+02:002012-03-21T14:21:06.665+02:00Dear T&T,
No need for guilt. We're all v...Dear T&T, <br />No need for guilt. We're all victims of our cultures.<br />DDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-13986077138726497162012-03-21T12:21:46.856+02:002012-03-21T12:21:46.856+02:00Dan lags,
Morsus conscientae!
Yours Sdig pa can,...Dan lags,<br /><br />Morsus conscientae!<br /><br />Yours Sdig pa can,<br />Tan-TanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-64133179099058074732012-03-21T00:42:00.011+02:002012-03-21T00:42:00.011+02:00Tan-tan=laa,
Sshhh! Some secrets were never mean...Tan-tan=laa,<br /><br />Sshhh! Some secrets were never meant to be revealed!<br /><br />DDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-11282386441556844932012-03-20T22:59:46.534+02:002012-03-20T22:59:46.534+02:00Harpo Marx!
Yours Amazed,
Tan-TanHarpo Marx! <br /><br />Yours Amazed,<br />Tan-TanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-53313906981263941322012-03-20T13:28:47.531+02:002012-03-20T13:28:47.531+02:00That Egyptian Guru Rinpoche is actually Harpocrate...That Egyptian Guru Rinpoche is actually Harpocrates, or as known to the Egyptians, "the child known as Har," or Horus in his childhood form. He has his thumb in his mouth just to show he is an infant, but the Greeks read this as a finger to his lips, and took it to be their mudra for silence, and even finally for this reason he got confounded (iconographically crossed) with Hermes of the Hermetic mysteries... There's a fantastic blog on this subject you can see <a href="http://benedante.blogspot.com/2010/07/harpocrates.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>, with some illustrations. I wonder at what point we took this wrong turn into Tibetology when it could have been Egyptology?<br /><br />Even if Freud had fallen onto the side of one particular viṣa-poisons (in my understanding just a 'frozen metaphor' for kleṣas, which surely do include much in the line of Freudian neurotic complexes), there still would have been a Buddhist cure for people like him too much focussed on desire. That would mean the Vinaya (with Sutra as antidote for hatred, and Abhidharma for moha-befuddlement), which I suppose would mean Freud had to take monastic vows to get over his kind of complexes? What about Jung & Adler? Which antidotes would Buddha prescribe for them? <br /><br />When you talk about vehicles, as something to get seasick in, I think you take <i>that</i> frozen metaphor too literally (or you're just pulling our legs with it). Yâna just means a conveyance, what takes you along the path to Enlightenment. If there were Buddhahood without method, every clueless person would be there already.<br /><br />The vehicles of the deities, the vâhanas, are more concrete chariot-throne types of things, at least as we visualize them and represent them in art. I don't see any reason at all to confound the yâna idea with the vâhana idea as if there were any connection. That only works in English. (Like confusing Noah's ark with the ark of the covenant, comparable in the sense that it only works in English.)<br /><br />I'll have to google "Stone" and see what that immanentist transcendence is all about. I'm all for the immanence of the goal, but without belittling the various (somehow) appropriate methods for getting there. I think we share the same heroes, actually.<br /><br />Yours,<br />DDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453904366382251766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32671574.post-27379939191125090192012-03-19T10:00:15.602+02:002012-03-19T10:00:15.602+02:00We will have to meet up one day and talk. I will t...We will have to meet up one day and talk. I will try to be brief here. Your Longchenpa quote reminds me of Dhammapada II, 28. As I have written, I feel closer to people like Rongzompa, Gampopa and his immédiate disciples, because their conception of Buddhahood makes more sens to me. I also tend to get carsick or seasick in vehicles. For me a Buddha (re)acts spontaneously (read : ad hoc). He has no set way of acting. But sadly, when the Buddha’s throne is empty, « set ways » (vehicles) are all we are left with. They are not ad hoc, they are not necessarily adapted to our situation. In this conception of a Buddha, the rūpakāyas of a Buddha are simply what others perceive them to be. The relation between a Buddha and another person is a genuin one, not a ritualized one. The second knowledge is badly needed indeed (as is the first), but I am not sure that many of those occupying the thrones at the moment exactly know the trips the world is on and how to guide it from there. New vehicles may need to built.<br /><br />I googled hetoimasia and discovered The minimalist vision of transcendence: a naturalist philosophy of religion by Jerome Arthur Stone. I have to admit I don’t see yet what the various models exactly stand for, I will have to read up on it. I expect the coming of the future Buddha Maitreya to be a later development in Buddhism. First there was the loss. I can’t imagine all the crying and sobbing, the fights and the fuss about relics, building stupas etc. if they believed the Buddha was simply one of many to come. But I don’t know anything about the chronoilogy of the cult of Ajita Maitreya. There also is the theory of the indestructible bodhimandi, which is the only thing to remain of the world when it will perish. Don’t loss and expectation often come together ? But, first one needs to feel loss for expectation to arise.<br /><br />My fooling around with Freud and the three gunas mainly came from his attitude towards religion (The illusion of a religion) and his reducing the « oceanic feeling » (which I see as rather sattvic) to some intrauterine nostalgia. He doesn’t seem to admit any religious or sattvic principle (asdoes Schopenhauer), at least not as a drive, which from a triguna point of view would make him unbalanced. A bit of a tabloid title I admit.<br /><br />I loved your Egyptian Padmasambhava, I have never seen one before.<br /><br />JoyJanushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13818341476501505611noreply@blogger.com