A Dhi Shuriken

Email from Michael Thomas Croghan:Manjushri-mantra1

Attachment to doctrines motivates some to ignore the differences between advaya, and advaita.  Of course, it is maintained that not all Vedanta is Advaita-Vedānta.  Most formally, and notably, the term advaita was  translated into English as “one without a second,” which is not to say “not-two” since this one (even if it is “zero”) always implies another.  Of course, it describes Brahman/jīvātman as being such that they are seen as being one, without an opposite.  Dvaya implies in-two; dvaita implies the notion of 1, then 2.

The book entitled, Primordial Experience, in its translators’ attempts to derive/contrive a more “natural language” (Ezra Pound, etc.) has created much confusion in this vein.  And most native-speaking Tibetans have no interest in the significant but subtle differences, in the English language, between saying that variety does not by necessity indicate difference, and in saying that there is only one thing, which appears to be multiple objects; though subtle, crucial.

Relatedly, it is apparent that the doctrine of Tathāgata, having done away with the social status of the Brāhmaṇa as dominators of society, was gradually (after the first 500 years) hijacked, and the attempt was made to fabricate entire teachings based upon this resultant “Crypto-Buddhism” and fabricate the ancient manuscripts thereby seeming to validate the notions of the “Crypto-Buddhists” and foist such upon the Indian public.

Included are the notions found in the Bhagavad Gita.  By the time of its popularization (albeit, as an “ancient” text) we have the notions of a supreme godhead, in Vishnu, said to have been both the historical Buddha, and (the mythical) Kṛṣṇa.

This move finalized the non-Buddhist status of India and Indian society — a very unfortunate conclusion.

It is in recognition of this trend that I insist upon the individual being fully informed, alongside the more inner work, their development of discernment in these regards, emphasized.

༅། །བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས། །

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to A Dhi Shuriken

  1. Yedruk says:

    I appreciate your insight and I agree. It has been said that we communicate in spite of what we say – not because of it. I think it is also fair to say that we communicate, in part, because of what we mean to say, in spite of what we actually say. But for communication to be complete, the participants in the communion need to be in a state of resonance – at least momentarily. In Tibetan Buddhism explicitly, and in other religions implicitly, the View is considered very important. In my view, this can be only somewhat justified as follows: A man is walking along the sidewalk at night and comes upon another man who is on his hands and knees apparently looking for something on the ground, around the base of a streetlamp. The first man inquires, “Did you lose something?” The second man replies (with the slurred speech characteristic of inebriation), “Ya, I lost my keys”. The first man further inquires, “How did you lose your keys right here under this streetlamp?” The second man answers, “Oh, I didn’t lose them (hic) here. I lost them overrrr there in those bushes when I was takin’ a piss.” The first man scoffed and said, “Why the hell are you looking here instead of over there, then?” With a surprisingly patronizing tone, the second man answers, “Ya can’t see a bloody thing over there in the bushes. There’s lots more light here.” So, similarly foolish people pursue the keys to realizing themselves in cognitive areas where they feel there is sufficient light. The purpose of the View in tawa/gonpa/chopa is to basically and generally distinguish between the area under the streetlamp and the bushes. The keys are, in fact, in the bushes. What happens historically, and understandably, is that entire lives get spent making efforts to establish the precise GPS coordinates of the keys in the bushes. Everyone has somewhat similar personal bushes but they are certainly not identical. The keys are identical in that they fit essentially universal locks, but the bushes are fractal mindscapes of the individual’s “going astray” (‘krul-pa) and therefore unique to the individual. Therefore, the individual to which you refer in your closing sentence needs to be an individual (yang-rab) who is actively groping around in his bushes. Otherwise, it all remains mere erudition, which is streetlamp light. To see clearly in the bushes, which we can do, we need to develop the “visual” function of perceiving the auto-luminescence of the bushes and the keys. The fact that the keys are shaped just like the twigs of the bushes simply becomes a laughable irony, then, instead of being a maddening mind-fuck. Conversely, if the individual is not really a practitioner, does not really have a good connection with enlightened beings, or is preoccupied with physical survival and comforts, no amount of intellectual precision on these matters will prove truly meaningful. So, continuing the allegory, the first man (skye-med ka-dag) will encourage the second man (rang-gsal khye’u-chung) to reconsider the bushes, and to just see what naturally happens when one’s eyes inevitably adjust to the so-called darkness (gti-mug) of the bushes.

  2. Michael Thomas Croghan says:

    By referencing “skye-med ka-dag,” and “rang-gsal khye’u-chung” in your reply above, you use the language of Padmasambhava’s Spyi-ti, and Yang-ti teachings, which is both encouraging and interesting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s