Dharma Wheel

Deleted duplicate post.

Caz wrote:Well I don't think i'll be playing cards again !

Well only if you recognise the authority of Guru Padmasabhava and the validity of the Treasure tradition. Do you caz?

Stewart wrote:

Caz wrote:Well I don't think i'll be playing cards again !

Well only if you recognise the authority of Guru Padmasabhava and the validity of the Treasure tradition. Do you caz?

My teachers respect Padmasambhava as a Buddha and so do I. In fact there where some playing cards left in a free gift bag I got and I put them in the bin.

Caz wrote:

Stewart wrote:

Caz wrote:Well I don't think i'll be playing cards again !

Well only if you recognise the authority of Guru Padmasabhava and the validity of the Treasure tradition. Do you caz?

My teachers respect Padmasambhava as a Buddha and so do I. In fact there where some playing cards left in a free gift bag I got and I put them in the bin.

I think the instructions in the text are to burn them or throw them in a body of water. I was reminded by a Vajra friend that the spirits could escape otherwise. If it is any comfort, I made the same mistake as you.

Regards,
Gyaltsen Tashi

[/quote]I think the instructions in the text are to burn them or throw them in a body of water. I was reminded by a Vajra friend that the spirits could escape otherwise. If it is any comfort, I made the same mistake as you.

Regards,
Gyaltsen Tashi[/quote]

The Bin men will be out to collect soon. Besides Dharma practitoners should have little worry about spirits is they practice purely !

Besides Dharma practitoners should have little worry about spirits is they practice purely !

How many Dharma practitioners practice purely? And why did Lama Tzongkhapa compose several rituals for pacifying spirits?

JKhedrup wrote:

Besides Dharma practitoners should have little worry about spirits is they practice purely !

How many Dharma practitioners practice purely? And why did Lama Tzongkhapa compose several rituals for pacifying spirits?

For practitioners that don't practice purely, or for patrons who don't practice at all, I'd imagine.

I am not so sure. Look at what it really requires to have a complete and pure refuge, it is not such an easy thing. Many senior monks in India told me they still didn't fully understand the various presentations of the qualities and functions of the triple gem as explained in the texts and so found their practice of refuge lacking. Some were very well cultivated scholars. Faith in the triple gem is one (important) thing, but a full practice of refuge requires an understanding of the Triple Gem, and for example how many people know the different bodies of a Buddha and their function, the three baskets of the teachings (dharma jewel) really well, and the various levels of Arya Sangha?

In the biographies of great lamas you read about spirit obstacles with some regularity. Lama Tzongkhapa in his writings on Yamantaka speaks of the need of this sort of deity to pacify both the inner, mental obstacles as well as the outer obstacles of hindering spirits. These rituals within the Yamantaka corpus are practiced by many Gelug lamas of high realization.

JKhedrup wrote:I am not so sure. Look at what it really requires to have a complete and pure refuge, it is not such an easy thing.

Its a very easy thing, as the Uttaratantra states:

• Ultimate refuge
  is only the buddha,
  because the Muni is endowed with the dharma body.

If one understands that definition of refuge, the others become secondary and not so important at all since the dharmakāya is the source of all other refuges, and exists as an innate attribute in all sentient beings. Therefore, the highest, most perfect refuge is one's own primal nature.

It's all rather quaint.

Perhaps what makes me uncomfortable is the triple combination of a political, contemporary motif delivered as a solemn injunction 'Do not change your language' wrapped up in retroactively authoritative verse. I've come to associate verse with romanticism. Pragmatism destroys the effect, and the inventor reveals himself by it. He has an agenda which he tries to conceal. He tries to string together the most tenuous causal relations and take advantage of his position to publish his ideas. Of course of I go out on a limb by saying this, but that's how it looks to me. It wouldn't be the first fake terma.

maybay wrote:Perhaps what makes me uncomfortable is the triple combination of a political, contemporary motif delivered as a solemn injunction 'Do not change your language' wrapped up in retroactively authoritative verse. I've come to associate verse with romanticism. Pragmatism destroys the effect, and the inventor reveals himself by it. He has an agenda which he tries to conceal. He tries to string together the most tenuous causal relations and take advantage of his position to publish his ideas. Of course of I go out on a limb by saying this, but that's how it looks to me. It wouldn't be the first fake terma.

I guess the ball is in my court. Well, you're entitled to your opinion. As I can't find the identity of the terton or any qualified master who has authenticated it, this might certainly be a fake terma. However, I prefer to keep an open mind and see if the claims can be verified over time. In the meantime, I don't find it a loss to abstain from playing poker or holding the cards.

Regards,
Gyaltsen Tashi

I doubt there's anyone on the other side of that email address willing to discuss this sort of thing. It's kind of like a rumour or a computer virus. You just put it out there and let it do its thing—or cast doubts over corrosive habits like playing cards.

I'm more with the analytical approach to the effects of playing cards, or Go or Chess for that matter. Its interesting to see how the defensive, conservative Chinese mind could have been conditioned by Go, and the capitalistic, confrontational Indo-European mind manifests in the 64 place Chess mandala. Think of all the millions of hours spent playing these games over generations. We could explore this and find something deeper than just a prohibition against cards. Something that encovers any game. Games are more prolific than ever.

maybay wrote:Its interesting to see how the defensive, conservative Chinese mind could have been conditioned by Go, and the capitalistic, confrontational Indo-European mind manifests in the 64 place Chess mandala.

Chess originated in India.

Kirt

I played cards a few weeks back. And, fortunately, I escaped being possessed by any gyalpo. :-p
I think people make a bit too much of this sort of thing some times. Like the fellow who wanted to know if he should torch his cards, or if the trash is OK. It reminds me of growing up in a very fundamentalist household. At one point, everyone decided that Proctor and Gamble was "demonized" because of their logo. So a mad rush to toss all of their products ensued.

There aren't any demons in the cards. The demons are in your "heart" and the most dangerous one won't give you tuberculosis - it will cause you to spend your life either doing silly things or worrying about peope who spend their lives doing silly things.

Just a thought.