GarcherLancelot wrote:Does buddhism say anything about spirit guides?Are they genuine (as in having good intentions) ?
Lhug-Pa wrote:With Mediumism, Channeling, Spiritism, Séances, etc. one is not very likely to contact Buddhas, from what I understand. With this 'method' one is more likely to contact worldly spirits, Pretas, hell beings, etc. (it is said that channelers usually end up channeling worldly spirits who pose as Enlightened Beings).
Tarpa wrote:In as much as magic and witchcraft are fundamentally based on an understanding of the 5 elements they can in fact lead towards real wisdom, as well as a connection to life and nature, these traditions are much much more earthy and grounding than Buddhism and so they may help somebody in that way also, this is the main reason I am also a witch in the western tradition as well as a Buddhist. Buddhism provides my soteriological p.o.v. and I've no doubt its wisdom of things as they are is 100% correct and completely whole, and it is a coherent living tradition, but I find buddhists to be a bit airy and spacey, whereas witchcraft grounds me and I need that because I'm very airy and spacey by nature. I'm not saying the western traditions will lead to liberation but I'll say that in some aspects they approach wisdom, since the elements are so fundamental to it. Now if someone diefies the elements and considers the elements as sacred this is approaching true wisdom, regarding the elements as pure, all as diety, well buddhism isn't the only system that does this. Nor is it the only system that that doesn't accept a creator god, or considers all phemonena as unborn, or sees the moment of initial " creation " of duality, the original split and " fall " into the wheel of samsara, nor is it the only system that sees light as being the subtle praxis and basis of corporeal manifestation, and manifestation as a progression from the subtle to the gross, nor is it the only system that sees integration / union of materiality and purity. Tantra weaves the sacred into the mundane like a loom, witchcraft is also a weaving. Buddhism goes all the way into things 100% but other traditions approach and understand quite a lot of things to some extent really. After 10 years of vajrayana study and practice I have realized that at least for me attaining wisdom by understanding the 5 elements on all levels is better than studying madhyamika forever or getting caught up in all the conceptual proliferation from the monastic machine and gradualist systems, I think nirvana is realized by thoroughly understanding samsara and the way to wisdom is through the earth and the elements, there's also tremendous joy to be found here and a deep feeling of connection and respect to life and ones environment, nature. I would say this has value. I think the systems that promote an understanding of the 5 elements are the most useful systems, such as dzogchen, bon shamanism, and vajrayana but dzogchen goes all the way into it, bon shamnism and western magical systems and witchcraft also have quite a lot of wisdom here. All things are made of the 5 elements including mind, all the world and experience is the 5 elements. Every atom contains the 5 elements. Approaching ultimate wisdom through wisdom of the 5 elements is an approach that retains the earths horizon in its absolute view, it's easier to find integration here, nothing is practical if it can't be integrated in ones experience, one isn't lost in space carrying around a huge cosmic concept on their back called " emptiness " and walking a tightrope of nihilism while trying to view the world and experience through a concept, I would ask how much good that is doing anybody. There is also tremendous, easy, natural, integration through wisdom of the 5 elements and this wisdom will lead directly to wisdom of the basis in an experiential, natural way. There are many ways of saying things or pointing towards something, getting caught up in terminology regarding the absolute nature of things is a very sad prison.
dharmagoat wrote:I wonder what Aleister Crowley would have to say about this.
"Aleister Crowley" wrote:"The doctor was a Bengali named Ram Lal Sircar, a burly nigger of the most loathsome type."
"...we [British] always somehow instinctively think of the Italian as a nigger. We don't call them "dagos" and "wops" as they do in the United States, with the invariable epithet of "dirty"; but we have the same feeling."
"We need then not be surprised by finding that its most notable representative was the renegade follower of Blavatsky, Annie Besant, and that she was charged by her Black masters with the mission of persuading the world to accept for its Teacher a negroid Messiah. To make the humiliation more complete, a wretched creature was chosen who, to the most loathsome moral qualities, added the most fatuous imbecility. And then blew up! This, then, is the present state of the war of the Three Schools. We cannot suppose that humanity is so entirely base as to accept Krishnamurti..."
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 13 guests