Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism

Postby Nilasarasvati » Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:01 am

tobes wrote:
Nilasarasvati wrote:I'm gonna share my weird personal reflections to veer us (somewhat) back on:

Only a wingnut, eccentric, charming/dangerous, terrifying magician like him could magnetize the incredibly arrogant, nihilistic, traumatized and cynical intellectuals and deviants like me. In fact, part of why I got interested in Tibetan Buddhism is because of the writings of Alan Ginsburg, who in so many ways epitomizes radical embodiment and radical thought. Somebody who recognized how psychedelia was a crucial step for westerners to taste the nondual; perhaps to even "catch up" psychically when their Materialist Cartesian Nihilist, Judeo-Christian Theist world had so stunted them.

So...radicals, queers, hippies, those who still believe that counter-culture was the best thing that ever happened to American (and Western) culture--only Trungpa Rinpoche could have got through to us. To make us realize the oppressor wasn't outside but inside. To, most importantly, show that Buddhist teachers were something more than just obsolete Medieval sorcerers thrust into a world where they had nothing to offer but the desperate superstition and ritual we had so long ago rejected in the Catholic clergy.

:spy: For a degenerate nihilist perv like me or Alan Ginsburg, what other Guru could scrape us out of the gutter?


Great post. Nailed. Tells us something very profound, and also begs the question: what of Tibetan Buddhism in the west now? Radical or conservative? Disrupting the status quo or endorsing it?

:anjali:




In Short:

Given that Tantra was in its historical origins, transgressive (against a Brahmin/Sattvic/dualistic Vedic society) how does/doesn't contemporary Vajrayana in the West fit into notions and attempts to upset the dominant value system of our materialist/Capitalist/postmodern/dualistic society?

If it is (or isn't) doing these things, why? What do you wish was different?
User avatar
Nilasarasvati
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 3:08 am
Location: Trāyastriṃśa. Just kidding. What a cool sanksrit word, huh?

Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism

Postby Indrajala » Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:29 am

Great post. Nailed. Tells us something very profound, and also begs the question: what of Tibetan Buddhism in the west now? Radical or conservative? Disrupting the status quo or endorsing it?


Judging from the commodification of Buddhism, in particular Tibetan Buddhism, I would say it is readily being endorsed and appropriated by the system into a marketable and ready-made lifestyle. It is fully customizable, too, down to the selection of meditation cushions available for purchase.

You hear Buddhists talking about fund raising, making themselves appealing to people, sanitizing undesirable elements (like the lesser place females are supposed to occupy in the hierarchy) and so forth, and you might get the sense they are marketing themselves rather than pursuing liberation.

Given that Tantra was in its historical origins, transgressive (against a Brahmin/Sattvic/dualistic Vedic society) how does/doesn't contemporary Vajrayana in the West fit into notions and attempts to upset the dominant value system of our materialist/Capitalist/postmodern/dualistic society?


I think the initial secrecy of Vajrayāna in India reflects oppression rather than an attempt at being transgressive (Mahāyānists were already transgressive).

In contrast, Vajrayāna in the west is out in the open. There are Kālacakra empowerments for tens of thousands of people. Esoteric knowledge is readily made available to the public. In some cases institutions are presumably funded by those persons who benefit greatly from capitalism (this isn't just Tibetan Buddhism of course as a lot of Chinese organizations are evidently funded by industrialist capitalists rather than the local farmers).

How many Vajrayāna practitioners are really non-conformist and living in the underworld away from authorities? You have religious freedom, so you don't need to hide.

As far as I can tell most western Vajrayāna practitioners conform quite suitably to the prevailing norms of modern capitalist society.
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog)
Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog)
Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog)
Dharma Depository (Site)

"Hui gives me no assistance. There is nothing that I say in which he does not delight." -Confucius
User avatar
Indrajala
Former staff member
 
Posts: 5563
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: India

Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism

Postby Nilasarasvati » Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:40 am

Judging from the commodification of Buddhism, in particular Tibetan Buddhism, I would say it is readily being endorsed and appropriated by the system into a marketable and ready-made lifestyle. It is fully customizable, too, down to the selection of meditation cushions available for purchase.


It's in these regards that we have a LOT in common, Indrajala. I think the commodification of the Dharma is nauseating and horrendous. Dharma jewelry, magazines, turning practitioners into a "market" is the slickest way to subvert everything the Buddhist path stands for. The problem is that renunciation is never really absorbed by most dilettante/bedside table readers/practitioners of the Dharma. And by that I don't mean the taking of vows or (obviously) the inhabitation of a cave. I mean people don't sacrifice their consumerist, scientific/materialist/nihilist/postmodern/shallow/feelgoodwhateverthecost/don'tthinkaboutdeath value system.

In my opinion, that often has to coincide with a recognition of the interdependent arising you've taken for granted: I. E. Maybe it means acknowledging that your comfort stands on the shoulders of those less fortunate (your grill was enameled by a man dying of cancer from the chemicals somewhere in China) and therefore you must consciously arouse Bodhicitta because your privilege entails indebtedness.
User avatar
Nilasarasvati
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 3:08 am
Location: Trāyastriṃśa. Just kidding. What a cool sanksrit word, huh?

Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism

Postby jeeprs » Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:58 am

I bet 99% of those who have heard of 'tantric Buddhism' believe it simply means ritualized sexul magic. (In exotic locations, too!) I think if you were obliged to sign away all your possessions before signing up for it, it would introduce a welcome salutary caution. Short of that, I think it is probably 'the religion they practice in Shangri-La' for most people. Which is one reason it is considered so 'cool' in Hollywood.
He that knows it, knows it not.
User avatar
jeeprs
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism

Postby Zhen Li » Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:01 am

One may ask to what degree Tibetan Tantra conserved the truly transgressive elements of Indian Tantra. Obviously hardly at all, and one loses the real transgressive nature of the practices if they are the only form of Buddhism in the country. Part of the power behind transgression is that it is against the norm.

Moreover, Tantra is not radical. I suggest Ronald Davidson's books on this topic, he's pretty much the foremost expert on Tantric Buddhism in India.

Tantra is a spiritual mirror of the feudal system (samanta) in India, and was not practiced by wondering ascetics but was deeply tied to moneyed elites, Maharajas, and the big monasteries. Marpa was described by contemporaries for not being able to care less about the average practitioner, preferring to spend time in palaces discussing supramundane matters with princes. Tantra is fundamentally imperial, not only is it a manifestation of the Brahmanical tendency to absorb the foreign into it's own logic, but actively conquers these foreign forces.

The only real 'radical' element is probably the different status afforded women within Tantra, and even that still reflects harsh aspects of a highly rigid and conservative society. It was not non-dual in opposition to a dualist society because non-Tantric Brahmanism/Hinduism had and has non-dual elements already.

People need to stop having utopian beliefs about what Buddhism was in the past. It was never perfect, and never will be, because it is not unconditioned - that is beyond such labels. So long as one grasps to the idea of an identity within Tantra, be it radical or conservative, one misses the point thereof.

Also, everything has unlimited causes and conditions, and produces unlimited causes and conditions. If a certain school makes itself more marketable, this may conflict with our preconceived notions, but may produce amazing amounts of merit and conditions for future practitioners which we are too blind to see because we have some dust in that part of our eyes. This is similar to why we must not disparage other religions - we do not know what kind of skillful means the Buddhas have placed within them for people for different inclinations.

Thus, we must not accuse other practitioners and say that they are not practicing tantra correctly, or Buddhism correctly, because they may shop more than us, or go to Starbucks more than us. This has always been present in Buddhism, and possibly even Tantra to a larger extent. Instead, watch your own mind - only you can emancipate yourself. :meditate:
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism

Postby Indrajala » Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:30 am

Nilasarasvati wrote:It's in these regards that we have a LOT in common, Indrajala. I think the commodification of the Dharma is nauseating and horrendous.


A lot of western Buddhists actually turn against the core values of their adopted religious tradition, yet don't realize it. They're just doing what comes naturally of course given their cultural background and circumstances, but unfortunately it isn't really a wise direction they're taking. Some people are opportunistic and make a killing off selling Dharma and Dharma related products. Some become paid gurus and meditation instructors, too. This of course has precedents in Asia, sure, but the advertising and image projection that you see in Buddhist magazines is a western innovation (which has curiously been adopted by a lot of groups in Asia, especially Taiwan).

I mean people don't sacrifice their consumerist, scientific/materialist/nihilist/postmodern/shallow/feelgoodwhateverthecost/don'tthinkaboutdeath value system.


This has to do with the triumphalism behind modern western society: the normalcy, superiority and matter of fact quality of our way of life and values. I recently read a piece by Dmitry Orlov and he describes how sick at least American society is (which represents the western world in general, Europe and Canada included):

    I recently told an audience a few things about their own country (the United States). I pointed out that their country is number one among developed countries in quite a few categories, such obesity (Mexico is number two), divorce rate, one-person households, children being raised fatherless, child abuse death, sexually transmitted disease infection rate, teenage pregnancy rate, incarceration rate, depression and stress-related ailments.

    I pointed out that one-third of the children in the US are fatherless, that one-quarter of teenage girls in the US have at least one sexually transmitted disease, that a quarter of the women in the US are prescribed antidepressants at one point or another, that a third of all the employees suffer chronic debilitating stress and one-half experience stress that causes insomnia, anxiety and depression. I told them that they are killing themselves in record numbers, suicide being the leading cause of injury death, ahead of the also plentiful car accidents and gunshot wounds. I told them that the extent of their social inequality and societal neglect is worthy of a third-world banana republic.

    And I told that audience what they, according to numerous opinion polls, think of their government: their Congress is less popular than cockroaches, lice, root canals, colonoscopies, traffic jams, used car salesmen and Genghis Khan. And they took all that on board and even chuckled. Yes, it's all true.


http://cluborlov.blogspot.in/2013/06/a- ... shame.html

So, clearly the American system (and I would include Canada as a very close relative incidentally) is doing rather poorly, yet people insist their values are true and noble. Their ideas are simply normal and a positive product of cultural and social evolution. The belief in progress underlies all such notions. The present system is infinitely better than the past because women and coloured people can vote, whereas the past and all past values and models for society and philosophy were backwards and unfair. We've progressed beyond all that now (history and the state of present affairs would make it appear otherwise).

A lot of basic values in Buddhism are incompatible with the lifestyles and ideologies of our present day in the first world. This is perhaps why westerners have such a hard time swallowing what they call "ethnic Buddhism", because their values are "traditional" and their beliefs "superstitious". The whole array of gods, spirits, devas, pretas, asuras and cosmic bodhisattvas are there. People believe in ghosts and pray for their dead relatives. Monks get preferential status over nuns. Laypeople (and monastics) generally prefer to recite scriptures and pray rather than meditate because they feel it benefits their lives a lot more. This is all perfectly in line with how Buddhist traditions generally evolved in Asia. It worked well for them, too, given the continuity of their traditions and lore over many centuries.

However, to step away from your purportedly superior system of modern beliefs and values, and to recognize that maybe alternative models are equally if not more viable and healthy requires you to maybe rebel against your native culture.

It is dangerous, though, because going from one form of reality-mapping to another is potentially discomforting. For instance, you might go from never really thinking non-corporeal beings exist to thinking they really do exist. In a lot of circles you're going from being a "rationalist" to "superstitious" (which makes you look dumb to a lot of people). You might also realize you've been overlooking an important component of reality, and that all those ancient authors were not just talking nonsense when they spoke of respecting the gods.
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog)
Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog)
Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog)
Dharma Depository (Site)

"Hui gives me no assistance. There is nothing that I say in which he does not delight." -Confucius
User avatar
Indrajala
Former staff member
 
Posts: 5563
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: India

Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism

Postby Nilasarasvati » Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:55 am

While I TOTALLY agree with your horrendous portrait of the corruption and decay of our society in North America, as we both know from prior discussion we have very different feelings and thoughts on why that is the case. Opposite, even. Some people thing society's problems come from the top (me.) Others would argue society's problems come from the bottom. That's my rendering of our differences, anyway. Someday I hope you get a copy of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States of America. It may change nothing other than how long ago you think this stuff began.

Off topic. Anyway.
I wanted to re-define/refine the original post. I wasn't really clear, although Ben Yuan and Indrajala have done amazing job sharing some perspectives and very accurate information about the Historical breakdown of how transgressive Vajrayana really Wasn't (Ben Yuan--very astute--and I've always wondered if that might be the case!) and the current co-opting of the Dharma by mainstream corruption.


Although the historical transgressiveness of the Tantra (in terms of charnel ground practices etc.) was part of my original question (and the "spirit" of nondual, socially taboo tantric practice), what I really meant to focus on is Tobe's quote

what of Tibetan Buddhism in the west now? Radical or conservative? Disrupting the status quo or endorsing it?


My first thoughts were these: Trungpa Rinpoche endorsed a normalizing force within the Hippies he attracted. He told them--your inner life, your mind should be as radical and colorful, as vibrant as can be. On the outside, however, you're clark Kent. You've got to have a job, a life, even a family. You have to buy-in to some extent, in order to do what's really important.

I want to hear people disagree with that. I want to hear people agree with that. I want to share this, as well : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxwToM5RflU and I want to hmm and haw over the pros and cons and I want to hear from Radicals and Queers especially, if you are out there.
User avatar
Nilasarasvati
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 3:08 am
Location: Trāyastriṃśa. Just kidding. What a cool sanksrit word, huh?

Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism

Postby Indrajala » Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:13 am

The few radical Tibetan Buddhists I know who display mental stability are in Asia. These are folks who live either legally or illegally in places like Nepal for years learning Dharma without much concern for consumer lifestyles, investments, retirement and even their passports.

I don't think they'd fit in with the Dharma crowds in their home countries. In fact, they don't. That's maybe why they abandoned their native cultures (for a time at least) and came to Asia. They're radical enough that they never even provisionally bought into the mainstream lifestyle back home. They're practitioners and serious about it. That's why I respect them a lot. They have to suffer a lot of hardships of course. Some could end up in serious trouble (jail time) if they were caught having lived illegally without a visa or even a passport for close to a decade. Not only that, they need to contend with living in a third world country and all the problems that come with it (lack of hygiene for example).

But spiritual practice should be a struggle. That's how you grow.

I don't think western Buddhists are going to disrupt their native cultures so much. The only way it would happen is if they offered a viable and alternative lifestyle, both socially and economically, like widespread monasticism or communal living of some sort. That might happen as industrial civilization slowly unravels and our energy intensive solo-lifestyles become infeasible.
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog)
Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog)
Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog)
Dharma Depository (Site)

"Hui gives me no assistance. There is nothing that I say in which he does not delight." -Confucius
User avatar
Indrajala
Former staff member
 
Posts: 5563
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: India

Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:44 am

Hate to bring up Trungpa again..but since his thread spawned this one:

Something interesting he talked about was that people who fundamentally recoil at, and try to distance themselves entirely from western materialism have missed the point of "working with things as they are." I believe this was even from just a general Mahayana perspective, as the Bodhisattva lives on poison and all..

Anyway, it's a vague statement obviously, but I thought it'd be worth mentioning given especially what Ben said about skillful means...I too recoil at commercialism and "Dharma lite" sort of approaches of course..i'm just not so sure that trying to get everyone to be agrarian renunciates is anything but a fantasy, though it sounds wonderful.

I get kind of grossed out by 'magazine Buddhism' in some ways too...I just can't help but feel that an approach that says "well, that's just not real Buddhism" is doomed to failure..though clearly, i'm not saying it IS either.
Last edited by Johnny Dangerous on Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:54 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Just as a lotus does not grow out of a well-levelled soil but from the mire, in the same way the awakening mind
is not born in the hearts of disciples in whom the moisture of attachment has dried up. It grows instead in the hearts of ordinary sentient beings who possess in full the fetters of bondage." -Se Chilbu Choki Gyaltsen
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism

Postby Konchog1 » Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:48 am

Nilasarasvati wrote:My first thoughts were these: Trungpa Rinpoche endorsed a normalizing force within the Hippies he attracted. He told them--your inner life, your mind should be as radical and colorful, as vibrant as can be. On the outside, however, you're clark Kent. You've got to have a job, a life, even a family. You have to buy-in to some extent, in order to do what's really important.
There's a saying (that I'd love to have the source for) that a mantra practitioner should be in accordance with the hinayana on the outside, the mahayana on the inside, and the vajrayana in secret.

This isn't the same as what Trungpa Rinpoche said, but it's similar in spirit.
Equanimity is the ground. Love is the moisture. Compassion is the seed. Bodhicitta is the result.

-Paraphrase of Khensur Rinpoche Lobsang Tsephel citing the Guhyasamaja Tantra

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.
Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.
Through the qualities of meditating in that way,
Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

-Ra Lotsawa, All-pervading Melodious Drumbeats
User avatar
Konchog1
 
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:30 am

Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism

Postby Huifeng » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:30 am

Konchog1 wrote:There's a saying (that I'd love to have the source for) that a mantra practitioner should be in accordance with the hinayana on the outside, the mahayana on the inside, and the vajrayana in secret.


In the Lotus Sutra (Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtram), in Kumarajiva's translation into Chinese:
《妙法蓮華經》卷4〈8 五百弟子受記品〉:
「內祕菩薩行,外現是聲聞」
(CBETA, T09, no. 262, p. 28, a17)

"Internally they hide the actions of a bodhisattva,
"Externally they appear as a sravaka."

Half way there, minus the Vajrayana part.

~~ Huifeng
User avatar
Huifeng
 
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism

Postby Sherab Dorje » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:56 am

I don't think you can conceive of radical and conservative as absolutes.

For example: people often ask me why they don't see me "out on the town". I tell them it's because I don't drink (gasp, shock horror!) and going out to bars is actually pretty boring if you are not wasted and anyway, I have a tonne of practices to do (that's when they look at me with an incredibly puzzled look on their face). I tell young men that I am a monogamist and consider sleeping around when in a relationship bad form (what, are you out of your mind???) as it is unfair on the person one is in a relationship with and the person you happen to be sleeping with (most people I have met use casual sex as a (failed) entryway into relationships anyway). When we go out for food people always ask me why I am a vegetarian, (what??? you don't eat meat?) and I answer: "it is because I respect life". Etc...

All these stances are, objectively, quite conservative, but seem radical in current socities. So whilst drinking booze, eating meat and shagging were a radical departure from Buddhist monasticism then, well now, they are just boring and ordinary. Whereas it was considered radical in the 50's to not go to church on Sundays, nowadays it is weird if you do.

I do believe that if one wants to correctly live the tantric ideal then one must look at what is religiously subversive (in ones own religious tradition) RIGHT NOW! But subversion for the sake of subversion? NO! The changes instigated by tantric adepts were an attempt to shake the ossified order out of its lethargic sleep walk (on the one hand) and a very real attempt to save Buddhism from those that were destroying it (on the other). It was out of a necessity for survival, not a need for new poses/posturing.

So what do we need right now?
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7899
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism

Postby Astus » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:50 am

There are always religious stories (hagiographies, myths, legends, etc.) that serve a purpose within their own context. It is an error to believe that such stories are actual historical accounts, that's not why they are told and retold again and again. It's like the tales told to children and films people like to watch, all that forms a cultural environment. Buddhist stories convey certain values and principles, but they are not direct reflections of actual historical events. Also, stories are usually written (long) after the events supposedly happened, and they are meant for a specific audience. For instance, Zen koans tell more about how people imagined Zen in the Song dynasty rather than anything historical from the Tang era.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism

Postby tobes » Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:04 am

To clarify where I was coming from:

Nilasarasvati drew us back to the time when the dharma per se (not merely tantra) intersected with radical counter cultural movements in America. Beats like Ginsberg were so overtly politically committed - it must have taken a lot of courage to be an avowed communist in cold war America. If we are to generalise a social theory or ethos from the Beats, it was a radical rejection of bourgeois values. Buddhism seemed to really take stock in that context: it spoke to hippies, trippers, poets and activists.

Who does it speak to now? (let us say, in America, but perhaps more generally too, in non-traditional places).

Does it resonate far more broadly within mainstream society? (I think it clearly does).

Are dharma practitioners more likely to be comfortable, relatively affluent, career oriented? (subversive poets and radical marxists.....maybe, but perhaps as the exception now).

Is the dharma more likely to be about smoothly living a balanced, happy, fulfilling life? (insert Radiohead lyric: fitter, happier and more productive....).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK0njkATf84

In short, defending the status quo it once seemed to utterly disrupt??

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
 
Posts: 985
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism

Postby tobes » Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:12 am

Think those Radiohead lyrics could actually be a Ginsberg poem speaking to contemporary Buddhists (myself included):


Fitter, happier, more productive,
comfortable,
not drinking too much,
regular exercise at the gym
(3 days a week),
getting on better with your associate employee contemporaries ,
at ease,
eating well
(no more microwave dinners and saturated fats),
a patient better driver,
a safer car
(baby smiling in back seat),
sleeping well
(no bad dreams),
no paranoia,
careful to all animals
(never washing spiders down the plughole),
keep in contact with old friends
(enjoy a drink now and then),
will frequently check credit at
(moral) bank (hole in the wall),
favors for favors,
fond but not in love,
charity standing orders,
on Sundays ring road supermarket
(no killing moths or putting boiling water on the ants),
car wash
(also on Sundays),
no longer afraid of the dark or midday shadows
nothing so ridiculously teenage and desperate,
nothing so childish - at a better pace,
slower and more calculated,
no chance of escape,
now self-employed,
concerned (but powerless),
an empowered and informed member of society
(pragmatism not idealism),
will not cry in public,
less chance of illness,
tires that grip in the wet
(shot of baby strapped in back seat),
a good memory,
still cries at a good film,
still kisses with saliva,
no longer empty and frantic
like a cat
tied to a stick,
thats driven into
frozen winter shit
(the ability to laugh at weakness),
calm,
fitter,
healthier and more productive
a pig
in a cage
on antibiotics.
User avatar
tobes
 
Posts: 985
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism

Postby jeeprs » Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:32 am

definite embarrased twinge of recognition.... :emb:
He that knows it, knows it not.
User avatar
jeeprs
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism

Postby Sherab Dorje » Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:32 am

Love Radiohead! :twothumbsup:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7899
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism

Postby lobster » Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:56 am

tobes wrote:Think those Radiohead lyrics could actually be a Ginsberg poem speaking to contemporary Buddhists (myself included):


Indeed. :popcorn:
The idea that we have no source of inspiration ( a sort of Bon-Bon ) to add, augment and flavour our 84 special dharmas is limiting.

We have poets and art, freemasonry and every religion under the Sun and above the Son. We have philosophy, psychology and techno-Buddhism emerging.

We have dissidents, communes, tree hungers and Eco warriors, we have mediators and contemplatives. We have jazz jammers and mantra rappers. We have candles and fragrance in our bathrooms. We have trance in our dance. We have self evident noble truths in our democracy. We have tales of Celtic riddles, we have legends of Saints and Dragons to make any Naga recoil.

Maybe we do not require Micky Mouse Buddhism . . .
http://zennist.typepad.com/zenfiles/201 ... ature.html
Mickey Mouse: All for one...
Goofy: And two for tea!

We have enough crazy wisdom and jesters to fill our asylums and enough compassionate charities to finance them . . . it is a question of sifting, updating, expressing, adding etc. The dharma has found its greatest flowering. Will it die or enlighten our mall?

I take refuge in the Buddy, the Dhrama and the Sangria. :woohoo:
User avatar
lobster
 
Posts: 910
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:06 pm

Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:37 pm

Nilasarasvati wrote:
Given that Tantra was in its historical origins, transgressive (against a Brahmin/Sattvic/dualistic Vedic society) how does/doesn't contemporary Vajrayana in the West fit into notions and attempts to upset the dominant value system of our materialist/Capitalist/postmodern/dualistic society?


Tantra was not transgressive. Or to put it another way; Vajrayāna tantras were no more transgressive than, for example, the Arthavaveda.
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism

Postby Astus » Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:38 pm

I believe that commodification and commercialisation of Buddhism is a necessary step in spreading the Dharma. Ordinary religious practice can be embraced by a growing number of individuals only when it seems useful, interesting, satisfying and it is easily accessible. Salvation of the masses takes simple practices. Scholars and ascetics are the elite specialists, the rest is satisfied with a few nice words and colourful pictures.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Next

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Norwegian and 12 guests

>