Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:35 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:41 am
Posts: 2776
Quote:
http://www.ymba.org/parable/parabfr3.htm
PARABLE 0145: SUPERNATURAL BEINGS
"In secular Western thought, awareness of psychological projection as a source of supernatural being has served to demythologize demons, goblins, angels and saints and rob them of their power.
The Bardo Thodol [Tibetan Book of the Dead], however, speaks of the deities as 'projections' but never as 'mere projections.'
The deities are present and must be dealt with religiously ... not just by intellectual insight."
(D.G. Dawe in The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions, p. 93.)

What does the above mean to you? :popcorn:

_________________
TWTB BIES OCB DDM BWF


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:50 am
Posts: 545
Location: Los Angeles, CA
plwk wrote:
Quote:
http://www.ymba.org/parable/parabfr3.htm
PARABLE 0145: SUPERNATURAL BEINGS
"In secular Western thought, awareness of psychological projection as a source of supernatural being has served to demythologize demons, goblins, angels and saints and rob them of their power.
The Bardo Thodol [Tibetan Book of the Dead], however, speaks of the deities as 'projections' but never as 'mere projections.'
The deities are present and must be dealt with religiously ... not just by intellectual insight."
(D.G. Dawe in The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions, p. 93.)

What does the above mean to you? :popcorn:

My interpretation is that he is saying that in the West, people view the yidams, dakinis, etc. as being projections of our mind - not actual sentient beings. However, the Tibetan scriptures teach that all sentient beings are projections of the Dharmakaya, which necessarily includes yidams, dakinis, etc. In this view, the yidams and dakinis are just as real as we are, which is still ultimately a projection of ultimate reality.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:28 pm
Posts: 698
It means that some projections are real. In fact they are projections in the same way that my computer is a projection, or my hands, or you, etc..everything is a projection. Mere Projections are toughts, fears, etc...things that one cannot touch so to say.

So, if they talk on projections (and note on mere projections), that means that demons, gods etc are real. They exist somewhere one other dimension, etc.

Could it be? :shrug:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
plwk wrote:
Quote:
http://www.ymba.org/parable/parabfr3.htm
PARABLE 0145: SUPERNATURAL BEINGS
"In secular Western thought, awareness of psychological projection as a source of supernatural being has served to demythologize demons, goblins, angels and saints and rob them of their power.
The Bardo Thodol [Tibetan Book of the Dead], however, speaks of the deities as 'projections' but never as 'mere projections.'
The deities are present and must be dealt with religiously ... not just by intellectual insight."
(D.G. Dawe in The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions, p. 93.)

What does the above mean to you? :popcorn:


What is the difference between "dream" and "mere dream"? The difference is just a deliberate emphasis of the speaker depending on context, right? But "dream" still is "dream".

Kind regards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:36 pm
Posts: 477
I've entertained the notion of God the Creator concepts...

For awhile I was a pantheist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
It was due to my Buddhist training.

I loathe the whole using the word supernatural to describe anything like God , gods demi gods, deities .

If it is indeed part of the natural order of things it is not supernatural.

there was this die hard Catholic poster on a forum who always referred to her God the creator as supernatural and i always thought it a put down so to speak....something supernatural is above what is natural.....the gods are natural , the hungry ghosts are natural...they are only supernatural to the ignorant. If she really believed in her Catholic god then it was all part of nature...lol....

i know i'm mad as a march hare and spring is encroaching on me.... :rolling:

_________________
Love Love Love


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:55 am
Posts: 453
if you see your face in the mirror, you know the image reflected is a 'mere reflection' of the 'existing face'. Then there is the 'existing' face, which of course is dependently arisen as well. But they are definitely not the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
mudra wrote:
if you see your face in the mirror, you know the image reflected is a 'mere reflection' of the 'existing face'. Then there is the 'existing' face, which of course is dependently arisen as well. But they are definitely not the same.


They are not the same if touched, thought about etc. but they are the same in that none of them is beyond the sphere of the aggregates.

Kind regards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:55 am
Posts: 453
TMingyur wrote:
mudra wrote:
if you see your face in the mirror, you know the image reflected is a 'mere reflection' of the 'existing face'. Then there is the 'existing' face, which of course is dependently arisen as well. But they are definitely not the same.


They are not the same if touched, thought about etc. but they are the same in that none of them is beyond the sphere of the aggregates.

Kind regards


Nothing that can be known is beyond the aggregates.

But in as much as they are both dependent arisings, one is dependent on the arising of the other. The 'existing face' however doesn't depend on the reflection, unless it is it's quality in comparison that is being discussed (long/short, wide/narrow, face/reflection). It can be validly cognized by the senses as existing in the conventional realm.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
mudra wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
mudra wrote:
if you see your face in the mirror, you know the image reflected is a 'mere reflection' of the 'existing face'. Then there is the 'existing' face, which of course is dependently arisen as well. But they are definitely not the same.


They are not the same if touched, thought about etc. but they are the same in that none of them is beyond the sphere of the aggregates.

Kind regards


Nothing that can be known is beyond the aggregates.

But in as much as they are both dependent arisings, one is dependent on the arising of the other. The 'existing face' however doesn't depend on the reflection, unless it is it's quality in comparison that is being discussed (long/short, wide/narrow, face/reflection). It can be validly cognized by the senses as existing in the conventional realm.


It depends on the aggregates. Both the reflection in the mirror and the cause. The thought "existing" also depends on the aggregates. It is volitional formation, perception, consciousness ...

Kind regards


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LastLegend and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group