Projections and mere projections

[plwk]

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?

[tomamundsen]

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?

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.

[Nosta]

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?

[ground]

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?

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

[Rael]

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....

[mudra]

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.

[ground]

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

[mudra]

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.

[ground]

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