The naive realism of thinking that there is direct perception
Gileht.com
realism is false. Therefore naive realism, if true is false; therefore it is
false".
-- Bertrand Russell, An Inquiry into Meaning and Truthp. 15, 1950. Unwin
Paperbacks, London.
Since not all Buddhist seems to understand that to think there is such a
thing as "direct perception" is called "naive realism" and that it has been
refuted by modern philosophies and sciences, I shall post many text on this
in the next days.
"Direct perception" is a concept borrowed from the Indian pre-Buddhist
scholls of the Nyana. They are also called the naive realists. Hinayana and
Vajrayana are based on this naive realism. They didn,t know better at that
time. But we do.
Gileht
============
naive realism - the view that we can know things in the world directly
without taking into account our uncertainties and doubts.
============
Naive realism (The Oxford Companion of Philosophy)
http://www.xrefer.com/entry/552884
A theory of perception that holds that our ordinary perception of physical
objects is **direct**, unmediated by awareness of subjective entities, and
that, in normal perceptual conditions, these objects have the properties
they appear to have. If a pickle tastes sour, the sun looks orange, and the
water feels hot, then, if conditions are normal, the pickle is sour, the sun
orange, and the water hot. Tastes, sounds, and colours are not in the heads
of perceivers; they are qualities of the external objects that are
perceived. Seeing an object is not (as representative theorists maintain)
seeing it, so to speak, on mental television where the properties of a
subjective sense-datum or percept (e.g. colour) represent or 'stand in for'
the objective, scientific properties of the external object (wavelength of
reflected light). Although this theory bears the name 'naļve', and is often
said to be the view of the person on the street, it need not deny or
conflict with scientific accounts of perception. It need only deny that
one's perceptual awareness of objective properties involves an awareness of
the properties of subjective (mental) intermediaries.
=================
There's a sucker born every minute.
http://www.boogieonline.com/seeking/first/yesterday.html
Naive realism is a way of looking at the world. Ways of looking at the world
are sometimes dressed up with the word "philosophy," but I won't split a
hair's difference.
True naive realists would never sum up or analyze their views, because they
do not consider them views but the way things obviously are. However, I will
do my best to illuminate them:
"I, the naive realist, am a human being. There is this one physical world,
the space where everything exists and the time in which everything happens.
There are many things in this physical world, each largely separate from the
other and persisting over a span of time. Time is divided into 'now,' which
is real and experienced, 'the past,' which once existed but now does not,
and 'the future,' which does not exist yet but will.
"My senses give me direct knowledge of reality. If I see a chair, it is
because there is a chair physically where and when I see it. There are
exceptions, like when I am dreaming or watching a movie, but these are rare
and obviously not real.
"I can know things through my senses, through thinking about things, and
through communication with other people. Other people's beliefs may be
correct or not, but beliefs of people I respect, and beliefs held commonly
by most people in my society, are usually true."
Naive realism sounds reasonable enough, but it can lead to science, which as
we shall see, contradicts naive realism on nearly every account.
================
Comments on "Naive Realism - short essay"
http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/4368.php
Naive realism is just a way of looking at the world. Also called common
sense realism, ***things are perceived directly*** as they are. True naive
realists would never sum up or analyze their views, because they do not
consider them views but the way things obviously are. However, I will do my
best to illuminate them:
"I, the naive realist, am a human being. There is the physical world, the
space where everything exists and the time in which everything happens.
There are many things in this physical world, each largely separate from the
other and persisting over a span of time. Time is divided into 'now,' which
is real and experienced, 'the past,' which once existed but now does not,
and 'the future,' which does not exist yet but will.
"My senses give me direct knowledge of reality. If I see a chair, it is
because there is a chair physically where and when I see it. There are
exceptions, such as when I am dreaming or watching a movie, but these are
rare and obviously not real.
"I can know things through my senses, through thinking about things, and
through communication with other people. Other people's beliefs may be
correct or not, but beliefs of people I respect, and beliefs held commonly
by most people in my society, are usually true."
Science used to support naļve realism to a certain point, that is to say,
things being what they seem was the easiest, and the only answer in the
not-so-distant past. However, eventually classical science broke away from
naļve realism in a major way. Scientists drew a line in the sand between
"objective reality" and "subjective perception." All of a sudden, the grass
wasn't really green and the sky wasn't blue, in fact, they had no color at
all. Color became the interaction between light, the object, and the human
eye. For example, if I'm looking at a red rose, science says that the light
from the sun hits the flower, which both absorbs and reflects the light. A
small portion of that reflected light hits the human eye, which puts aside
most of it and instead focuses on an even smaller portion that we call
visible light. It then ignores most of the visible light and focuses again
on a smaller, stronger portion, which my eye would translate as the color
red.
Science, therefore, gave birth to a sort of sophisticated realism, where
human beings do not perceive things as they truly are, but rather
perceptions arise as a result of the interaction of the human and its
environment. Perception does not show the object as it truly is, but in the
way it interacts with human senses.
=============
Peter asked:
http://www.philosophos.com/knowledge_base/archives_10/philosophy_questions_1
026.html
I have been doing some reading in scientific thought. I would greatly
appreciate some direction and or
thoughts on the following two points:
*If a science such as physics tries to base its conclusions on the "truths"
of the universe, even though
scientists try hold to the ideal that their conclusions are not a **naive
view** of what is really true by not
depending directly on their perceptions via the senses, are not all of their
theories derived at some
point and founded on the percepts derived from the very senses from which
they do not trust?
*Since science operates empirically on induction is it not much more than a
leap of faith that even a
million experiments is too small a sample to conclude within a reasonable
confidence limit, since all
the possible experiments that could be done far exceeds those that ever will
be done...so much so
that those that are done add up to a number approaching zero as those that
could be done approach
infinity?
Your first question reminded me of Bertrand Russell. A quick internet
search unearthed the
following famous, or infamous quote:
Physics assures us that the occurrences which we call "perceiving" objects,
are not likely to resemble
the objects except, at best, in certain very abstract ways. We all start
from **"naive realism"**, i.e., the
doctrine that things are what they seem. We think that the grass is green,
that stones are hard, that
the snow is cold. But physics assures us that the greenness of grass, the
hardness of stones, and the
coldness of snow, are not the greenness, hardness, and coldness that we know
in our own
experience, but something very different. The observer, when he seems to
himself to be observing a
stone, is really, if physics is to be believed, observing the effects of a
stone upon himself. Thus
science seems to be at war with itself: when it most means to be objective,
it finds itself plunged into
subjectivity against its will...
And now the famous bit:
++++++++++++++
...Naive realism leads to physics, and physics, if true, shows that naive
realism is false.
Therefore naive realism, if true is false; therefore it is false".
Bertrand Russell, An Inquiry into Meaning and Truthp. 15, 1950. Unwin
Paperbacks, London.
++++++++++++++
Do we have to accept that physics, if true, shows that naive realism is
false? And if we do, does it
matter? I used to think that physics does show that naive realism is false,
but that it doesn't matter.
That's what Russell seems to be saying. Physics can still be true, so to
hell with our common sense
beliefs about the world of our sense perception.
I now think that Russell is far too quick to concede the sceptical argument
against the common sense
or naive view of perception. Just because a chain of physical causes and
effects is involved in human
perception, it doesn't follow that when I seem to perceive a chair, what I
really 'perceive' is Russellian
sense data, or the product of processes going on in my own brain.
However, so far as your question is concerned, what I think isn't
important. Either way, physics is still
true.
Your worry about induction seems at first sight very plausible. Once again
I am reminded of
Russell. (I won't quote him this time.) Picture this. Each day, as the sun
goes down, the farmyard
chicken says, 'I wasn't slaughtered today.' So, each day, the inductive
evidence in favour of the
proposition, 'I won't be slaughtered tomorrow' increases. - Are we really in
a better position than
Russell's chicken?
The chicken's problem is that it lacks the bigger picture. That is always a
worry. You thought all
swans were white, but you have never visited New Zealand. There is always a
doubt whether or not
we have selected a representative sample.Even if we put aside that worry,
however, there still seems
to be a huge discrepancy between the small number of cases examined, and the
number of cases
that have not been examined, so small, in fact as to make the number of
examined cases diminish to
an infinitesimal fraction as we increase the angle of view to take in the
whole universe.
The worry is groundless. To see this, imagine the following case. There is
a large barrel in the
cupboard with boiled sweets. The barrel is too big to move, and there is no
light in the cupboard. So
you fish around, right to the bottom, grab several handfulls of sweets, and
examine them in the light
of day. Every single one of the sweets is red. Provided the sweets are
picked at random so that you
have a representative sample, that is excellent evidence that the large
majority of sweets in the barrel
are red, even if your sample is only a small fraction of the whole. This is
what common sense tells us,
and what the mathematics of probability theory confirms.
Of course, you can't use this method to prove that every single sweet in
the barrel is red. You can't
prove that there isn't one blue sweet down there somewhere. The point to
make here is that the
example of the jam barrel differs in one crucial respect from gathering
evidence for scientific theories:
the generalizations we seek to gather inductive evidence for in science are
lawlike.If there is a
contrary instance somewhere, then we shall look for, and can expect to find
a relevant difference that
explains it.
Geoffrey Klempner
--
Gileht --- to email me use gileht at gileht dawt komm
Web site: http://www.gileht.com
Gileht.com
"Gileht.com" <for...@it.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
cqS%9.1700$qQ.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> ..."Naive realism leads to physics, and physics, if true, shows that naive
> realism is false. Therefore naive realism, if true is false; therefore it
is
> false".
> -- Bertrand Russell, An Inquiry into Meaning and Truthp. 15, 1950. Unwin
> Paperbacks, London.
>
>
>
> Since not all Buddhist seems to understand that to think there is such a
> thing as "direct perception" is called "naive realism" and that it has
been
> refuted by modern philosophies and sciences, I shall post many text on
this
> in the next days.
>
> "Direct perception" is a concept borrowed from the Indian pre-Buddhist
> scholls of the Nyana. They are also called the naive realists. Hinayana
and
> time. But we do.
>
>
[snip a few articles]
>
>
The best way to convince yourself that there is no possible direct
perception, even without conceptualization, is to look at examples of
perceptual illusions. There are many web sites that present examples of
those perceptual illusions (mostly visual, and a few auditive since it is on
the Internet).
I am giving here a list of a few of those web sites where you can experiment
yourself those perceptual illusions that are still active even if you are
not using thinking (or conceptualization).
While you do this ask yourself if direct perception is possible then how
come you expereiencing those illusions that are the result of your neural
net and its imperfection (= accumulated karma build-in your hardware and
acquired neural connections).
Please enjoy:
--
Gileht --- to email me use gileht at gileht dawt komm
Web site: http://www.gileht.com
Illusion Forum - Introduction to Illusions
http://www.brl.ntt.co.jp/IllusionForum/menu-e.html
Sandlot science.com
http://www.sandlotscience.com/
Joy of visual perception
http://www.yorku.ca/eye/
Visual Illusions
http://ahsmail.uwaterloo.ca/kin356/illusion/pageOne.html
Does the mind always represent the world accurately and unambiguously?
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cfs/305_html/Gestalt/Illusions.html
Richard Gregory FRS is Emeritus Professor of Neuropsychology at the
University of Bristol
http://www.richardgregory.org/
Exploratonium
http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/cafe_wall/cafe.html
Cognition and Perception Links
http://www.socialpsychology.org/cognitiv.htm#illusions
Grand Illusions
http://www.grand-illusions.com/
Illusions
http://wwwedu.ge.ch/co/critic/illusions.html
The Carousel of Illusions
http://www.ulb.ac.be/psycho/fr/docs/museum_en/Carrousel/Illusions_b.html
Motion Perception
http://www.biols.susx.ac.uk/home/George_Mather/Motion/index.html
Steven Lehar
http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/pub/slehar/Lehar.html
Perceptual science group MIT
http://www-bcs.mit.edu/persci/
Ch'an Fu
"Gileht.com" wrote:
Look at this: .
If you say you saw nothing, you're a liar.
If you say you saw something, you're a tale-teller.
That's all there is to 'direct perception'.
Colin Hankin
<for...@it.net> writes
Hello Gileht,
(snip interesting bits)
Scientists use instruments to find out more about the world than direct
perception can tell us. They observe with more sophisticated instruments
than we have at our disposal as mechanically unaided human beings
(limited as we are to our senses).
But just think of sensory observers as scientists using a set of
instruments with limitations that we are well aware of.
These instruments are adequate for their purpose. All I need do is
recognise a rose. I don't need to know the wavelength of the light it
reflects. I only need to know that it is what we all have agreed to call
"red".
Surely, all perception is direct.
It is just inferior or superior ( partial or complete?) depending on the
instruments in use.
TTFN
>
>
>
>
--
Colin Hankin email: zen...@zenprime.demon.co.uk
web page: http://www.zenprime.demon.co.uk
Sphere
Gileht.com wrote:
> "Gileht.com" <for...@it.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
> cqS%9.1700$qQ.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>>..."Naive realism leads to physics, and physics, if true, shows that naive
>>realism is false. Therefore naive realism, if true is false; therefore it
>
> is
>
>>false".
>>-- Bertrand Russell, An Inquiry into Meaning and Truthp. 15, 1950. Unwin
>>Paperbacks, London.
>>
>>
>>
>>Since not all Buddhist seems to understand that to think there is such a
>>thing as "direct perception" is called "naive realism" and that it has
>
> been
>
>>refuted by modern philosophies and sciences, I shall post many text on
>
> this
>
>>in the next days.
>>
>>"Direct perception" is a concept borrowed from the Indian pre-Buddhist
>>scholls of the Nyana. They are also called the naive realists. Hinayana
>
> and
>
>>Vajrayana are based on this naive realism. They didn't know better at that
>>time. But we do.
>>
>>
>
> [snip a few articles]
>
>>
>
> More on this:
>
> The best way to convince yourself that there is no possible direct
> perception, even without conceptualization, is to look at examples of
I'm inclined to perceive the best way
as spending some time perceiving your
own perceptions. Sudden changes in
lighting puts the lie to any notion
of direct perception.
I do, however, like illusions. I might
spend some time checking out your links.
--
All conditions are impermanent.
All conditions are imperfect.
All which is held is without self.
Sphere
A rose has no color.
Ch'an Fu
Colin Hankin wrote:
> In article <cqS%9.1700$qQ.6...@news20.bellglobal.com>, Gileht.com
> <for...@it.net> writes
>
> Hello Gileht,
> (snip interesting bits)
> Scientists use instruments to find out more about the world than direct
> perception can tell us. They observe with more sophisticated instruments
> than we have at our disposal as mechanically unaided human beings
> (limited as we are to our senses).
> But just think of sensory observers as scientists using a set of
> instruments with limitations that we are well aware of.
>
> These instruments are adequate for their purpose. All I need do is
> recognise a rose. I don't need to know the wavelength of the light it
> reflects. I only need to know that it is what we all have agreed to call
> "red".
not even that.
That Guy
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E403136...@all.com...
But does it reflect more of some wavelengths of light and absorb more of
others?
Ch'an Fu
Sphere wrote:
what's a 'rose'?
Ch'an Fu
That Guy wrote:
what color is it at night?
Sphere
Dunno. Something Colin wants
to refer to.
boris_fuller
"I do, however, like illusions" - Sphere
Ch'an Fu
Boris, Fuller wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 21:27:36 GMT, Sphere <no...@all.com> wrote:
>
> "I do, however, like illusions" - Sphere
"Remember, anything you may say can be used against you."
boris_fuller
...by any other name would smell as sweet...
(like mouldy patchouli)
Boris
boris_fuller
...and if you do not say something which you later rely on in a court
of law....
Boris
William Tucker
WM
Ch'an Fu
William Tucker wrote:
> he is playing th ejudy in this play of life...
>
> WM
thot u gave up
tee
vee
tee
hee
William Tucker
.
.
.
.
.
a rose is everycolour except red...a rose has n o smellbeerp..
William Tucker
"Ch'an Fu" <Cha...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk> wrote in message
news:3E4035C8...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk...
the same color it was in the daytime
using the ordinary definition of what color is
being natural
not skating on the eddies of agrrrrrrrrrrrreement....just being
naiive/native/withit
...
Ch'an Fu
Boris, Fuller wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 17:15:56 -0500, Ch'an Fu
> <Cha...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk> wrote:
>
> >
> >Boris, Fuller wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 21:27:36 GMT, Sphere <no...@all.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> "I do, however, like illusions" - Sphere
> >
> >"Remember, anything you may say can be used against you."
> >
>
> ...and if you do not say something which you later rely on in a court
> of law....
>
> Boris
that must have meant something,
but we can leave that to the lawyers...
Ch'an Fu
William Tucker wrote:
ordinary definition
just needs a little work...
yellow rose
red rose
white rose
pick one
in the dark
nose closed
hands gloved
closer? or further?
oh, nice toilet paper wad
rosie
directing
perception
directly
elephants
are not
what they seem
boris_fuller
<Cha...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk> wrote:
>
>
>Boris, Fuller wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 17:15:56 -0500, Ch'an Fu
>> <Cha...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Boris, Fuller wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 21:27:36 GMT, Sphere <no...@all.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "I do, however, like illusions" - Sphere
>> >
>> >"Remember, anything you may say can be used against you."
>> >
>>
>> ...and if you do not say something which you later rely on in a court
>> of law....
>>
>> Boris
>
>that must have meant something,
>but we can leave that to the lawyers...
>
it meant
that silence
(in british law)
is not a defence
you're stuffed if you do
and you're stuffed if you don't
Boris
That Guy
"Ch'an Fu" <Cha...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk> wrote in message
news:3E4035C8...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk...
Rose-colored.
William Tucker
as a young man I experimented
with placing cards face down...and naming them...
very simple...ace of something...
sharp red...diamonds
round black...clubs
pointy black spades..
curvy red hearts...
my friend and I did this
for a couple of hours until we felt that we had
witnessed and could repeat
we didn't touch them before we turned them...
right in the high 70's probability is 1/4
some blind people can smell color, or see it
with their fingertips
as a healer I had classes in High Sense Perception...
chakra sensing among other things...
remote sensing...extending our auras, and so on
this thread to me is
sort of like walking from accepted map to accepted map and rather boring
> oh, nice toilet paper wad
> rosie
>
> directing
> perception
> directly
>
> elephants
> are not
> what they seem
I am missing your point
>
and then how do explain astral...
no senses
sight and sound without body..
smell at a distance...
I breathe sandalwood and send it to you
what's that?
be real...
like there is no self....who is recieving th esandalwood...
like there is no such thing as direct perception...or sharedself
I don't care that much you can say what you like, I do
I don't understand your point about elephants though if you
want to take it further...
although I do understand that you're pointing at the blind men elephant
analogy...
unless you're talking about not moving from the path of the god elephant
joke
Wm
norbu_tragri
> ..."Naive realism leads to physics, and physics, if true, shows that naive
> realism is false. Therefore naive realism, if true is false; therefore it is
> false".
> -- Bertrand Russell, An Inquiry into Meaning and Truthp. 15, 1950. Unwin
> Paperbacks, London.
>
>
>
> Since not all Buddhist seems to understand that to think there is such a
> thing as "direct perception" is called "naive realism"
What is merely translated in English as "direct perception" has
nothing
whatsoever to do with any theories, be they naive realism, atomism,
nihilism,eternalism, or any -ism.
> and that it has been
> refuted by modern philosophies
> and sciences,
Oh, please, Gil, lts not repeat this...A week or so ago you were
claiming that
Tibetan Buddhism/Buddhism denied direct perception, and then you
turned around
and renounced them becuase they did not agree with your interpretaton
of Nagarjuna...So now you're a week or so away from also repudiating
"modern philosophy" (as if that was a monolithic view!) and
"science"...
Science utilizes objective instruments to measure events on more or
less
arbitrary yardsticks....If everything was merely imputed, then the
instrument
measuring some wavelenght in a red-shift would have to compare that to
some
imputed blue shift, some logically imputed yellow shift, black shift,
and white
shift, before it could note a shift or non-shift in the red spectrum.
Instuments measuring their "percptions" without recourse to
imputation...
Now shall we discuss Whitehead, Broad, Maslow etc.?
I shall post many text on this
> in the next days.
>
> "Direct perception" is a concept borrowed from the Indian pre-Buddhist
> scholls of the Nyana. They are also called the naive realists.
As i have said repeatedly, what is translated into English there as
"direct
perception" has no bearing what so ever on is being discussed here.
Nyaya theories about perception and reality remained in the domain of
speculative views without ever testing the theoretical by the
experiential,
which, pardon me, is also what you are doing. Try doing
samatha/vipasyana,
which the Buddha taught was at least a third of the path (and you
won't
find a way to say the Buddha -ever- said otherwise!)- for at least a
few months,
and then come back to Nagarjuna and this discussion.
> Hinayana and
> Vajrayana are based on this naive realism. They didn,t know better at that
> time. But we do.
An incongruous ficticious claim such as this seems to a departure from
rational assesment by study and participation on the one hand, and,
on the other hand that there is no such animal as "Hinayana" in the
modern
world. Theravada is not "Hinayana", and i can quote Vajrayana teachers
who say so. In fact "Hinayana" only exists are a preliminary training
phase of the "Vajrayana" schools, and at that a respected -basic-
stage
without which all further stages would just be fantasy! You are
tilting at
windmills Don Q.. Let the books collect dust for awhile.
>
> Gileht
cupcake
Norbu wrote:
> An incongruous ficticious claim such as this seems to a departure from
> rational assesment by study and participation on the one hand, and,
> on the other hand that there is no such animal as "Hinayana" in the
> modern
> world. Theravada is not "Hinayana", and i can quote Vajrayana teachers
> who say so. In fact "Hinayana" only exists are a preliminary training
> phase of the "Vajrayana" schools, and at that a respected -basic-
> stage
> without which all further stages would just be fantasy! You are
> tilting at
> windmills Don Q.. Let the books collect dust for awhile.
>
well, this is where me and yu diverge, Norbu, sweets --
for, i say that "Hinayana" is, in fact, the beginning
and the end to *all* of The Buddha'a Teachings, and
that *all things* Vajrayana are entirely superfluous!
William Tucker
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
news:Rs80a.75$Yq....@news.more.net...
did you mean super fluent...
extraordinaire, with great appeal and lustorous to the eye...
heart and atman
have gun for hire, was the card of a man...
WM
Gileht.com
"Colin Hankin" <cha...@zenprime.demon.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news: jYtavDCR...@zenprime.demon.co.uk...
I think we have a different definition of "direct perception".
The concept of direct perception in philosophy or religion means that one
can directly perceive the "essence of the object perceived" and that
nothing can change that. The concept of direct perception is intimately
linked with the concept of essence. They imply that the thing perceived
exist independently of the perceiver and that this one has a direct
knowledge of the object and of all of its characteristics.
So to understand what I am talking about you have to have a clear
understanding of what is assumed here, what is this "essence" that is
directly perceived.
So I would suggest you look into various encyclopaedias and web texts about
what is direct perception, what is naive realism, what is this essence that
is assumed in naive theories of perception.
The mere fact that scientists are using various instruments (filters) to
observe phenomena proves that perception is not direct. Our eyes and neural
nets are instruments like that; their fallibility (the illusions) is the
proof that there is no direct perception.
Even a robot with some perceptual sensors and limited intelligence can only
perceive what the limitations of his sensors and algorithms permit him to
perceive and deduct. Some call the perception of a robot direct perception
because it is very "material" but that is not the meaning of direct
perception I am talking about.
Hope this help a bit.
Sphere
norbu_tragri wrote:
...
> on the other hand that there is no such animal as "Hinayana" in the
> modern
...
Hello.
cupcake
Sphere wrote:
> norbu_tragri wrote:
>...
>> on the other hand that there is no such animal as "Hinayana" in the
>> modern
>...
>
>
> Hello.
>
>
don't be harassing Norbu now, Sphere -- i mean,
after all, it's his job, as a high ranking officer
of the Vajrayana ta do sleazy "spin doctoring".
Sphere
Oh fuck Cuppie, I only take on the label
Hinayana because they call it a "lessor way".
I like Joanna Macy's "Primitive Buddhism"
better. That way I can go off and talk
about 'Ugg' and not give a damn.
norbu_tragri
Maybe not such a departure:
"Hinayana" was a term invented by the self-proclaimed "Mahayana".
The Saddarmapundarika Sutra was one early version of this "Mahayana",
that dissed Arhants and proclaimed the "superior" altuism of the
bodhisattva's intention to become a Buddha and teach the dharma.
(Theravada also allows for those practioneers called to the
bodhisattva
path, [someone has to train to be the next Buddha, and the next after
that] but they do not regard that a "superior" path.)
The other early branch of "Mahayana" was formulated in the
Prajnaparamita
Sutra-s, which concerned the teaching of there being no principle of
own-being/self. These sutras may not have originally been "Mahayana"
at all, and the occasional emphasis in them on the bodhisattva path
might have been later additions (i gather that this is Tang's view of
them).
In any event "hinayana" is a concept of the "Mahayana", and not the
way the Theravadins or (now extinct-)Sarvastivadins would designate
themselves.
Around the time that the "Mahayana" was arising in India as a monastic
movement, the buddhadharma was continuing as a tradition among
householders
and hermits ("forest renunciants"). These two groups, without the onus
of a centralized authority, began to teach the buddhadharma in the
popular
religious language of India of that time, i.e., the symbolism that
later
became known as "Tantra". Now what was being taught in the householder
and forest traditions was not controlled by an authority, and so
blended
the teachings of what became the Thervada, the Sarvastivada, the
"Mahayana",
and the Prajnaparamita...along with a generous dose of popular Indian
symbolism. The end result was something that rejected the hard-core
"Mahayana" teachings of a bodhisattva having to go through thousands
of
lifetimes to perfect virtue; instead that movement taught, like what
was to become the Theravada, that one can awake in this life time.
Also, like
the Theravada, they did not accept the neo-atomism of the
Sarvastivada,
i.e., dharmas are not "Things", like so many Lego building blocks,
rather,
as the Prajnaparamita people taught, dharmas were processes of
interdependence
as viewed from a particular intentionality.
Around this time another view of the buddhadharma that had been in all
the
schools broke away as a separate movement: they were monastics who
found
a common thread withsome of this alternate tradition emphasis on
"experience/
realization", not "verbal constructs of theory". This seems to have
been
a reaction against the hardcore "Mahayana-ists" co-opting the
Prajnaparamita
movement and turning their texts into a Dogma. They also had more akin
to
the Theravadin school, and developed an "Abhidharma" that rejected the
Sarvastivadin views, took in some Prajnaparamita influence, but was
not
much different from what Buddhaghosa taught. This was termed
"cittamatra",
in that perception was noted as not a fictious "self" or "other", but
that
the so-called objects of perception arose together with a so-called
self
as a perciever...but such theories were just mentation, and that
direct
experience was more basic than any theory/thinking about what exists
or
doesn't exist. (Some of the later practioners of this movement seem to
erred and to havae made a "Theory" of even this.)
This view also informed the non-authoritarian communities in India,
even as it was used by "Mahayana"ists and "Hinayana"ists alike to
set up new monastic communities.
This was the non-sectarian/non-authoritarian view that was
transplanted to
Tibet. With a few failures and political censorship....It was as much
proto-Theravadin as "Mahayana"...with the popular Indian "Tantric"
language imposed on it.
Anyhoo, to get to the point, the Vajrayana, in general, teaches what
is
called "Mahamudra", ("Dzogchen" as slightly different teaching in the
Nyingmapa lineage): "Sutra Mahamudra" is about this last Indian
movement;
"Tantra Mahamudra" follows that, and involves the teaching of
buddhadharma
in the popular language/symbols of India if that age; "Essence
Mahamudra"
underlayed all these symbols from the get-go, and is concerned
with....
....guess what?....Shamatha/Vipashyana meditation! Even using analytic
vipashyana in the early stages, just like Buddhaghosa noted, then
going on to "formless" meditation...
So what is taught in the end in "Vajrayana" (actually that term refers
to
"Tantra-Mahamudra", whereas this final phase is refered to as
"Sahajayana",
"Naturalness", in the sense of not cooking anything up, so to speak,
further "bhava", of letting the samskaras and mentation dissolve.
Sorry for so much history stuff.
The Sahajayana does indeed start training with "the hinayana" as the
revered
basis of practice, without which all further practice is a fantasy;
and it ends with shamatha/vipashyana, just as you implied.
All that "Mahayana" and "Tantra" stuff in the middle is supposed to
purify a student for this last training.
i'm not sure that we have diverged so far apart...
But there is much more to discuss. My teacher said that the Theravada
had
at least as much the of whole thing as the Non-sectarian (Rime)
Tibetan
movement had...Not "Triumphalism"....
Anyhoo,
best to you this fine day!
-n. :)
norbu_tragri
> norbu_tragri wrote:
> ...
> > on the other hand that there is no such animal as "Hinayana" in the
> > modern
> ...
>
>
> Hello.
heeeheeeheee!
Okay, you get to be.
But my point to Gil was that those folks Naggie was dissing are long
dead and gone....
By the way, in the "nine yanas" tradition we all start of as "hinayana",
and without that grounding in reality whatever might follow is just fiction.
The last yana, big surprise, returns to those same techings to wrap it up
and take it home, so to speak.
But Gileht might dump on you big time if he decides that you're the
only Hinayanist left standing...............
cupcake
Norbu Tragri wrote:
well, yer "vajra robes" and all its trappings do
nothing for me -- i'll stick with the elegance
of The Buddha's basic message (and what proceeds
from that message :)
(ie. bhava-nirodha/Nirvana)
Sphere
norbu_tragri wrote:
> Sphere <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:<3E414476...@all.com>...
>
>>norbu_tragri wrote:
>>...
>>
>>>on the other hand that there is no such animal as "Hinayana" in the
>>>modern
>>
>>...
>>
>>
>>Hello.
>
>
> heeeheeeheee!
>
> Okay, you get to be.
>
> But my point to Gil was that those folks Naggie was dissing are long
> dead and gone....
Those folks never quite were.
>
> By the way, in the "nine yanas" tradition we all start of as "hinayana",
> and without that grounding in reality whatever might follow is just fiction.
> The last yana, big surprise, returns to those same techings to wrap it up
> and take it home, so to speak.
Without that grounding it isn't realized
that whatever follows is just fiction, as
is the grounding.
The error isn't in it being fiction. The
error is in expecting more than fiction.
Our Devadatta makes the error of dissing
fiction.
Running in the park may not be fiction, but
even the slightest thought about running in
the park is fiction -- such as calling it
running, or imagining a park.
>
> But Gileht might dump on you big time if he decides that you're the
> only Hinayanist left standing...............
I seem to have Cuppie for company,
although that does give me pause...
norbu_tragri
i live on a little island os the western coast of Canada.
Most of my day i cook meals, wash dishes, wash clothes,
clen house. a few times a year i get work , 17 hr days, and
hire a local teen to do my chores. i get over to the big island to
visit the sangha (of which i am a meer -middle student-, of no
particular
notice or account, certainlly not an official or teacher)
perhaps twice a year.
and i don't spin nuffin, cuz i just can't be bothered to roll in the
mud,
Peter. You will note i did not deny either situation you are refering
to
in the least. i only noted that Thomas Rich - A. Ignored Trungpa's
suggestion
to lay off the sleeping around stuff, and B. thought that he was
"Magically"
protected from disease, a belief from his pre-buddhist days.
How is that "spin"??? In the case of the seminary party with the
gung-ho
students you will find that what i said coincides with the critical
account given in "The Naropa Poety Wars",...except that i saw a
trifling incongruity
in some spin in part of that account: You see, anyone who had
acctually met
Trungpa would have first noticed juct how frail he was: he had next to
no
movement on one side of his body following the '69 car accident in
England
(which he addmitted was his own fault for speeding to get somewhere,
and he
lost controll on a turn and crashed into a closed shop front <all the
shops
were closed, it was late> ): he could only walk with great difficulty,
sometimes requiring help just for that. So the version of him as the
Cosmic
Raging Ape throwing punches willy nilly is just so....Wierd! He wasn't
physically cappable of that sort of behavior!!! Nor was it in
character for
him to order the abusive handling of anyone else...No other allegation
was ever made before or following this, and the alleged victoms,
Mr.Merwin and spouse,
stayed on at that seminary for another month of teaching/sitting when
they
were free to leave...it wasn't in the deep woods, some isolated
village,
or on some desert isle. There is so much that doesn't add-up/make
sense
in the "spin" of "The Naropa Poetry Wars" that some comment to that
effect
seemed called for.
In the first case, no denial at all, just adding the report that he
thought he
was magically protected. In the secound case, noting that no gung-ho
command was given by Trungpa, and that he was, again , as anyone who
met him will
tell you, severly disabled (Also the central point of much of his
teaching
was about non-aggression....)...Also not a denial that a royal scew-up
went down (although ,fortunately, the injuries sustained were some
glass-cuts
by the gung-ho students).
"Spin"? Lies would come out sooner or later, they always do, and that
would
just perpetuate the myths on either side, which is to no one's benefit
in the long run. And the Sangha did deal with Mr.Rich back then,
although there
was little alternitive leadership in place...Students rose to the
occassion,
Mr. Rich went into "exile" and the Sangha turned to the next
designated
teachers, Mipham Rinpoche, Kobun Roshi, as well being open to teachers
from all lineages. That was how this disaster was survived.
i don't see why i would want to "spin" either story from my own point
of view,
because they both saddened me and pissed me off and sealed my
determination
to put up with no corruption or abuse by anyone in office (i think
this is
where our disscussion began some months back); and i gather that
attitude is
rather wide spread in the sangha nowdays....
(Sorry if this sounds artificial, as i am aware others might read
this,
and "Cups, what the fuck are you talkin' about? Come on over and kick
my lame ass senseless if you think i'm bullshiting you - like why in
hell
would i do that to you after you have given me good advice???" might
sound
a little wierd to some...)
cupcake
Norbu Tragri wrote:
yes, but, "Tantric sex practices" still persist in
the Vajrayana, don't they?
norbu_tragri
> cupcake wrote:
> > Sphere wrote:
> >
> >
> >>norbu_tragri wrote:
> >>...
> >>
> >>>on the other hand that there is no such animal as "Hinayana" in the
> >>>modern
> >>
> >>...
> >>
> >>
> >>Hello.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > don't be harassing Norbu now, Sphere -- i mean,
> > after all, it's his job, as a high ranking officer
> > of the Vajrayana ta do sleazy "spin doctoring".
>
> Oh fuck Cuppie, I only take on the label
> Hinayana because they call it a "lessor way".
>
> I like Joanna Macy's "Primitive Buddhism"
> better. That way I can go off and talk
> about 'Ugg' and not give a damn.
wwwhhaaa???
how did this become a new thread???
(pout)
i posted a couple responses to this
on the larger whatever thread this was part of...
don't feel much like doing it again...
might just post one awful pun after another,
until brain death results!...grr...grr...
(Waggles fingers ala rabbit fangs like Tim the Enchanter)
cupcake
cupcake wrote:
you may speak freely, Norbu -- i think that i have
already sufficiently demonstrated that i have considerable
expertise in the domain of "sex", and the power of sex
over the human psyche
Tang Huyen
norbu_tragri wrote:
> heeeheeeheee!
>
> Okay, you get to be.
>
> But my point to Gil was that those folks Naggie was dissing are long
> dead and gone....
>
> By the way, in the "nine yanas" tradition we all start of as "hinayana",
> and without that grounding in reality whatever might follow is just fiction.
> The last yana, big surprise, returns to those same techings to wrap it up
> and take it home, so to speak.
>
> But Gileht might dump on you big time if he decides that you're the
> only Hinayanist left standing...............
The Naggie who was the author of the Middlist Verses did not diss the early
canon, but quoted it reverently. He deconstructed everything, including the Four
Noble Truths, but did *not* deconstruct Dependent Arisal, emptiness (which is
*just another way of looking at* Dependent Arisal: all thing-events are empty of
essence because they are dependently arisen), and the result of Buddhist path,
which is the abandon of all views (as already taught by the layman Anathapindada
in the early canon) and the quiescence of all proliferation (prapańcopasama). As
I often quote, to him (Nagarjuna), the Buddhist sage sees reality
(tattva-darsana), and sees
reality because he has stopped all compositions (samskara).
Now, as to what you say:
<<in the "nine yanas" tradition we all start of as "hinayana", and without that
grounding in reality whatever might follow is just fiction. The last yana, big
surprise, returns to those same techings to wrap it up and take it home, so to
speak.>>
any and all of Buddhism, if it is to be Buddhism -- that is, the teaching on
suffering and the ending of suffering -- must conform to the Buddha's teaching,
and so far as I can ascertain, nothing superior to his teaching has been found.
His teaching can be expanded on, as the Perfection of Wisdom scriptures
attempted to do, but any and all such attempts are like adding legs to a
painting of a snake, because Buddhist wisdom is purely purgative and to attempt
to add to is is nonsensical, even counterproductive.
What he taught was a way to strip off our delusion, but such a way has the
danger of being reintegrated into delusion and thereby reinforcing delusion
rather than doing away with it.
The vast majority of Buddhist doctors fell and fall into that predicament and
turn the Buddha's teaching against its purpose, in that they turn it into a tool
for thickening delusion rather than thinning it out and eventually dropping it
entirely. Starting with the Abhidhamma-Abhidharma and continuing with the Great
Vehicle and the Diamond Vehcile, they look down on the Buddha's teaching as
inferior (yes, the doctors of the Abhidhamma-Abhidharma do that, too) and
elaborate their own version of a superior doctrine in its stead, and largely
create fantasmagoric worlds that hinder Buddhist cultivation or even block it
entirely.
The grounds (bhumi) of the Bodhisattva career were in a bind, because they were
invented -- and there were different versions of them -- to trumpet the
superiority of the Bodhisattva's attainments over those of arhat-s, but Great
Vehiclistic doctors twisted themselves into pretzels trying to invent any
superiority of ... the Bodhisattva's attainments over those of arhat-s, because
so far as wisdom is concerned, it stops with the quiescence of mentation or
proliferation, and that is supposed to be accomplished at the sixth or seventh
ground, so all higher grounds are ... fantasmagoric, and *are bound to be so*.
Recently we had a taste of that non-stop fantasmagoria from the Bhiksuni.
So, as you say, <<The last yana, big surprise, returns to those same techings
["hinayana"] to wrap it up and take it home, so to speak.>> If it didn't, it
wouldn't be Buddhist. And all the roundabout meanderings in between have been in
utter vanity.
Chinese Chan was largely a rejection of the Great Vehicle with its Bodhisattva
career and a return to the early canon, and that was where the battle-cry "In
this very body, accomplish Buddhahood" came from. It meant arhat-ship, pure and
simple.
Tang Huyen
cupcake
Tang Huyen wrote:
> Chinese Chan was largely a rejection of the Great Vehicle with its
> Bodhisattva career and a return to the early canon, and that was where
> the battle-cry "In this very body, accomplish Buddhahood" came from.
> It meant arhat-ship, pure and simple.
>
> Tang Huyen
>
you are music to my ears, Tang :)
cupcake
cupcake wrote:
i mean, isn't the whole point of "Tantric sex practice"
to manipulate and maneuver the "consort" into shedding
the ego (the "self") ?
Sphere
norbu_tragri wrote:
> Sphere <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:<3E41482...@all.com>...
>
>>cupcake wrote:
>>
>>> Sphere wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>norbu_tragri wrote:
>>>>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>on the other hand that there is no such animal as "Hinayana" in the
>>>>>modern
>>>>
>>>>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hello.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> don't be harassing Norbu now, Sphere -- i mean,
>>> after all, it's his job, as a high ranking officer
>>> of the Vajrayana ta do sleazy "spin doctoring".
>>
>>Oh fuck Cuppie, I only take on the label
>>Hinayana because they call it a "lessor way".
>>
>>I like Joanna Macy's "Primitive Buddhism"
>>better. That way I can go off and talk
>>about 'Ugg' and not give a damn.
>
>
> wwwhhaaa???
> how did this become a new thread???
There is nothing new under the sun. ;)
(Would you prefer: Accidents happen ?)
> (pout)
(apout)
> i posted a couple responses to this
> on the larger whatever thread this was part of...
> don't feel much like doing it again...
> might just post one awful pun after another,
> until brain death results!...grr...grr...
> (Waggles fingers ala rabbit fangs like Tim the Enchanter)
\ /
O
Pema
would that be cortney love or 9 inch nails? plus, i think he's
wrong, twisted it or missed something.... he should come forth with
his sources on that.
cupcake
> Re: The naive realism of thinking that there is direct perception
>
> From: Radio...@aol.com (Pema)
> Reply to: [1]Pema
> Date: 6 Feb 2003 10:06:24 -0800
> Organization: http://groups.google.com/
> Newsgroups:
> [2]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,
> [3]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [4]alt.zen
> Followup to: [5]newsgroups
> References:
> [6]<3E42807D...@yahoo.com>
> [7]<iuv0a.90$Yq....@news.more.net>
>cupcake <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message [8]news:<iuv0a.90$Yq....@news.more.net>..
>.
>> Tang Huyen wrote:
>>
>> > Chinese Chan was largely a rejection of the Great Vehicle with its
>> > Bodhisattva career and a return to the early canon, and that was where
>> > the battle-cry "In this very body, accomplish Buddhahood" came from.
>> > It meant arhat-ship, pure and simple.
>> >
>> > Tang Huyen
>> >
>>
>>
>> you are music to my ears, Tang :)
>>
>
> would that be cortney love or 9 inch nails? plus, i think he's
> wrong, twisted it or missed something.... he should come forth with
> his sources on that.
>
well, i think yer nothing but a little Mahayana-Vajra toady
cupcake
cupcake wrote:
... and, of course, to, always, continually reinforce
the "Master's" equanimity and detachment :)
Colin Hankin
>
>
>Colin Hankin wrote:
>> In article <cqS%9.1700$qQ.6...@news20.bellglobal.com>, Gileht.com
>> <for...@it.net> writes
>> Hello Gileht,
>> (snip interesting bits)
>> Scientists use instruments to find out more about the world than direct
>> perception can tell us. They observe with more sophisticated instruments
>> than we have at our disposal as mechanically unaided human beings
>> (limited as we are to our senses).
>> But just think of sensory observers as scientists using a set of
>> instruments with limitations that we are well aware of.
>> These instruments are adequate for their purpose. All I need do is
>> recognise a rose. I don't need to know the wavelength of the light it
>> reflects. I only need to know that it is what we all have agreed to call
>> "red".
>> Surely, all perception is direct.
>> It is just inferior or superior ( partial or complete?) depending on the
>> instruments in use.
>> TTFN
>
Then its not a rose!
TTFN
>
>
--
Colin Hankin email: zen...@zenprime.demon.co.uk
web page: http://www.zenprime.demon.co.uk
Colin Hankin
<for...@it.net> writes
>I think we have a different definition of "direct perception".
>
>The concept of direct perception in philosophy or religion means that one
>can directly perceive the "essence of the object perceived" and that
>nothing can change that. The concept of direct perception is intimately
>linked with the concept of essence. They imply that the thing perceived
>exist independently of the perceiver and that this one has a direct
>knowledge of the object and of all of its characteristics.
>
>So to understand what I am talking about you have to have a clear
>understanding of what is assumed here, what is this "essence" that is
>directly perceived.
>
>So I would suggest you look into various encyclopaedias and web texts about
>what is direct perception, what is naive realism, what is this essence that
>is assumed in naive theories of perception.
>
>The mere fact that scientists are using various instruments (filters) to
>observe phenomena proves that perception is not direct. Our eyes and neural
>nets are instruments like that; their fallibility (the illusions) is the
>proof that there is no direct perception.
>
>Even a robot with some perceptual sensors and limited intelligence can only
>perceive what the limitations of his sensors and algorithms permit him to
>perceive and deduct. Some call the perception of a robot direct perception
>because it is very "material" but that is not the meaning of direct
>perception I am talking about.
>
>Hope this help a bit.
>
I think I am getting a little closer.
Is the bottom line there is no essence; all the world is illusion?
I read the following somewhere:
"Awareness and Consciousness are not stand-alone, self-powering,
self-fueling entities, they cannot generate the material that they
process. Therefore whatever they process (the experiential evidence of
the senses) has to exist prior to and independently of the process."
In addition to that, if I were to ask a hundred "normal" people to
whisper confidentially to me what commonplace object I had concealed in
a nearby container and their senses could not be relied upon to reliably
interpret reality because the object had no unique essence, each one
would have to guess at what the container held. In doing so they would
be forced to choose from a near infinite set of possible objects. The
odds against the first one guessing correctly are astronomical let alone
the odds against one hundred all reporting the same object.
So they cannot be guessing. This is further proof that there must be an
"essence" underlying our perceptions.
We agree on labels for objects in the real world. What unique and
highly individual electric impulses they produce in our brain is
immaterial. We teach each other to refer to aspects of reality in an
agreed code - that code is language.
What I experience as red may be totally different from your experience
but the object itself is red. I tell you it is red and you call your
experience - which (though unique) is invariable - red .The fluctuations
are in the perceiver not in the objects of perception and language
renders those fluctuations irrelevant.
This does not weaken the Buddha's argument, because there is no need
to rely on the world being illusory if the central tenet of Buddhism
(Nirvana
is the extinction of desire) is correctly understood to be a description
of the
mechanism of happiness, not a philosophy of life.
Gileht.com
"Colin Hankin" <cha...@zenprime.demon.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de news: 3RuPd7Df$rQ+...@zenprime.demon.co.uk...
Samyutta Nikaya XXII.95 (Phena Sutta) Foam
On one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Ayojjhans on the banks of the Ganges River. There he addressed the monks: "Monks, suppose that a large glob of foam were floating down this Ganges River, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a glob of foam? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any form that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in form?
"Now suppose that in the autumn -- when it's raining in fat, heavy drops -- a water bubble were to appear & disappear on the water, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a water bubble? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any feeling that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in feeling?
"Now suppose that in the last month of the hot season a mirage were shimmering, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a mirage? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any perception that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in perception?
"Now suppose that a man desiring heartwood, in quest of heartwood, seeking heartwood, were to go into a forest carrying a sharp ax. There he would see a large banana tree: straight, young, of enormous height. He would cut it at the root and, having cut it at the root, would chop off the top. Having chopped off the top, he would peel away the outer skin. Peeling away the outer skin, he wouldn't even find sapwood, to say nothing of heartwood. Then a man with good eyesight would see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a banana tree? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any fabrications that are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him -- seeing them, observing them, & appropriately examining them -- they would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in fabrications?
"Now suppose that a magician or magician's apprentice were to display a magic trick at a major intersection, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a magic trick? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any consciousness that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in consciousness?
"Seeing thus, the well-instructed noble disciple grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he grows dispassionate. Through dispassion, he's released. With release there's the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One Well-Gone, the Teacher, said further:
"Form is like a glob of foam;
feeling, a
bubble;
perception, a mirage;
fabrications, a banana tree;
consciousness, a magic trick --
this has been taught
by the
Kinsman of the Sun.
However you observe them,
appropriately examine
them,
they're empty, void
to whoever sees them
appropriately.
Beginning with
the body
as taught by the One
with profound discernment:
when
abandoned by three things
-- life, warmth, &
consciousness --
form is rejected, cast aside.
When bereft of these
it lies thrown away,
senseless,
a meal for others.
That's the way it goes:
it's a
magic trick,
an idiot's babbling.
It's said to be
a murderer.
No substance here
is found.
Thus a monk,
persistence aroused,
should view the aggregates
by day & by night,
mindful,
alert;
should discard
all fetters;
should make himself
his own refuge;
should live as if
his head were on fire --
in
hopes of the state
with no falling
away."
Pema
take care of yourself petie. be good and keep your eyes on the prize.
love, dana
cupcake
> Re: The naive realism of thinking that there is direct perception
>
> From: Radio...@aol.com (Pema)
> Reply to: [1]Pema
> Date: 6 Feb 2003 18:44:01 -0800
> Organization: http://groups.google.com/
> Newsgroups:
> [2]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,
> [3]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [4]alt.zen
> Followup to: [5]newsgroups
> References:
> [7]<Hwx0a.94$Yq....@news.more.net>
>cupcake <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message [8]news:<Hwx0a.94$Yq....@news.more.net>..
>.
>> >
>> > Re: The naive realism of thinking that there is direct perception
>> >
>> > From: Radio...@aol.com (Pema)
>> > Reply to: [1]Pema
>> > Date: 6 Feb 2003 10:06:24 -0800
>> > Organization: [9]http://groups.google.com/
>> > Newsgroups:
>> > [2]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,
>> > [3]talk.religion.buddhism,
>> > [4]alt.zen
>> > Followup to: [5]newsgroups
>> > References:
>> > [6]<3E42807D...@yahoo.com>
>> > [7]<iuv0a.90$Yq....@news.more.net>
>.net>..
>> >.
>> >> Tang Huyen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Chinese Chan was largely a rejection of the Great Vehicle with its
>> >> > Bodhisattva career and a return to the early canon, and that was where
>> >> > the battle-cry "In this very body, accomplish Buddhahood" came from.
>> >> > It meant arhat-ship, pure and simple.
>> >> >
>> >> > Tang Huyen
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> you are music to my ears, Tang :)
>> >>
>> >
>> > would that be cortney love or 9 inch nails? plus, i think he's
>> > wrong, twisted it or missed something.... he should come forth with
>> > his sources on that.
>> >
>>
>>
>> well, i think yer nothing but a little Mahayana-Vajra toady
>>
>
> take care of yourself petie. be good and keep your eyes on the prize.
> love, dana
>
got it! thanks!
LongDang
Pema wrote in message
<7cc3084b.03020...@posting.google.com>...
Well then...............by all
means...............Pema...............tell us.............what
you 'think'.............!
After all...............this IS...........The Buddha Springer
Show.............!
norbu_tragri
> norbu_tragri wrote:
>
> > heeeheeeheee!
> >
> > Okay, you get to be.
> >
> > But my point to Gil was that those folks Naggie was dissing are long
> > dead and gone....
> >
> > By the way, in the "nine yanas" tradition we all start of as "hinayana",
> > and without that grounding in reality whatever might follow is just fiction.
> > The last yana, big surprise, returns to those same techings to wrap it up
> > and take it home, so to speak.
> >
> > But Gileht might dump on you big time if he decides that you're the
> > only Hinayanist left standing...............
>
> The Naggie who was the author of the Middlist Verses did not diss the early
> canon, but quoted it reverently.
Sorry, my poor Reader's Digest version of the dissing, as i said a
couple
months ago that i haven't read more than a chapter or two of the MMK,
and was about to start on it when Gil started this current scurge. And
i do recall,
reading this, that you had noted this before. But one of the authors
Gil
has decided is an authority -has- dissed some "hinayana". Perhaps it
was
Santideva?
>He deconstructed everything, including the Four
> Noble Truths, but did *not* deconstruct Dependent Arisal, emptiness (which is
> *just another way of looking at* Dependent Arisal: all thing-events are empty of
> essence because they are dependently arisen),
i gather that Naggie wrote the MMK to point out that, contrarie to
some
current abhidharma teachings, that none of the nidana-s existed on
their
own, but could only be seen as phases of a process in conparission to
each
other.
> and the result of Buddhist path,
> which is the abandon of all views (as already taught by the layman Anathapindada
> in the early canon) and the quiescence of all proliferation (prapańcopasama). > As
> I often quote, to him (Nagarjuna), the Buddhist sage sees reality
> (tattva-darsana), and sees
> reality because he has stopped all compositions (samskara).
i posted to Gil the other day that one of the turning points as
described by some later schools was going from the "path of
accumulation" of teachings
to the "path of seeing" (darsanamarga), where the dharma ceases to be
a mental
theory and becomes a living process. Darsana...
> Now, as to what you say:
>
> <<in the "nine yanas" tradition we all start of as "hinayana", and without that
> grounding in reality whatever might follow is just fiction. The last yana, big
> surprise, returns to those same techings to wrap it up and take it home, so to
> speak.>>
>
> any and all of Buddhism, if it is to be Buddhism -- that is, the teaching on
> suffering and the ending of suffering -- must conform to the Buddha's teaching,
> and so far as I can ascertain, nothing superior to his teaching has been found.
>
> His teaching can be expanded on, as the Perfection of Wisdom scriptures
> attempted to do, but any and all such attempts are like adding legs to a
> painting of a snake, because Buddhist wisdom is purely purgative and to attempt
> to add to is is nonsensical, even counterproductive.
The basic teaching in the later Indian tradition was called "Essence
Mahamudra"
and returned to samatha/vipasyana for a couple stages and
"non-meditation"
and such following that. The previous stages were termed "Sutra
Mahamudra"
(all the sutra teachings they had, but with an emphasis on the Third
Turning
sutras, such as the Lankavatara), and "Tantra Mahamudra" which was
related to
formal and formless meditation in turn; these were both supposed to
work
through mental and emotional clingings, to facilitate greater openness
so that
the final stage could be quickly realized without going off into
sidetracks
(neo-atman-ism, whatever). So they were not so much designed to add
anything
as such, but to work out the mental/emotional knots...They would be
"productive"
to dropping or "counterproductive" depending on the skill of the
individual teacher and student, and so were a praxsis, and not a
theory.
> What he taught was a way to strip off our delusion, but such a way has the
> danger of being reintegrated into delusion and thereby reinforcing delusion
> rather than doing away with it.
>
> The vast majority of Buddhist doctors fell and fall into that predicament and
> turn the Buddha's teaching against its purpose, in that they turn it into a > > tool
> for thickening delusion rather than thinning it out and eventually dropping it
> entirely. Starting with the Abhidhamma-Abhidharma and continuing with the > > > Great
> Vehicle and the Diamond Vehcile, they look down on the Buddha's teaching as
> inferior (yes, the doctors of the Abhidhamma-Abhidharma do that, too) and
> elaborate their own version of a superior doctrine in its stead, and largely
> create fantasmagoric worlds that hinder Buddhist cultivation or even block it
> entirely.
Well..."A vast majority"?...i defer to you, as you have read far more
than i.
There certainly seems to be a bit of tooth-worship and diety daze
around...
> The grounds (bhumi) of the Bodhisattva career were in a bind, because they were
> invented -- and there were different versions of them -- to trumpet the
> superiority of the Bodhisattva's attainments over those of arhat-s, but Great
> Vehiclistic doctors twisted themselves into pretzels trying to invent any
> superiority of ... the Bodhisattva's attainments over those of arhat-s, because
> so far as wisdom is concerned, it stops with the quiescence of mentation or
> proliferation, and that is supposed to be accomplished at the sixth or seventh
> ground,
Read about this in the last few days regarding a different topic, but
the
view wasn't exactly triumphalistic: the bodhisattva and arhant careers
progress pretty much the same up through the sixth bhumi of prajna.
The bodhisattva then is concerned with the seventh bhumi of "upaya"
(prajnopaya), which the arhant path, not aiming at being a
Buddha-to-teach-
others, skips over as not being relevant. Both paths meet again on the
eighth bhumi, which is described as "effortless", free of mental
constucts etc.; here both arhant and bodhisattva 'attain' nirvana,
but the bodhisattva continues on the non-abiding thingumy to develop
the skills be a teacher, to remain as an appearance without
reification/
compulsions. "Tantra Mahamudra" is supposed to be the training from
then
on, till the last bhumi deals with "Essence Mahamudra", but both those
ideas are a little hard to work into the Mahayana view..."Tantra
Mahamudra"
pretty much just restates the four dhyanas and four formless states
and
is geared towards awakening within seven lifetimes (not countless
lives
of refusing awakening) and "Essence Mahamudra", after the other paths
have
removed obstacles, is geared to awakening in this life. Not a very
"Mahayana"
way of seeing things.
For the most part it seems that they are just differnt ways of
chatting about what in the end is not a theory and so cannot be nailed
down or said just one way. What does matter is not attaching to the
words, getting some clue,
and making it a living experience (which again is just a way of
speaking,
as life/death experience/non-experience are just yakyakyak).
Now, perhaps a "vast majority" of "mahayanaists" might not know that
Arhants are said to be equivalent to eighth bhumi bodhisattvas, and
that the
following bhumis are a -different- path founded on that same eighth
bhumi.
norbu_tragri
Whaaa! i ran out of time tonite! i gots to be up early, so will
post tomorrow...
Colin Hankin
<for...@it.net> writes
>I would call your position naive realism. Look into any encyclopedia to see
>how this is refuted by all other philosophies and all sciences.
>
>How do you explain this Hinayana sutra that I posted yesterday then ?
>
Of one thing I am absolutely sure, the Buddha never said anything like
it.
The fallacy in the arguments sticks out a mile:
Because something has little substance does not mean it has *no*
substance.
>It is saying the same thing as me.
>
>There is no real rose, there is no real red. There is no real world out there.
>It is all like a large glob of foam, like a water bubble, like a mirage, like a
>banana tree without any substance / essence, like a magic trick.
Whether the world exists or not is irrelevant.
All that we need relearn is that once our appetites have been satisfied
we should stop *trying* to satisfy them.
That means we stop using the tool with which we satisfy them - conscious
mental activity (all thinking).
"Nirvana is the extinction of desire" is the mechanism of happiness not
a philosophy of life.
Viewed this way, there is no need for the world to be illusory.
>
>Meditate on this Hinayana sutra for a while. It is about the emptiness of all
>dharmas and the impossibility of any direct perception since there is
>nothing existing on its own out there that can be "directly perceived".
>
>Take you time.There is nothing more important you have to do in your
>entire life than to understand this. That is the key to remove all
>attachments and fears.
Point a gun at a Buddha and if he has any sense at all he would feel
fear!
> That is the key to Nirvana.
The key to Nirvana is understanding what "Nirvana" and "desire" are.
Then you have to practice half a lifetime to get the feelings which
prove your understanding is correct.
(Read and snipped)
>That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One Well-Gone,
>the Teacher, said further:
(Snip)
>Beginning with the body
>as taught by the One
>with profound discernment:
>when abandoned by three things
> -- life, warmth, & consciousness --
>form is rejected, cast aside.
>When bereft of these
>it lies thrown away,
> senseless,
> a meal for others.
This means that corpses are cannibalised!?
>That's the way it goes:
>it's a magic trick,
>an idiot's babbling.
It's an idiot's babbling all right - at least I hope it is. :-)
>
>It's said to be
> a murderer.
Should that be "sad"?
>
>No substance here
>is found.
????
>Thus a monk, persistence aroused,
>should view the aggregates
>by day & by night,
> mindful,
> alert;
>should discard all fetters;
>should make himself
> his own refuge;
>should live as if
>his head were on fire --
> in hopes of the state
> with no falling away."
I prefer integrating the quest into ordinary, everyday life.
After all, being happy should be an intrinsic part of existence.
>-- From : Access to Insight Web site.
Pema
i think, therefore i Ham...
>
> After all...............this IS...........The Buddha Springer
> Show.............!
i just flashed the screen...hehee i just did it again!
Boris Fuller
Colin Hankin burbled:
> Point a gun at a Buddha and if he has any sense at all he would feel
> fear!
for a buddha
what is there to fear?
Boris
Boris Fuller
Colin Hankin burbled:
> Point a gun at a Buddha and if he has any sense at all he would feel
> fear!
for a buddha
Chris Degnen
>
>The grounds (bhumi) of the Bodhisattva career were in a bind, because they
>were invented -- and there were different versions of them -- to trumpet the
>superiority of the Bodhisattva's attainments over those of arhat-s, but
>Great Vehiclistic doctors twisted themselves into pretzels trying to invent any
>superiority of ... the Bodhisattva's attainments over those of arhat-s, because
>so far as wisdom is concerned, it stops with the quiescence of mentation or
>proliferation, and that is supposed to be accomplished at the sixth or seventh
>ground, so all higher grounds are ... fantasmagoric, and *are bound to be so*.
Hmmm. Let me see if I've got this right. Buddha's didacticism is involuntary
because he is persuaded to teach for the sake of those with only a little sand
in their eyes, but the career of the Bodhissatvas is that Nirvana is renounced
until all beings are delivered into Nirvana. Compassion would suggest helping
others to enlightenment, but the Bodhissatva's career is a tall order.
Chris Degnen
>
>The grounds (bhumi) of the Bodhisattva career were in a bind, because they
>were invented -- and there were different versions of them -- to trumpet the
>superiority of the Bodhisattva's attainments over those of arhat-s, but
>Great Vehiclistic doctors twisted themselves into pretzels trying to invent any
>superiority of ... the Bodhisattva's attainments over those of arhat-s, because
>so far as wisdom is concerned, it stops with the quiescence of mentation or
>proliferation, and that is supposed to be accomplished at the sixth or seventh
>ground, so all higher grounds are ... fantasmagoric, and *are bound to be so*.
Hmmm. Let me see if I've got this right. Buddha's didacticism results from
him being persuaded to teach for the sake of those with only a little sand in
their eyes (and this starts things off), but the career of the Bodhisattva is to
renounce Nirvana until all beings are delivered into Nirvana. Compassion
would suggest helping others to enlightenment : as a normal natural function,
even for one detached and dispassionate.
Gileht.com
"Chris Degnen" <til...@windmills.freeserve.co.uk> a écrit dans le message
de news: b26ede$d6t$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Tang Huyen wrote:
> >
> >The grounds (bhumi) of the Bodhisattva career were in a bind, because
they
> >were invented -- and there were different versions of them -- to trumpet
the
> >superiority of the Bodhisattva's attainments over those of arhat-s,
Maybe.
>>but
> >Great Vehiclistic doctors twisted themselves into pretzels trying to
invent any
> >superiority of ... the Bodhisattva's attainments over those of arhat-s,
Maybe.
>> because
> >so far as wisdom is concerned, it stops with the quiescence of mentation
or
> >proliferation,
That is not Buddhism; it is quetism.
And if the ten Bhumi were invented to make a clear discinction between your
type of hinduist bull-shit and real Buddhism then they are very good adapted
skillful means indeed.
>> and that is supposed to be accomplished at the sixth or seventh
> >ground, so all higher grounds are ... fantasmagoric, and *are bound to be
so*.
The phantasmagoria is to think that dropping all mentations is going to help
in any way.
The problem is karma and going back to a state of animal without mentation
is not going to help.
> Hmmm. Let me see if I've got this right. Buddha's didacticism results
from
> him being persuaded to teach for the sake of those with only a little sand
in
> their eyes (and this starts things off), but the career of the Bodhisattva
is to
> renounce Nirvana until all beings are delivered into Nirvana. Compassion
> would suggest helping others to enlightenment : as a normal natural
function,
> even for one detached and dispassionate.
The Bodhisattva way is the result of the realization that everything is
"interdependent"; that is a better understanding of "dependent origination"
than the one carried by naive realist like the Hinayanists.
Sphere
Ummm... Does it make sense to have someone
who has not reached Nirvana lead others to
Nirvana?
--
"Mind is but a name. It is nothing apart from name.
Consciousness must be regarded as but a name.
The name too has no own-being."
-- Bodhicittavivarana
Colin Hankin
<orour...@hotmail.com> writes
Over and over in Buddhist literature it is asserted that the Buddha was
an ordinary man.
Do you know any ordinary man who enjoys pain?
TTFN
--
Colin Hankin
boris_fuller
oh yes, actually i have known quite a few :)
but the point is that a fully realised buddha
would not fear either pain or death.
...nor anticipate either.
Boris
Chris Degnen
>
>> ... but the career of the Bodhisattva is to renounce Nirvana until
>> all beings are delivered into Nirvana. Compassion would suggest
>> helping others to enlightenment : as a normal natural function,
>> even for one detached and dispassionate.
>
>Ummm... Does it make sense to have someone
>who has not reached Nirvana lead others to
>Nirvana?
Sorry, the context was arhats and bodhisattvas. The bodhisattvas don't
give up on the ones with whole sand dunes on their eyes.
Wachigupta
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E46C958...@all.com...
The bodhisattva bhumi is taught by awakened being (buddha) who attained
nirvana. The bodhisattva bhumi is superior to the 4 saintly states (the
highest=arahatship). This is because the peak of the bhumi (10th in the
mahayana, 13th in mahamudra, &16th in Maha-ati) is the equavalent of
buddhahood.
However, as the difference of sudden & gradual approach exists for different
vessels, the sudden approach [eg. ch'an, maha-ati, essence-mahamudra] as
well as gradual approach [from kriya tantra-yana onwards) advocates the need
for attaining enlightenment as priority to compassionate activities, due to
this fact, the approach is rendered superior among the mahayana. To vessels
of gradual approach, due to their inferior capacity, this approach is not an
option, neither is the path of 4 saintly states an option [as this demand
the
purification practice traditionally reserved for monks &/or yogis inclined
at ascetism].
The gradual approach drive oridinary people [including heretics] to the path
of bodhi. viz. the bodhisattva path of mahayana has the potential to lead
ordinary beings to the path of bodhi than the 4 saintly states [of hinayana,
which traditionally called the 2 yanas, ie. sravaka & patika-buddha-yana].
The time when the 2 yanas can flourished with accomplishment [of 4 saintly
fruits] are conditioned on factors like: 1. The presence of the Buddha or
closer link to the Buddha, 2. yogis with hindu ascetic background, 3.
herd-influence of the 500 royal servants sent by Siddhartha's father. These
3 conditions favoured the flourishing of monastic discipline as a way of
life conducive for the 2 yanas.
Sphere
Yup -- even the bodhisattvas with
whole sand dunes of their own.
Sphere
I read what you wrote. I don't
know why I read what you wrote.
Chris Degnen
>
>Chris Degnen wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, the context was arhats and bodhisattvas. The bodhisattvas don't
>> give up on the ones with whole sand dunes on their eyes.
>
>Yup -- even the bodhisattvas with
>whole sand dunes of their own.
So we're an arhat then are we?
Sphere
I have the good sense to worry
about my own delusions, and
you might do likewise.
Chris Degnen
>
>Chris Degnen wrote:
>> Sphere wrote:
>>
>>>Chris Degnen wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sorry, the context was arhats and bodhisattvas. The bodhisattvas don't
>>>>give up on the ones with whole sand dunes on their eyes.
>>>
>>>Yup -- even the bodhisattvas with
>>>whole sand dunes of their own.
>>
>> So we're an arhat then are we?
>
>I have the good sense to worry
>about my own delusions, and
>you might do likewise.
I am starting to worry about your delusions. But I'm still waiting for a
reply about arhats not having the same obligations as bodhisattvas.
cupcake
Chris Degnen wrote:
bodhisattvas are total unrealized boobs -- a bodhisattva cudn't
hold a candle to an ahrahant!
bohistattvas are nothing but little ego-maniacs!
Robert Epstein
cupcake wrote:
as opposed to you, you sweet font of humility!
robert
>
>
>
norbu_tragri
Hell if i know. Nobody invites me to those parties if they go in
secret and noone seems to hint at anysuch goings on...
The "freelove" thingy seems nearly dead and gone with families
for the heteros and aids for the gay...i mean, duh, it still goes
on with some people somewhere, singles still look for action...
As to the Vajrayana:
The householders in India _may_ have taken over the actual
enactment of the symbols from the popular hindu religion of the day,
but the "forest renunciates" in retreat wouldn't have had much
chance, and once the Vajrayana was adapted by the monastic community
it's difficult to guess which direction they went.
Householder/monastic in relation to the founders of the main lineage
i have learned from:
Tilapada (Indian): bum/renunciate...was once employed by a hooker to
procure customers until she realized he was a sort of non-attached-
non-judgemental forest-renunciate type of person...She became a
renunciate
after that...He made sesame oil and sold fishheads discarded by
fishermen...
Not a sexy story known about him...
Narapada (Indian): drop-out monk/university dean (student of
Tilapada).
Bhiksu/abbot, turned forest-hermit. After twelve years of study with
Tilapada went of on his own (late?middle-age); married "Niguma" (i
don't
know her Indian name). They seem to have gone off in different
directions
on amicable terms, exchanging students...
Marpa (Tibetan): millionaire farmer...Married to Dagmema, with an
extended marriage of a few other wives as was traditional in Tibet, as
was a wife
having multiple husbands...(Gay life was at least common in Tibet
before
the Han invasion, and i have read that it still exists as an
"underground
culture".). Student of Narapada, etc.
Milarepa (Tibetan): Thought he had killed black-sheep family members
in a black-magic hail storm ordered by his vengeful dis-inherited/
impoverished mother. Big time renunciate/retreate/hermit...but oddly
enough the most relaxed -realized-no-suffering- of the founders...
Hence he is sometimes called "a secound Buddha" in Tibet...
Here the freeform and formal traditions split:
A. Gampopa (Tibetan): Bring in the monks. After the death of his
one-true-love ultimate-romance wife due to an illness Gampopa
renounced
samsara, and became a renunciate in the tradition of Atisa...Which,
in real terms, got him nowhere at all in a handbasket....until he met
Mila.
B. Rechungpa (Tibetan): Lay yogi surgical-scalple: "We need a theory
or system?
I think not."
The first Karmapa ( a monk ) inherited both these traditions...
Rats. There's only a little bit of sexy stuff there...
> > >> you may speak freely, Norbu -- i think that i have
> > >> already sufficiently demonstrated that i have considerable
> > >> expertise in the domain of "sex", and the power of sex
> > >> over the human psyche
i have spoken freely, sorry if it seems stiff (!) about the gist
of the buddhadharma tradition i have learned (though i have been
open to many other traditions)...
Well, yea, but yu don't attach, except like a costume-party...
Might fit into some samadhi or other...
but the arupa-s....etc???
(Sweets, -bare all !!!)
> > > i mean, isn't the whole point of "Tantric sex practice"
> > > to manipulate and maneuver the "consort" into shedding
> > > the ego (the "self") ?
When it rarely happns in some rural cult it's dully rituallistic,
not individual/romantic dramatic/....doesn't seem to happen
much/at-all
in the west.
> > ... and, of course, to, always, continually reinforce
> > the "Master's" equanimity and detachment :)
If they get to...Heck if i know....i live on
a
little island...
> Whaaa! i ran out of time tonite! i gots to be up early, so will
> post tomorrow..
i don't know if this was an o.k. response...old keyboard....
cupcake
Norbu Tragri wrote:
>norbu_...@yahoo.com (norbu_tragri) wrote in message [10]news:<f36c6d29.03020
>70413.4...@posting.google.com>...
>> cupcake <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message [11]news:<WVy0a.96$Yq....@news.more.net>
well, your evasive presentation, here, points up all
the more need for our new forthcoming book (bit of
investigative journalism and expose~, about vajra
tantric sex practices), entitled "Vajra Vixens"