Egregore
Dan Clore
Still pretty tentative, and information appreciated. I don't
have much idea how the term acquired its current meaning.
egregore, egregor, egrigor, n. [< Gr, "watcher"] In ancient
religious texts such as the Book of Enoch, one of the Angels
appointed to watch over the earth. In modern occultism and
Chaos Magick, a thought-form similar to a tulpa (q.v.); a
purposefully-created magical entity, generally by a group.
[Not in OED.]
The Astral Light warms, illuminates, magnetises, attracts,
repels, vivifies, destroys, coagulates, separates, breaks
and conjoins everything, under the impetus of power wills.
God created it on the first day when He said "Let there be
light." This force of itself is blind but is directed by
Egregores -- that is, by chiefs of souls, or, in other
words, by energetic and active spirits.
Éliphas Lévi (trans. A.E. Waite), intro to The History of Magic
If the word is of Greek origin it seems to connect with the
idea of watchers rather than leaders. Cf. [ho egre^'goros] =
Vigil, in the Septuagint.
A.E. Waite, note to Éliphas Lévi, The History of Magic
Speaking of it in his Preface to the "History of Magic"
Eliphas Lévi says: "It is through this Force that all the
nervous centres secretly communicate with each other; from
it -- that sympathy and antipathy are born; from it—that we
have our dreams; and that the phenomena of second sight and
extra-natural visions take place. . . . Astral Light, acting
under the impulsion of powerful wills, destroys, coagulates,
separates, breaks, gathers in all things. . . . God created
it on that day when he said: Fiat Lux, and it is directed by
the Egregores, i.e., the chiefs of the souls who are the
spirits of energy and action."
H.P. Blavatsky, note to The Secret Doctrine: The Synthesis
of Science, Religion, and Philosophy (ellipses in original)
Egrigors are created by human thoughts. As we know, our
thoughts consist of electric energy plus vital fluid or
pranah, possessed by every living body.
Nicholas Mamontoff, "Can Thoughts Have Forms?" (Fate, June
1960), as quoted in Hilary Evans, Visions * Apparitions *
Alien Visitors: A Comparative Study of the Entity Enigma
Within a few minutes the features of the cat stabilized and
on his hind feet was a pair of Russian boots. The egrigor
was motionless and looked like a poorly developed
photograph. "Do not think about the cat any more and watch
what happens to it," ordered the guru. Sitting in the
darkness the audience saw the form of the cat gradually melt
and at last disappear completely.
Nicholas Mamontoff, "Can Thoughts Have Forms?" (Fate, June
1960), as quoted in Hilary Evans, Visions * Apparitions *
Alien Visitors: A Comparative Study of the Entity Enigma
The "Conjuration of the Watcher" follows the Fire God
conjuration. The word "watcher" is sometimes used
synonymously with "angel", and sometimes as a distinct Race,
apart from angelos: egregori. The Race of Watchers are said
not to care what they Watch, save that they follow orders.
They are somewhat mindless creatures, but quite effective.
Perhaps they correspond to Lovecraft's shuggoths [sic], save
that the latter became unwieldy and difficult to manage.
"Simon", Prefatory Notes to Necronomicon
Azathoth is an egregore associated with the emergence of
sentience from the primeval slime and the quest of sentience
to reach for the stars. It is associated with these
activities in star systems other than our own; the next
nearest being apparently Deneb in Cygnus.
Peter J. Carroll, Liber Kaos
Konstantinos, in his book Summoning Spirits, is equally
frank. He warns his readers that, in order to evoke entities
from the Necronomicon, they will probably have to create
them themselves, as they would any egregore. (An egregore is
a thought-form created by the magician by means of his/her
will and visualization. It is a mental image solidified into
astral substance. According to Konstantinos -- and to Isaac
Bonewits -- it is much easier to use a preexisting egregore
than one that the magician has to create.)
John Wisdom Gonce III, "A Plague of Necronomicons" in Daniel
Harms & John Wisdom Gonce III, The Necronomicon Files: The
Truth Behind Lovecraft's Legend
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Odysseus
>
> Dan Clore wrote:
>
> > Still pretty tentative, and information appreciated. I don't
> > have much idea how the term acquired its current meaning.
> >
> > egregore, egregor, egrigor, n. [< Gr, "watcher"]
>
> meaning... as I have always understood various Rosicrucians and some
> Golden Dawn groups to use it, it is understood as "group mind,"
> something along the lines of what the Buddhists mean when they speak of
> the greater Sangha. I assumed (apparently incorrectly)and basing my
> misunderstanding of the word as "group mind," that it came from some
> root origin similar to that of "gregarious," pack mentality, you know,
> the sort of thing that makes cars cluster in groups on an otherwise
> empty freeway, (something one notices frequently from the air)--but you
> have shown this to be incorrect, and certainly, "egrégorsis" means
> watchfulness.
>
I think the original Greek word has more to do with wakefulness, e.g.
of a vigil, than watching as such. Its root is the verb _egeírO_, to
awaken or rouse.
An English word with the 'group' etymology is "egregious", from Latin
_ex-_ + _grex_ (+ _ius_), meaning more or less literally "standing
out from the herd" -- it's almost always used in a negative sense,
for something exceptionally bad.
--
Odysseus
whyzard
like something eating something
futureritual
One form of modern usage is somewhere between the tulpa and group mind
ideas. It is an entity (god, demon, tulpa) that is supported by the
attention and/or energy of a group.
This resolves, somewhat, the ideas presented in Dan's post... Each
individual in a group "creating" an egregore supports the existence of
the entity. Individual and group creation are not mutually exclusive.
In the Peter Carroll example given, for instance, individuals over time
and space would each create their own personal conception of
Azathoth... but it is the collection of these creations that
constitutes the egregore.
Just one example of usage of a generally vague term.
93 93/93
Phil
http://hawkridgeproductions.com/
104
> minus what the word officially/etymologically means, egregore sounds
> like something eating something
>
e.g re: gore
Melkor
<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>
Bravo, enjoyed the post. Finally true magian thought.
Mage Baragund, Melkor
whyzard
Melkor wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 22:35:47 -0700, Dan Clore
> <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>
> >
>
> Bravo, enjoyed the post. Finally true magian thought.
>
> Mage Baragund, Melkor
>
>
you really are old. No one has used the term "magian" since Oswald
Spengler (1900's). Get with the times. It's called magick today.
If you are going to live forever you're supposed to always the current
parlance. Case tells us not to stand out. Now we know you're at least
100 years old!!!
nagasiva
hey Dan!
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org>:
>Still pretty tentative, and information appreciated. I don't
>have much idea how the term acquired its current meaning.
>
>egregore, egregor, egrigor, n. [< Gr, "watcher"] In ancient
>religious texts such as the Book of Enoch, one of the Angels
>appointed to watch over the earth. In modern occultism and
>Chaos Magick, a thought-form similar to a tulpa (q.v.); a
>purposefully-created magical entity, generally by a group.
>[Not in OED.]
<snip, excellent!>
other terms used by occultists that I've noticed had
effectively the same meaning as 'egregores' are:
thoughtforms
telesmic images
telesmetic images
servitors
corrections welcomed.
nagasiva <luckymojo.com*nagasiva>
Tom
"nagasiva" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
news:vPFYe.56$3o....@typhoon.sonic.net...
Not corrections, but additions from outside occultism
karasses
granfalloons
Spencer Spindrift
"nagasiva" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
news:vPFYe.56$3o....@typhoon.sonic.net...
|
| hey Dan!
|
| Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org>:
| >Still pretty tentative, and information appreciated. I don't
| >have much idea how the term acquired its current meaning.
| >
| >egregore, egregor, egrigor, n. [< Gr, "watcher"] In ancient
| >religious texts such as the Book of Enoch, one of the Angels
| >appointed to watch over the earth. In modern occultism and
| >Chaos Magick, a thought-form similar to a tulpa (q.v.); a
| >purposefully-created magical entity, generally by a group.
| >[Not in OED.]
Tulpa is Tibetan. The Lama teaches his pupil to make a "real" entity
then destroys it to prove that nothing is real. Only Nothing is real.
RatBastard
Wikipedia has a nice definition of egregore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore
CHOYOFAQUE
medusa161
The word "egregore" may have derived itself from one of the following:
a) Derivation from the Greek "egrêgoroôn", which means "awake" or "watching over";
b) The Latin "gregarious", meaning "pertaining to a herd or flock";
C) The Greek "ageirein", which means "to collect."
"Egregore" reflects a tangible and living thought/astral/psychological mantle built by the group/order/lodge/coven etc. An egregore has a viable and changeable form that feeds off the energies of the membership and the nature of the work they perform. In certain groups, this egregore gets consciously built ... in others it begins as a by-product. Other groups, particularly mundane groups, may not even recognise that a living energy exists as a signature of the work and activities that they do.
Su
Aiwass
"Spencer Spindrift" <qs...@supahat.com> wrote in message
news:3phi0iF...@individual.net...
if nothing is real, then even nothing is unreal.
A
Aiwass
"medusa161" <medu...@echoforum.com> wrote in message
news:4333a899$0$1892$6cce...@news.echoforum.com...
a good one. Except for the reference to a coven. A coven couldnt buiold a
rain shelter.
A
Spencer Spindrift
"Aiwass" <Aiw...@aiwass.com> wrote in message
news:WDRYe.23476$in2....@fe04.news.easynews.com...
Yes, none of the above.
Emptiness, the Void.
This is the only truth the Buddha taught, all else is methods for
realising this.
When all else fails, read the manual.
104
Hmm. Doing that wouldn't prove what you say it is supposed to. Otherwise
those monks are using some pretty bad logic.
> Only Nothing is real.
Everything is real, it's the way you look at it.
Al Smith
>>> then destroys it to prove that nothing is real. Only Nothing is real.
>>>
>>>
>
>
> if nothing is real, then even nothing is unreal.
>
> A
Is the tulpa real if it destroys the lama, I wonder?
104
No, because it hasn't destroyed anything real.
Spencer Spindrift
"104" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:OgWYe.14023$zw1....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
Buddhist logic:
1. Everything is real.
2. Nothing is real.
3. Both everything and nothing are real.
4. Neither everything nor nothing are real.
5. Non of the above.
This is true of any proposition. Nagarjuna.
It's the old paradox: "This statement is not true".
The Neophyte begins with a belief system.
The Guru builds this up until it falls down under the weight of it's own
absurdity. Many get stuck at the absurd stage and post endless arguments
on Usenet. Before computers they used to form groups or Magical Orders
for their arguments.
Going beyond can be lonely and frightening.
Do we have a choice?
1. Yes. 2. No. 3. Both 4. Neither.
5. Non of the above.
Al Smith
> Otherwise
> | those monks are using some pretty bad logic.
> |
> | > Only Nothing is real.
> |
> | Everything is real, it's the way you look at it.
>
> Buddhist logic:
>
> 1. Everything is real.
> 2. Nothing is real.
> 3. Both everything and nothing are real.
> 4. Neither everything nor nothing are real.
> 5. Non of the above.
>
> This is true of any proposition. Nagarjuna.
>
> It's the old paradox: "This statement is not true".
>
> The Neophyte begins with a belief system.
> The Guru builds this up until it falls down under the weight of it's own
> absurdity. Many get stuck at the absurd stage and post endless arguments
> on Usenet. Before computers they used to form groups or Magical Orders
> for their arguments.
> Going beyond can be lonely and frightening.
> Do we have a choice?
> 1. Yes. 2. No. 3. Both 4. Neither.
> 5. Non of the above.
Oh, but that's so easy, isn't it? Just say "nothing is real" and
away you go, content that your intellect has risen above the
mundane bluster of the crowd. Yet in saying this you've understood
nothing at all.
Spencer Spindrift
"Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message
news:sUoZe.96443$Ph4.3...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
I speak here of absolute truth.
There is also relative truth which is useful for getting by in the
mundane
world. But if one does really realise absolute truth then all mundane
actions become spontaneous. This is called pure Buddha Activity. The
present Dalai Lama seems to have attained this. He has said that he may
be the last. That is he is hinting that he has gone beyond belief in
re-incarnation.
Tom
>
>
> I speak here of absolute truth.
Speaking of it and knowing it are two very, very different things.
Al Smith
> | > The Guru builds this up until it falls down under the weight of it's
> own
> | > absurdity. Many get stuck at the absurd stage and post endless
> arguments
> | > on Usenet. Before computers they used to form groups or Magical
> Orders
> | > for their arguments.
> | > Going beyond can be lonely and frightening.
> | > Do we have a choice?
> | > 1. Yes. 2. No. 3. Both 4. Neither.
> | > 5. Non of the above.
> |
> | Oh, but that's so easy, isn't it? Just say "nothing is real" and
> | away you go, content that your intellect has risen above the
> | mundane bluster of the crowd. Yet in saying this you've understood
> | nothing at all.
>
> I speak here of absolute truth.
> There is also relative truth which is useful for getting by in the
> mundane
> world. But if one does really realise absolute truth then all mundane
> actions become spontaneous. This is called pure Buddha Activity. The
> present Dalai Lama seems to have attained this. He has said that he may
> be the last. That is he is hinting that he has gone beyond belief in
> re-incarnation.
I've heard the Dalai Lama say that. I suspect it may be vanity on
his part. He wants to be special, so he wants to be the last Dalai
Lama. I know, I know, he's a great guy, and I respect him also,
but he isn't perfect. He's not above ego. No one is. Those who
claim otherwise are either mistaken, or fools.
As for purely spontaneous activity, I am wary of that, because I
believe that is what the terrorists who blow themselves up engage
in. If a Buddhist takes it into his head to spontaneously murder
you with a steak knife, and justifies it in his own mind as an
intuitively enlightened act, no amount of reasoning will convince
him otherwise. Religious fanatics are impervious to reason, and
impervious to truth.
Spencer Spindrift
Islamic terrorists believe they are doing the Will of Allah, and that
paradise will be there reward. It is not spontaneous but the result of a
long period of indoctrination.
Buddhists do not kill but most eat meat. The killing is mostly done by a
sub-class of Muslims who feel excluded from power and thus become
radicalised. Not many tourists visit Southern Thailand, close to
Malaysia, as it is Muslim and there are killings from Government and
secret Islamic groups. In Bangkok the 1% Muslims are there but almost
invisible.
In this sense Buddhists are elitist in fact in Tibetan the word for
mentally defective and Muslim is the same, but Tibetan Buddhism is so
different from what the Buddha taught that Westerners who first
encountered it called it Lamaism. Many Western Buddhists have gone back
to basics. People like me went through a period of Occultism and found
it a very rough ride. Buddha simply said "Try this. It worked for me
after 30 years of trying everything. He had experimented on his own mind
until he found a method that worked.
Spencer.
Al Smith
> to basics. People like me went through a period of Occultism and found
> it a very rough ride. Buddha simply said "Try this. It worked for me
> after 30 years of trying everything. He had experimented on his own mind
> until he found a method that worked.
> Spencer.
I'm glad it worked out for you. I did some investigating of
Tibetan Buddhism in years past. Where I live, Nova Scotia, we had
the great-in-his-own-mind Chogyam Trungpa decide that he had to
make this place his new spiritual power center, so lots of
Buddhists arrived overnight from Colorado and Nepal. A few years
later he died of AIDS, along with his second in command, an
American, who dies of AIDS shortly after him. Trungpa left his
family here, and they run the family business -- Buddhism.
I attended some lectures, sat through some meditations, met lots
of Buddhists from Nepal, Canada and America. My overriding
impression was one of arrogance. They were absolutely convinced
beyond a shadow of doubt that they knew the spiritual truth, and
that anybody who questioned them or disagreed with them was at
best misinformed, or at worst a fool. They'd give me that smug
little smile that said, "we are soooo much more spiritually
advanced than you will ever be".
It somewhat soured me on Buddhists, particularly American
Buddhists, who practically bubbled over with intellectual elitism.
However, I've got nothing against Buddhism itself, and I'm sure
there must be a humble Buddhist on this planet somewhere, tucked
away in some dark corner.
Spencer Spindrift
"Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message news:Y_FZe.96702
| I'm glad it worked out for you. I did some investigating of
| Tibetan Buddhism in years past. Where I live, Nova Scotia, we had
| the great-in-his-own-mind Chogyam Trungpa decide that he had to
| make this place his new spiritual power center, so lots of
| Buddhists arrived overnight from Colorado and Nepal. A few years
| later he died of AIDS, along with his second in command, an
| American, who dies of AIDS shortly after him. Trungpa left his
| family here, and they run the family business -- Buddhism.
|
| I attended some lectures, sat through some meditations, met lots
| of Buddhists from Nepal, Canada and America. My overriding
| impression was one of arrogance. They were absolutely convinced
| beyond a shadow of doubt that they knew the spiritual truth, and
| that anybody who questioned them or disagreed with them was at
| best misinformed, or at worst a fool. They'd give me that smug
| little smile that said, "we are soooo much more spiritually
| advanced than you will ever be".
|
| It somewhat soured me on Buddhists, particularly American
| Buddhists, who practically bubbled over with intellectual elitism.
| However, I've got nothing against Buddhism itself, and I'm sure
| there must be a humble Buddhist on this planet somewhere, tucked
| away in some dark corner.
You are right. Tibetan Buddhism comes in many exotic forms and you have
to join to learn the "secrets". I joined the Karma Kagu sect. The last
time I met the Lama he told me to go away and repeat the six syllable
mantra a million times. I prefer to meditate on the breath. While I was
in that group I refrained from reading books I hadn't been given the
lung [tib] for. That is the oral transmission in the original Tibetan.
When I did read some of the practices in translation I found they were
far too difficult to even attempt. There are two texts in one book. The
tantric one begins by assuming you can generate magical heat and goes on
to work with that. The other is more like a Tibetan form of Zen or Chan
and is more mystical and poetic. I much prefer the Theravada which is
more or less what the historical Buddha taught. I went to Thailand to
marry a simple Buddhist woman. But even though we had been married for
two years the British embassy wouldn't give her a visa.
Spencer
gabbyt...@hotmail.com
I wouldnt say it is easy.Liberating but not easy, IMO it open a whole
new can of worms and few can truly embrace the abstract idea of
inconcievable infinity.
By saying nothing is real, it opens the door to the idea that anything
is possible.if nothing is real , we are not bound by the laws of what
is considered to be "real" or "true"
Spencer Spindrift
<gabbyt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127707609.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Are numbers real or just symbols? Is mathematics a science or a set of
puzzles? Why does my sister waste her brainpower on criptic crossword
puzzles? What do you do in a space where there are no laws?
Al Smith
> | Buddhists, who practically bubbled over with intellectual elitism.
> | However, I've got nothing against Buddhism itself, and I'm sure
> | there must be a humble Buddhist on this planet somewhere, tucked
> | away in some dark corner.
>
> You are right. Tibetan Buddhism comes in many exotic forms and you have
> to join to learn the "secrets". I joined the Karma Kagu sect. The last
> time I met the Lama he told me to go away and repeat the six syllable
> mantra a million times. I prefer to meditate on the breath. While I was
> in that group I refrained from reading books I hadn't been given the
> lung [tib] for. That is the oral transmission in the original Tibetan.
> When I did read some of the practices in translation I found they were
> far too difficult to even attempt. There are two texts in one book. The
> tantric one begins by assuming you can generate magical heat and goes on
> to work with that. The other is more like a Tibetan form of Zen or Chan
> and is more mystical and poetic. I much prefer the Theravada which is
> more or less what the historical Buddha taught. I went to Thailand to
> marry a simple Buddhist woman. But even though we had been married for
> two years the British embassy wouldn't give her a visa.
>
> Spencer
That's similar to what my girlfriend said. She just got
overwhelmed by the details of Tibetan Buddhism. She had a lot of
potential. She was able to generate Kundalini fire, but it
frightened her. She didn't like the pain it caused, so she backed
off. I suspect Kundalini fire and tumo are similar. Anyway she was
getting strong sensations of heat that caused pain and other
sensations. Her practice was assisted by spiritual beings. Maybe
that's the case in Tibetan Buddhism also. I tried to help her get
a permanent resident status here in Canada but she gave up before
we could work through all the paperwork or figure out all the
details -- too difficult. So I've had an experience somewhat
similar to yours, at least in one sense.
ordo...@gmail.com
(nothing) is (real). Which seems to be (true) for many people stuck in
stupid patterns of thinking and behavior. Persuit of nothing or a
missequenced (object), something that is not there, but drives someone
forward creating an illusion of progress. There was a phase where
people were told to imagine everything as empty. In martial zen one
might imagine someones head as empty like a soda can to crush. But why
are you aiming at it? Your fist is not an object (it might make it
easyer to break things with when you treat it as such) it is connected
to you by an arm, by nerves, by blood vessles. It is part of you, the
subject. And that persons head there, is a subject. A person that has
feelings, emotions, at one time a little baby in a baby carriage, in
his mothers arms. And your crushing that babys head (since time is an
illusion whats the difference between punching a mans head or the man
as a baby?). What you get into is some pretty twisted thinking. Why
is the rock in the gurus hand more important than the hand? I'm sure
the guru has though of it. Stage magicians too. Some monks are known
to talk to rocks. I knew people on LSD to claim to have conversations
with posters on the wall. So when is a rock or tree a subject? In
language it is said that the "i" is the part of you that no one can
refer to but yourself. Thats subjectivity. Each subject has an
experience of itself that no one else can experience. Who are we or
anyone else to determine if that thing over there doesnt have a
subject? Maybe its not so stupid to circle a holy rock in mecca. Then
again, what can a muslim teach me about the universe? Maybe that rock
is more important than all the muslims added up in the world.
Everything is nothing because everything is an absolute.
Non-distinction. No truth, no rules means nothing. It means one
(subject) has no basis for anything. Non-dependent action or function.
A void is everything and nothing.
What I have noticed is that 99.9 of the people that get into this
nonense lack the inner language to conceptualize it or use it. They
are simply persuing another carrot, just a more abstract and formless
carrot at that.
ordo...@gmail.com
lamaism is without power, or legitimacy. Every lama has a shaman he
works with, if he is not one himself, and most are not. For a lama to
act AS someones guru or shaman is like a kung fu teacher implying he's
spiritual and can kill you with one touch, if he wanted to, if he
wanted to use his qi. Your supposed to act as if that proposition is
real, but when, if you realize it is not, he is no longer your master,
and you have nothing to learn from him. This usage of "thoughtform" is
just a tinkerbell fantasy. Its only real as long as you act as-if its
real. As-iffing is not real. And thats the inner truth about
thoughforms. Its the energy, even the movement of energy in the
neurons (thought path or "track") is a thought form. Energy clicking
from the rear of the brain, human organ energy, those can be thought
forms.
Thought forms are types of elementals in that they work on the mental
sphere but that does not mean SILENT INTENT qualifys as "mental". This
reminds me of the joke. Descartes is in a resturant in france and the
waiter asks him "what would you like?" Descartes says: "I dont know"
and dissapears. Silent intent does not energize much thats useful in
the realm of elementals and thought forms. Silent intent may not even
be that useful for much of anything. In my observation is that silent
intent is merely a form of delusion, yet in itself is a thoughform. A
thought form of nonsense.
Samsara and being in Dhukka are probably just more sophisticated ways
of expressing more simpler ideas.
Tilopa said it well when he made clear that the path of buddhas is
non-practice and that buddhas do not practice nonsense.
For a lay to imply that he/she is a buddha or becoming one or has the
powers of a shaman is impious fraud. Period.
However, its not outside the realm of possibility that the witch doctor
or medical doctor to hoodwink his patients or subjects.
ordo...@gmail.com
ordo...@gmail.com
ordo...@gmail.com
could say this "void" is in fact not a void but a something. A real
power which has more power over those it can connect to (those that
voluntarily give a part or whole of themselves to it). A inner voice
which says: "you are nothing" "you dont exist" probably knows more
about the person than the person knows about themselves, or the thing
saying "you are nothing" "you are nobody" "you dont exist" "nothing you
do makes any sense".
ordo...@gmail.com
the realness. Maya is illusion, merely the effect of Brahma. Dont
look to the effect and mistake it for the thing. Maya is illusion,
just very realistic (concrete) illusion. This is difficult for
ordinary people to understand. Because something is unreal does not
mean you cannot touch it, or see it. Likewise, because something
cannot reach us through the phenomenological dimension, does not mean
it does not exist. What does empiricism have to do with this?
ordo...@gmail.com
makes no sense. The practice and common believe of buddhism
contradicts buddhas own lifestyle and background and history. People
are only using very distorted and twisted interpretatiosn of what they
want to be buddhism. The perameters of Dualistic realism are simply
not being adhered to and therefore it cannot be taken seriously. To
sit and do nothing and expect something to happen is not void. Its
someone perpetually trying to grasp something thats not there. You
cant embrace a void. A single hand cannot clap. This is nonsense.
Tom
>>
>> I speak here of absolute truth.
>> There is also relative truth which is useful for getting by in the
>> mundane
>> world. But if one does really realise absolute truth then all mundane
>> actions become spontaneous. This is called pure Buddha Activity. The
>> present Dalai Lama seems to have attained this. He has said that he may
>> be the last. That is he is hinting that he has gone beyond belief in
>> re-incarnation.
>
> I've heard the Dalai Lama say that. I suspect it may be vanity on his
> part. He wants to be special, so he wants to be the last Dalai Lama. I
> know, I know, he's a great guy, and I respect him also, but he isn't
> perfect. He's not above ego. No one is. Those who claim otherwise are
> either mistaken, or fools.
http://www.dhushara.com/book/budd/shug.htm
NEW DELHI A 350-year-old ghost is haunting the Dalai Lama, the exiled
leader of Tibet a land where spirits and reincarnations are held to be as
real as the controversy over Chinese rule. The ghost is the spirit of
powerful 17th-century nionk Dorje Shugden, who was murdered in his palace in
Tibet, and is regarded by his followers as a deity. The Dalai Lama has
rejected the monk as a deity and called him an evil spirit, provoking a
challenge to his own authority among Tibetan Buddhists. The police believe
this religious dispute was behind the slayings of three Dalai Lama disciples
in February near the Tibetan leader's seat in exile in Dharmsala in India,
where the Dalai Lama fled in 1959 with 120,000 followers. Two men suspected
of stabbing their victims are believed to have fled India. Five others, all
linked to the Dorje Shugden Society in New Delhi, were questioned for months
about a possible conspiracy. The Dorje Shugden Society denies involvement in
the murders and accuses the Dalai Lama's administration of implicating the
group to crush religious dissent. No one has been charged. "If we were in
Tibet, we would all in prison, tortured or dead by now," said Cheme Tsering,
a monk whom police have named as a suspect. Mr Tsering said Dorje Shugden
devotees might seek Indian citizenship, which could be seen as a walkout
from the Dalai Lama camp. Two decades ago, the Dalai Lama began
recorfsidering his own faith in Dorje Shugden, and decided that the spirit
was working against him. Last year, he asked his followers to renounce Dorje
Shugden. Everyone working for his administration was told to forswear Doije
Shugden or resign. Most exiles, who revere the Dalai Lama as a god himself,
complied. But diehard Dorje Shugden followers resisted. Jantpal Chosang,
secretary of the Dalai Lama's office in New Delhi, says. the charges - of
intolerance against the Nobel Peace Prize laureate are unjustified. An
individual can still worship Dorje Shugden, but the Dalai Lama does not want
Dorje Shugden devotees counted among his loyalists. Dorje Shugden disciples,
however, - say the Dalai Lama's real intention is to create a political
diversion. "His Holiness is using this to redirect the anger of the Tibetan
people about independence from China. He is using an issue of faith to hide
his own political failings , said Mr Tsering. AP