I hope this helps a little. I understand your dilemma and it is one that we all face upon this path.

the edge

living life at the edge
of my existence,
bringing meaning to ideas
where none exist.
struggling between the two worlds;
one complex and calculating,
the other vast as transparent space.
to be born into this world
is our first mistake.
to live life not of this world
is our only liberation.
attachment causes heartache—
non-attachment allows compassion,
opinions fall like dust
into the ocean.
desires transform to aspiration.
being at this edge
requires another step be taken.
the birds outside sing
to one another—
their song unites
all who can hear.

dochong, jdpsn

What context do we provide in the west? The conversation between earth based spiritualities and buddhism seems critical so as to avoid the kind of dry, cerebral forms that we can be in danger of falling into.

thanks

Steve

The two poles are to recognize that doing anything is ultimately meaningless, and that doing something constructive is the quintessence of enlightened mind. Or, immersion in being and immersion in life. Or, Emptiness as the absence of self-nature as opposed to Will as Becoming. Are these opposed? Only to a point, but the journey to and from that point is important! And we’ve had a long and honorable journey.

In the end, we’re left with the ambivalent imperative of remaining true to our highest understanding. It doesn’t help that that understanding is fleeting, insubstantial, indescribable, and occasionally attributable to non-indigenous sources. But it does help that that understanding frees us from, well, our own bullshit. We can be free and honest, or we can stand a chance of becoming impressive. Gee . . . . how much of a chance?

W.B.

I get the idea there’s a fair amount of tantric experimentation back East, especially in the NYC area. There’s also some of the same ethical difficulties one found in Neo-Pagandom. Also, some of the Shambhala people have a foot in Neo-Paganism, especially some of the old Trungpa students who enjoyed the innovation of the Shambhala stuff but got turned off by the subsequent corporate kulturkampf.

The Norbu Tun does incorporate some recurring patterns, but the problem with messing around with one of those practices is that a lot of the benefit from them are the “blessings” that come from the transmission from the teacher. Changing things around to, e.g., refer to a different deity preserves the power of the magical structure, but risks losing the connection with the specific transmission. Whether that’s a problem depends, of course, on how much power the transmission actually has, but I’ve got a couple sadhanas that don’t appear that special structurally, and yet seem to have an effect beyond what’s on paper; they’re more than the sum of their parts. I tend to attribute that to where and how I got them.

W.B.