How can Western philosophy expect to compete with Buddhism?

wow what a nigger

by creating its own conceptual world where it will be the god-controlling definer of everything within that world

You're all plebs, Vedantic philosophy is where it's at

Buddhism won't suddenly self destruct someday leaving hundreds of millions destitute and left with garbage landfills spreading out to their back yards and a trashed environment.

In a most fitting way. That is, by fighting it from within.

vividness.live/2011/07/05/the-king-of-siam-invents-western-buddhism/
vividness.live/2011/06/24/protestant-buddhism/

speculativenonbuddhism.com/about/
speculativenonbuddhism.com/why-non-buddhism/
speculativenonbuddhism.com/categories/

true, but you cant get at vedanta without passing trough the corrective notions of buddhism and jainism

o I am laffin

It can't. Buddhism is a philosophy that was so accurate in accounting human sorrows that it became a religion. Think about it. Do you consider Islam or Christianity a philosophy? We call them theism at best. All the other religion rely on reproduction, on indoctrination and conversion to spread and maintain itself.

Buddhism made me less stressed out, then I realized I both need and enjoy my stress.

Is your body "you"? Even though you're constantly having to replenish yourself with food and water and constantly having to excrete parts of yourself as urine and shit?

Is your brain your self? What if you drink alcohol or hit your head and lose a few brain cells? Did you just become an entirely new person?

Or what if you learn something new? What "you" is the real "you"? When you were a child? A teenager? An adult? What about when you die? Where do "you" go?

The answer is: there was no real "you" in the first place.

German Idealism > Everything else

>8922506
FUCKING NORMALFAGS

>tfw you find out your prof dedicates his life to sabotaging your race and insulting your culture and finding another person knowledgeable enough to figure out what he's doing is next to impossible.

I didn't know that could be done. Thanks Mod.

>Zeno
>Zenō
>Zen'ō (禅王)

This. Stoicism is Buddhism without the weeb shit. Sadly buddiboos would rather make fools of themselves instead of practice a philosophy they can actually understand.

>weeb shit

Buddhism comes from India

it can't. there is nothing is western philosophy that comes close to the profundity of codependent arising, "emptiness", the four noble truths, non duality, the bodhisattva vow, etc.

once you understand these things you understand everything. you also overcome your suffering and can help others do the same. nothing in western philosophy has that effect.

No it isn't. They aren't even close other than a vague notion of "lol don't become a hedonist bro".

Buddhism has no real analog in Western thought. Stoicism is closer to Taoism than anything.

Where did the West go so wrong? Socrates? Plato? Aristotle? Caesar? Jesus?

>closer to Taoism
How so? I know Stoicism is pro nature and naturalness, but does it ever deal ineffability and codependence the way Taoism has from its beginnings? Pluse, which Taoism, exactly?

Taoism postulates a transcendent "flow" by which the universe operates. Understanding your own nature so you can join with this flow properly is the key to happiness (and a bunch of other Chinese mystical stuff).

Stoicism, likewise, postulates that nature will continue to move on without you and that happiness is achieved by going with the "flow" of nature when it comes to matters that are outside of your control; understanding when to go with this "flow" of nature is dependent upon understanding yourself.

Meanwhile Buddhism is a means of freeing yourself from self destructive practices, beliefs, thoughts, and habits.

Some of the habits that Buddhism would have you destroy are perfectly acceptable under the Stoic worldview. Stoics say that there's nothing wrong with sex with pleasure provided you do it wisely and in a manner that isn't destructive and is ultimately conducive with your nature as a human with sexual needs, but the Buddhists would say that the fact that human sexual needs are ultimately nothing but a source of dukkha.

And of course Taoists would say that men shouldn't ejaculate as it causes chi imbalances which will stop you from becoming an immortal, but that's neither here nor there so sex for pleasure was probably a bad example now that I think about it.

Buddhist asserts non-self. Nagarjuna goes to lengths to distinguish between self, not-self, and not-not-self. He indicates that the Buddhist position is the middle way, not-self, between the two extremes of self and not-not-self.

It doesn't deny persons nor conventional selves at all, merely that there are substantially existing selves. At the time and place this was controversial, but this concept in of itself isn't even worth a pause nowadays.

Hume indicated the same thing, 'the' self is a fiction and in reality there are bundles of properties, which are analogous to the much earlier Buddhist idea of aggregates of properties.

The Buddha parts ways with Hume however when Hume declares that this fact doesn't have any utility for the individual, people still went on experiencing their world as if they were a substantially existing self that resided somewhere behind their eyes.

The Buddha asserted rather that through meditation one could modulate one's experience and eventually remove the experience of being a substantially existing self, rather than what one actually was, a dynamic process of aggregates. He furthermore asserted that this experience greatly diminished mental agony.

It is analogous to conceptually understanding that one is viewing an optical illusion, and that merely knowing that it is an optical illusion doesn't necessarily remove the illusion, but that through a special kind of training one could actually overcome the illusion as such.

There is a contemporary problem when people are trying to learn Buddhism, where Buddhism basically saddles them with conceptual views of self to refute that most people simply don't hold anymore. Making a lot of the analytical view deconstruction that Buddhism does completely superfluous.

That's kind of a pretty reductive view of Taoism and doesn't address the more metaphysical side of it which, again, was part of it from its inception. That there's a well defined "yourself" to understand and which has or hasn't control at times is also a big difference to look into, since it's a huge part of what makes western thought. And of course there's the whole wuwei thing.

>And of course Taoists would say that men shouldn't ejaculate as it causes chi imbalances which will stop you from becoming an immortal
Yet Zhuangzi and Yang Zhu would laugh at attempts to lengthen one's lifespan in that manner. The ultimate ideal of Taoism is closer to a disappearance as in Buddhism, but rather than as an escape, it's seen as a dissolution or integration into the cosmos; does Stoicism have a parallel for that?

David Chapman is a fucking idiot who bans people from his little blog that know more than he does. He talks about "reinventing Tantra", but when you point out that he fails to understand at times even the basic thrust of this or that, he links some disclaimer saying he knows little about Tantra and might be wrong.

He rarely has anything intelligent to say yet he goes on about reforming and reinventing Buddhism. How about he takes some time off writing shit fluff books (Vampires and Buddhism...) and take a couple of uni courses.

I shit you not, one time he claimed in a comment that he sided more with Dolpopa over Tsongkapa. I pointed out that it appeared he didn't understand Tsongkapa and that it seemed he was confusing Tsongkapa for the views of Patsub Nyimadrak. I challenged him to write out a few of Tsongkapa's positions unambiguously, just a few sentences on them so we can agree we are talking about the same person/same things.

His response? To delete my comments and IP block me from his blog.

Not to mention he is heavily affiliated with Aro gTér, a fraudulent Dzogchen "lineage" made up by a couple of British hoaxers that have gone as far as to try to forge old texts that they have "translated" that they claim predict their lineage.

Dude is a fucking idiot, a liar, and a perfect example of why the pragmatic dharma movement is a disgrace. Not a good example of "fighting it from within", and certainly not representative of Western philosophy or intellectual rigor.

after Heraclitus

>Stoicism is Buddhism

Uh, there are some rough parallels, but Stoicism is really not much like Buddhism, and certainly not its essence like you seem to be suggesting.

>Buddhists would say that the fact that human sexual needs are ultimately nothing but a source of dukkha.

that's not true. desire isn't the problem, grasping (trishna) is.

>There is a contemporary problem when people are trying to learn Buddhism, where Buddhism basically saddles them with conceptual views of self to refute that most people simply don't hold anymore. Making a lot of the analytical view deconstruction that Buddhism does completely superfluous.

explain?

Not him, but

>"You" are just a collection of atoms; there is no singular "you" that isn't just a collective of organs which are a collective of tissue which are a collection of cells which are a collection of molecules which are a collection of atoms which are a collection of quarks so there is no real you

Most people get that, making much of the deconstruction of the self that was necessary for ancient people unnecessary for us.

>Pluse, which Taoism, exactly?

If you are going to go there, then which Buddhism exactly is Stoicism? You admit that Stoicism is pro nature and naturalism, but "nature" and "harmony" are only found in East-Asian forms of Buddhism. They had their genesis in pre-Buddhist thought that they merely explained in Buddhistic language.

In most of Buddhism, the natural world includes karma and rebirth, which are blind, cruel processes utterly indifferent to the individual. You go against the stream of the natural world in this respect, and in some very meaningful sense then nibbana is otherworldly and so "anti-nature/naturalness".

Even in traditions like Chagchen and Ati Dzogpa Chenpo, which are Indo-Tibetan traditions that talk about "the natural state", they are talking about the true condition of this otherworldliness sans the detritus inherent to nature/the natural world (samsara).

>He talks about "reinventing Tantra", but when you point out that he fails to understand at times even the basic thrust of this or that, he links some disclaimer saying he knows little about Tantra and might be wrong.

>Most people get that
No they don't. They have a purely superficial understanding of it and don't really consider the implications. Most people haven't integrated scientific knowledge like that. And when it comes to the psyche, it's even worse.

>If you are going to go there, then which Buddhism exactly is Stoicism?
I'm not claiming that, that was a different user. I'm only interested in the supposed parallels. Of course Buddhism is hugely diverse, even more so than Taoism due to larger popularity and geographic distribution. I'm not disputing that at all. I'm just saying Taoism is still closer to Buddhism than to Stoicism.

It's already beaten it.

Doesn't matter whether they get it at first glance or not, the point is that the language and the understanding DOES exist and CAN be accessed which makes the concept easier to understand. Peasants 2500 years ago did not have access to such language or to people who did understand such things.

>was necessary for ancient people unnecessary for us

as if, it's more necessary for us than for them. the cult of the ego is strongest now than it ever has been in human history. a large part of the economy is based on it (hollywood etc), and the "selfie" a primary mode of communication.

Sorry to be that guy but Trishna can be uncontroversially translated as desire. In Buddhism, Trishna or the Pali Tanha means desire/grasping and doctrinally there really isn't a difference.

I suspect you may be trying to distinguish desire with clinging, but the word for clinging is Upadana. Clinging is considered the direct result of desire in most of the early Nikayana forms of Buddhism.

Backing up a bit however, there is a distinction between Tanha/Trishna and Chanda. This distinction is extremely ambiguous in the earliest texts though and sometimes includes anxieties and lust and so dukka. However a less ambiguous distinction is emphasized quite a bit in the later commentarial literature and even more so in contemporary times.

Chanda is now often touted as like a non-pathological will or impulse, and could be considered a type of desire separate from the chain of suffering. Desiring to practice, desiring others be well, desiring one attains, or looking forward to eating the meal one is preparing without any exaggerated hopes etc.

Whether or not this modern distinction is coherent or maintains doctrinal integrity is for others to decide.

>the point is that the language and the understanding DOES exist and CAN be accessed which makes the concept easier to understand
That it can doesn't mean that it IS accessed. Just because they have a passing understandment of scientific language doesn't make it so they will grasp things better than through a more alien Buddhist language, because both of them barely mean anything to them to begin with.

It is a get out of jail free card that he uses to shield himself from criticism and then goes on repeating the same errors afterwards. He uses in a way that is intentionally dishonest as far as I can tell.

He often writes with an air of authority and certainly doesn't discourage his idiotic fanbase from taking on his unfounded views.

It is a project that inherently lacks any humility or concern for rigor or intellectual honesty. It is akin to saying I am going to reinvent Catholicism, then providing some cheap disclaimer saying I could be wrong, then proceeding to go on and on pretending I know my shit after skimming a few books in the bible. 'But it is okay because disclaimer and I promise that one day I'll make the time to read the remainder of the books in there!'

>a type of desire separate from the chain of suffering. Desiring to practice, desiring others be well, desiring one attains, or looking forward to eating the meal one is preparing without any exaggerated hopes etc.
>Whether or not this modern distinction is coherent or maintains doctrinal integrity is for others to decide.

Clusters of habit are clusters of habit, imho. Kabbalah hammers this point pretty thoroughly. They're absolutely different systems, but breaking klipot is breaking klipot. People are quick to throw offerings of grain and cake and nectar into the fires of sadhana. Few are willing to offer the concept of sadhana itself to the fires of Understanding.

Fair enough, I agree that Taoism is closer to Buddhism than Stoicism. My major point was that the gap between Buddhism and Stoicism is much larger than some others here seem to think.

I tend to agree, and so do various non-nikayana traditions of Buddhism as far as I can tell. This seems to be a theme in common Mahayana and is pretty explicitly found in uncommon Mahayana (Vajrayana/Tantrayana/Dzogchen).

i must disagree with that. the overcomng of desire is impossible. it is part of the condition fo our existence. buddha never stop desiring. nirvana is not "the place of no desire"; it is "the place beyond concepts". perhaps this is all semantics, but i think experiencing desire is fine so long as there is no attachement.

in his translation of nagarjuna, a zen monk called nishijima pretty much says the same thing.

The only contact I've had with this guy was the page he has on kangling construction which was referenced in a more "authentic" document than 'buddhism for vampires'.

I was unaware he disrespected the Tantras. Never looked beyond his pointers for the trumpet.

I may be flying more or less solo but I hold zero illusion my dumb ass can make something BETTER as a reinvention. I can barely read Sanskrit. I may have self constructed patches or personal elaborations in parallel but only a truly lost person can think the transmission lines can just be overturned.

Huh? Come again?

As you probably know, the view you just laid out, as well as plenty of Zen, is pretty heterodox to Indian Buddhism.

Zennists always have the strangest takes on Nagarjuna in their efforts to appropriate him as one of their own.

>buddha never stop desiring. nirvana is not "the place of no desire"; it is "the place beyond concepts"
OM GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SVAHA

I'd still gently argue in favor of habit busting. This appears to be the trajectory of the Buddha's awakening, if not precisely his teachings as per the Pali canon. Break normativity or excess with asceticism. Break them both with the middle way.

I mean I can intellectualize on this all day but my fundamental position appears to be that of Rinzai.

>I may be flying more or less solo but I hold zero illusion my dumb ass can make something BETTER as a reinvention.

I'm with you there. In principle maybe reinvention is possible, but certainly not as a task for a single person, let alone a single generation of people.

People that are so quick to push for such things tend to lack real familiarity with the depth and scope of these traditions. These are mountains of traditions that can't be easily dug up and rearranged.

Non pathological impulse () in my humble and ignorant opinion must be conquered as deeply as more willed habit clusters. This concept is balanced against the 'middle way', you don't wanna go ascetic so hard you outright die before say stream entry, but again this verges on semantics.

It's the karmic cluster which keeps the momentum of """you""" spinning on Samsara's wheel. Breaking these up allows one Liberation.

Kabbalah has a much similar process, conquering the Klipot or Qlippoth, which are the accretion shells of habituation, where God is unconditioned, emergent, spontaneous, and nonarisen. By placing our habits on the fires of contemplative understanding, they sorta break open, and those sparks are Gnosis.

The Brahmana Sutta seems to pretty clearly say that the path is one with an end, and that the path and the aim is one of abandoning desire. He makes clear that even the desire to end desire or to attain this or that also cease, so a complete end to desire is had.

I would be interested in any pali suttas that clearly say that after the Tathagata continued to experienced desire.

yeah it was a pretty weird translation that filtered him through Dogen. still, had some interesting points that i found helpful.

it's not really heterodox to mahayana, especially if you consider nonduality and the figure of vimalakirti.

i agree. my point is just that the middle way doesn't necessitate the total eradication of desire. and that it can't, or else it wouldn't be the middle way.

>I may be flying more or less solo but I hold zero illusion my dumb ass can make something BETTER as a reinvention.
Isn't the attittude itself that is the problem? Why the desire to be a revolutionary? Why not contribute? If you see an error in the doctrine then it must either have already been addressed or it's actually a fair point; if the doctrine is already throughly corrupt then one fair point can shatter it down of itself; if people won't listen, are you going to play Lucifer and take half of heaven with you? I mean "inventing" in itself is a pretty ignorant romantic concept; "reinvent" is just a step beyond.

But then does the breaking of the habit not become a habit in itself? Does desire not to desire not become desire?

The Mahaparinibbana Sutta.

>25. And the Blessed One sat down on the seat prepared for him and said to the Venerable Ananda: "Please bring me some water, Ananda. I am thirsty and want to drink."

accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html

I'd suggest transmutation of desire rather than eradication.

If I understand correctly, the conquering of these ten desires is spoken of as "freedom from the bonds of..." this or that desire. We are Liberated from these constraints rather than annihilating them.

To be crude; we're not to conquer desire to not not piss our pants. Our bodily functions serve a valid purpose.

But we should test our boundaries and *understand* the limitations of our sense desires.

So instead of holding it till we piss ourselves, or just letting it go at first impulse, we figure out how long we can hold it before it becomes painful or discomforting.

Then we understand the boundaries of our excretory habits.

What error is there? I'm sorta serious here, I'm no Khenpo or Geshe here.

Also, there is such a thing as a noble impulse, and this is why:
>mindfulness
>nonextremes
>nondualism
>reintegration of ground
In short, the middle way, is so integral. If not it spirals into the excess of certain Vedic protocols or the corrosive aescesis of folks like the Jains.

^This.
But to think Buddha didn't test the limits of his thirst is foolish.

Feels like there's an important and simple metaphor there too:
>Settled desire is purified desire.
Which us takes us back to the old Zen slogan:
>Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water.
>During enlightenment, chop wood and carry water.
>After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water.

he did test the limits but then realised testing limits was useless, hence the abandonment of asceticism and the adoption of the middle way. this was symbolised by his receiving and eating of the rice pudding from the woman.

i think some other verses from the Mahaparinibbana Sutta make clear the correct attitude:

>"Mindful should you dwell, bhikkhus, clearly comprehending; thus I exhort you."

>"And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu have clear comprehension? When he remains fully aware of his coming and going, his looking forward and his looking away, his bending and stretching, his wearing of his robe and carrying of his bowl, his eating and drinking, masticating and savoring, his defecating and urinating, his walking, standing, sitting, lying down, going to sleep or keeping awake, his speaking or being silent, then is he said to have clear comprehension.

...

>21. And soon after the Blessed One had eaten the meal provided by Cunda the metalworker, a dire sickness fell upon him, even dysentery, and he suffered sharp and deadly pains. But the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

so having desires and having pain are not a problem! to be ignorant of then, to not be mindful of them, to cling to them, that is the problem. there is not exhortation to eradicate these things. being mindful of them IS the eradication of their power.

>Settled desire is purified desire.
so yes, after all that, i agree wholeheartedly.

(there's also a version that goes: before i studied zen i saw a mountain as a mountain. when i started studying zen i saw a mountain as more than a mountain. when i finished studying zen i saw a mountain as a mountain.)

This seems like a pretty clear case of equivocation. The Nikayana doctrines don't suggest that an arahant can't recognize when the the body is needs sustenance, hydration, or rest. Arahants still feel physical sensations, including pain, none of that necessarily entails trishna in the relevant sense.

I'm looking at the original pali right now to make sure.

Do you have a better example? Because this is an incredible stretch imo. If that was your whole point, then you are simply defining desire in a way totally different than the early Indian texts do, and then holding that against the Indian doctrine. This is something East-Asian traditions do, and it started because they initially had among the worst translations ever recovered.

Just take a look at accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html

""Brahman, the holy life is lived under the Blessed One with the aim of abandoning desire."

"Is there a path, is there a practice, for the abandoning of that desire?"

"Yes, there is a path, there is a practice, for the abandoning of that desire.""

...

There's some interesting ideas in Buddhism, but lets be honest, it's not a philosophy. It's a religion.

Yes and?

>muh ship of Theseus

Just because the body maintains itself doesn't mean it's becoming something entirely different from what it was.

Buddhism doesn't say there is no such thing as a self, it says that what you call your self is actually not an unchanging essence, its a collection of ever-changing inter-connected factors, including your thoughts, memories, mental states, emotions, and body parts.

Its not no-self, its not-self.

>Le Monkey

>it's not really heterodox to mahayana, especially if you consider nonduality

Non-duality and non-dual are two different terms. Non-duality isn't that common to Buddhist discourse at all and was mistakenly over-hyped by Western scholars.

What exactly about advaita should be considered that renders the above "not really heterodox to mahayana"?

The common Mahayana doctrine suggests that desire is a symptom rather than the cause of dukka and samsara. With the cause being an ignorance, but not merely a passive misunderstanding, but an active misengagement with reality (per Nagarjuna).

As such your original assertion that "desire is fine so long as there is no attachment" actually fundamentally contradicts common Mahayana doctrine, because desire can't arise at all without that misengagement which is the root of samsara.

In uncommon Mahayana the issue is a lot more complicated, but they certainly don't, even in chagchen, suggest that desire is fine, rather they talk of cautious employment of the method, and the the risk of actively engaging in the poisons for the sake of transmuting their power like that of an antidote made from snake's poison to counter a snake bite. That is mind you, in the more liberal, raw traditions of tantra. In the monasticised gelug, you have figures like the Dalai Lama explicitly saying that one has to completely overcome desire before one can engage in sexual practices, something like other tantric traditions find, and I agree, fundamentally incoherent.

Three Cheers for the Five Aggregates!

>my point is just that the middle way doesn't necessitate the total eradication of desire. and that it can't, or else it wouldn't be the middle way.

I don't follow. From your other comments you seem to have a strong east-asian influence, which is just axiomatically different in many core ways to Indian rooted Buddhism.

However, even with that in mind I don't know why you think that necessarily follows from the doctrine of the middle-way.

samsara is nirvana
nirvana is samsara

didn't you read nagarjuna? it's all in your head bro

>Yes and?

How about not starting a thread comparing it to Western philosophy next time, and instead compare to Christianity.

>you have figures like the Dalai Lama explicitly saying that one has to completely overcome desire before one can engage in sexual practices, something like other tantric traditions find, and I agree, fundamentally incoherent.
I really feel like this is an artifact of the stratification of methods of accomplishment.

A yogini is as fine as a tulpa is as fine as a Godform.

How are you going to control prana duly if you have zero exposure its motions in the act in the first place. This makes my samaya...uncomfortable, but at least I already have an understanding how Bodhicitta drops, though not quite in those exact terms.

In the absence of Guruji I'm uncertain as to what the sign will be when it's deemed time put the Great Seal on completion but I trust Vajrayogini to to show the way.

I'm sorry but I can't agree. The issue of pain was never in question, because the Pali texts are extremely clear in distinguishing between physical and mental agony, with the path being about the cessation of mental agony.

However as to your claim of Buddhas having desire, you picked a passage that in no way suggests the term is being used in the sense you think it is. Hence the issue of equivocation. You are using a different definition of desire.

I glanced at the original pali and Taṇhā isn't used in the passage you cite. He isn't saying he desires in the way that is remotely meaningful to Buddhist doctrine.

Just in English, In the case of the Brahman sutta, it is extremely clear and evidently about the doctrine and path, it isn't ambiguous in English. The two passages in the test you are citing that your thesis seems to rest on are in fact ambiguous and we have reason to take in context rather than make them out to be sweeping doctrinal statements about the path.

>Pali texts are extremely clear in distinguishing between physical and mental agony, with the path being about the cessation of mental agony.
I'm glad to see I didn't hallucinate this.

The problem is that those virtues become fixed themselves, so "nonextremity" become one extreme, or "nonduality" becomes one of a duo, etc. It's not that they aren't good things, but that good and bad are born from each other. So as long as there's a way there will be those that stray. So long as there's something to attain problems will continue to arise. I preffer Taoism to Buddhism because the latter presupposes there is a Way that is common and certain to all people; its attittude is not all that different from modern science: it's very effective yes, but it is concerned with "externalities" (even if they are psychic phenomena), with bringing a sort of reliance. Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, of course. I'm not trying to badmouth Buddhism here. But the problem is reliance on things. Getting attached to the Way. Escape the world, redemption for world, hoping for conclusivity in a life that is not over, hoping for uniformity from a world that uses all of itself in all its things and so can't really repeat. I'm halfly rambling here. I think in the end the best approach to philosophy and religion is the medical one: to try to fix things as they arise and not to aim for the perennial. Putting things or people above you to depend on is sort of ethically bankrupt, y'know? Maybe you don't have to depend on them; walking together is not so bad.

So what do you think of Evola's interpretation of early Buddhism as a path to the unconditioned born of a superhuman dignity?

Nagarjuna says that samsara is nirvana properly understood, it doesn't mean that they are equivalent or that these distinctions are "mere" concepts or "mere" thoughts. Hence kamma and rebirth. As Tsongkapa says in no uncertain terms, there is a difference between the inferred nirvana as a logical consequence of sunyata and the actual nirvana as the fruit of the path.

So no, in a very real sense according to Nagarjuna, it is well beyond merely being just in your head.

>but that good and bad are born from each other
To be clear, in no terms do I intend to argue AGAINST the (non)emergent and undifferentiated void of ground.

>So long as there's something to attain problems will continue to arise.
[insert argument of fundamental Buddhahood here]

> I'm not trying to badmouth Buddhism here.
I used to, loudly and often, until I put on my bigboy pants and oathed up. Every single one of my objections were semantic.

>But the problem is reliance on things.
I agree here, see again my self identification with Rinzai.

>Escape the world
You're not Liberated TO anywhere. The Bodhisattva leaves and returns while remaining seated.

>redemption for world
I dunno, call me a romantic.

>hoping for conclusivity in a life that is not over
But I already got that from Saivism.

>uniformity
The only things uniform are beyond form. Void. Vacuum. Sahaja.

>to try to fix things as they arise and not to aim for the perennial.
I sorta agree here.

>Putting things or people above you to depend on is sort of ethically bankrupt, y'know
>it's all in your head bro

>walking together is not so bad.
^^^

>A yogini is as fine as a tulpa is as fine as a Godform.

Most masters don't seem to suggest this, they talk about how each are appropriate for different capacities. There are different pros and risks of each.

>How are you going to control prana duly if you have zero exposure its motions in the act in the first place.

Well you indirectly influence the motions through entirely different means, hence the differences between the upper doors vs lower entrances approach to gtummo practice.

Not that it matters, Tibetan doctrine is pretty clear that the nitty gritty form of karmamudra is mostly a path for people 16-22, afterwhich the elements of the body begin to weaken making total success practice much more difficult. Older tantrics most typically will engage in yoga of passion rather than karmamudra and as supplement to their main practice rather than being their main practice.

Because suffering is not always caused by desire or attachment, stupid. Book of Job, son. Sometimes shit happens.

>Most masters don't seem to suggest this
I was mostly speaking to the effects of orthodox stratifications on scholastic outfits like the Gelug.

>Not that it matters
Indeed, I'm just throwing cents from my perspective.

>unconditioned
Yes.

>superhuman
No.

I'm distrustful of Evola. If I had to pick a thinker in that strain I liked the most, Evola would be a candidate, but I still distrust the dude.

>Every single one of my objections were semantic.
Out of curiosity, what were they?

>You're not Liberated TO anywhere.
It's not a physical thing. I think first to be liberated you have to consider yourself liberated, or at least liberate-able. Formulas and doctrines work because they are self-imposed, they're a sort of game of self-checking that one agrees to, then they become effective.

Your way's as legitimate as anyone's, Ape-san. Man, who cares about the lineages and the generations!

>I already got that from Saivism.
I'm listening?

Superhuman was my term, not his. He merely stressed the will of a "noble soul" striving after the unconditioned due to disgust with samsaric existence.

>I was mostly speaking to the effects of orthodox stratifications on scholastic outfits like the Gelug.

I am right there with you on this. I thought since you were moving to talking about your own path that when you stated the equivalence a physical dakini and a sprulpa you had already expanded the scope a bit.

Nonetheless, if you are older than 22, most likely the soteriological power of Vajrayogini will be through the two-stages and then in completion during the bardo visions rather than during a karmamudra sessions this life.

As you know the tantras really stress a guru, and assert only one in a million of the most serious adepts can go it alone, having done most of the work in previous lives, suggesting the people in question are authentic Tulkus. Garchen Rinpoche and Namkai Norbu are both excellent and easily accessible as root gurus, and most areas have a local Khenpo you can find. I am much more of a Dzogchen than a Chagchen person myself, but I know a local Kagyu Khenpo (heart student of Garchen) that has helped a bunch.

>stated the equivalence a physical dakini and a sprulpa you had already expanded the scope a bit.
I've worked both, but not in a Buddhist sensibility, and come to a more or less undifferentated conclusion. That may be due to being at the cusp between 22 and great adulthood, so for the purposes of the thread I'll defer to the wisdom of the Masters.

Now that my guru's awol after brief contact I've looked into it and my local Dharma Center hosts a Kagyu guru, I may well explain my situation (at least the broad strokes) for some further solidarity with the Sangha.

Also to be clear the reason why I'm hedging around use of consorts is that frankly I do aim higher into the Tantras.

I could probably self initiate up into Chakrasamvara but Hevajra's going to either require serious changes in my life circumstances, OR use of a consort for self-initiation to Samarasa and the inscription of the Mantra.

>It's not a physical thing. I think first to be liberated you have to consider yourself liberated, or at least liberate-able.

According to virtually all tantric doctrine it absolutely is a physical thing. Buddhahood resides in the body and the path is an entirely physical process involving the subtle anatomy of the body. The difference in methods you find in various tantric traditions expresses the extent they actually trust and have faith in this doctrine.

>Your way's as legitimate as anyone's

Very interesting and hopeful view.

> Stoics say that there's nothing wrong with sex with pleasure provided...

You clearly aren't a stoic. A stoic would tell you that there is no such thing as a sexual 'need', and as such, anything but sex for procreation is hedonism.

>I'm listening?
Certain Saivist mantras, when learned correctly, impart assurance of mukti. This life is the end of the line (provided you apply the instruction).

>Out of curiosity, what were they?
They sounded like Rinzai; why would I need the Buddha's after-the-fact instruction when I could model his route to enlightenment via experimentation and dedication. This was a supremely idiotic position to hold as a nondualist. In some sense I was parroting Abhinava's objections which were compiled well before the schools of Vajrayana crystalized into coherence.

>Your way's as legitimate as anyone's, Ape-san. Man, who cares about the lineages and the generations!
>Very interesting and hopeful view.
^That.

Do tell them at least briefly a bit of your background. Most Kagyu are traditional in the sense of pushing preliminaries first, but some consider the extent of the preliminaries needed in light of past practice.

They pretty much universally embrace a chagchen approach, which in some important ways fundamentally differs from the gelug view on chagchen. Most branches of living Kagyu entail a chagchen that isn't predicated on sexual yoga as a root requirement.

I became very seriously engaged in self-initiated tantra and the power of consorts, in my very early 20s and it eventually lead me, after some very powerful experiences and visions, to appreciate the utter rigor of some traditions of Buddhism quite a bit.

I since have taken to Longchenpa's position on sexual yoga. I had an experience of total bliss that temporary collapsed constructed perceptions and then embraced Dzogchen since it is far more direct and efficient once a sampling like that has been had.

>Most Kagyu are traditional in the sense of pushing preliminaries first, but some consider the extent of the preliminaries needed in light of past practice.
What makes me apprehensive is the meaning of my recent distance empowerment via Karma Kagyu. Not that I doubt authenticity but I don't want to be construed as disingenuous. I took the route available to me.

And the 'pointing out' wasn't too bad either.

>I since have taken to Longchenpa's position on sexual yoga. I had an experience of total bliss that temporary collapsed constructed perceptions and then embraced Dzogchen since it is far more direct and efficient once a sampling like that has been had.
Care to expand on this?

>but I don't want to be construed as disingenuous.

A decade or so ago maybe, but now most Kagyus are entirely on board with many of the big wigs giving empowerments like this. There is an element of controversy still among some if it is live or whether it can be received through a non-live recording.

In the Dzogchen Community distance isn't the issue if it is a live stream, as it is a matter of a syncing up of intentions. However some members of Kagyu think empowerments don't require a live stream at all, others will.

If it wasn't live and there is disagreement from the khenpo, ask for the necessary empowerments. You won't be considered disingenuous either way, you will be viewed as someone eager for teachings. They would be concerned if you proceeded to list off a long list of empowerments you received from a variety of different people yet still are working on your preliminaries, as those people often come across as merely shopping for "blessings" and as insincere and uncommitted to actually practicing.

Having ambition?

>Care to expand on this?

Longchenpa's position is that sexual yoga is for practitioners of lower capacity, usually having hidden attachments to sexual bliss and the promise of ecstasy and usually have a lessor zeal for rigorously practicing the path as a primary priority.

He still gives exhaustive teachings on it and points out that it can serve as a stepping stone into Dzogchen practice through exactly the sort of experience I am talking about. Basically it would be translated as something like "total bliss that glimpses a sampling of primordial gnosis" and is when you successfully force the winds into the central channel coupled with the upward movement of liquid (ojas) but not the skill to trap them there.

So the heartdrop wind moves and the clear light mind is uncovered for a brief duration, and though it doesn't directly apprehend sunyata in this case, the "innate bliss" of the clear light (which isn't necessarily present when the clear light mind is uncovered generally, but in particular state it is) is activated. It lasted for about a minute and it felt like I was reverse-ejaculating up into my brain and that even the subtlest stress of existence itself closed up, like utter relief from ultra-subtle stress that were blindspots my whole life and had never been noticed were constant were suddenly patched up. My only thought afterwards was "heaven", and there was a kind of non-conceptual, non-perceptual one of a kind spaciousness that I had never experienced before (despite having ample "spacious" experiences on psychedelics and in meditation).

In short it is a kind of very direct self-initiated pointing out. From there in Dzogchen we recall and apply knowledge of that perfect condition and seek to rest, in a non-deliberate way, in that state using a variety of approaches. You practicing cutting through, dissolving even mindfulness, and instantly, totally relax back into the state.