Visionary Heart Alchemy

One ‘truism’ I have spoken aloud for much of my life that has never encountered even a little bit of resistance is that “Life Is Weird”. No one has ever said in response “What do you mean?” or “I disagree”. Mostly people nod their head emphatically often with a smile forming on their face. In my late teens I modified the statement to “Life is weirder then you think.” Still no one argued. Then in my early 20,s I was listening to Deepak Chopra on tape and he said “Life is weirder then you can think”

With that statement Deepak hit the nail square on the head. Life even in the fullness of its relative aspects is bigger, deeper and vaster then the thinking mind can ever grasp. To it, life will always display a quality of weirdness. That even the relative aspects of life overflow the conceptual minds limits is an indication of the inseparability of the Absolute and the relative. Life is weird is acknowledgment of the Absolute Truth that every one can relate to because it conforms to our lived experience.

One the designation for Absolute Truth I especially like is ‘Great Mystery’ found among Native American traditions (I don’t know if it is in all of them or not). For those who have not lost (or have regained) their childlike wonder life’s weirdness can be experienced as Great Mystery winking at us

I will close this with another related quote. (I remember it from Angel Tech by Antero Ali but I don’t remember if he was quoting someone else or not)

“Life is a Mystery not so much to be figured out, but lived.”

Technorati Tags: Absolute Truth, Great Mystery, Principle of the Two Truths

The goal of Visionary Heart Alchemy is the goal of all spiritual alchemy. The central goal of alchemy is the transformation of lead (or some other ‘lesser’ metal) into gold. It is widely known in spiritually literate circles that this is a metaphor (which, by the way, appears in both western and eastern historical traditions of alchemy). But why the need for the metaphor, why not just say it plainly. There are several reasons for this. First and foremost is that their really is no way to plainly say what the goal of alchemy is. It lies outside of the realm that language is capable of conveying directly. In system of eastern origin the ultimate goal is often called enlightenment but that doesn’t really tell you anything. Because enlightenment has to do with Absolute Truth there any concepts you have about it will be partial, paradoxical and/or misleading. The Buddha provisionally described it as begin being free from all suffering but that is just a motivational touchstone and beside who can truly imagine being free from all suffering. The way most people try to conceive of this is imagining all relative phenomena being exactly as the think they want it but that is not how it actually works. In the western Hermetic and Alchemical Traditions is called accomplishing the Great Work but that doesn’t tell you anything more then “achieving enlightenment” does.

Another reason for the use of a metaphor is that metaphors, when applied in different contexts, can provide multiple meanings that are distinct but connected. The metaphor of changing lead into gold can be meaningfully applied at multiple levels within alchemy as a whole. For example when the procedure of transforming lead into gold into is examined it can be seen to apply to both inner transformation and to the transformation of what is experienced as outer reality.

It should be clear that there is no way to define the aim of alchemy in concrete and absolute terms. However, I will give several ways to think about it to help orient you in the right direction, because while there is no one correct way to conceive of the goal or goals of visionary heart alchemy (or alchemy in general) there are incorrect ways.

I have already mention that one way to describe the goal is the complete realization of Principle of the Two Truths and as the crucial step to that, coming to direct realization of Absolute Truth. An aspect of this realization is knowing who you actually are.

The most essential transformation that alchemy accomplishes is that of consciousness. The Absolute Truth of who you are can be called Unconditioned Awareness. Consciousness is the conditioned reflection of this into the domain of relative reality. Consciousness is the most fundamental or absolute aspect of your relative self but it is still relative and thus transformable and it is the transformation of this that is a root goal of Personal/Visionary Heart Alchemy.

This transformation can be described in many ways. It is the transformation of ignorance of who one is into ‘knowing’ who one is. This knowing is of both the absolute you and the relative you. It is the transformation of bondage to conditioning to freedom from that bondage.

Consciousness is the most fundamental aspect of our relative being and thus the ultimate focus of our transformational efforts. However, the Principle of Interdependence teaches us that all relative phenomena are interdependent, and thus transformation of consciousness can be facilitated by transforming other relative elements including our energetic and physical makeup and even what we experience as outside of ourselves.

So far we have looked at the goal of alchemy in way that is oriented towards the Absolute Truth. This is called the ascending current. There is also a descending current oriented towards the relative. Together, these currents are the AC (alternating current) power source of alchemical transformation. This alternating current is an operant expression of the Principle of Two Truths. That is all I will say for now on this topic of the ascending and descending currents

Technorati Tags: Alchemical Principles, alternating current, ascending current, conditioning, consciousness, descending current, enlightenment, freedom, goal of alchemy, Great Work, ignorance, metaphor, Principle of Interdependence, Principle of the Two Truths, self-knowledge, transformation.

When the nature of relative truth is understood, it is easy to recognize how beliefs function (or often dysfunction) as skillful means. What also must be understood is that they are often integral functional components of transformational systems that are required for practitioners of the systems at particular developmental stages. That is to say practitioners at particular developmental stages, who are trying to use the system, must internalize these integral functional components if the system is to function the way it was meant to.

This has several implications. First some of what people call techniques from a system may not work,  work the same way or create the same results when it is taken out of the context that include these integral functional beliefs. In this information age where methods and specifically techniques from many different developments systems (religions, spiritual traditions, wisdom traditions, esoteric systems, psychological systems, healing systems etc.) are available through books and the internet, there is a common occurrence to borrow methods from a given system and add them to another or to take from many different systems and just mix them all together. Sometimes this can be highly fruitful but often it not fruitful at all and even counter productive. Even when it is fruitful you can never be sure that the fruit that is received is the same fruit that you would receive if the technique was used strictly within in its original contexts unless you have already attained the fruit of that context. If you don’t actually know what you are doing the fruit could be quite undesirable. It possible to graft successfully graft a tomato vine to a belladonna plant and have it bear fruit but if you ate that fruit you would get nightshade poisoning and either hallucinate massively( and likely frightfully) or just plain die.

It is also highly arrogant to think you can decide what is a belief integral to the functioning of a system, and what is not, unless you have already achieved its fruit by using the system. It is very common for people when examining a spiritual system that had its genesis in another culture to make determinations about various aspects of the practice, declaring something to be entirely cultural and other the “authentic” parts of the system. Even if the specifics of a method have their genesis in the cultural milieu that gave genesis to that particular system as a whole doesn’t necessarily mean it you can cut it out as a nonessential cultural adjunct (and the need to try to do so often arises from dogmatic adherence to the tenants of ones own culture). This is not to say that the presentation of these systems don’t have nonessential cultural adjuncts, they often do. The point is not possible for an outsider, looking at it with their own cultural biases, prejudices and dogmatic fixations, to make the determination about what is or is not nonessential  in a developmental process. and for whom.

Another implication is that it is possible to short circuit the effectiveness of methods designed to meet specific developmental stages by trying to operate from views appropriate to latter developmental stages. This is all to common an occurrence in Vajrayana Buddhist circles when people who are still very much stuck operating in a dualistic view try to apply the nondual teachings of Dzogchen or Mahamudra, especial when they “learned” them from a book. ( I put learned in quotes because you can’t learn nondual teachings from a book. Books of nondual teachings serve as touchstone to help stabilize what is experienced through transmission and practice.) Reading these texts can inspire but if you try to apply them when you haven’t actually reached the developmental stage that allows them to function, it can short out the methods that will work for your developmental stage.

It is possible for someone with enough realization of the Principle of the Two Truths to operate multiple systemic contexts in their life entering into the beliefs of the context when operating the context, so long as the systems don’t have life pervasive tenants that conflict. For example it would be very difficult for someone committed to Buddhist practice to utilize a system that had animal sacrifice as a central practice. On the other hand certain Native American traditions and Buddhism are quite compatible and I know of masters who utilize both systems as part their practice. It is important to note that, as far as I have seen, they don’t mix them together. For example both Native American and Vajrayana Buddhism (as well as many other spiritual systems such as Wicca, Hermetics etc.), as part of their symbolic universe, attribute the elements (earth, water, air, fire and space/spirit) to  the cardinal directions. However they do not attribute the same element to the same directions. Someone who doesn’t understand the Principle of Two Truths might ask which the correct attribution is. Someone with a mistaken understanding might think both are equally correct and thus interchangeable. Someone with correct understanding knows that each is correct in its own systemic context and incorrect in the other systems context. In eclectic spiritual gathering (such as pagan festivals) where no specific spiritual system is universally shared and a group ritual is occurring, then that ritual is its own context and any set of attributions can be used and any similarity to any specific systems attributions is not relevant (with space/spirit always begin center there are only 24 possible attributions)

Understanding the Principle of Two Truths allows one to recognize beliefs within system as skillful means. When this understanding is accompanied with enough discernment and actual realization of the principle, it becomes possible to work with (but not mix) different but compatible systems without trouble. I say possible but not always easy, Care must be taken. This caution is primary directed towards working with systems that have very complex relative truth structures, i.e. Buddhism, Hermeticism, Wicca, Shivite Tantra and the like, rather then system that are more focused on technique like Neuro-Linguistic Programming or Shiatsu. I will explore utilizing and “mixing” multiple systems in more detail in a future post

Technorati Tags: Beliefs, Developmental Stages, Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Principle of the Two Truths, skillful means

Part 2- The Two Truths as antidote

Understanding the Principle of the Two Truths helps pacify these problems. Intellectual understanding alone will not completely prevent dogmatic fixation, because the root of dogmatic fixation is the identity fixation that results from lack of direct recognition of Absolute Truth. Thus only that direct realization will prevent all dogmatic fixation. However, the more deeply we understand the Principle of Two Truths, the weaker and less pervasive the tendency towards dogmatic fixation becomes.

Even intellectual understanding of the Principle of the Two Truths increases our capacity to revise the relative truths we hold. Even though the habit of dogmatic fixation will continue to happen to some degree at an unconscious level until complete realization of the Principle of Two Truths has occurred, consciously recalling the principle will dissolve some to that fixation. It will provide opportunity to see when life pushes up against the limits of your relative truths and inspire revision. It will create space for revelation. It will engender open mindedness and the ability to see from multiple view points which will in turn inspire creative responsiveness. Intellectual understanding of the Principle of the Two Truths brings to light the otherwise unconscious habit of dogmatic fixation allowing you the opportunity to make a new choice.

Also, intellectual understanding of the Principle of the Two Truths increases tolerance. Once you realize that all of your concepts are limited and partial simply by virtue of them being concepts, it becomes harder to remain or become intolerant of someone else’s concepts except in so far as they become demonstrably dysfunctional. One can have deep understanding of the Principle of the Two Truths and still be intolerant of genocide or blowing up buildings full of people. Deep understanding of the Principle of the Two Truths will inspire compassion for those that do such things because they know the result from very entrenched dogmatic fixation are unbearably painful to hold but that in no way prevents one from disapproving of the behavior that results. It will also prevent generalizing the disapproval. I disapprove of Muslims, Serbians, and American (and anyone else who does them) performing acts of terrorism. I don’t disapprove of Muslims, Serbians and Americans in general.

The Principle of the Two Truths is an antidote dogmatic fixation and dogmatic fixation is one the great obstacles to the aims of alchemy. It can be called the antithesis of alchemy. The only way to fully realize the Principle of The Two Truths is by complete and direct realization of Absolute Truth. A partial realization of Absolute Truth could lead to the negation of the validity of relative truth; however, complete realization encompasses the functionality of relative truth. Thus, as I have said in a previous post, one of many ways to define the goal of Alchemy is the realization of the Principle of Two Truths and to that end the realization of Absolute Truth.

I have placed great emphasis on the Principles of the Two Truths in these early posts to the Global Alchemy Blog Matrix both because, as I said in the beginning of this post, even an intellectual understanding of it can prevent some serious errors in understanding, and because it both a result of Alchemy and central to the process for achieving that result. As such it reflected repeatedly throughout the structure of Visionary Heart Alchemy and I will be making constant reference to it.

Technorati Tags: Alchemical Principles, alchemy, Dogma, dogmatic fixation, genocide, goal of alchemy, intolerance, open mindedness, Personal Growth, Principle of Two Truths, terrorism, tolerance

Part 1- the Problems of Dogma

Dogma, as I mean it in this context, refers to fixation on a relative truth as Absolute Truth or fixation that leads to attempting to apply a relative truth to a context in which it does not function. There is a strong tendency in humans towards this dogmatic fixation and this leads to a whole host of problems and confusions. Even an intellectual understanding of the Principle of Two Truths can help to dissolve these fixations and serve as an antidote to the problems that result. It because of this important capacity of the Principle of the Two Truths that I have dedicated so many of these early posts to the Global Alchemy Blog Matrix to it. It can help prevent what can become serious errors in understanding.

Before examining some the problems and confusion that result from dogmatic fixation that occurs from failure to understand and apply the principle of Two Truths, I want to point out that people dogmatize in all arenas of relative truth. It is as prevalent in scientific thinking as it is in religious and spiritual thinking.

The first problem with dogmatic fixation is it engenders closed mindedness and inflexibility of thinking. This in turn inhibits perception, learning and creativity. Once a relative truth is taken as Absolute Truth it can’t be revised in any way because, quite correctly, Absolute Truth can’t be revised. (The words used to describe or indicate Absolute Truth and ones understanding of it, can be revised because they are relative truth…unless, of course you dogmatize them). Once a truth can’t be revised, thinking about it ceases, perception of anything to the contrary gets ignored, nothing more can be learned in that regard and creativity becomes blocked. In short dogmatic fixation prevents any growth in understanding.

Dogmatic fixation also inhibits personal growth because you are part of the context that make a relative truth true and if you can’t revise a relative truth you will resist changing into a context that makes it untrue.

Dogmatic fixation breeds intolerance. When relative truths are elevated to Absolute Truth they become sources of contention. There is no way to contend over actual Absolute Truth because there is nothing to fixate upon. It is entirely possible, on the other hand, to fixate on ideas about, and designations of, Absolute Truth. However it is not just relative truths about Absolute Truth that become sources of contention. The root of this tendency to dogmatically fixate relative truths is the need to concretize identity. Our ideas, concepts and beliefs are part of the building blocks we use to create our sense of identity. The more insecure we feel about out identity the more we need to concretize or “fix” (in the sense to make unmoving) it. The more concretized and fixed our identity is the more readily it feels threatened and insecure. Since the relative truths from all our conceptual arena are among the building blocks used to create our sense of identity, the need to concretize our identities leads to concretizing the relative truths we utilize.

Dogmatic fixation is also a pervasive source of confusion. Concretizing relative truths into dogma creates “either/or” situations where they don’t otherwise exist. It leads to ‘it must be either this or that” when in fact it can be either, both and neither at the same time.

Dogmatic fixation also leads to confusion by causing misapplication of relative truths. If you place cheese in a maze but change the location each time, rats will learn that there is always cheese and look until they find it. If you then always put it at the same place, eventually rats will learn to always go directly there when placed in the maze. If the cheese is then moved, the rats will try three or four times to find the cheese in that spot. After that they will look elsewhere again. Dogmatic fixation is continuing to go to the same spot for the cheese expecting it to be there no matter how many times it hasn’t been there.

I will explore in the next post how the Principle of the Two Truths serves as an antidote to dogmatic fixation

Technorati Tags: Alchemical Principles, alchemy, Dogma, dogmatic fixation, identity, insecurity, intolerance, Personal Growth, Principle of Two Truths

Vajrayana and Bon

In the previous post I mentioned Bon as a fifth school to be counted among the Buddhist schools of Tibet. The word Bon is a label for the spiritual/religious practices most prevalent in Tibet before the spread of Buddhism there. Bon is still practiced in Tibet and is divided in two streams. One is called lower Bon and is a shamanistic in style and often includes animal sacrifice which is prohibited in all styles of Buddhist Practice (and Yungdrung Bon). The Other is called Yungdrung Bon or Eternal Bon or Higher Bon. Yungdrung Bon is, in many way, practically indistinguishable form Vajrayana Buddhism particularly the Nyingma School. There are multiple accounts for the origin of this similarity. The Nyingma (which literally means ‘ancient’) is the first school to take shape in Tibet. According to one account within the Nyingma lineage (which recognized Yungdrung Bon as a functional Path to Liberation in the sense it is understood in the Buddhist view) One of the first of the fully realized Buddhist master indigenous to Tibet., Vairochana, expressed the Vajrayana teachings in the Language of the Bon in order to make it accessible to those with karmic connections to the Bon path. Recalling that Yungdrung Bon is considered to be a genuine path to liberation, two thing should be noted about this. First that Vairochana’s capacity to give expression of a genuine liberation path in a different context (Bon) then how he achieved his liberation (Nyingma Vajrayana Buddhism)came from his realization not just some scholastic study. Second, that despite that, from one point of view, the Bon system for liberation could be said to be contrived, it is fully functional. Really it not contrived at all, but another expression of how the Buddha spontaneously arises in innumerable expressions

The Yungdrung Bon Masters have a different story (or stories) that explain the similarities. I am not fluent in the details but it includes something along the lines that Yungdrung Bon predates Shakyamuni (the historical) Buddha and Shakyamuni Buddha was student of a Lord Shenrab (the Enlighten Being that brought Yungdrung Bon into this world) in a previous life.. Thus Buddhism is actually and expression of Yungdrung Bon. Further more the Bon say that Padmasambhava, who is the main source of the Nyingma Lineage was born the son of a great Bon master. You can read what the Bon Master Lopon Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche has to say about this topic.

The point is not that one story is true and the other isn’t. They both are stories that give recognition of the validity of other relative methods to achieve a goal they both share but they do it from within their own context. Because of the Understanding of the Principle of the Two Truths, masters of both systems can recognize the functional validity of the other system.

Technorati Tags: Alchemical Principles, Bon, Buddhism, Principle of theTwo Truths, Vajrayana, Yungdrung

It is said (in the Buddhist View) that the Buddha (used here as a designation for Absolute Truth rather then for the historical physical incarnation by whom Buddhism came to be known in our world) emanates in innumerable forms to benefit each according to there capacity. These emanations can be living beings, teachings, methods, and even inanimate objects. These living beings can be humans, animals, plants, or beings that inhabit realms humans don’t perceive. The human emanations can be recognizable realized teachers or very ordinary seeming. They can b appear to be a Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Islamic, Athiest, Agnostic, Thelemite, Pagan, Zoroastrian, Sikh or even a Satanist. They might even be teachers of these paths. They may be butchers, grant writers, soldiers, scientists, hunters, prostitutes, mechanics, drug dealers, drunks, billionaires, gas station attendant, homeless, CEOs, Philanthropists, Politician, grocery store clerks, Burger King managers, chiropractors etc. Everything these Buddha emanations do or say is to benefit beings. This Buddhist Postulate is an expression of the alchemical Principleof Spontaneous Compassionate Responsiveness also know as the Principle of Universal Support that will be discussed in future posts. However I mention this Buddhist Postulate here to further illustrate the functioning of the Principle of Two Truths. There are innumerable relative truths that are expressions of Absolute Truth which function in context specific ways to bring relative/temporary benefit and/or ultimate/absolute benefit.

Technorati Tags: Alchemical Principles, Buddhism, Principle of theTwo Truths, Principleof Spontaneous Compassionate Responsiveness, Vajrayana

In Tibet (and neighboring kingdoms), There are four major lineages (Five if you count Bon but that will be the topic two posts from now) of Buddhism and many sub-lineages therein. While they all share a great deal in terms of methods and terminology, they are also quite distinct from each other. In some instances the same term will have different or even opposite meanings. For example the term ‘ordinary mind’ is often used, in the Dzogchen Teachings of the Nyingma to designate the deluded mind of sentient beings as opposed to the True Nature of Mind. In the Mahamudra teachings of the Kagyu, which are in many ways very similar to Dzogchen, ‘ordinary mind’ refers to the mind without elaboration which is The True Nature of Mind.

Despite what can sometimes be seen as very different approaches, with sometimes conflicting postulates, the teachers of these different schools (for the most part) recognize the validity of the other schools as legitimate expressions of the Buddhas teachings and lineage. They all are capable of achieving the result(s) Buddhism is meant to achieve. The teachers are able to see this because of their understanding of the Principle of Two Truths. The differences are understood to correspond to the needs of different beings. The different schools have different styles, emphasis, and patterns of development to accommodate the different spiritual constitutions of sentient beings.

Not only are these Four Schools recognized as valid but so are many schools that took root in other regions such as Theravada, Chan, Zen and the Vajrayana Tradition that took root in Japan. It is important to note that doesn’t mean everything that calls itself Buddhism is automatically considered a functional expression of the Buddhist Teaching. There are views that are incorrect view in all Buddhist contexts (and in all contexts for that matter)

Because of this recognition of mutual validity among the schools in Tibet and neighboring regions, many masters become masters in more then one lineage. These masters are known as Rimay (Sometime written Rime) masters. Rimay is often incorrectly translated as eclectic. It literally means ‘without bias’. It is informative to know that Rimay masters don’t just mix them together or mix and match to their whim. Rimay is not new lineage that is the synthesis of the others but rather a more formalized acknowledgement of each individuals school functional validity and congruence with the overall Buddhist view. When a Rimay master performs a ceremony from a particularly tradition, He does it according to that schools postulates and style. One great Tibetan Rimay Master, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche also became a Zen Master. When doing Zen Ceremonies he didn’t bring out a dorje & bell (central ritual implements of Vajrayana Buddhism). This lack of haphazard mixing also comes from clear understanding of the Two Truths and how relative truths function. Just because something is functional in one context, doesn’t automatically mean it is functional in another.

This is not to imply that masters never blended elements of one tradition with another, because they did. However to do this in away that is functional one must at least have mastery of one system to the degree that you truly understand the function of each part and how the addition form another system will integrate with those functions. With something with such profound functionality as Vajrayana you would have to have very vast realization to add in method from one system to another to create something new.

In the next post I will discuss another Buddhist expression that shows how understanding of the Principle of Two Truths allows Buddhists to see functional truths outside of what is defined as Buddhism

Technorati Tags: Alchemical Principles, Buddhism, Karma, Principle of theTwo Truths, Rimay, Rime, Vajrayana

At the most exoteric level of understanding Karma is explained in way not very different from the Christian/Islamic idea of heaven and hell. Basically when you die you appear before Yama, the lord of death, and your good karma is weighed against your bad and the balance sheet indicates what kind of rebirth you will get. In the case of Buddhism there are Six Possible Major Realms you can go. Three are considered, more or less unfortunate and three, more or less fortunate. Each realm has sub realms and, in all, they form a continuum from extreme happiness to Extreme Suffering, Heaven to Hell. It should be noted that this does significantly deviate from the common Christian and Islamic conception in that ones existence in any of these realms is never eternal. At this level of conception Karma is view more or less as a system of reward and punishment. To all further understandings, this level of understanding is known as a provisional truth. There is no external being distributing reward and punishment. It is only true for the result it brings. It has no other basis. The result it brings is the guidance of behavior of those who because of the depth of their delusion can’t comprehend any more subtle understanding and only be motivated by fear of punishment and hope for reward. This is an important developmental crutch for those who need it. The Behaviors that are thought at this level to lead to punishment tend to obscure the mind in ways that prevent more subtle understanding from being possible and the ones thought of as leading to reward create potentials that can lead to greater understanding. So however limited this level of view is it serves an invaluable function for those whose developmental stage requires it.

At the next level of understanding, Karma is understood to be simply a revelation of the mechanics of cause and effects. The behaviors that were thought to bring punishment are now understood to simply create causes that result in undesirable effects and the behaviors that were thought to bring reward are now understood to simply create causes that result in desirable results. Even to deeper levels of understanding this understanding is not considered provisional because it accurate as far as it goes. Causes do create corresponding results. Apple seeds produce Apple trees and more apples not lemons. From here on, the deeper levels of exposition simply convey more subtlety and nuance as to how it actually works.

At the next level of understanding it understood that the motivation for actions shapes the kind of effects that will result. This doesn’t negate the previous understanding. Causes do lead to effects. However the motivation for actions greatly effect the kind of cause that is created and thus the effect. Lying to protect you own ego creates a different result then lying to protect the feelings of someone else. Telling your grandmother that she looks very beautiful in her Easter dress, even though you think it is ugly will create a positive cause even though lying in general should be avoided, if the reason really is compassion towards your grandmas feelings. Now if you said the same lie because grandma can be very sharp tongued herself and you just didn’t want to listen to her berate you then the cause created would be different.

At still subtler levels karma is seen to operate by reinforcing that state of consciousness and style of perception that engender a behavior. A simplistic example is that killing reinforces the perception that the world is hostile, causing one to perceive threat and be hostile, leading to situations that such a person feels the need to kill.

I am only giving the barest of explanations of the Buddhist view of karma here because my purpose is to convey understanding of how relative truths change according to the development of individuals. I will be talking at great lengths about Karma in future posts because it is an often misunderstood topic that has great relevance to Global Alchemy.

In my next post I will explore another example from Buddhism to illustrate the Principle of Two Truths.

Technorati Tags: Alchemical Principles, Buddhism, Karma, Karma Mechanics, Principle of theTwo Truths, Vajrayana

In the view of Vajrayana Buddhism, as well as the view of Mahayana Buddhism of which Vajrayana is a specialized example(more on this to come), There are inexpressible numbers of Buddhas (as well as of sentient beings), that is to say, innumerable realizers of Absoluter Truth. The historical Buddha, once known as the prince Siddhartha, called Shakyamuni, is only one physically incarnated one. It is one of specific significance in Buddhist cosmology but those specifics are not relevant to this discussion.

Shakyamuni Buddha is said to have given 80,000 different teachings. The ultimate point of each of these teachings is the same though this ultimate point is described differently in different teachings. Some are more direct and some are more circuitous then others. The reason for this is the Buddha recognized that sentient beings differ from each other. These differences are both “horizontal” and “vertical”. Vertical refers to developmental growth. Not everyone has equal capacity to understand spiritual instruction.. This notion is offensive to some (relativistic-personalistic/green for those familiar with integral theory/spiral dynamics) however its functional truth bears up under investigation. Someone who has yet to understand basic algebra can’t be taught calculus. The only difference in spiritual development is that it is not mealy conceptual. Horizontal difference simply acknowledges that people have different inclinations that may or may not reflect developmental progress. These can be cultural or personal in origin. The combination of horizontal and vertical make up in relation to spiritual practice can be called ones spiritual constitution.

There is story from the life of the Buddha (Shakyamuni) that serves as an example about vertical differences. When he started to give his second major cycle of teachings and teach about Emptiness many of his disciples fainted, others ran away and still others covered their ears and pleaded that he not say such things. Only a select few (and, according to the story, most of them where not human) were ready at that time to hear those more profound teachings.

This illustrates an important point, the person who engages with a system is part of the context used to measure effectiveness. From the point of view of truth seen in the continuum of Relative Truth created by the reflection of the two truths in the domain of relative truth, The teachings on Emptiness are more directly align with Absolute Truth then the teaching Shakyamuni Buddha had given previously. For those ready to hear them they will more swiftly bring about the goal of Buddhism. However for those without the capacity to engage with them they are functionally untrue. What is functionally relatively true in relation to spiritual practice (or any form of developmental discipline) will change as the person engaging in the practice changes.

To illustrate this further, the Buddhist teachings contains a huge number of stories, cosmologies, beliefs, precepts, principles and designation for Absolute Truth. All of these are considered method along side those things we might call techniques, which are often what comes to mind when we think of methods. That is the telling and hearing of the stories, the studying of the cosmologies, the holding of the beliefs, the learning of the destinations, and practicing the techniques are all part of the method, by which the system called Buddhism achieves its intended purpose. If you take all of these stories, cosmologies, beliefs, precepts, principles, designations, and techniques together you will find that many appear to contradict others in the whole lot. Some cosmologies appear to contradict other cosmologies, some stories seem to contradict other stories etc What’s more some stories will seem contrary to some beliefs, some principles and techniques will seem contrary etc. However, an understanding of the Principle of Two Truths and an understanding of the structure of Buddhism will clarify these apparent contradictions. In some cases the apparent contrariness is actually the paradox that inevitably results when try to describe the indescribable. However other apparent contradictions arise when there is failure to properly contextualize. The whole of the Buddhist system contain method to address many different spiritual constitutions. While there are as many spiritual constitutions as there are sentient beings, There are large trends shared by many and so whole subsystems exist with specific precepts, stories, cosmologies, beliefs, techniques tailored address the needs of specific categories of spiritual constitutions. They all function perfectly within their own context but not necessarily out of it.

In some case the same term gets used in many of the contexts but the understandings of how it functions changes. In some cases the change of understanding more or less negates previous understandings. In other cases the change is a change of scope or revelation of additional subtlety. In the next post, I will use the Buddhist teachings on Karma to illustrate this.

Technorati Tags: Alchemical Principles, Buddhism, historical Buddha, Integral Theory, Principle of theTwo Truths, Shakyamuni, Siddhartha, Spiral Dynamic, Vajrayana