PeterC wrote: ↑
Fri Feb 15, 2019 3:11 am
javier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑
Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:08 am
Skillful means aren't indulgements and/or errati, nor the same in reounciation and transformation...
We are told to eat meat for example, this is not according to the morality of the renounciation. Eating a mutilated sentient being isn't moraly right.
This is a skillfull mean for example, that also benefits the being, but for sure we are told to confront our feelings of rejection throught meat consumption. This is a skillfull mean for example, not an indulgement nor erratic behaviour.
I don't know if we are really taking things for granted in practices we don't understand.
The consumption of meat and alcohol as samaya substances in a ganachakra has a specific ritual purpose and meaning, and in any case isn't done openly in front of non-initiates. It's really a different type of activity from engaging in unconventional activity as upaya.
The whole topic of 'crazy wisdom' / unconventional behavior is, I feel, greatly misunderstood in a contemporary context - apologies if I wander a little from the topic here. As Josef said, it was a path of effort; it was an unusual path; it was certainly not an easy path at all, or an excuse for indulgence. Historically the number of famous teachers who engaged in this sort of behavior was vanishingly small compared to the ones who upheld strict sila. Those who did engage in it typically did things that attracted disgust and opprobrium from the society of the day. Living in a brothel; living in a charnel ground; taking lower-caste consorts; these weren't fun or well-regarded things to do. The equivalent today would be something like getting sent to jail for pedophilia. It certainly would not be driving a Mercedes, having a dozen girlfriends, wearing the best silk robes and dining at Michelin-starred restaurants. The 'crazy' gurus underwent genuine hardship. Even Marpa, who lived as a normal householder, made multiple long, arduous and dangerous trips to India, including when he was an old man. There were famous gurus who lived a life of luxury, such as the kings counted among the 84 Mahasiddhas, but when you look at their stories they almost always kept their practice secret. There was really nothing like the Lakhar / Mukpo Sr. / Mukpo Jr. model among the famous gurus of the past.
It's easy to read things in Atiyoga texts saying that our conduct should be natural and without limitations etc. etc., and think, great, I'll just watch Netflix all day in the natural state. But that would be absurd. Not only do texts warn against this sort of error constantly, but look at the lives of Dzogchen masters in things like the big red book or Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche's book - they continued to maintain sila and practice all their lives. NKR himself, after arriving in India, spent a period of time wandering around like a beggar. That was acting naturally and without limitations for him. Doesn't occur to many contemporary Western Dzogchenistas to do things like that very often, does it.
why is it so different... is also "approaching what's repulsive" or dealing with what's desireable without self deceiving.
indulgent behaviour wasn't in the table... skillfull means aren't about being permisive with onself but doing whatever is needed.
how do we see our gurus then? i never saw my teacher angry, but he was angry somethimes as a friend and a more close student did. does a puritane consideration of Buddha made me think of my Guru to be decieving: absolutely not. there must certainly be a reason.
the examples of CTR, DK, etc.: ... one cannot deny that Tilopa killed at least one fish every single day, that's not secret nor a romantic story, instead,based on records, it'a a fact: the Mahasiddha also had to eat. Or even DKR ¿did you know he consumed psychodelics like mushrooms, ayahuasca and so? and he practices the conventional morality. when he said he consumed those things i was shocked and still examining him since i consider those substances to be good for nothing... it's my condition to consider it so, causes me repulsion, so this bald guy made me think and finally ok i don't care if my vajra siblings consume drugs, i won't bother on that, it's their decision and karma, and finally i could relax about this situation.
So, this ancient and new histories are wood for discussion, i know, but the for this topic, the actual point, is: why they -Gurus who behave unconventionally- do what they do ¿does it makes sense what they do (or have done)? ¿why? ¿em'i justifying a scammer in exchange of feeling special? etc.
i can only resume that one cannot define "a Buddha is like this or like that", there is never an absolute definition, it entirely depends on his/her actual situation.
i say again, asshole behaviour can be dangerous only if one has no certainty and goes around just pretending. i'm talking on going beyhond doubt on true nature, not intelectual/philosophical doubts. i mean, in ati yoga terms, not in philosophical terms. texts are fine, but experience is better, actually i think are the only thing that matters after one had a good time studying. So, by knowing nature one can see if one's Guru is a Buddha or not, like a gold merchant knows what gold is and who in the market is a scammer selling scrap.
so, at the time, should one be afraid of loosing rigpa by not being conventionaly moral? it is more easy to be ignorant by analizing than by not anayzing primordial experiences. frak. in the end philosophical morality is an obstacle. when comes naturally, then it's a good sign.
in time one can settle and apparently behave not because of conventional morality but because you understand that you can't loose what you know and relax. so, conventional morality -the community where you live morality- is a skillfull mean, a needed thing to communicate, just as unconventional behaviour is.
sorry for the short story in long, this topic is fun.