[Krimmel]
> Doesn't the Tantric tradition have some deal about
> using sex to achieve enlightenment?
Yes, and also, drugs/alcohol. Yet, these are
supposed to be visuals of sex and drug/alcohol taking,
not actual intake. Yet, whenever the Tantric
traditions become too literal the followers think
having sex, taking drugs, and consuming alcohol leads
to enlightenment and special Tantric powers. This
shifts into Pirsig's peyote experience as I see it. I
don't think we are to be under the influence of peyote
24-7 to be enlightened, yet, enlightenment is a 24-7
experience. Thus, the literalizing of peyote use as
enlightenment would lead one upon a narrow Way. Did
peyote use for Pirsig do something - yes, but is
peyote use enlightenment experience - no, especially
once the peyote experience is over - does the person
realize enlightenment still, or does the person feel a
need to take peyote to have the enlightenment
experience, again. Enlightenment is involved with
peyote use just as much as I cupcakes washed down with
a glass of water involves enlightenment. I may notice
an enlightened experience, but the sweetness can not
be confused as the only experience for I'm washing
sugar taste away with this water. Enlightenment lasts
on its' own.
I'm currently reading a book in which the Dalai
Lama talks about this literal, what he calls, corrupt
Tantric way. This book is called the "Story of Tibet"
written by Thomas Laird, in which he does research and
leg work (visiting China and Tibet and India, maybe
other countries) to gather the history of Tibet. Most
of the book is a dialogue between Laird and the Dalai
Lama. So much of the history of this region is shaped
by perspective and what the Dalai Lama calls the
'common view' and the 'uncommon view', meaning the
Dalai Lama views the history of this region through
Buddhism, for, that's what he was mainly taught, so,
the shaping and interactions of the societies are
viewed through Buddhism influence by the eyes of the
Dalai Lama. Also, the current Chinese view of Tibet
being a region of China dates back into the 1300's
when the Mongols took over. The Mongols where in
charge of Tibet and China, but China sees this as
China in charge due to the steady influence of Chinese
culture upon the Mongol empire in the region. The
Chinese reference many other historical moments, such
as the Minchu empire, which is non-Chinese, but China
says these are Chinese. The Manchu empire was more
Mongol, and the Manchu empire referenced the Chinese
as a separate country. China is rewriting their own
history. It is one thing that these different
countries have different perspectives on their role
during a historic moment, thus, each giving a
different story of history, but China's own historical
documents are in contradiction to China's current view
on the history of this region.
Anyways... it's an interesting read.
green woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
