3 ms·

In Buddhism, there wouldn't be any individuals at all, just tanha, or: craving, thirst, desire. Desire for what? For sense objects. For existence. For non-exi

In Buddhism, there wouldn't be any individuals at all, just tanha, or: craving, thirst, desire. Desire for what? For sense objects. For existence. For non-existence. The cessation of this craving is nirvana...

hosh 10y ago
Yup, there is a neat relationship between Shaiva Tantra and Buddhism. The most radical of the non-dual Shaiva Tantra streams starts to resemble Dzogchen. There is an interesting mapping that goes like this: Shaiva tantra: self -> no self -> self Mahayana Buddhism: no self -> self -> no self I have not fully explored how this all relate to each other. I can say that it makes more sense to compare Mahayana strain of Buddhism to Shaiva Tantra than Theraveda. This is because Mahayana tends to be more cosmic whereas Theraveda tends to be more humanist. Apparently, Buddhist Tantra does not have its own View; or rather, the Buddhist Tantra View is Mahayana. The renunciate path, that is, the hermit that goes off into the woods with great digust for worldly things, can work for some people. Monasteries are a kind of compromise with renunciation: the monks are usually supported socially by the community. Renunciation is usually how Buddhism is understood in the West. David Chapman, of the Meaningness blog, has some great articles arguing why the renunciation path does not work well for Westerners in the modern world, and that Tantra is a much better vehicle. Most Westerners struggle with what it means to have individuality. Americans, in particular, grew up in a culture that rejects collectivism, and as a result, cut away the experiences one needs from collectivism. This tension between individualism and collectivism has not been answered well by pop media (hence the popularity of Oprah). There are a lot of insights in ancient teachings about this subject; updating them to be more accessible for modern Westerners is still an ongoing work that a lot of people are keenly interested in.

hosh 10y ago

Yup, there is a neat relationship between Shaiva Tantra and Buddhism. The most radical of the non-dual Shaiva Tantra streams starts to resemble Dzogchen. There is an interesting mapping that goes like this: Shaiva tantra: self -> no self -> self Mahayana Buddhism: no self -> self -> no self I have not fully explored how this all relate to each other. I can say that it makes more sense to compare Mahayana strain of Buddhism to Shaiva Tantra than Theraveda. This is because Mahayana tends to be more cosmic whereas Theraveda tends to be more humanist. Apparently, Buddhist Tantra does not have its own View; or rather, the Buddhist Tantra View is Mahayana. The renunciate path, that is, the hermit that goes off into the woods with great digust for worldly things, can work for some people. Monasteries are a kind of compromise with renunciation: the monks are usually supported socially by the community. Renunciation is usually how Buddhism is understood in the West. David Chapman, of the Meaningness blog, has some great articles arguing why the renunciation path does not work well for Westerners in the modern world, and that Tantra is a much better vehicle. Most Westerners struggle with what it means to have individuality. Americans, in particular, grew up in a culture that rejects collectivism, and as a result, cut away the experiences one needs from collectivism. This tension between individualism and collectivism has not been answered well by pop media (hence the popularity of Oprah). There are a lot of insights in ancient teachings about this subject; updating them to be more accessible for modern Westerners is still an ongoing work that a lot of people are keenly interested in.