I like Rob Burbeas way of putting it (quoting very much from memory): Everything is Dhukka/suffering (in the very technical sense that in order for a sensation to arise, there needs to be a tension in the energy body), suffering is empty, and thus it is ok and necessary to lead a life that contains some amount of Dhukka.
Agreed. Trungpa leaves me very flat. In fact, most Kagyu-inflected writing in English comes off as semi-depressive to me. Obviously, some resonates for some people.
Invoking Burbea for an implicit critique, from Soulmaking pt. II 2021-07-03:
> One way or another, through emptiness practice, through imaginal practice or whatever, we begin to see that Dharma concepts – clinging, and Four Noble Truths, and this and that – they’re not realities. Dharma concepts are not pointing to real things. They are ways of looking. A Dharma concept functions best when it is a way of looking. There’s a range of ways of looking, not a single way of looking. Dharma concepts each offer slightly different lenses, and even those lenses have ranges in them. So Dharma concepts are not realities. They’re ways of looking that bring freedom, and also that bring freedom both in the future and in the moment. Dharma concepts are ways of looking that bring freedom, but also that liberate other ways of looking, or that liberate our ability and our flexibility to look in different ways.
> So we pick up Dharma concepts, not as realities, but as tools, as lenses, as ways of looking. They bring freedom in the moment. We can see that and feel that. And through all that, it actually liberates more ways of looking. In other words, it opens up the perception. That’s a very different way of understanding the Dharma – what we’re trying to do, what the central thrust and movement of the
Dharma is.
And excerpting my twitter history for more critique along those lines:
> Some favorite plot-lines of spiritual texts: "seeing things as they really are", "Being, not Doing", "Simplicity", "Non-conceptuality": ideas and fantasies masquerading as non-ideas and non-fantasies.
> Spiritual literature also has genre tropes such as "the original/authentic teaching", "the one ultimate realization", "the error of other ways". These tropes seem oriented toward institutional preservation.
I like Rob Burbeas way of putting it (quoting very much from memory): Everything is Dhukka/suffering (in the very technical sense that in order for a sensation to arise, there needs to be a tension in the energy body), suffering is empty, and thus it is ok and necessary to lead a life that contains some amount of Dhukka.
Agreed. Trungpa leaves me very flat. In fact, most Kagyu-inflected writing in English comes off as semi-depressive to me. Obviously, some resonates for some people.
Invoking Burbea for an implicit critique, from Soulmaking pt. II 2021-07-03:
> One way or another, through emptiness practice, through imaginal practice or whatever, we begin to see that Dharma concepts – clinging, and Four Noble Truths, and this and that – they’re not realities. Dharma concepts are not pointing to real things. They are ways of looking. A Dharma concept functions best when it is a way of looking. There’s a range of ways of looking, not a single way of looking. Dharma concepts each offer slightly different lenses, and even those lenses have ranges in them. So Dharma concepts are not realities. They’re ways of looking that bring freedom, and also that bring freedom both in the future and in the moment. Dharma concepts are ways of looking that bring freedom, but also that liberate other ways of looking, or that liberate our ability and our flexibility to look in different ways.
> So we pick up Dharma concepts, not as realities, but as tools, as lenses, as ways of looking. They bring freedom in the moment. We can see that and feel that. And through all that, it actually liberates more ways of looking. In other words, it opens up the perception. That’s a very different way of understanding the Dharma – what we’re trying to do, what the central thrust and movement of the
Dharma is.
And excerpting my twitter history for more critique along those lines:
> Some favorite plot-lines of spiritual texts: "seeing things as they really are", "Being, not Doing", "Simplicity", "Non-conceptuality": ideas and fantasies masquerading as non-ideas and non-fantasies.
> Spiritual literature also has genre tropes such as "the original/authentic teaching", "the one ultimate realization", "the error of other ways". These tropes seem oriented toward institutional preservation.
have you read some of the stuff matthew remski has written about trungpa? it's brutal stuff, he seems to have been a really abusive teacher, so this is not surprising to me to hear unfortunately: https://matthewremski.com/wordpress/reggie-ray-spiritualizes-the-terror-of-disorganized-attachment-in-relation-to-trungpa/