Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
You know, they used to think that people suffering with epilepsy were possessed by some demon or demonic spirits. It's daft, don't believe it.
And it's harmful too:
A 13-year-old girl suffocated after she was strapped down and doused with water by her father and a monk who were trying to expel an "evil spirit", Japanese police said Tuesday.
Not all possession issues are the same--not all are called possession. The storied, Catholic tradition of, you know, violently strapping people down and doing all kinds of things is definitely one angle, but we can't judge all such issues by it.
The Hocak people believe, for example, that spirits or consciousnesses can be troubled and tend to come back to their old house; the family members, especially feel it. One then holds a "ghost meal." Partially this is to address the family's need to be at peace (the living members), but in huge part it is also to help address any trouble the deceased may be experiencing on his/her path. It's a warm, compassionate affair, which usually starts out very reverent, and may even involve some tears; as the meal progresses, though, fond stories are recounted and by the end everyone is in stitches from having eaten too much (you have to finish every bite that is prepared--that's the rule for a ghost meal).
So, just wanted to point out that not all of these practices and ceremonies are violent or horrible, and in fact can be very healing.
Demon or spirit "possession" is commonly believed because people tend to embrace easy answers and confuse authority with competence. Let's take a news item about something that happened just yesterday:
A three-year-old Malaysian girl died of suffocation during a lengthy exorcism ritual in which seven family members and a maid piled on top of her, a police official said Tuesday.
The ritual, which included the child’s parents, was held by the ethnic Chinese family late Sunday in the northern town of Bukit Mertajam, local police chief Azman Abdul Lah told AFP.
It is not mentioned, but if the family is Chinese and living in Malaysia, then this is a Buddhist exorcism. This little girl died because well-meaning idiots looked at a three year old girl and said, "Oh, look at that temper tantrum! This little girl must be possessed by a demon!" And then they killed her. Was this girl actually possessed? If you wrote in this thread that hey, demon possession is possible because the Sutras say it is, then you have to also say this murder is an unfortunate accident but it's not the parent's fault, it's the demons. This case isn't unique. A year or so ago, someone else died in an American Buddhist ceremony to drive out demons.
Children are often the victims of being labeled as possessed across the world and suffer for our ignorance.
Demon possession was the best explanation we had in the past of why some people act so strange, as if it isn't them inside that head. Now that we know about how sick minds act and how society reacts wrongly to those most helpless, it should be thrown away along with blood letting as simply a huge mistake that did a lot of harm but not a bit of good.
Or do you think this little girl was actually possessed? After all, Buddha says demons exist. Why not?
It certainly sounds like 7 family members and a maid were possessed by stupidity. When is a disbelief in possession just the Ego saying it is inviolate? Where is something that affects one not falling into a grey description of possession? Is it just how much one thinks they can control themselves, or not? Hell I'm not even certain what's inside and out or what I could really define as me. I try to let my meditation practise be the sails of this boat and leave the passenger count for those more fearful of drowning.
Obviously i don't belive 99% of the possesion stories i hear, and I believe they are merely accounts of mental illness. But on a few occasions there has been evidence to prove something more than mere insanity; either that, or insane people have kinesis. Nothing is out of the question.
Demon or spirit "possession" is commonly believed because people tend to embrace easy answers and confuse authority with competence. Let's take a news item about something that happened just yesterday:
A three-year-old Malaysian girl died of suffocation during a lengthy exorcism ritual in which seven family members and a maid piled on top of her, a police official said Tuesday.
The ritual, which included the child’s parents, was held by the ethnic Chinese family late Sunday in the northern town of Bukit Mertajam, local police chief Azman Abdul Lah told AFP.
It is not mentioned, but if the family is Chinese and living in Malaysia, then this is a Buddhist exorcism. This little girl died because well-meaning idiots looked at a three year old girl and said, "Oh, look at that temper tantrum! This little girl must be possessed by a demon!" And then they killed her. Was this girl actually possessed? If you wrote in this thread that hey, demon possession is possible because the Sutras say it is, then you have to also say this murder is an unfortunate accident but it's not the parent's fault, it's the demons. This case isn't unique. A year or so ago, someone else died in an American Buddhist ceremony to drive out demons.
Children are often the victims of being labeled as possessed across the world and suffer for our ignorance.
Demon possession was the best explanation we had in the past of why some people act so strange, as if it isn't them inside that head. Now that we know about how sick minds act and how society reacts wrongly to those most helpless, it should be thrown away along with blood letting as simply a huge mistake that did a lot of harm but not a bit of good.
Or do you think this little girl was actually possessed? After all, Buddha says demons exist. Why not?
It might not have been Chinese are generally very superstitious anyway.
I agree it's not correct to say "Buddhists believe in possession" as if it is an integral part of the practice. Buddhism and religion in general is not always an exclusive thing. In Korea, Buddhists also leave offerings to the mountain spirits and bring in native Shamans to communicate with ancestor ghosts and find out why there is a curse on the house, etc. In America, Buddhism is sometimes mixed with some interesting new age stuff about crystal healing, etc.
There are accounts of supposed possession out there that are documented. However, when someone flat out doesn't believe in something, no evidence is going to convince them. They were some very odd episodes witnessed by several people with no logical explanation. Not saying possession was the reason, just that it is something people cling to to explain crazy stuff that happens and has no explanation that can be found.
The case of Anneliese Michel is a good read. In the end it was decided abuse and religious hysteria and untreated mental illness were the cause for the bizarre symptoms. I tend to believe that is the case for most stories of possession and exorcism. Robbie Mannheim/Roland Doe is another case that's interesting to read, it's the supposed story that "The Exorcist" was based on, and had the most evidence of strange things happening without logical explanation. I won't put the cases forth as evidence, however, because I don't myself believe in possession such as this. Just as interesting reading.
This is a topic I've held off on to avoid looking like a loony, but it's something I ultimately wanted to discuss. I was a Christian for most of my life, not just because of upbringing, but because of some VERY convincing personal experiences. I have had bouts with people who were "possessed", they were able to throw people and things around without even touching them; they were the scariest experiences of my life and I was terrified to be alone or in the dark for years. It seemed that the symbol of Christ and Christian type prayers and rituals helped; this is the sole reason why I became a Christian when my mind told me to be an agnostic. Eventually I stumbled onto Buddhism, but the experiences I had have always confused me; I don't believe in a deity anymore, yet all this crazy mumbo jumbo makes me question everything...
Is there any aspect of Buddhism that could explain such experiences?
@LostLight, it may be helpful to know that there is no such concept as "pure evil" in Buddhism. Any troublesome spirit, for example, is worthy of compassion.
I think this helps get away from the terror and dread associated with the Christian concept of demons, which is that there is only a good side and an evil side.
In the sentient beings we can analyze more easily today (humans, animals), there is no purely evil being. Even the most negative quality is a result of ego and or fear of needing to protect that ego. So it makes sense that if there are other forms of sentience, they are prone to these same dangers (ego and fear).
Interestingly, throughout history incoming religions have a habit of "demonizing" figures from any earlier religion. Often a popular indigenous religious leader, or political leader who is of that religion, will be called a demon or something similar; over time, this "demon" takes on the reputation of being a "spirit" until finally we have a so-called Beelzebub--which likely was, originally, just a guy. The new religion is desperate to convert people, so it paints the other side as terrifyingly as possible.
By the time Christianity came along, Judaism had worked very hard to establish an almighty, One True God--the opposite of which must therefore be some kind of equivalent evil. In fact Satan--Hebrew: הַשָּׂטָן ha-Satan--means, literally, "the opposer."
Earlier, according to my Jewish friend and researcher Hannah Bettner, Judaism had accepted a supreme God and Goddess (Ashera). But this obsession with a One True God exacerbated the obsession, later, with a one true evil.
I'm very fascinated by this topic so had better stop myself there. But suffice it to say, not all religions have a concept of pure evil. The Hocak Native Americans believe in troublesome spirits, rabble-rousers--not evil spirits. Spirits are basically scary enough on their own without having to be evil, lol.
For me as a former Christian, it really helped reduce my past fears of "evil" to look at how some of these cultures across the world have a much less scary analysis of the negative side of things. Still unnerving, yes--the unknown always is--but not to the point that we have zero control over analyzing and dealing with it.
Dealing with it can come in many, helpful forms--simple prayer, mantra meditation, just analyzing it intellectually, analyzing it with the help of a teacher or counsellor, or simply seeing all of it, in the end, as a projection of our minds. Personally, I find cancer scarier than sentient beings.
I wish you luck and support in finding whatever route is the most comforting and helpful to you!
Our sense of self depends on a conditioned lie that we live. The lie is we are a being, distinctly separate from the rest of existence. The Buddhist path is our letting go of all aspects of that lie. On this path, ones identity naturally softens and becomes more ephemeral so that the former experiences of a them and us become less dominant. The polarities that used to define us ( me & them/ inside & outside/predictable & unpredictable/ controllable & uncontrollable) are nothing but a fear to let go of. We end up looking like a pretty loose relationship of interacting phenomena that stretches far beyond our former conditioned identity zone. Spirits, forces, energies, can only mess with our sense of identity for their very existence is patterned on the same conditioned life lie as ours. The degree to which you can let loose of your sense of self, is the degree to which those things can also be helped on that same path that you are now treading. While the illusory boundaries made them scary, beyond our fear barriers , they are really just fellow beings suffering the same delusions that we formally did.
@LostLight, it may be helpful to know that there is no such concept as "pure evil" in Buddhism. ,,,
What about Mara?
The Devaputra Mara Buddha encountered was a sentient being, Heavily influenced by delusion but not pure evil. There No such thing as pure evil sentient beings.
Like just about everything else..Mara is a teaching. That teaching can take as many different forms as you wish to give it. My limited socials with Mara has so far shown it to be more of a teacher of confusion about truth than anything else..
One teacher I knew used to say that only an evil in the act of delighting in it's own evilness can really be called evil and purity can be no more be applied as a label to an evil than it can be to good.
...There No such thing as pure evil sentient beings.
That's one legitimate viewpoint.
Minds change constantly, No one can hold a mind of evil forever. For something to be pure evil it would have to function that way constantly. The only pure evil thing I could think of would be Delusion as their only function is to harm.
...There No such thing as pure evil sentient beings.
That's one legitimate viewpoint.
Minds change constantly, No one can hold a mind of evil forever. For something to be pure evil it would have to function that way constantly. The only pure evil thing I could think of would be Delusion as their only function is to harm.
Agree. For a sentient being to be pure evil, it would have to be completely unchanging, and there is no conventional phenomenon, including sentient beings, which are permanent and unchanging.
In a way, it's moot--objects and beings can't "be" evil. We can only speak of actions, intent and consequences of those actions, etc., and look for negatives. You would have to find a being which has only committed negative acts--no neutral ones, no positive ones, not a single one. Literally every microsecond of activity of that being would have to be with negative intent, no exceptions. By definition, the being could never sleep unless it can figure out how to commit negative acts in its sleep.
What could propel a conventional phenomenon such as a sentient being down into a state of committing only negative acts? To suggest that would be to violate the law of karma--if the being evolved downward from a formerly-better being, which had some positive karma, what could cause that positive karma to disappear completely? Negative can't come from positive. There would have to be some small trace of positive left in any being, even if the positive has been reduced. Down to infinity--meaning, not all positive karma can be erased, correct (I'm asking)? Doesn't every positive act leave a trace, a karmic seed? In order for a being to be completely negative, it would have to have never created positive karma in any past life; in other words, this being would have to spontaneously arise out of nothing.
I've totally creeped myself out and must go to bed now, lol. Maybe sharper minds than mine can give another view.
[Edit]: I'd better end on a more positive note, lol. I'm suggesting that I think it's not possible, according to the Buddhist view, for a being to exist who has no positive karmic traces.
Sile has a point. However I don't think it's entirely out of the question for a pure evil energy to exist; it's not conventional by any means. It would have had to be conceived as evil from the very beginning.
But isn't it the case that, in conventional reality, there is no such thing as sentience that doesn't have both positive and negative karmic seeds? It's the very nature of conditioned existence--there are opposites, and the movement between those opposites is the definition of "change." There is no such thing as an unchanging phenomenon in conditioned existence--phenomena are always moving between the two poles of hot/cold, negative/positive, etc. So there can be no sentient being in conditioned reality that is pure, unchanging "negative" (or as we've been somewhat misleadingly labeling it, "evil.") All sentient beings in relative, conditioned existence, without exception, contain both positive and negative karmic seeds. There can be no such thing as pure evil, because there is no such thing as "unchanging."
I have read that rebirth in the Pure Land, by the saving grace of Amitabha, is without retrogression, meaning not falling to lower states, despite the varying degrees of realization. Beings who obtain rebirth in that state will continue to develop spiritually eventually realizing emptiness.
However, if a being is so inclined to harmful acts and malice and it consumes them there still is the hope of awakening and to reverse their predicament while the aforementioned have only to progress without fear of falling to a lower state. This seems inconsistent, or one sided.
The fact is there are beings in other realms with the only desire to harm and cause fear in others, and they are without compassion or remorse. To take their presence and influence lightly is foolish and dangerous. There is a thin vale between the seen and the unseen. I do not speak from some text book knowledge, but rather from experience. While a Buddhist I might add.
Even the Dalai Lama regrets invoking Chod, and sees it as a dangerous mistake and advises against it.
Well, there isn't such a thing (by the Buddhist view) as a being with no seed of compassion; no such thing as a being who desires only to cause harm, and no such thing therefore as a being without redemption. In this sense, Buddhism sees beings with the same compassion as God does, or at least as I was taught to believe God does.
I wouldn't take a troublesome being any more lightly than I would take trouble itself. Danger and harm and suffering are everywhere - it doesn't take any special being to cause these things.
By Chod do you mean Dorje Shugden? Chod is a practice to cut off self-cherishing; Dorje Shugden, according to the Dalai Lama, is a troublesome spirit. Some people choose to invoke this spirit, based on their belief that it is a protector; we can believe one way or the other on whether this protector should be propitiated, but it doesn't mean we abandon compassion for the entity or that it is beyond redemption. One can be compassionate toward a dangerous man, for example, without going into business with him. I mean no disrespect to Dorje Shugden propitiates here - just voicing my observation that even if one considers it something to avoid, that is not the same as declaring it a demon beyond compassion.
You are absolutely correct, I think, that it can be inherently dangerous to have compassoin for dangerous beings. We're all dying, though, every minute. If we die sooner in this particular life, due to having compassion for a dangerous animal, person, or other sentient being, that doesn't mean it's the wrong move.
@Sile My mistake. Dorje Shugden is what I was referring to. Also, I wasn't deny our capacity for having and developing compassion even for demons. That should be expected, but we shouldn't expect the same from them. They are very powerful so we should be cautious and respectful of that, but firm in our resistance of not opening ourselves to their influences and suggestions. Like you say not to do business with them.
We see our soul, or mind if you will, as occupying the angelic realm where the demons reside as well as angels. Its not a realm of form, but of thought. They are messengers and do not communicate as we do, but through thoughts and images. Our soul or mind has the capacity to receive thoughts. They can not read our minds, but the demons are highly intelligent and are very aware of our previous actions, and know what our tendencies are.
If you have ever had a thought completely out of place with the moment you are presently experiencing, maybe even vulgar, thinking how could I ever produce such a thought it could be that you are receiving it from perhaps a demon. They want to draw away your attention from what it is presently engaged in.
Just one perspective to consider.
Of course we still have the freedom to nurture the thought or not so the onus is on us.
You know what Sile I think that is the first time I've ever heard someone say you should have compassion for Dorje shugden, Im impressed.
Appreciate it @caz, but compassion for beings--regardless of whether one sees them as negative or positive--predates me by about 2500 years
There are countless teachings on compassion for troublesome spirits, for example. Lama Zopa Rinpoche spends quite a bit of time on this subject:
"People who see spirits should not be afraid or scared, thinking “I’m strange.” In Western society, people generally don't accept spirits because they don't understand them. But people who see them can understand what an incredible opportunity it is to help the spirits, to develop strong compassion because of seeing their suffering, can help them with these mantras and teachings, can liberate them, and purify their negative karma. By hearing the words it leaves a positive imprint, liberates them from the oceans of samsaric suffering, and brings them to enlightenment." (http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=352&chid=1329)
Regardless of whether one sees such a being as a protector or troublesome spirit, many of them are not enlightened beings and therefore experience suffering, like the rest of us. So it's always appropriate to have compassion for these beings.
On the other hand, if you believe a particular protector to be enlightened, then there's no suffering on their part which requires compassion; encouraging compassion for them sends a confusing message.
Fixation on anything is always a danger, so imho it's good not to get fixated positively or negatively on any one thing--be it a practice, a protector, or anything else in dharma or life. The problems we experience are almost always with the object, not the subject.
I was listening to an audio talk by the Dalai Lama the other day, and contrary to widely held belief, he didn't say Dorje Shugden propitiates should not attend his teachings. In fact he said they are completely free to attend his teachings. However, they should not take initiations from him, since this would break samaya. One should never take initiations from a teacher against whom one harbors doubts or disagreements, since this is harmful to both student and teacher.
I think it's a shame the disinformation has been spread that Dorje Shugden propitiates are banned or even unwelcome; I've been to multiple teachings by HHDL and never have I been asked anything about my personal practices before being allowed in.
The advice on not taking initiations from teachers with whom one disagrees is a very old and accepted one, and applies to multiple issues, not just this one.
You know its funny you quote from Lama Zopa sile, What alot of people don't know is that he was actually recognised by Shugden as an incarnate Lama and he received the sogate initation ( life long commitment ) for him.
his advise is very good if you are a non practitoner.
Therefore, support for His Holiness becomes very important. Another thing is that His Holiness is the main source of world peace. In this aspect, His Holiness gives so much peace and happiness to so many millions and millions of people in this world. This aspect of His Holiness is the greatest inspiration, bringing many millions of people’s hearts toward Buddhism. Even though we have many high lamas, not everyone is able to manifest this particular aspect, even though from my side the virtuous friends are of the same essence.
Therefore, it becomes very important to support His Holiness and to fulfill His Holiness’ wishes. For that reason, Kopan Monastery stopped doing this practice. This was done for His Holiness. This does not mean that Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo, His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche, and His Holiness Song Rinpoche have made mistakes. It does not mean they are wrong. Nor does one have to look at the protector as evil. For us ordinary people it is difficult to judge, because we cannot see these lamas ’ minds.
Another side of the teaching is that it is mentioned that the protector is an Arya Bodhisattva, a manifestation of Manjushri. So, then, there is also the risk of our creating very heavy karma in that context.
The sad thing in all of this is that the positive side is rarely talked about. There have always been differences of opinion in Buddhism, and always ways to deal with them and move on. No one issue is the be-all and end-all.
The sad thing in all of this is that the positive side is rarely talked about. There have always been differences of opinion in Buddhism, and always ways to deal with them and move on. No one issue is the be-all and end-all.
True, everyone carries on with what they are doing regardless. It isn't a be all and end all issue as you say.
I see the whole thing as being a lesson on fixation.
If you agree with the Dalai Lama's analysis of the issue, it may be a lesson in not being fixated on the idea that Buddhism is somehow free of disagreement or hard choices.
If you agree with NKT's analysis of the issue, it may be a lesson in not being fixated on the idea of having to always agree with the Dalai Lama.
If you are invested in the issue, but don't know where you stand, it may be a lesson in not becoming fixated on the idea that a teacher can feed us all the answers; we may have to actually study the issue and make our own decision.
If you aren't invested personally in the issue but find yourself drawn to it, it may be a lesson on not becoming fixated on titillation or gossip.
If you find yourself very troubled by the idea of this spirit, it might be a lesson on not being fixated on the idea of anything existing from its own side; see everything as a projection of your own mind (easier said than done, I know!) Or a lesson in not becoming fixated on fear--even troubled spirits benefit from compassion.
It could be a lesson in not being fixated on the thought that we know all there is to know about sentience, life, or dharma.
I can see I'm running the risk of becoming fixated on the idea of not being fixated, so I'd better stop there!
Here's an interesting exercise: if you go to a website, or look at a program about this entity, and replace the name with "the Buddha," what does it look like?
To me, personally, it looks excessive--in other words, even when using a figure such as the Buddha, whom no one seems to disagree about, if you nonetheless had a school which incessantly talked about "the Buddha" and was very Buddha-focused, fixated on the figure of the Buddha and practices devoted to the Buddha, it would start to look a lot less like Buddhism (to me, anyway).
Even the Buddha himself is not meant to be fixated on. So if we see any practice which seems to fixate on one figure, that's a little troubling. I personally am very fond of Medicine Buddha practice, for example. Yet if I found a school which made Medicine Buddha a very central figure, to the exclusion of other figures, I would find that odd.
Personally, I agree with the Dalai Lama's assessment of the nature of this entity, but even if I didn't, I would find the issue troubling from a completely different angle, and that is what I see as the fixation aspect.
I think this fixation aspect is most prevalent in the West, where many who propitiate Dorje Shugden have never propitiated any other protector. In Tibet, Dorje Shugden is just one of many protectors, whereas to many NKT people I've met, anyway, it's not only the only protector, but in some cases the only meditational figure they've incorporated at all. I'm not saying everyone takes this approach, but I think we can all agree that many people whose only experience with Buddhism is via NKT, do take this approach. So, with deep respect to all NKT people here, I find that troubling, because even if the figure were one I personally practice, it would still seem to be too much focus on one figure.
Here's one thing I've been wondering about. According to nearly every teacher I have heard says protector practice is not ever,ever for beginners; yet, in my experience, NKT encourages this practice immediately.
Choje Lama Namse Rinpoche, advises, for example:
"In order to meditate Mahakala [another protector], a disciple must have completed Ngondro (the preliminary practices) and a yidam practice...Hagiographies of great realized masters tell us that they recited millions of mantras of Chakrasamvara or Hevajra, for instance, before they concentrated on a guardian deity. These practices must be perfectly accomplished before one even hopes to meditate a dharmapala [protector] correctly. It is of utmost importance to be very cautious, to be honest with oneself, and to be concise...
In the ancient texts that are continuing to come to light, we read that it is certainly not good if every devotee meditates a dharmapala, that only a very small number of practitioners are qualified and eligible, and that others should not become involved with them. The ancient scripts also state that before even thinking about taking up the practice of a Dharmapala, a student needs to have studied and understood Lord Buddha’s fundamental teachings, the purpose of the teachings, why it is necessary to strive for enlightenment for the benefit of all living beings, and so forth. Furthermore, a practitioner needs to have completed the common, the special, and the very special preliminaries. In order to practice the special preliminaries, a diligent student needs to have received the empowerment of the yidam deity and should have meditated this deity for quite a while. There are outer, inner, and secret aspects of each yidam. If one practices correctly and discusses one’s experiences with one’s meditation master, quite a number of years will pass. If one’s teacher then says that one may begin meditating a protector or if he says one should not, then it is only proper to respect and heed his advice."
Yet, on the Dorje Shugden main website:
"Therefore, the very moment we begin our spiritual connection with [Dorje Shugden] through our prayers, offerings and refuge is the moment he begins his work to sustain us on the spiritual path...Many people develop faith quickly in Dorje Shugden because they receive very clear signs that he has alleviated their problems. Devotees of Dorje Shugden will be able to share with you numerous examples of how he has rescued them from dire circumstances, in ways that other Protectors are unable to do at this time...Often, practitioners enter the Dharma in this way when their immediate prayers are answered swiftly...There is no need to question Dorje Shugden’s better judgment and lose focus of the bigger picture."
I'm not concerned with Dorje Shugden specifically here, and am not running down anyone who propitiates this protector at all, nor would I ever. The validity of Dorje Shugden as a practice, imo, is a completely different subject.
Instead, I question the odd and unwise way this one practice is being strongly pushed onto Western students without a single mention of preliminary practices, and without mentioning that protector practice is not ever advised for many, many students...I would feel exactly the same if someone were over-preaching Mahakala.
I think that genuine practitioners of this protector have some responsibility to address what's going on, or at least, it's in their best interests to defend their genuine practice from whatever organizations are obviously using it for some other purpose. And certainly to encourage new students to engage in many, many years of preliminary study before even thinking of asking their teacher about adopting a protector practice. If we are honest with ourselves, though, is there any way that this approach is possible within NKT? If it's currently impossible, wouldn't it be good to work on changing that before more students are put at risk?
Or do those here not see the same things I see, and are NKT students in fact encouraged to engage in many years of study before considering protector practice - maybe I have the wrong impression? I've seen students rush into all kinds of things. But to take the Dorje Shugden website as an example, it certainly seems that protector practice is encouraged immediately, and in fact as the foundational practice. This seems completely at odds with almost all existing advice on protector practice.
@Sile The Dorje Shugden Website is not run by the NKT or endorsed, It has many interesting things on it and some good history but I do not agree with their particular stance or over promotion.
Actually in the NKT there is a daily practice of Heart Jewel which is a practice of the Guru yoga of Je Tsongkhapa combined with protector invocation, The later is actually very brief and Geshe Kelsang advised it was appropriate for people to start because it was not to in depth as it doesn't require an empowerment and nor are there Mantra recitations. (There are longer protector Invocation Sadhana's such as wish fulfilling Jewel and the kangso/Melodious drum: fulfilling and restoration of general Dharma protectors and Dorje Shugden but these require a HYT tantra empowerment to practice on ones own for reasons you eluded to above ) Naturally of course new practitioners generally only start Heart Jewel after they have some experience with Lamrim.
We see our soul, or mind if you will, as occupying the angelic realm where the demons reside as well as angels. Its not a realm of form, but of thought. They are messengers and do not communicate as we do, but through thoughts and images. Our soul or mind has the capacity to receive thoughts. They can not read our minds, but the demons are highly intelligent and are very aware of our previous actions, and know what our tendencies are.
If you have ever had a thought completely out of place with the moment you are presently experiencing, maybe even vulgar, thinking how could I ever produce such a thought it could be that you are receiving it from perhaps a demon. They want to draw away your attention from what it is presently engaged in.
Just one perspective to consider.
Of course we still have the freedom to nurture the thought or not so the onus is on us.
i just wanted to say that it is refreshing to see the discussion on Dorje Shugden here without the usual personal insults etc. There will always be people who agree with the Dalai Lama and those who don't, which is perfectly fine but rarely do i find a space where people discuss it in a mature and sensible manner as is done here. Cool!
Demon or spirit "possession" is commonly believed because people tend to embrace easy answers and confuse authority with competence. Let's take a news item about something that happened just yesterday:
A three-year-old Malaysian girl died of suffocation during a lengthy exorcism ritual in which seven family members and a maid piled on top of her, a police official said Tuesday.
The ritual, which included the child’s parents, was held by the ethnic Chinese family late Sunday in the northern town of Bukit Mertajam, local police chief Azman Abdul Lah told AFP.
It is not mentioned, but if the family is Chinese and living in Malaysia, then this is a Buddhist exorcism. This little girl died because well-meaning idiots looked at a three year old girl and said, "Oh, look at that temper tantrum! This little girl must be possessed by a demon!" And then they killed her. Was this girl actually possessed? If you wrote in this thread that hey, demon possession is possible because the Sutras say it is, then you have to also say this murder is an unfortunate accident but it's not the parent's fault, it's the demons. This case isn't unique. A year or so ago, someone else died in an American Buddhist ceremony to drive out demons.
Children are often the victims of being labeled as possessed across the world and suffer for our ignorance.
Demon possession was the best explanation we had in the past of why some people act so strange, as if it isn't them inside that head. Now that we know about how sick minds act and how society reacts wrongly to those most helpless, it should be thrown away along with blood letting as simply a huge mistake that did a lot of harm but not a bit of good.
Or do you think this little girl was actually possessed? After all, Buddha says demons exist. Why not?
Well it was a Chinese family, but it wasnt Buddhist but a Taoist ritual. Pointedly, it was not performed by a Taoist priest, but the girl's aunt who was a teacher, presumably under a priest's/ friend/fraud advice.
FYI, the number of Taoists outnumber Buddhists in all the Chinese majority countries. A lot are in between in that most temples worship both, but with mostly Taoist rituals
Among the Buddhists, those who have knowledge of the Sutras would only number below 20% of the so called Buddhists as a whole.
I love demons. "Get behind me Buddha", always works like a charm. They love a bit of respect. On the whole I invoke and take possession of temporary internal buddhies or bodhisattvas, some quite wrathful. I dismiss them with a finger snap. Yep I have powerful fingers and even more powerful imagination . . . Choose your companions wisely and with compassion as I tell all the little wer-lobsters . . .
Imo, when we 'demon'ize something, it is always because there is another something we are deifying/worshipping.
Everything is subject to illusion, even God.
I'll use christianity as an example as I am most familiar with it's philosophies. But christians believe God is perfect in all ways, all knowing, omnipotent. Since that IS the case, they need an enemy to explain negative events, hence satan. Since God is very very powerful, well, satan must be pretty dang powerful, himself, to pose even the slightest threat to God.
This applies to secular life, too. Just because you don't identify with a religion, it does not mean you are not subject to the laws of nature. That IS what it is all about, after all.
When you identify something as 'Good' you automatically label it's opposite as bad.
Instead, we should see everything as fulfilling a role. Not good, not bad, but there for a reason.
I have known exorcists. They were usually contacted by the possessed during a time of human self-possesion. The possessed had been through the usual circuit of psychiatrists and holy water sprinklers. In came my band (they worked in a group) with their powerful ritual calling and admonishment. The possesed believed they were being exorcised by powerful magicians. So the 'demons' believed it too and away they went. Was there ever anything present, more that the usual bizzare arisings of the deluded? Who cares. Job done.
Being familiar with Christian philosophies then you will know that the tasting of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents the awakening of duality in consciousness in relation to the simplicity of its non-dual primordial essence. This duality is present in all beings including that which is perceived as demons.
Also, then you will be familiar with the Mysticism taught in the Eastern Church in that the contemplation of God, the source of being beyond being that is both one and many, requires the mind to be still and silent and undisturbed by all thoughts. Even the things perceived as pure and heavenly, must be dropped. The mind is the crown and throne of the Holy Spirit. This mind is both within and without, one and many.
Even without he woo woo facter, don't we all have some attachments that are so tough to truely face that our relationship with them feels demonic? Why couldn't a conflicted personality feel like demonic possesion? Why does the word "Demonic possesion scare folks more than their koan struggles?
@how Sure, we all have the “demons” of certain passions and attachments in ourselves that we feed to some level of degree. At worst they not only can become destructive to one’s self, but also can cause harm and suffering for others. When utterly gripped by them the metaphor of demon possession would be fitting as there is a sense of loss of control as if that passion has a life of its own.
However, we also know that some beings actually take pleasure or have no remorse about purposely harming and causing suffering for other beings. I know from experience the existence of formless beings not of this realm where that motivation is clear, but not of literal possession, but of action and influence.
The intent or purpose of the Koan is not to create fear but provide liberation. These beings, whose form is not visible to us but the results of their actions are, have intent of causing fear and harm whether physical or psychological in others. Their actions we call demonic and associate that label to the perceived source as well. You can use another label, but it doesn’t affect the results.
Comments
And it's harmful too: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8792357/Teenage-girl-dies-in-Japan-exorcism.html
The Hocak people believe, for example, that spirits or consciousnesses can be troubled and tend to come back to their old house; the family members, especially feel it. One then holds a "ghost meal." Partially this is to address the family's need to be at peace (the living members), but in huge part it is also to help address any trouble the deceased may be experiencing on his/her path. It's a warm, compassionate affair, which usually starts out very reverent, and may even involve some tears; as the meal progresses, though, fond stories are recounted and by the end everyone is in stitches from having eaten too much (you have to finish every bite that is prepared--that's the rule for a ghost meal).
So, just wanted to point out that not all of these practices and ceremonies are violent or horrible, and in fact can be very healing.
A three-year-old Malaysian girl died of suffocation during a lengthy exorcism ritual in which seven family members and a maid piled on top of her, a police official said Tuesday.
The ritual, which included the child’s parents, was held by the ethnic Chinese family late Sunday in the northern town of Bukit Mertajam, local police chief Azman Abdul Lah told AFP.
It is not mentioned, but if the family is Chinese and living in Malaysia, then this is a Buddhist exorcism. This little girl died because well-meaning idiots looked at a three year old girl and said, "Oh, look at that temper tantrum! This little girl must be possessed by a demon!" And then they killed her. Was this girl actually possessed? If you wrote in this thread that hey, demon possession is possible because the Sutras say it is, then you have to also say this murder is an unfortunate accident but it's not the parent's fault, it's the demons. This case isn't unique. A year or so ago, someone else died in an American Buddhist ceremony to drive out demons.
Children are often the victims of being labeled as possessed across the world and suffer for our ignorance.
Demon possession was the best explanation we had in the past of why some people act so strange, as if it isn't them inside that head. Now that we know about how sick minds act and how society reacts wrongly to those most helpless, it should be thrown away along with blood letting as simply a huge mistake that did a lot of harm but not a bit of good.
Or do you think this little girl was actually possessed? After all, Buddha says demons exist. Why not?
When is a disbelief in possession just the Ego saying it is inviolate? Where is something that affects one not falling into a grey description of possession? Is it just how much one thinks they can control themselves, or not? Hell I'm not even certain what's inside and out or what I could really define as me.
I try to let my meditation practise be the sails of this boat and leave the passenger count for those more fearful of drowning.
The case of Anneliese Michel is a good read. In the end it was decided abuse and religious hysteria and untreated mental illness were the cause for the bizarre symptoms. I tend to believe that is the case for most stories of possession and exorcism. Robbie Mannheim/Roland Doe is another case that's interesting to read, it's the supposed story that "The Exorcist" was based on, and had the most evidence of strange things happening without logical explanation. I won't put the cases forth as evidence, however, because I don't myself believe in possession such as this. Just as interesting reading.
I think this helps get away from the terror and dread associated with the Christian concept of demons, which is that there is only a good side and an evil side.
In the sentient beings we can analyze more easily today (humans, animals), there is no purely evil being. Even the most negative quality is a result of ego and or fear of needing to protect that ego. So it makes sense that if there are other forms of sentience, they are prone to these same dangers (ego and fear).
Interestingly, throughout history incoming religions have a habit of "demonizing" figures from any earlier religion. Often a popular indigenous religious leader, or political leader who is of that religion, will be called a demon or something similar; over time, this "demon" takes on the reputation of being a "spirit" until finally we have a so-called Beelzebub--which likely was, originally, just a guy. The new religion is desperate to convert people, so it paints the other side as terrifyingly as possible.
By the time Christianity came along, Judaism had worked very hard to establish an almighty, One True God--the opposite of which must therefore be some kind of equivalent evil. In fact Satan--Hebrew: הַשָּׂטָן ha-Satan--means, literally, "the opposer."
Earlier, according to my Jewish friend and researcher Hannah Bettner, Judaism had accepted a supreme God and Goddess (Ashera). But this obsession with a One True God exacerbated the obsession, later, with a one true evil.
I'm very fascinated by this topic so had better stop myself there. But suffice it to say, not all religions have a concept of pure evil. The Hocak Native Americans believe in troublesome spirits, rabble-rousers--not evil spirits. Spirits are basically scary enough on their own without having to be evil, lol.
For me as a former Christian, it really helped reduce my past fears of "evil" to look at how some of these cultures across the world have a much less scary analysis of the negative side of things. Still unnerving, yes--the unknown always is--but not to the point that we have zero control over analyzing and dealing with it.
Dealing with it can come in many, helpful forms--simple prayer, mantra meditation, just analyzing it intellectually, analyzing it with the help of a teacher or counsellor, or simply seeing all of it, in the end, as a projection of our minds. Personally, I find cancer scarier than sentient beings.
I wish you luck and support in finding whatever route is the most comforting and helpful to you!
On this path, ones identity naturally softens and becomes more ephemeral so that the former experiences of a them and us become less dominant. The polarities that used to define us ( me & them/ inside & outside/predictable & unpredictable/ controllable & uncontrollable) are nothing but a fear to let go of. We end up looking like a pretty loose relationship of interacting phenomena that stretches far beyond our former conditioned identity zone.
Spirits, forces, energies, can only mess with our sense of identity for their very existence is patterned on the same conditioned life lie as ours. The degree to which you can let loose of your sense of self, is the degree to which those things can also be helped on that same path that you are now treading. While the illusory boundaries made them scary, beyond our fear barriers , they are really just fellow beings suffering the same delusions that we formally did.
My limited socials with Mara has so far shown it to be more of a teacher of confusion about truth than anything else..
One teacher I knew used to say that only an evil in the act of delighting in it's own evilness can really be called evil and purity can be no more be applied as a label to an evil than it can be to good.
Minds change constantly, No one can hold a mind of evil forever. For something to be pure evil it would have to function that way constantly. The only pure evil thing I could think of would be Delusion as their only function is to harm.
Agree. For a sentient being to be pure evil, it would have to be completely unchanging, and there is no conventional phenomenon, including sentient beings, which are permanent and unchanging.
In a way, it's moot--objects and beings can't "be" evil. We can only speak of actions, intent and consequences of those actions, etc., and look for negatives. You would have to find a being which has only committed negative acts--no neutral ones, no positive ones, not a single one. Literally every microsecond of activity of that being would have to be with negative intent, no exceptions. By definition, the being could never sleep unless it can figure out how to commit negative acts in its sleep.
What could propel a conventional phenomenon such as a sentient being down into a state of committing only negative acts? To suggest that would be to violate the law of karma--if the being evolved downward from a formerly-better being, which had some positive karma, what could cause that positive karma to disappear completely? Negative can't come from positive. There would have to be some small trace of positive left in any being, even if the positive has been reduced. Down to infinity--meaning, not all positive karma can be erased, correct (I'm asking)? Doesn't every positive act leave a trace, a karmic seed? In order for a being to be completely negative, it would have to have never created positive karma in any past life; in other words, this being would have to spontaneously arise out of nothing.
I've totally creeped myself out and must go to bed now, lol. Maybe sharper minds than mine can give another view.
[Edit]: I'd better end on a more positive note, lol. I'm suggesting that I think it's not possible, according to the Buddhist view, for a being to exist who has no positive karmic traces.
in our span of sensual awereness.
out of our span of sensual awereness.
doesn't matter
...
when fed it grows.
this is karma.
However, if a being is so inclined to harmful acts and malice and it consumes them there still is the hope of awakening and to reverse their predicament while the aforementioned have only to progress without fear of falling to a lower state. This seems inconsistent, or one sided.
The fact is there are beings in other realms with the only desire to harm and cause fear in others, and they are without compassion or remorse. To take their presence and influence lightly is foolish and dangerous. There is a thin vale between the seen and the unseen. I do not speak from some text book knowledge, but rather from experience. While a Buddhist I might add.
Even the Dalai Lama regrets invoking Chod, and sees it as a dangerous mistake and advises against it.
If a Bodhisattva is your friend a demon is not.
I wouldn't take a troublesome being any more lightly than I would take trouble itself. Danger and harm and suffering are everywhere - it doesn't take any special being to cause these things.
By Chod do you mean Dorje Shugden? Chod is a practice to cut off self-cherishing; Dorje Shugden, according to the Dalai Lama, is a troublesome spirit. Some people choose to invoke this spirit, based on their belief that it is a protector; we can believe one way or the other on whether this protector should be propitiated, but it doesn't mean we abandon compassion for the entity or that it is beyond redemption. One can be compassionate toward a dangerous man, for example, without going into business with him. I mean no disrespect to Dorje Shugden propitiates here - just voicing my observation that even if one considers it something to avoid, that is not the same as declaring it a demon beyond compassion.
You are absolutely correct, I think, that it can be inherently dangerous to have compassoin for dangerous beings. We're all dying, though, every minute. If we die sooner in this particular life, due to having compassion for a dangerous animal, person, or other sentient being, that doesn't mean it's the wrong move.
My mistake. Dorje Shugden is what I was referring to. Also, I wasn't deny our capacity for having and developing compassion even for demons. That should be expected, but we shouldn't expect the same from them. They are very powerful so we should be cautious and respectful of that, but firm in our resistance of not opening ourselves to their influences and suggestions. Like you say not to do business with them.
If you have ever had a thought completely out of place with the moment you are presently experiencing, maybe even vulgar, thinking how could I ever produce such a thought it could be that you are receiving it from perhaps a demon. They want to draw away your attention from what it is presently engaged in.
Just one perspective to consider.
Of course we still have the freedom to nurture the thought or not so the onus is on us.
There are countless teachings on compassion for troublesome spirits, for example. Lama Zopa Rinpoche spends quite a bit of time on this subject:
"People who see spirits should not be afraid or scared, thinking “I’m strange.” In Western society, people generally don't accept spirits because they don't understand them. But people who see them can understand what an incredible opportunity it is to help the spirits, to develop strong compassion because of seeing their suffering, can help them with these mantras and teachings, can liberate them, and purify their negative karma. By hearing the words it leaves a positive imprint, liberates them from the oceans of samsaric suffering, and brings them to enlightenment." (http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=352&chid=1329)
Regardless of whether one sees such a being as a protector or troublesome spirit, many of them are not enlightened beings and therefore experience suffering, like the rest of us. So it's always appropriate to have compassion for these beings.
On the other hand, if you believe a particular protector to be enlightened, then there's no suffering on their part which requires compassion; encouraging compassion for them sends a confusing message.
Fixation on anything is always a danger, so imho it's good not to get fixated positively or negatively on any one thing--be it a practice, a protector, or anything else in dharma or life. The problems we experience are almost always with the object, not the subject.
I was listening to an audio talk by the Dalai Lama the other day, and contrary to widely held belief, he didn't say Dorje Shugden propitiates should not attend his teachings. In fact he said they are completely free to attend his teachings. However, they should not take initiations from him, since this would break samaya. One should never take initiations from a teacher against whom one harbors doubts or disagreements, since this is harmful to both student and teacher.
I think it's a shame the disinformation has been spread that Dorje Shugden propitiates are banned or even unwelcome; I've been to multiple teachings by HHDL and never have I been asked anything about my personal practices before being allowed in.
The advice on not taking initiations from teachers with whom one disagrees is a very old and accepted one, and applies to multiple issues, not just this one.
his advise is very good if you are a non practitoner.
http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=335
Therefore, support for His Holiness becomes very important. Another thing is that His Holiness is the main source of world peace. In this aspect, His Holiness gives so much peace and happiness to so many millions and millions of people in this world. This aspect of His Holiness is the greatest inspiration, bringing many millions of people’s hearts toward Buddhism. Even though we have many high lamas, not everyone is able to manifest this particular aspect, even though from my side the virtuous friends are of the same essence.
Therefore, it becomes very important to support His Holiness and to fulfill His Holiness’ wishes. For that reason, Kopan Monastery stopped doing this practice. This was done for His Holiness. This does not mean that Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo, His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche, and His Holiness Song Rinpoche have made mistakes. It does not mean they are wrong. Nor does one have to look at the protector as evil. For us ordinary people it is difficult to judge, because we cannot see these lamas ’ minds.
Another side of the teaching is that it is mentioned that the protector is an Arya Bodhisattva, a manifestation of Manjushri. So, then, there is also the risk of our creating very heavy karma in that context.
The sad thing in all of this is that the positive side is rarely talked about. There have always been differences of opinion in Buddhism, and always ways to deal with them and move on. No one issue is the be-all and end-all.
If you agree with the Dalai Lama's analysis of the issue, it may be a lesson in not being fixated on the idea that Buddhism is somehow free of disagreement or hard choices.
If you agree with NKT's analysis of the issue, it may be a lesson in not being fixated on the idea of having to always agree with the Dalai Lama.
If you are invested in the issue, but don't know where you stand, it may be a lesson in not becoming fixated on the idea that a teacher can feed us all the answers; we may have to actually study the issue and make our own decision.
If you aren't invested personally in the issue but find yourself drawn to it, it may be a lesson on not becoming fixated on titillation or gossip.
If you find yourself very troubled by the idea of this spirit, it might be a lesson on not being fixated on the idea of anything existing from its own side; see everything as a projection of your own mind (easier said than done, I know!) Or a lesson in not becoming fixated on fear--even troubled spirits benefit from compassion.
It could be a lesson in not being fixated on the thought that we know all there is to know about sentience, life, or dharma.
I can see I'm running the risk of becoming fixated on the idea of not being fixated, so I'd better stop there!
To me, personally, it looks excessive--in other words, even when using a figure such as the Buddha, whom no one seems to disagree about, if you nonetheless had a school which incessantly talked about "the Buddha" and was very Buddha-focused, fixated on the figure of the Buddha and practices devoted to the Buddha, it would start to look a lot less like Buddhism (to me, anyway).
Even the Buddha himself is not meant to be fixated on. So if we see any practice which seems to fixate on one figure, that's a little troubling. I personally am very fond of Medicine Buddha practice, for example. Yet if I found a school which made Medicine Buddha a very central figure, to the exclusion of other figures, I would find that odd.
Personally, I agree with the Dalai Lama's assessment of the nature of this entity, but even if I didn't, I would find the issue troubling from a completely different angle, and that is what I see as the fixation aspect.
I think this fixation aspect is most prevalent in the West, where many who propitiate Dorje Shugden have never propitiated any other protector. In Tibet, Dorje Shugden is just one of many protectors, whereas to many NKT people I've met, anyway, it's not only the only protector, but in some cases the only meditational figure they've incorporated at all. I'm not saying everyone takes this approach, but I think we can all agree that many people whose only experience with Buddhism is via NKT, do take this approach. So, with deep respect to all NKT people here, I find that troubling, because even if the figure were one I personally practice, it would still seem to be too much focus on one figure.
Choje Lama Namse Rinpoche, advises, for example:
"In order to meditate Mahakala [another protector], a disciple must have completed Ngondro (the preliminary practices) and a yidam practice...Hagiographies of great realized masters tell us that they recited millions of mantras of Chakrasamvara or Hevajra, for instance, before they concentrated on a guardian deity. These practices must be perfectly accomplished before one even hopes to meditate a dharmapala [protector] correctly. It is of utmost importance to be very cautious, to be honest with oneself, and to be concise...
In the ancient texts that are continuing to come to light, we read that it is certainly not good if every devotee meditates a dharmapala, that only a very small number of practitioners are qualified and eligible, and that others should not become involved with them. The ancient scripts also state that before even thinking about taking up the practice of a Dharmapala, a student needs to have studied and understood Lord Buddha’s fundamental teachings, the purpose of the teachings, why it is necessary to strive for enlightenment for the benefit of all living beings, and so forth. Furthermore, a practitioner needs to have completed the common, the special, and the very special preliminaries. In order to practice the special preliminaries, a diligent student needs to have received the empowerment of the yidam deity and should have meditated this deity for quite a while. There are outer, inner, and secret aspects of each yidam. If one practices correctly and discusses one’s experiences with one’s meditation master, quite a number of years will pass. If one’s teacher then says that one may begin meditating a protector or if he says one should not, then it is only proper to respect and heed his advice."
Yet, on the Dorje Shugden main website:
"Therefore, the very moment we begin our spiritual connection with [Dorje Shugden] through our prayers, offerings and refuge is the moment he begins his work to sustain us on the spiritual path...Many people develop faith quickly in Dorje Shugden because they receive very clear signs that he has alleviated their problems. Devotees of Dorje Shugden will be able to share with you numerous examples of how he has rescued them from dire circumstances, in ways that other Protectors are unable to do at this time...Often, practitioners enter the Dharma in this way when their immediate prayers are answered swiftly...There is no need to question Dorje Shugden’s better judgment and lose focus of the bigger picture."
I'm not concerned with Dorje Shugden specifically here, and am not running down anyone who propitiates this protector at all, nor would I ever. The validity of Dorje Shugden as a practice, imo, is a completely different subject.
Instead, I question the odd and unwise way this one practice is being strongly pushed onto Western students without a single mention of preliminary practices, and without mentioning that protector practice is not ever advised for many, many students...I would feel exactly the same if someone were over-preaching Mahakala.
I think that genuine practitioners of this protector have some responsibility to address what's going on, or at least, it's in their best interests to defend their genuine practice from whatever organizations are obviously using it for some other purpose. And certainly to encourage new students to engage in many, many years of preliminary study before even thinking of asking their teacher about adopting a protector practice. If we are honest with ourselves, though, is there any way that this approach is possible within NKT? If it's currently impossible, wouldn't it be good to work on changing that before more students are put at risk?
Or do those here not see the same things I see, and are NKT students in fact encouraged to engage in many years of study before considering protector practice - maybe I have the wrong impression? I've seen students rush into all kinds of things. But to take the Dorje Shugden website as an example, it certainly seems that protector practice is encouraged immediately, and in fact as the foundational practice. This seems completely at odds with almost all existing advice on protector practice.
Actually in the NKT there is a daily practice of Heart Jewel which is a practice of the Guru yoga of Je Tsongkhapa combined with protector invocation, The later is actually very brief and Geshe Kelsang advised it was appropriate for people to start because it was not to in depth as it doesn't require an empowerment and nor are there Mantra recitations. (There are longer protector Invocation Sadhana's such as wish fulfilling Jewel and the kangso/Melodious drum: fulfilling and restoration of general Dharma protectors and Dorje Shugden but these require a HYT tantra empowerment to practice on ones own for reasons you eluded to above ) Naturally of course new practitioners generally only start Heart Jewel after they have some experience with Lamrim.
nicely put.
FYI, the number of Taoists outnumber Buddhists in all the Chinese majority countries.
A lot are in between in that most temples worship both, but with mostly Taoist rituals
Among the Buddhists, those who have knowledge of the Sutras would only number below 20% of the so called Buddhists as a whole.
Ta
Demons need to 'possess' and slowly do harm, humans do it in a second.
"Get behind me Buddha", always works like a charm. They love a bit of respect.
On the whole I invoke and take possession of temporary internal buddhies or bodhisattvas, some quite wrathful. I dismiss them with a finger snap. Yep I have powerful fingers and even more powerful imagination . . .
Choose your companions wisely and with compassion as I tell all the little wer-lobsters . . .
Everything is subject to illusion, even God.
I'll use christianity as an example as I am most familiar with it's philosophies. But christians believe God is perfect in all ways, all knowing, omnipotent. Since that IS the case, they need an enemy to explain negative events, hence satan. Since God is very very powerful, well, satan must be pretty dang powerful, himself, to pose even the slightest threat to God.
This applies to secular life, too. Just because you don't identify with a religion, it does not mean you are not subject to the laws of nature. That IS what it is all about, after all.
When you identify something as 'Good' you automatically label it's opposite as bad.
Instead, we should see everything as fulfilling a role. Not good, not bad, but there for a reason.
Was there ever anything present, more that the usual bizzare arisings of the deluded? Who cares. Job done.
Also, then you will be familiar with the Mysticism taught in the Eastern Church in that the contemplation of God, the source of being beyond being that is both one and many, requires the mind to be still and silent and undisturbed by all thoughts. Even the things perceived as pure and heavenly, must be dropped. The mind is the crown and throne of the Holy Spirit. This mind is both within and without, one and many.
Why does the word "Demonic possesion scare folks more than their koan struggles?
Sure, we all have the “demons” of certain passions and attachments in ourselves that we feed to some level of degree. At worst they not only can become destructive to one’s self, but also can cause harm and suffering for others. When utterly gripped by them the metaphor of demon possession would be fitting as there is a sense of loss of control as if that passion has a life of its own.
However, we also know that some beings actually take pleasure or have no remorse about purposely harming and causing suffering for other beings. I know from experience the existence of formless beings not of this realm where that motivation is clear, but not of literal possession, but of action and influence.
The intent or purpose of the Koan is not to create fear but provide liberation. These beings, whose form is not visible to us but the results of their actions are, have intent of causing fear and harm whether physical or psychological in others. Their actions we call demonic and associate that label to the perceived source as well. You can use another label, but it doesn’t affect the results.