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.
Yidams are they 'real'?
lobster
Crusty Veteran
I read that a Rinpoche when asked if a Yidam (devotional Buddhist Deity) was asked if the deity was 'real', replied:
'She knows she is not real . . . '
Seems a good answer. How do you understand the use of Yidams? Delusional? No part of Buddha Dharma? A way to understanding archetypal qualities?
OM TARE TUTARE TARE SOHA
as we delusionists sometimes say . . .
'She knows she is not real . . . '
Seems a good answer. How do you understand the use of Yidams? Delusional? No part of Buddha Dharma? A way to understanding archetypal qualities?
OM TARE TUTARE TARE SOHA
as we delusionists sometimes say . . .
2
Comments
They would say that the very question itself is posited on a misunderstanding.
The first thing they would say is " define 'real' ".
Then they would point to any basic Yogacara text and suggest a little homework.
When Chogyal Namkhai Norbu was asked if Yidams are real he answered ' they are as real as you are '.
Which might not be as straightforward a reply as it at first seems.
This might be clearer if I put it like this .
" They are as real as 'you' are. "
To put it another way: Which stories are real? My favourite is the one about the three Yidams who walked into a bar (it was a special teaching visit) . . .
Nobody saw them drinking, so of course they were fantasy deities . . . but boy could they drink . . . anyone know that story? Of course not, it is just made up of Nothing . . .
Well . . . I don't believe you are a shark but your avatar represents a real person, just as a Yidam represents an abstract quality. How real and believable our relationship to that representation is up to us . . .
So for example now that I know that @wratfuldeity looks like his avatar I will be praying he does not turn up behind the sofa, where I am quaking with real fear . . .
:eek2:
Yidams can be very intense for those able to generate great imaginary forces, due to a lack of TV or cinema. Just as children get excited over Santa. In fact I still believe Santa exists in some multiverse, over the rainbow . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Imagine for example you were [insert fantasy of choice]. Through concentration, effort and continual efforts towards this fantasy self . . . it might begin to become true . . .
One use of imagination . . .
A Yidam is simply one dreamt up by many people, that doesn't have a physical body to act as an anchor but instead exists as a meme, it's existence reinforced through the minds of an entire culture rather than the squishy biomass of an individual.
Its not that the Yidam is 'real' and we are not. Just as it not that we are 'real' but the Yidam is not.
The purpose of Creation and Completion ( the technical name for the Yidam practice ) is to see clearly the provisional nature of all that arises.
' We are dreaming ourselves into existence all day every day ' Chogyal Namkhai Norbu.
What fun. Ho ho ho. :clap:
But at a conventional level we do exist; conventionally it's correct that "I" impute an I onto my body and mind (a valid basis of imputation).
But what's the valid basis of imputation for a Yidam? It seems to exist purely as a thought with no other basis than that. So wouldn't that be called an 'invalid basis of imputation', like the horns of a sky rabbit?
A Yidam is an ideal. People create them as manifestations of perfect attributes, something you won't find on Earth not even in the best gurus. People look up to them, aspire to cultivate those attributes within themselves, in this way a Yidam is valid because, through it, results are generated.
The projector remains? Or is that only there as a projection?
Are you perhaps suggesting that the body too is a projection? With no mind there is no corpse? That is not what has been implied?
So a Yidam can be relegated into non existence by a snap of the fingers. However all the finger snapping, gnashing of teeth and general performance of the Yidam is Nothing . . .
I gets it now, it is a form of dharma entertainment. Dharma drama to teach us principles of abstract ideals?
Chogyal Namkhai Norbu's quote could just as easily read;
Q ) " Do Yidams exist ?"
A ) " They exist to the extent that ' you ' do. "
They are not both, nor are they neither.'
From Madhyamika teachings.
The rational mind has its limits here.
Meditation is needed, under the instruction of a Guru.
The whole Yidam system makes no sense when taken out of the context of a Guru/student relationship.
Not because of a need for secrecy or a sense of exclusivism. But because that context is essential for its viablity.
You will find that view to be universal among actual Guru Yoga practitioners.
Not because they want to create an exclusive club , but because there are essential prerequisites that cant be sidestepped.
Without those prerequisites it is like the difference between a text book that tells you all about a rose, with illustrations and diagrams, and a living rose.
All this can be checked out on vajracakra.com.
This isn't merely some bee in my bonnet.
They are not both, nor are they neither.'
PhenomenON is singular.
PhenomenA is plural.
I can't believe I just did that. :eek:
'Phenomena have neither existence nor non existence
They are not both, nor are they neither '
must be a projection of your idealising self or some such phenomena . . .
Not that it follows from that alone that it is a viable practice.
' delusions ' btw are by definition ideas not accepted within a particular culture at the time.
Given that the idea of Yidams is normative within Vajrayana they are not delusions.
If the question is 'if we can deliberately create a provisional reality is there a danger that we can become attached to that provisional reality ?'
The answers is that without input from an experienced teacher yes, we may well be come attached .
Any in -depth answer to the question ' do Yidams exist ' is only really answerable in terms of the Trikaya doctrine.
Yidams exists as manifestations of the Sambhokaya. Not as manifestations of the Nirmanakaya.
Which for those who do not know or do not accept the Trikaya doctrine is not particularly useful to know.
Most people in my own tradition aren't aware that there is a similarity there. That's not necessarily a negative thing, as they just go about practicing their faith.
However, despite the similarity there are many differences in the approach, at least in my own tradition, as one doesn't recognize themselves as God or as the transcendent mind of Christ but as an image. A reflection, say of the moon on water, is not seen as the same as its archetype. One has the potential to grow in likeness by deification or theosis, as a portion of God but not as God, through participation in God's uncreated energies and not by nature. This growth in union would be movement towards well-being where the opposite would be movement towards non-being.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060718135217/http://pages.britishlibrary.net/lobster/buddha/rinpoche.htm
That will be news to his favourite Yidam. :thumbsup:
Next you will be telling us these words do not exist . . . which of course is a delusion . . .
Glad to hear you wish to engage in online conversation with your delusional reflection. Maybe it is time to make up your mind?
Again.
What fun. Not for 'you'? Ignorance is a Yidam we can not ignore? Then suffer we must . . . skilful or knot.
:clap:
Yidams are real but they don't eat cake? Not so real . . .
Had to look it up to make sure I remembered the cultural practice correctly. No, Yidams are not "real" in that there is no actual disembodied spirit or demigod going to help you "get enlightened". And all I can say about the above attitude is that I needed a good chuckle this morning.
The Buddha's Dharma is a pearl of great value that is often placed in an ornate box and wrapped with layers of pretty paper. Don't confuse the wrapping for the treasure. If you're Tibetan then do whatever your Teacher demands or find another practice. If you're following a Western Zen practice, then do whatever your Teacher demands. My old Teacher would shout and clap his hands if I asked him a nonsense question like "Is Enlightenment real?" and I'd probably deserve to be hit instead but he was a big softy.
When Chogyal Namkhai Norbu said that Yidams are ' as real as you are ' he did not mean that they are less real. Just as he did not mean that they are more real.
He meant that we AND they have provisional reality.
As for patronizing, I suppose that is in the eye of the beholder. When you read the quote, I notice the attitude expressed by the Rinpoche that meditation only practices (such as my own Zen) don't attain anything, unlike Tibetan practice, didn't seem at all patronizing to you, did it?
I think he was describing a kind of magical thinking that says that if you sit so, and straighten your back so, and become thought-free or attempt to. then some kind of magical transformation happens willy-nilly.
And to be fair, to read some Buddhists one could be forgiven for assuming that is what they are saying...
I've copped the same attitude before.
I always feel it is important we know what we once thought, what we think, what we might think and even for those few not bothered by discursive being, Yidams for example, it can't hurt . . .
And people say samsara is a delusion
- always good for a laugh as far as I know . . . :wave:
But there are different ways of thinking about the goal of practice. On the one hand it's about insight into everyday experience, on the other it's about opening out to different "levels" of reality. For me the second approach is more inspiring but also more tenuous.