"See, the bottle keeps the cold warm and the warm cold. This is a wonder. For how does the bottle know that?
I would like to continue from last night's talk. We have discussed the three levels of the teacher relationship in terms of the student's development. Tonight I would like to talk about whom we're relating to in the sadhana. We have a sense of relating with somewhat ideal, ethereal beings, who are known as Dorje Trolö or Karma Pakshi, people who have already existed, who have lived and died in the past. How can we relate those people to the present situation? And how is that different from worshipping Jesus Christ, for that matter?
That is an interesting question. Dorje Trolö or Karma Pakshi represent the notion of the embodiment of the siddhas. Siddha is a Sanskrit word which refers to those who are able to overpower the phenomenal world in their own enlightened way. A siddha is a crazy wisdom person. Crazy wisdom in Tibetan is yeshe chölwa. Yeshe means "wisdom," and chölwa, literally, is "gone wild." The closest translation for chölwa that we could come up with is "crazy," which creates some further understanding. In this case "crazy" goes along with "wisdom"; the two words work together well. So it is craziness gone wise rather than wisdom gone crazy. So from that point of view, craziness is related with wisdom.
The notion of wisdom here is very touchy, and we will have to get into the technical aspect of the whole thing. Wisdom is jnana in Sanskrit and yeshe in Tibetan. Yeshe refers to perception or to enlightenment, which exists eternally. Ye means "primordial"; she means "knowing," knowing primordially, knowing already. The idea is that you haven't suddenly acquired knowledge. It isn't that somebody has just told you something. Knowledge already exists; it is here and we are beginning to tune into that situation. Such a thing actually does exist already. Wisdom isn't purely manufactured by scholars and scientists and books.
So the notion of enlightenment is the same as that of wisdom. Being a buddha is not so much being a great scholar who knows all about everything. Being a buddha, being enlightened, is actually being able to tune our mind into that state of being which already exists, which is already liberated. Our only problem is that we are covered over with all kinds of hiding places and shadows and venetian blinds—whatever we have covering us. We are always trying to cover up.
As a result, we are known as confused people, which is an insult. We are not all that confused, stupid, and bewildered. We have possibilities—more than possibilities. We actually inherit fundamental wakefulness—all the time. So that is the notion of enlightenment as well as the notion of yeshe. We are eternally awake—primordially awake, cognitively open and insightful. That's the notion of wisdom.
The notion of "crazy" is connected with individual situations. When wisdom has been completely and thoroughly achieved, then it has to relate with something. It has to relate with its own radiation, its own light. When light begins to shine, it reflects on things. That is how we know whether it is bright or dim. Therefore, when light is very brilliant, when it reflects on things properly and fully, we know that there is some kind of communication taking place. That communication is expressed by the intensity of that wisdom light shining through. That communication is traditionally known as buddha-activity or compassion.
Compassion is not so much feeling sorry for somebody, feeling that you are in a better place and somebody is in a worse place. Compassion is not having any hesitation to reflect your light on things. That reflection is an automatic and natural process, an organic process. Since light has no hesitation, no inhibition about reflecting on things, it does not discriminate whether to reflect on a pile of shit or on a pile of rock or on a pile of diamonds. It reflects on everything it faces. That nondiscriminating reflection is precisely the nature of the relationship between student and teacher. When the student is facing in the right direction, then the guru's light is reflected on him. And when he is unreceptive, when he is full of dark corners, the teacher's light is not fully reflected on him. That light does not particularly try to fight its way into dark corners.
So that nonhesitating light reflects choicelessly all the time; it shines brilliantly and constantly on things. Craziness means not discriminating and being without cowardice and paranoia. "Should I shine on this object, even though this other object is facing towards me?"—not at all. Whoever needs to be subjugated is subjugated, whoever needs to be—how does the line go? [Laughter] Does anybody remember that line? Maybe someone can read it out of the sadhana.
STUDENT: I think it's "He subdues what needs to be subdued, he destroys what needs to be destroyed, and he cares for whatever needs his care."
VIDYADHARA: Thank you. So the definition of crazy wisdom is that whatever is needed will be done. What is not needed is not done. That idea is quite different from the Christian notion that everybody should be converted to Christianity—even stones and grass and meat eaters. It isn't our duty to go around the corner and convert someone. This is a different approach. Whatever needs to be reflected on is reflected on, and whatever needs to be done is done—on the spot.
Maybe that idea doesn't seem to be particularly crazy from your point of view. You might think that if somebody is crazy, he won't leave you any space at all. He will just roll all over you and vomit all over you and make diarrhea all over you. He will make you terribly crazy, too; he will extend his own craziness. But this craziness is not so neurotic; it's just basic craziness, which is fearlessness and not giving up anything. Not giving up anything is the basic point. At the same time, you are willing to work with what is there on the basis of its primordial wakeful quality. So that is the definition of crazy wisdom, which is sometimes known as wisdom gone wild.
Crazy wisdom is connected not only with reflecting on things, it is also connected with the space around things. The crazy wisdom person provides immense space or environment around things. That environment is completely thronged with the energy of its own fearless wisdom. When a crazy wisdom person decides to work with you, when he decides to liberate you, you become his victim. You have no way to run away from him. If you try to run backward, that space has been already covered; if you try to run forward, that space has also been covered. You have a feeling of choicelessness in regard to the particular teacher that you relate with, so your relationship becomes very natural and open. So the crazy wisdom teacher is somewhat dictatorial. The space he creates is thronged, filled with a strong charge of heavy enlightenment, heavy primordial sanity.
That is usually our problem. We can't handle too much sanity; we would like to have a little corner somewhere for neurosis, a little pocket, just a little puff here and there. If we run into too much sanity, we say, "Boy, it was heavy!" [Laughter]
That heavy sanity is basically what the sadhana is all about. Its purpose is to create just such an atmosphere of claustrophobic sanity, claustrophobic enlightenment in this world, particularly in North America. Western Europe, too, is at least somewhat hopeful—apart from England. [Laughter] However, that's a private joke. [Laughs] The idea is that the practitioner of this sadhana should have that kind of understanding. He should be willing to commit himself to an intense experience, which is usually called "freaky."
Let's discuss and dissect the notion of freakiness. What do we mean by "freaky"? The word has two aspects. When sane people get into insane situations, they say that it is freaky. But when insane people get into sane situations, that is also known as freaky. It's just the other way around. So the word "freaky" doesn't mean anything very much; it's just common jargon. In other words, we don't like such situations. We find them threatening to us, whether they are right or wrong, sane or insane. We would like to actually demonstrate or indulge in our own thingy, which is not allowed in those situations. We could say that crazy wisdom actually charges towards us and develops its own direction. There is a sense of openness and a sense of confusion at the same time.
We have a great fear of complete sanity. Let's face it! We don't like being completely sane, completely awake. We really don't like it! We would like to have a little home touch at this level, at that level, at all kinds of levels. We would like to have a home touch so that we can indulge in ourselves as well as inviting somebody else to indulge in us. We would like to take a break here and there. That is always the case, that we don't want to be completely sane.
We have no idea of how to be fully sane, fully balanced, fully awake. We have no idea at all. We have never done so. Occasionally, when we are feeling good and religious and prayerful, we would like to go up to our loft. But at the same time, the basement is more attractive. [Laughter] We actually feel as though we have a better reference point and learning situation if we are allowed some kind of indulgence in our neurosis, as long as we're also doing a good job on the other side, on the level of wakefulness.
Sometimes, when we have been quite heroic, quite sane for a long time—if such a thing is possible at all—when we return to our previous situation, it is more refreshing for us to see things at the so called gut level, dirty spoon level, greasy spoon level. We have some kind of neurotic love for our ethnic claustrophobia. That ethnic claustrophobia applies not only to the Jews and the Chinese and Italians; it applies to everybody's little ethnic world—our grandmother's cookies and our mother's temper tantrums and our father's businesslike style. All those little things that make us glad to return home, comfortable at home, are very nostalgic. We would like to return home and feel those good old things. Maybe that's why antiques are very expensive in America. [Laughter]
The vajrayana approach to reality demands complete sanity. It demands not being afraid of sanity, it demands highways and highways and highways of it, skies and skies and skies of it, fold after fold of it. The vajrayana demands not being afraid of that.
Last year in the Naropa Institute class on tantra, we talked about the blue pancake. That is a similar approach. It is not so much a round pancake; the whole sky is a self-existing pancake, dough after dough, roll after roll of pancake. That is the space that is always there.
The crazy wisdom vision is very crazy, too. It gives us a sense of direction, a sense of heroism, a sense of reality and a sense of compassion—and so forth down the line. It also includes our doubts as part of that crescendo. So the crazy wisdom form is related with the basic notion of enlightenment. As we say in the sadhana, "To the crazy wisdom form of the buddhas of the past, present, and future." I think it goes something like that. Is that true? So crazy wisdom is part of the general scheme of enlightenment. The crazy wisdom guru is not some Rasputin of Buddhism gone wild who does crazy things, who sets up a crazy wisdom cult. You might say, "Padmasambhava went to Tibet and got drunk and went crazy. He hyperventilated in the mountain air after being in India." "Karma Pakshi went to China and got turned on by being an imperial teacher. Because of that, he went crazy."
But we are talking about a larger form of crazy wisdom, which is cosmic crazy wisdom. It is part of the enlightened attitude of the whole thing, which is already crazy, continuously crazy—and wise at the same time. Primordial wisdom is continuously taking place. That is a very crazy thing, in some sense.
We have two personality types in the sadhana: Dorje Trolö and Karma Pakshi. Dorje Trolö is Padmasambhava. Padmasambhava attained enlightenment at birth. He was an Indian Buddhist saint, a siddha, a vidyadhara and a great teacher who brought Buddhism to Tibet. There was already some element of Buddhism there, but Padmasambhava actually brought the full swing, the full force of Buddhism to Tibet.
He manifested as a crazy wisdom person particularly when he was meditating in Tibet, in a cave called Taktsang Seng-ge Samdrup, which is now in Bhutan. (In those days, Bhutan was part of Tibet, in the province of Mon.) In order to relate with the savageness of the Tibetans and their own little ethnic samurai mentality, he had to appear in that manifestation. So he manifested himself as an enlightened samurai, a savage person, a crazy wisdom person—known as Dorje Trolö.
According to the iconography, Dorje Trolö rides on a pregnant tigress. He wears the robes of a bhikshu, a Buddhist monk, and he wears a kimono-like garment underneath. He holds a vajra in his hand—like this one [holds up vajra]. And he holds a three-bladed dagger in his left hand. He represents the aspect that crazy wisdom doesn't have to be related with gentleness in order to tame somebody. In order to tame someone, you can approach him abruptly and directly. You can connect with his neurosis, his insanity; you can project sanity on the spot. That's the notion of crazy wisdom.
Karma Pakshi was the second Karmapa. The Karmapas are the heads of the Karma Kagyü lineage, to which we belong, the practicing lineage. Since he was recognized as a great master, he was invited to the Chinese court as part of the entourage of the Dalai Lama [head of the Sakya sect, who in those days was not known as the Dalai Lama]. Karma Pakshi was always very strange; and his style was not in keeping with the protocol expected of emissaries to the Chinese imperial court. During the journey to China, he played a lot of little tricks; everybody was concerned about his power and his naughtiness, so to speak. The Sakya abbot who was supposed to become the Chinese imperial teacher didn't like Karma Pakshi's tricks, and had him thrown in jail. By means of his miraculous powers, Karma Pakshi turned his prison into a palace. He was able to manifest himself as a real crazy wisdom person. He proved that politeness and diplomacy were not necessary in order to convert the Chinese emperor. He showed us that straight talk is more effective than gentle talk. He didn't say, "Buddhism would be good for your imperial health." He just wasn't into being diplomatic. The rest of the party got very upset; they were afraid that he might blow the whole trip, so to speak. And apparently he did! [Laughter]
Towards the end of his visit, he became the real imperial teacher. The Chinese emperor supposedly said, "The Sakya guru is fine, but how about the other one with the beard? How about him? He seems to be a very threatening person." The energy of crazy wisdom is continuously ongoing. Karma Pakshi was always an unreasonable person—all the time. When he went back to Tibet, his monastery was still unfinished, so he ordered it to be built on an emergency basis. In that way Tsurphu monastery was founded. It was the seat of the Karmapas before the Chinese invasion of Tibet. It is interesting that such energy goes on throughout the whole lineage.
If I may, I would like to inject a bit of our own vision in connection with crazy wisdom. For us it is like wanting to buy this building, which is out of the question, in some sense, but on the other hand, it is a possibility. And we are going to do it! That seems to be Karma Pakshi's vision, actually. He would have done a similar thing. Suppose a fantastically rich person came along. All of us might try to be nice to this particular guy or this particular lady—we might blow his trip completely, to the extent that he would be completely— switched! Although his notion of sanity was at the wrong level, he might become a great student if we were willing to take such a chance. So far, we haven't found such a person, who would be rich enough and crazy enough and bold enough to do such a thing. But that was the kind of role Karma Pakshi played with the emperor of China. Karma Pakshi was known for his abruptness and his dedication. He possessed the intelligence of primordial wakefulness.
Then we have another interesting person in the sadhana: Tüsum Khyenpa, who was the first Karmapa, before Karma Pakshi. He was an extraordinarily solid person, extraordinarily solid, sane, and contemplative. He spent his whole life teaching and negotiating between various warring factions. There was a lot of chaos at that time; all kinds of squabbles erupted among the Tibetan principalities. By his efforts, their fighting was finally subdued. He was basically a peacemaker and a very powerfully contemplative person.
Then we have Mikyö Dorje, who was the eighth Karmapa. He was a great scholar and a great teacher, and he was very wild in his approach to reality. Once he said, "If I can light fire to the rest of the cosmos, I will do so." That kind of burning prajna was in him all the time.
Rangjung Dorje, the third Karmapa, was a key person: he brought together the higher and lower tantras. He was an extraordinarily spacious person, and one of the most powerful exponents of mahamudra, which is at a very high level of vajrayana enlightenment experience. He was a great exponent of the ati teachings, as well.
I'm trying to introduce these people to you tonight. And I'm sure they're very pleased to meet you, as well. [Laughter] They are such powerful people! It's such a powerful idea! And that powerful idea is not of the past or of the present or of the future—it is simply living experience at every level. All those ideas which presently exist have existed in the past—obviously. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to discuss them. And since such experience did exist, does exist, we have some way of relating with that. We can relate with the vision of those people and with their fearlessness.
How are we going to do that? The only way to do that seems to be to have some kind of connection, a means, a way to link ourselves to that. That way is the sadhana itself. I'm not talking about tripping out, taking LSD and reading the sadhana in the afternoon, trying to visualize Dorje Trolö and Karma Pakshi, trying to bring them into your world. I'm not talking about getting them on your side when you are particularly depressed or in need of help. This is not the popular Christian principle of inviting God to be on your side because your side is right. That is precisely the kind of problem we have with the Arabs and the Israelis. We're not putting up a fight, so no one has to be on your side or on the other person's side. There is no other person to fight with.
We're on our own side; and "they" are we. Those people in the sadhana are not regarded as ghosts, as holy ghosts; and they are not particularly regarded as the Christ principle. They are not regarded as larger spirits that we have around us. They are simply regarded as states of being that express ourselves in our awakened state.
Thank you. Questions are welcome.
QUESTION: Rinpoche, with all due respect to Karma Pakshi, can you tell me what happened to the Chinese emperor?
VIDYADHARA: I think he was saved. [Laughter] There's a story that the Chinese emperor became one of the lineage holders himself. That's not bad for a Chinese, eh? [Laughter]
Q: Are all these people the same as a vajra master? If you get into it with the vajra master, are you getting into it with them?
V: Yes, absolutely! It's like studying with somebody who is fully soaked in his own tradition, like a poet. If you could meet a living poet who has all the feelings and inspiration of his tradition, if you could actually meet Shakespeare or whoever it might be, if you could meet Yeats or [inaudible] on the spot. Unfortunately, the world of poets is slightly different from the world of Buddhist practice, which is constantly being transmitted from generation to generation.
Q: Rinpoche, you mentioned that Rangjung Dorje integrated the ati and the mahamudra traditions. Was he a holder of the lineage as well as the—
V: Yes. He was in the ati lineage.
Q: Is this sadhana an integration of the Nyingma and the Kagyü traditions?
V: Well, it is supposedly Kagyü tradition, which has a lot of ideas borrowed from the Nyingma tradition. That's the case with almost any sadhana in the Kagyü tradition.
Q: Do the Nyingma lamas incorporate the practice of mahamudra?
V: Well, yes.
Q: What is the difference between jnana and prajna?
V: Jnana is basic, primordial wakefulness. And prajna is a tool that you use throughout the whole journey, starting from the pratyekabuddha level up to the vajrayana level. It is a constant examination: you are constantly trying to find out the way things are. So prajna is more intellectual and jnana is more experiential. The word "intellectual" has a very limited meaning in the English language. (I don't know about the other European languages.) It means just relating with books and facts and figures.
But in this case, "intellectual" means seeing things very precisely—as much as you can. It means perceiving further and transcending your own perceptions at the same time. That is not quite a meditative state. It's not a state: it's working with your mind.
Q: Is jnana like something that has been given to you already, and prajna like something that you develop?
V: Jnana is your inheritance. Prajna is a sympathetic inheritance which you work toward.
Q: I don't quite understand what you mean by sympathetic.
V: It's something that you already have with you. You could say prajna began when you were born, when you learned how to suck your mother's nipple. It begins from that level, which is already an inheritance, in some sense.
Q: But it's also something you develop.
Q: Do you develop more and more prajna?
V: You don't suck your mother's nipple all the time; you just grow up.
Q: Could you talk about how crazy wisdom relates to being a human being? Are we manifestations of crazy wisdom refusing to see itself, or something like that?
V: Yes. [Laughter]
Q: There must be more to it.
V: That's it!
Q: Rinpoche, if Tüsum Khyenpa was the first Karmapa and Karma Pakshi was the second Karmapa, and Mikyö Dorje was the eighth Karmapa, and the sixteenth Karmapa is the one we know, are all these people the same person?
V: Well, it's like trying to say which sky is the real sky: the one above New York City or the one above Boston. It's difficult to say. [Laughter]
Q: Okay. Thank you.
Q: I usually think of a crazy wisdom person as being kind of out of control and kind of dangerous because I can't reason with him, I can't control him. Is there that feeling about the crazy wisdom person?
V: Well, I think wisdom is already wise. In other words, if you become wise you become a wisdom person. Trying to control someone who is crazy is obviously not wise. Such a person doesn't know anything about wisdom; he is just being crazy. That seems to be the problem. If you don't have a touch of wisdom, a dash of wisdom in your craziness, you are just flat crazy. It's very dangerous—sure.
But a crazy wisdom person is not particularly dangerous. On the other hand, he could be dangerous. It depends on how crazy you are. If you are more crazy, then the crazy wisdom person is more dangerous. It also works the other way around. When an ordinary person is crazy, if he is less crazy, he is safer—right? I hope so. Is that logical?
But at the crazy wisdom level, if you are more crazy, then the crazy wisdom teacher is going to be more dangerous for you. He is going to try to cut through the aorta of your neurosis.
Q: Does that relate to what you were saying earlier in the talk about a feeling of freakiness? Kind of feeling half-insane and half-sane?
V: Yes, something like that.
Q: When you feel that freakiness, is that the time to let go more? Is that the time for a leap?
V: Well, I think letting go has to be based on some kind of wisdom. You see, the point is that first you get wisdom, then you get crazy. That's what the crazy wisdom direction is all about. In ordinary cases, first you get crazy, and then you get wisdom. That is the mad philosopher style.
Q: Rinpoche, in the sadhana, is there some point where the ati and the mahamudra traditions are integrated, or is that happening all through the sadhana?
V: All through the whole thing.
Q: Thank you.
V: Right you are! [Laughter] Gentleman over there?
Q: I wonder if you could reconcile something from the last talk with something you said this time. Tonight you said something about there being no sides. But last night, in describing the relationship with the vajra master, you said something about: "Here is your sword. Come join the battle." Who is the battle against?
V: I think it's saying the same thing. The battle is simply not being afraid to fight, to use your sword. Sometimes people become petrified when they are given a weapon. They are afraid they might cut themselves by tripping on it, if they're wearing a long coat or something. People are afraid of all kinds of things; they are so cowardly. If they have a sword, they are constantly in fear of having an accident. But if you are given a sword, you should be able to handle it. That is what we have been discussing tonight.
Q: I still don't understand. What are you going to do with the sword?
V: You fight with it.
Q: But what is it that you fight? Or is this the sword of Manjushri?
V: That is also a sword. You battle with your neurosis, which battles back. It's not just chopping down neurosis. It's not all that simple, you know. This whole world is coming towards you.
Q: You talked about openness, and you talked about jnana as not giving up anything. I don't see how they go together.
V: I don't see any problems with that. Openness is not giving up. When you're open, that means that you don't reject anything.
Q: —not giving up in the sense of working very hard to get something.
V: Well, we're not talking about laboring. Not giving up doesn't have to become a crusade.
Q: You said that we don't want to be completely sane. Is that because of our fear? And if so, why are we afraid and what can we do about it—other than sitting?
V: You are afraid because you like the smell of your own armpit. [Laughter] You find it very attractive, very homey. Doing something about that would be taking a shower, trying out the perspective of freshness instead of your smelly armpit. That is opening up. That is not indulging your own little thingy. You just get out! That seems to be the point.
Q: That has to do with familiarity, which is a very safe feeling. But I don't understand—
V: Well, nothing is going to be familiar in an area where we have never gone. Nothing is going to remain very familiar. But at this point familiarity is not the criterion. The criterion is just general wakefulness. That is going to be very alien to a lot of us, but we've got to do it.
Q: So is that the leap?
V: Yes. You've got to do it. Well, friends, I think we could close at this point
Crazy wisdom, also known as holy madness, is a manifestation of certain spiritual adepts where they behave in unconventional, outrageous, or unexpected fashion. It is considered to be a manifestation of spiritual accomplishment evident in such Dharmic Traditions as Sanatana Dharma, Tantra, Vajrayana, Zen amongst other traditions such as Sufi, Bonpo and Taoism for example and is often evident in human cultural spiritual universals such as shamanism. Crazy wisdom is also a modality of communication, in which the adept employs esoteric and seemingly unspiritual methods to awaken an aspirant's consciousness.
'Crazy wisdom' shares a semantic field with: sacred fool, divine madman & madwoman, village idiot, divine ecstasy, and the Tarot archetype of The Fool, etc.
* 'crazy wisdom' or 'yeshe chölwa' (Tibetan: ཡེ་ཤེས་འཆོལ་བ; Wylie: ye shes 'chol ba)
Feuerstein (1991: p. 105) frames how the term 'Avadhuta' (Sanskrit) came to be associated with the mad or eccentric holiness or 'crazy wisdom' of some antinomian paramahamsa who were often 'skyclad' or 'naked' (Sanskrit: digambara):
"The appellation "avadhuta," more than any other, came to be associated with the apparently crazy modes of behaviour of some paramahamsas, who dramatize the reversal of social norms, a behaviour characteristic of their spontaneous lifestyle. Their frequent nakedness is perhaps the most symbolic expression of this reversal."
Feuerstein (1991: p. 69) equates the Avadhuta as a 'sacred fool':
"The crazy wisdom message and method are understandably offensive to both the secular and the conventional religious establishments. Hence crazy adepts have generally been suppressed. This was not the case in traditional Tibet and India, where the "holy fool" or "saintly madman" [and madwoman] has long been recognized as a legitimate figure in the compass of spiritual aspiration and realization. In India, the avadhuta is one who, in his [or her] God-intoxication, has "cast off" all concerns and conventional standards."
 The root and basis of crazy wisdom
From a particular Buddhadharma spiritual lexicon and perspective, Feuerstein (1991: p. 70) implies nonduality in his equating the essence of Samsara and Nirvana as the root of crazy wisdom:
"Crazy wisdom is the articulation in life of the realization that the phenomenal world (samsara) and the transcendental Reality (nirvana) share the same essence."
Generally, the difference between Sanatana Dharma and Buddhadharma conceptions of 'Samsara' and 'samsara' respectively are the former which is a proper noun denoting a relative apparent locality and the latter is an interiority or state of mind, the two are resolvable when understood from a nondual perspective.
Feuerstein (1991: p. 70) then enters the spiritual lexicon of Advaita Vedanta with what may in an etic Anthropological discourse be proffered as its culturally relative memes, archetypes, literary motifs and cultural tokens of 'Atman', 'Brahman', 'Paramatman' and 'Satcitananda' (which Feuerstein glosses to the contraction of 'Being-Consciousness' with bliss implied or transcended) to identify the root of crazy wisdom:
"Seen from the perspective of the unillumined mind, operating on the basis of a sharp separation between subject and object, perfect enlightenment is a paradoxical condition. The enlightened adept exists as the ultimate Being-Consciousness but appears to inhabit a particular body-mind. In the nondualst terms of the Indian teaching known as advaita vedanta, enlightenment is the fulfillment of the two truths: the innermost self (atman) is identical with the transcendental Self (parama-atman); and the ultimate Ground (brahman) is identical with the cosmos in all its manifestations, including the self." 
 Crazy wise adepts
Feuerstein (1991: p. 69) lists Han-shan (fl. 9th century) the Taoist and Zen poet, herbalist and mountain recluse (who as a pointed aside, was held in such regard by the Dharma inspired poetic beatniks of the Beat Generation) as one of the crazy-wise:
"Han-shan, the legendary Chinese adept with a Cheshire-cat grin, lived alone in the most desolate mountain areas gathering roots and herbs. When people would try to talk with him about Zen, he would only laugh hysterically."
Feuerstein (1991: p. 69) also lists Ikkyu (15th century), a Zen master, famed for the crazy-wisdom of sporting a skeleton around town and the pithy Sufi storyteller Mulla Nasruddin (fl. 13th century) as one of the crazy-wise:
"Among the Sufi, some of the best teaching stories feature Mulla Nasruddin, the holy fool whose unreasonable behavior reflect the deepest truths."
Christianity has the blessed St Isadora, a sterling example of a female exponent of crazy wisdom.
 Crazy wisdom and divine madness approaching a human cultural universal
McDaniel (1989: p. 7) in her work on the divine madness of the medieval bhakti saints in Bengal, mentions the Greek tradition of Plato's Phaedrus:
"Divine madness is not unique to Bengal, or even to India. It has been explored in various traditions: in both Eastern Orthodox and Western Christianity, among the Hasids of eastern Europe, among the Sufis, in possession and trance dancers around the world. Plato distinguished two types of mania in the Phaedrus: one arising from human disease, and the other from a divine state, "which releases us from our customary habits." He notes four sorts of divine madness sent by the gods: the mantic, from Apollo, which brings divination; the telestic, from Dionysus, which brings possession trance (as a result of ritual); the poetic, from the Muses, which brings enthusiasm and poetic furor; and the erotic, from Eros and Aphrodite, which brings frenzied love. He states, "In reality, our greatest blessings come to us by way of madness, which indeed is a divine gift."
The bhakti divine madness may show itself in a total absorption in the divine, complete renunciation and surrender to divinity and the participation in the deity and divine pastime rather than its aping or imitation. Though the participation in the divine is generally favoured in Vaishnava bhakti discourse throughout the sampradayas rather than imitation of the divine 'play' (Sanskrit: lila), there is the important anomaly of the Vaishnava-Sahajiya sect. The divine madness may be seen in the biography, hagiography and poetry of the Alvars, the Mahasiddhas of Buddhism and Hinduism, and it has parallels in others religions, such as the Fools for Christ in Christianity, and the Sufis in Islam. In the Tibetan Buddhist tradition it is known as yeshe chölwa, and is held to be one of the manifestations of a siddha or a mahasiddha. Teachers such as the eighty four mahasiddhas, Marpa, Milarepa and Drukpa Kunley (also known as the Divine Madman) are associated with this type of behavior.
tertiusgaudens wrote:A mystic had all the time a thermos bottle with him. He saw in it the mystery of the universe.
"See, the bottle keeps the cold warm and the warm cold. This is a wonder. For how does the bottle know that?
This sounds like this mystic I know... his name is Boris and he likes to get stoned and drunk (crunk) in his mommies basement... he then says a bunch of dumbass shit like the quote you posted here and thinks it makes sense...I am really starting to think that he aint no mystic but rather he is a lowlife pothead who lives in his mommies basement....
But meh what do I know? If he claims to be a mystic and he says a bunch of bullshit like the quote you posted here...HE MUST BE A MYSTIC RIGHT?
Master Raphael wrote:what you call the law of attraction was missing a vital aspect to the theory that I call the law of repulsion ...it is clear I drove the two of you together...using my repulsion not attraction
- Related topics
- Last post