Transcription of a Deconstructing Yourself podcast episode, you may hearken to here.
Michael Taft: Welcome to , the podcast for meta-modern mutants all in favour of meditation, neuroscience, hardcore dharma, shards of earth, predictive processing, tantra, nonduality, awakening, and rather more. My name is Michael Taft, your host on the podcast, and on this episode, I’m speaking once more with Ken MacLeod. Ken MacLeod began his study and practice of Buddhism in 1970 under the eminent Tibetan master Kalu Rinpoche. After completing two three-year retreats, he was appointed as resident teacher for Kalu Rinpoche’s Center in Los Angeles, where he developed progressive approaches to teaching and translation. After his teacher’s death in 1989, Ken established Unfettered Mind, a spot for those whose path lies outside established institutions. His many published works include , , and his brand latest book entitled . And now I provide you with the episode of that I call “The Magic of Vajrayana with Ken MacLeod.”
Michael Taft: Hey Ken, welcome back once more, to the podcast,
Ken McLeod: A delight to be back and talking with you again, Michael.
MT: Yes, it’s at all times a pleasure. You’re one of the crucial popular guests, and also you’ve been on here a bunch of times. And I’m really excited because as we predicted within the last podcast, you now have a latest book out called .
KM: Yes, it finally has seen the sunshine of day.
MT: And currently it’s available as a hardcover. Are you going to bring it out in other formats?
KM: Yes, we’ve at all times planned to bring it out in paperback, we may also do an eBook or digital version. And also you encouraged me to also give you an audio version. So I’m giving serious thought to that.
MT: Boy, I’d be really excited if the audio version existed as well. That’d be tremendous. Especially in the event you were reading it.
KM: I’ll do the audio version. Definitely.
MT: Nice.
KM: I’m going to have a conversation with any individual on Monday about that.
MT: Great. That’s really, really excellent news.
KM: Now, this book, as we talked about last time, was not a simple book to put in writing. And I believe it’s pretty unusual. I haven’t seen the rest on the market that is basically that similar.
MT: How would you summarize or simply briefly describe this text and what’s unusual about it?
KM: Well, I’m not in a superb position to comment on what’s unusual about it, because I haven’t read a variety of English language books on Vajrayana. However the impression that I get is most of them are giving a somewhat technical account of the meditations. And sometimes, like Lama Govinda’s book ages and ages ago, roughly elaborate descriptions of the deities, and the history of the deities, and so forth. This book, as really the case with all of my books, is concentrated on the practice of Vajrayana. And that’s what I attempted to emphasise within the books that I write. So I believe what makes this unusual, or may make this unusual, is that it’s definitely probably the most personal book that I’ve written–in that I take advantage of instances from my very own life and experience with Vajrayana as an instance among the practice points.
After which I’m also offering, and I actually have to be very careful how I word this: when Buddhism has been in a culture for a very long time, that culture forms the connection with Buddhism and the practice of Buddhism in a way that works in that culture, but when it moves to a different culture, resembling Buddhism coming to the West, then the brand new culture has to undergo the identical process. And typically, it’s a process that takes not less than many years, if not centuries. And over the many years that I actually have practiced Vajrayana, I’ve found ways to work with it, most of which I got here from looking deeper into the history and among the Indian origins of Vajrayana. The emphases are different from what one might get from most of the Tibetan teachers. And I’m presenting this as a form of contribution to how people raised in a Western context might approach this material.
MT: In order that’s really interesting. What elements do you’re feeling are different within the Indian understanding of Vajrayana versus the Tibetan?
KM: The impression that I actually have is that Indian Vajrayana was much less institutionalized.
That’s definitely the impression one gets from reading say in regards to the Eighty-four Mahasiddhas.
MT: Yeah, they’re form of wild crazy yogis, out within the wilderness, or street people or whatever.
KM: Well, it’s on the margins of society.
MT: Yes.
KM: You recognize, a few of them are ordained monks, a few of them are women, some arms manufacturers like Saraha the arrowsmith, Tilopa powdered sesame seeds for a living, which is pretty low caste. But that is how they approached and practiced Vajrayana. That’s what the Eighty-four Mahasiddhas record. And I believe Vajrayana developed as a contrast to the highly institutional types of Buddhism in India that took place within the monasteries, and likewise within the university monasteries like Nalanda. And we’ve got the famous story of Naropa, for example, who has reached the top of the institutional framework; he was considered one of the gatekeepers at Nalanda. And a gatekeeper was an especially high position. Because in those days, one other religious figure could come and challenge you to debate. And in the event you will not be capable of defeat him, then your whole monastery needed to convert to his way of practicing, his tradition.
MT: A variety of skin in the sport.
KM: The stakes were very, very high. And so only the very, highest people were the gatekeepers. And Naropa got here to the conclusion that–it was a visionary experience he had–you recognize, that he didn’t really know what the Dharma was about, and so he left and went to check with this virtual outcast, Tilopa. And thru him, got here to wakening. And most of the teachings and practices that I did actually got here from Naropa himself.
MT: And so within the non-institutionalized version of Vajrayana–what is that this non-institutional version of it? What’s different about it? Is it just more devotional or simply looser? Or what do you see as the guts of that?
KM: You’re more prone to have a detailed relationship along with your teacher, a private relationship since you’d be a part of a small group. And you’d only go and see your teacher if you really had something to discuss. Nevertheless it can be a really intimate conversation, and also you didn’t have sort of an entire monastic–or the responsibilities either of an entire monastic institution. These teachers can be themselves renunciates and wandering across the country as sadhus do today in India. And that is a bit speculation on my part. But that’s my guess, is that you just’d be a part of a small coterie of devoted disciples you would possibly meet together periodically for feasts and so forth. Your practice was your personal responsibility. I wouldn’t describe it as looser; it was probably just as demanding, if no more demanding in what was expected of you since you’d be chargeable for maintaining your being on the planet, teacher may or may not have helped that, but you didn’t have a monastery when which deliver or anything like that. He also didn’t have the support of, say, a monastic library, texts were rare, you needed to listen very, very fastidiously to your teacher, particularly when he was reading the text, because that is likely to be the one time you really heard the whole lot about that practice. You recognize, individuals who had phonographic memories had a definite advantage.
MT: Yeah. So I definitely agree, having read the book now a pair times, that this characterization of it being rather more personal is completely correct. I mean, yes, you do have a complete system in there or an entire text for doing deity practice with White Tara. But there’s also a lot about your personal understanding, about what it’s wish to do the practice, the way it feels, how it might affect you–things that I’ve just never seen in other texts. And it’s not only really helpful, however it’s touching, you recognize; you actually get a way of your personal deep, long-term work with this. Obviously, this was a really meaningful and vital book for you and something that was stewing for many years that just is so apparent within the text. And so I’m curious, what do you’re feeling is the foremost throughline or foremost understanding you wish people to get from this text?
KM: That’s a superb query, Michael. I believe it’s what I write in a few places within the book, Buddha’s last words–I can’t remember what the Sanskrit was, but English, it’s often translated, “I actually have shown you the way in which, work out your personal freedom.” Or something along those lines. One other context I got here across is the difference between the definite and the indefinite article in English. A variety of languages don’t have any articles. Tibetan doesn’t really have any articles. And there’s an enormous difference between translating something as and .
So I prefer to view Buddha’s last words as . And I believe this may be very vital because if we take it as then we feel that we’ve got to do what Buddha did.
MT: It narrows it tremendously.
KM: That’s what I feel. Yes. And I actually don’t want people attempting to follow what I did. Since it was just so painful, I wouldn’t want them to. My hope is that by describing–and I won’t even say it was my way–the way in which I ended up taking or the way in which that formed as I put one foot in front of the opposite, that they’ll discover a way, to place one foot in front of the opposite also. Nevertheless it won’t be my way. It won’t be anybody else’s way. It’ll be the way in which that forms as they make their efforts in practice. And that really is the wish for my book: that through the discussion of every of the three foremost sections–guru practice, deity practice, and protector practice–and how one can put all of them together, that they’ve some ideas: Oh, oh, my God, I could do that, I could do that. And it helps them discover a way forward.
MT: That’s a stupendous wish. And it definitely comes through within the text, which, as you simply mentioned, you’ve organized into these sorts of three foremost sections: guru, deity, and protector. And that stands proud to me, that three-part structure. Why did you select that because the foremost way of organizing this?
KM: Well, once I first took refuge with Kalu Rinpoche, the refuge prayer that he gave to people was a six-part refuge: take refuge within the guru, take refuge within the deities, take refuge within the Buddha, after which the Dharma, after which the Sangha, after which the Protectors. That was how that individual refuge prayer was set out. So you’ve this interweaving of Vajrayana and Sutrayana really—which is the opposite branch of Mahayana—mainly, right from the start. And in all traditions of Buddhism, we’ve got refuge within the Three Jewels, the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. And in Vajrayana, those tackle a special form as guru, deity, and protector, mainly. And all of those refuges have external and internal interpretations. In Vajrayana, the three pillars–the guru, deity, and protector–are known as or ; I prefer that translated as source, though the term in Tibetan is literally root. And the source of energy, or inspiration, or blessing is the guru, and the source of power, and skill, and talent is the deity. And the source of where you learn and are capable of act on the planet is what you develop through a protector practice, or the way in which that you just’re capable of interact along with your own reactive patterns, for that matter. Those three sources are fundamental to all the traditions of Vajrayana in Tibetan Buddhism. In order that was the logical framework to make use of for this book. As I said, I’m not very original.
MT: It seems to me that if we’re talking about gurus, definitely; but additionally, I often notice something similar with deities and protectors is these will not be in any way easy or comfortable things to work with for the common Westerner, even the common Westerner who’s drawn to Vajrayana. Looks like those might be really complicated concepts. Would you agree?
KM: Yes and no. I remember a really temporary conversation I had about translation with Trungpa Rinpoche. I asked him in regards to the translation of technical terms. And possibly probably the most infamous within the Tibetan context are , and . And Trungpa Rinpoche’s reply is, “We don’t intend to make it too easy, can we?”
I believe a variety of people within the West, because their relationship with religion has been so limited in lots of respects, don’t really understand what a spiritual path entails. They usually can entail loads. And I actually have a friend who’s very capable in her own right, and he or she’s not in the least all in favour of teaching anybody who isn’t prepared to devote their life to it. And by devote life, doesn’t mean to say they provide up the whole lot else, however it becomes the middle of their life. I believe this may be very vital. People may not start there. Quite definitely, I do know many individuals have began performing some basic mindfulness or meditating since it helps them not directly of their lives.
But a certain proportion of those people find that as their experience in meditation changes, then more possibilities and more questions arise. They usually change into all in favour of those and about at that time, they did begin to embark on what is likely to be called a spiritual path. It’s now not about helping them of their lives; it’s change into something that’s meaningful in and of its own right. And I believe that for a lot of these people–possibly all of them, I don’t know–it’s because they start to the touch something that can not be put into words. And there’s a mystery there and a depth there which brings a latest dimension to their life. And that’s why it becomes so intensely meaningful.
MT: Now, you and I actually have had previous conversations about some features of those topics. Let’s just start out with the guru. This is likely to be the one which’s probably the most charged really, for most individuals since we regularly hear a lot about negative experiences with gurus. And the term is nearly, at this point, a pejorative only in English. How would you wish someone to know this guru relationship, which is something that I believe each of us have had, the experience might be tremendously wonderful.
KM: Well, within the book itself, I take advantage of the word teacher slightly than guru, partially for the explanations that you just just mentioned. And considered one of the things that I’ve noticed is that when people use the word guru, they put a lot weight on it; they’re in search of a one who can satisfy a really wide selection of desires, and even needs, in them. And don’t really have idea of the way you relate to a one who, to a greater or lesser extent, embodies the spiritual qualities to which you yourself aspire or displays them not directly. Well, particularly in our culture today, we’re dismayed when an artist that we love we learn has a lower than impeccable behavior. But that doesn’t necessarily make him any less of an incredible artist. And I do know it is a touchy topic in today’s world. But there’s something similar in spiritual practice, that we’re all human beings ultimately. And a few people develop really deep understandings and capabilities in certain dimensions, and by necessity, other features of life is probably not as developed. And so I believe a variety of people approach a spiritual teacher as in search of an ideal person. And that’s a little bit of an issue, as I’m sure you may imagine. In , which is the primary book that I wrote, the standard that you just’re in search of in a teacher is someone who speaks to you, even if you’re completely crazy, someone you’ll actually hearken to if you’re completely crazy. Now, that’s pretty vital.
Should you go a bit further, anytime that we enter a discipline of any kind, you recognize, whether it’s football, or violin, or medicine, or law, or welding, or anything, we glance for somebody who can disclose to us what is feasible. They usually may show this by their very own example, or they might show it to us in other ways, by pointing it out to us in other people or something like that. But they’re capable of show us latest possibilities. Things that we hadn’t considered, hadn’t even imagined. And we also need someone who can teach us how one can construct the talents and the capabilities that we’re going to wish in spiritual practice in the identical way that, you recognize, in the event you’re learning how one can play football, someone needs to show you how one can throw or how one can block or how one can construct strength in your body, or how one can root yourself in the bottom, as in martial arts, and so forth. But there are a variety of skills that one has to develop. After which we also need someone who can indicate when our own stuff is getting in the way in which. And people are the three foremost things that we glance to a teacher for, whatever the discipline. Nevertheless it’s rare, actually, that we discover all of those in a single person. We may find them in three different people.
One teacher I do know in England had one five-minute meeting with a teacher that he desperately desired to talk with. He was never capable of say a word, given the formality of how things worked in Tibetan culture. And so he returned to his room, you recognize, completely shattered because he hadn’t been capable of ask any of the questions that he desired to. But when he sat all the way down to meditate, he found that his meditation had modified completely, and he regarded this teacher, with whom he never exchanged a word, as considered one of his primary teachers because he showed him what’s possible in his own way.
Other individuals are like, Oh, you do that as an alternative of that, and Oh, I can actually do this, you recognize, your learning skills. I’ve advised many, many those that; stop trying to know something like Mahamudra and Dzogchen, construct your capability in attention. When you’ve enough attention, you’ll have the opportunity to comprehend it directly, and it’s not a case of understanding it along with your intellect, so ignore that. People within the West find that very, very hard because they need to know it intellectually, however it actually gets in the way in which a variety of the time.
And I do know many practitioners who’ve never had anybody indicate where they’re getting in their very own way. That’s also an issue. So we want all three kinds of individuals. We may find them in a single person, and I do know individuals who have; we may find them in three different people. In this manner, I’ve tried to take among the magic or the mystery out of the term guru and just put it down in very practical terms, if that is smart to you.
MT: Yeah, absolutely. And it definitely matches my experience. The query that comes up there may be, What about dead people? What about gurus who aren’t any longer alive? Obviously, it’s going to be hard for them to indicate your flaws or whatever. But do you think that there’s anything to be gained by taking a non-living teacher as your guru?
KM: Very definitely, I might say actually, not only someone who’s now not alive but even a mythical figure can form those things. And for some people, such a figure does reveal possibilities. For other people, such a figure may help them develop strength, capabilities and skills, I mean because they’re just inspired by what this person can do. And for other people, yeah, after they consider this person, then they see their very own faults very clearly. So I believe that a non-living person can do all three functions, possibly. But there may be a danger there, in that it’s possible you’ll never leave your personal world of experience. Should you embark on that, it’s helpful to have another person that you just actually should confer with, because that requires you to place your understanding, or your abilities, or your personality out into the world. And also you get feedback from the opposite person in very, very clear terms. Sometimes, it is probably not what you wish. I could discuss this for a very long time.
And there’s a statue in the midst of America within the Nelson Atkins Museum in Kansas City, Missouri. It’s a statue of Avalokitesvara, Kuan Yin, I suppose, within the Chinese tradition, carved from a single tree trunk. And I believe it’s one of the crucial extraordinary pieces of art on the planet, and no one knows that it’s in the midst of America. I’ve seen many, many pictures of it. But I used to be driving across the country, and I went to see it. And I spent two hours there in tears more often than not, because that is the posture of royal ease. And here you’re feeling the nobility of bodhicitta, and the that arises in that nobility, and the richness and power it’s utterly peaceful. I discovered it tremendously moving. And I’m going to go and spend more time with that before I die. Very much on my list once I get a number of things done here. Because I just think it’s amazing. So this statue and Kuan Yin Avalokitesvara, what Avalokitesvara represents, speaks to me very, very powerfully, as that is one form that the compassion can absorb an individual. And I sit in front of that figure, and I don’t have any words by any means but I can feel the radiant presence of compassion. So it’s a bit long-winded answer, but you get the concept, Michael?
MT: I do. And it leads on to the second portion of the book about deities, since we could place Avalokitesvara in that category. And I believe perhaps the least interesting query is the ontological status of them. And yet, that’s what everyone focuses on in a technique, obviously, possibly that’s vital, however it doesn’t appear to me to matter much in practice. That’s just the mental mind attempting to get in the way in which. But I’m curious. You’ve done, in fact, many years of practice with deities and taught so many individuals to try this practice as well. What do you think that is the foremost profit there, and likewise some ways people can circumvent among the more typical Western cultural issues that come up?
KM: I’m going to be a bit blunt in my response. I’m going to begin with the second part. And here I’m speaking from my very own experience as much as I’m speaking about anybody else.
MT: Yes.
KM: I believe, simply to be secure, I’ll put it in the primary person. I used to be raised in a Protestant tradition in Canada. And I approached Tibetan Buddhism from that perspective. Within the West, by and huge, we’ve got a really limited idea of what a faith is, and our template is largely the Protestant understanding of what a faith is. And I find it very embarrassing to say that I didn’t really start breaking out of that very limited range of considering until 30 years after I began practicing.
I mean, this is basically quite embarrassing, but what the hell? And religion is a lot larger that I believe it’s a shame, in lots of respects, that many individuals’s conception is proscribed to that framework.
Now I practice within the Tibetan tradition, and as you said, just now, if you’re engaged in these practices, the ontological status becomes less vital. And a part of the rationale there are a few things in here which are philosophical but they might be helpful to some people who find themselves listening to this. The primary off is that the ontological status of the deities, and the protectors and so forth, aren’t in query; everybody acknowledges they exist. That’s, I had this picture of Avalokitesvara, and there’s a statue of Avalokitesvara, so Avalokitesvara exists. Now, one may say he exists as a mythical figure, not a cloth being. But there’s absolute confidence about whether he exists or not. It’s what category of existence can we put them in? You follow?
MT: Yes.
KM: And in order you practice, or as I practiced, I’m going to maintain this in the primary person, I noticed that my categories of existence needed to broaden a bit bit because things would occur, which didn’t fit into any of them. And this leads me to what I used to be mentioning earlier: that, mainly, I used to be approaching spiritual practice, in one other culture, from a really narrow mind set, very narrow-minded. That’s the embarrassing part. And considered one of the primary understandings that helped me break out of this–which might be sometime once I was within the three-year retreat–I got here to know that Buddhism isn’t really concerned with ontology in any respect.
MT: Exactly.
KM: It’s concerned with how we experience things, it’s rather more epistemological. It’s not concerned with how things exist or are, or what being is. That’s form of a given. And what one’s exploring and trying to return to is a special way of experiencing things.
When Rinpoche was asked, Does Chenrézig exist? Yes. Or Avalokitesvara; Chenrézig is the Tibetan; he’d say, “Yes, people have visions of him; people have seen him of their dreams. Yeah, in fact, he exists.” People would find that very unsatisfactory. But from my teacher’s perspective, and from Eastern Buddhism normally, the undeniable fact that you experience something nixes the ontological query in any respect. And the entire thing is about the way you experience life, what you’re experiencing, not whether it’s real. And ultimately, the concept the whole lot has to have a cloth existence is one other instance of the narrowness with which a materialistic mindset limits us after we come to approach spiritual practice. So the query actually comes from what I believe is a really narrow, materialistic, ontologically based mindset that almost all people will not be aware of.
MT: Yes. And so what’s the opposite part?
KM: As I practiced this, I got here to understand I used to be practicing magic. And there are Western traditions of magic; a variety of them have been lost, and there are people who find themselves attempting to revive them or reform them; I’m considering of chaos magic, for example. And there’s some great things there. Nevertheless it lacks the long and steeped tradition that one advantages from in something like Tibetan Buddhism.
You recognize, there we were practicing magic, and there’s no way around it. And so we were invoking deities. Not only were we invoking deities, we were evoking deities. That’s, we were in search of to create the qualities of being the deity in ourselves. Well, that is how a magician or a sorcerer does it, and it’s a really, very different type of practice.
I needed to laugh because once I was in LA, I got to know a Sri Lankan teacher who’s a really smart guy, guy. But so far as he was concerned, Tibetan Buddhism was all about devil worship, demon worship, and there’s no understanding in any respect on the a part of the Theravadan traditions or Theravadan those that I encountered that there was some actual Buddhism here. And I remember an exchange between this gentleman, this monk, and my teacher, when he met my teacher, he said, you recognize, in Theravada tradition, we’ve got the–and he named among the 37 aspects of enlightenment. And my teacher went, “Oh, yes, we’ve got those too,” after which named the following set of the 37 aspects. And the Sri Lankan teacher checked out my teacher and said, ‘You recognize, all these?” He was very surprised. And it’s comprehensible since the traditions had been completely separated from one another geographically, so all that they had was their very own ideas about them. They usually didn’t really know or understand them deeply.
So, here I used to be, a Westerner who had two degrees in mathematics. And I used to be practicing magic. Oh, that was interesting. And it worked. There have been enough things that happened through the three-year retreat. One occasion, some acquaintances of mine had been involved in a really, very serious automotive accident. And I didn’t know whether or not they were alive, injured, or dead. And a gaggle of us, because we’re all from the identical place in Canada, at this point did an extended ritual. And that night, I had a dream wherein one person was okay, one person was hurt but can be okay, and one person, the third, her health status was questionable, but she was probably going to be okay but she’d have a everlasting injury. Just a few days later, we got word that that was exactly what happened. One person had survived a automotive accident with none injury. His wife had sustained some injury, but not serious. And their daughter had sustained a really serious injury and had a lifelong disability. But that really, very fortunately, has not prevented her from having a really full, quite successful life. Not a nasty ending to a potentially tragic story.
And there are numerous other things. I don’t claim any special abilities here. It’s just that these items occur, and so they force you to relate to the world differently and open up your mind to other possibilities.
MT: Yeah, you simply noticed some very unusual things happening, and the reason will not be vital, right?
KM: Well, it’s actually problematic, because in the event you start clinging to the stuff, it just starts backfiring on you six ways to Sunday.
MT: Yeah, it gets hugely difficult immediately. So you simply learn to not worry about it. Yeah, that form of stuff happens.
KM: That form of stuff happens. And just to present you an example, I used to be sitting with my teacher in the future, and he said, “Ken, in keeping with Westerners, where does rain come from?” And I said, “Well, the sun shines on the ocean. And the sun evaporates, turns the water to water vapor, which rises up within the sky, becomes clouds; and when the clouds are dense enough, they form droplets, and rain falls.” And he checked out me–that is all in Tibetan, in fact–and he said, “That’s not true in any respect. If that were true, Los Angeles wouldn’t be a dry place.” So for him, the Western explanation of rain was just as magical as…
So culture brings us together, however it also limits us. And considered one of the facets of practice that I believe may be very vital–I’m really considering of the 4 immeasurables here: loving-kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity. You practice these in a way that allows you to see beyond your culture. I believe that’s very vital.
MT: Yes. Whenever you mentioned in regards to the Sri Lankan teacher characterizing Vajrayana as devil worship, I presume that whether he knew it or not, he was talking in regards to the protectors.
KM: Or the deities, because most of the wrathful and semi-wrathful deities and you recognize, I mean, mainly, the semi-wrathful deities, they’re all vampires.
MT: Right.
KM: Canine teeth bared, and so they drink blood. Appears like a vampire to me.
MT: Appears like a vampire. So let’s wade into the territory of the protectors.
KM: First off, I actually have a friend who’s very deeply trained within the Japanese Vajrayana tradition, Shingon. And in that tradition, there isn’t any distinction between deity and protector. And as my very own knowledge and understanding of Vajrayana developed, I noticed that these three categories–guru, deity, and protector–there’s not a pointy line between them. For some people, there are particular teachers that function very much as a yidam, and there are yidams that function as teachers, and there are yidams or deities that function as protectors, and there’s protectors that function as deities. Green Tara, for example, considered one of the numerous types of Tara, but Green Tara–virtually every monastery in Tibet does an invocation of Green Tara every morning. And the invocation is actually a protector practice, it’s not a deity practice, and he or she’s often known as the protectress, then that’s what the 21 Taras is about.
But my teacher’s teacher who, after he accomplished his three-year retreat, was the monastery’s tailor, which was an enormous job, because there have been at all times banners and other decorations for the temple to be sewn or repaired or whatever. And after a number of years of those, he thought, you recognize, it is a waste of time, and he couldn’t get leave to depart the monastery. So he went into considered one of the latrines of the monastery and barred the door and stayed there for seven years. After every week or two, they began pushing food under the door in order that he could eat. But he stayed there for seven years. And you may imagine what a latrine in a Tibetan monastery was like, and he practiced Green Tara the entire time. In order that was his deity.
And I discussed this since you form a private relationship. Your yidam, or deity, is your personal deity. It’s who you switch to. And it is a living relationship. And Westerners coming from a practice where these things just didn’t exist or only very rudimentary forms, it’s going to take some time to develop that, but you really develop a private relationship. So the deity is that this figure who speaks to you, is in your heart, and also you turn to, you pray to, etcetera. And that could be a protector or yidam, doesn’t really matter. And I believe in the unique tantras in India, just like the Hevajra tantra, the Cakrasaṃvara, Mahamaya, and so forth, they probably function each as deities and protectors; you switch to the identical deity for the whole lot. But as these items evolved, and this distinction developed over the centuries–that’s speculation on my part, but I believe that’s probably what happened.
MT: It’s definitely the case that in my Hindu Tantra practice, the foremost deity functions also as a protector deity. And in actual fact, among the most complex long practices I’ve done are all, on the surface of them, protector practices, using the deity as invocations of protection. And so after we would often ask, Well, why are we spending a lot time on this protection stuff? The concept or the understanding becomes: It’s not that you just’re attempting to avoid getting hit by a bus, although that’s in there could also be on some level; it’s rather more about, in an easy way of claiming, like protecting you from yourself. And that’s where it starts to show into the deity a part of it, where it’s really helping you to work along with your own transformation.
KM: I believe that’s superb. And for the good thing about the listeners, I would really like to suggest that if you say , the is 2 words, and , you follow?
MT: Yes.
KM: And that’s definitely considered one of the functions. The protector section, I don’t call it protector. I call it protectors and balance. Balance may be very vital in spiritual practice because you’re developing abilities and embarking into areas of human experience where it’s very easy to change into imbalanced. And in the event you change into imbalanced and aren’t capable of hold attention, then your reactive tendencies just get amplified, or there’s an incredible risk of that. They might be amplified by wrathful deities, they may also be amplified by peaceful deities. And so the connection with–let’s say the protector aspect of practice–may be very vital when it comes to helping to keep up balance. Because in those rituals, those long and sometimes very complex rituals, you’re invoking forces and features which you don’t generally discuss, you don’t even consider, and yet a few of these deeper areas of our psyche–if you should use that Jungian term–wherein there may be an woke up knowing with which we could have very, little or no relationship with. And a technique of forming a relationship is thru the performance of those rituals, which is why ritual is a vital a part of Vajrayana practice.
And folks within the West are sometimes distrustful and even antagonistic to ritual, but I learned that these are extremely sophisticated and subtle and powerful rituals. And although you can not say one plus one equals two, things don’t add up quite that way. There’s something that, through the practice of a ritual, forces tendencies, stuff moved more into balance. And balance is the optimal condition from which to practice. In order that’s why, if you’re doing any form of, in-depth meditation you perform–or most individuals perform–a protector ritual each evening. And we do Green Tara; on retreat, we do Green Tara within the morning and Mahakala within the evening. And it is extremely, very clear that, in their very own way, they kept us sane, or helped to maintain us sane. As you said, it’s not about stopping being run over by a bus.
The act of prayer, which operates in all of those, you pray to your teacher, and deity practice, the deity rituals are stuffed with prayers, some shorter and a few longer. And the rituals are built around a certain petitionary of prayers. You’re not likely asking for things, or things on the planet. The ability of prayer comes because, through prayer, you give expression to your deepest aspirations, your spiritual aspirations. You say, That is where I need to go, that is what I need, and I would like help. So two things are happening–not less than two things are happening in prayer. One is that you just are allowing yourself to formulate these items, which you recognize, the small voice inside, you’re actually allowing it to take expression; you wish this reference to the world, a way of experiencing that will not be mediated by the conceptual mind. There’s an immediacy to experience that we never know, so long as we’re interpreting what we experience as trees, or cars, or road, or houses, or people, and so forth. And the opposite is that we’re expressing our willingness to step into what we don’t know, through the practice of prayer, what we don’t know, what we haven’t experienced, that might be a bit frightening. And ritual gives us a way of doing that. These sorts of things we’re bringing to the fore. What’s so deeply held in our hearts and in our beings that we’re afraid, often to present any voice or any form of expression to it? That’s really vital. That’s really vital, I believe. This is smart to you, Michael?
MT: Deeply. The act of constantly, or let’s say, often bringing up your heart’s wish or your deepest intention for what you’re doing is, with spirituality, why you’re even there in any respect, is crucial. And the undeniable fact that these rituals help to not only remind you to say it, or assist you to repeat it, but provide you with a framework inside which to essentially refine it and really deeply explore it’s incredibly vital. And a part of the expansion, right?
KM: Yes, it’s like these parts of us haven’t had much opportunity to grow. And in doing these rituals, I believe it’s very vital to know what you’re saying, and you really give expression to it. It’s a bit intimidating. Perhaps it’s a bit greater than a bit intimidating. Because dare I wish this?
MT: Yeah.
KM: What’s going to occur to me, if I let myself feel this? And again, there’s the intrusion of the self, this concept that not directly we stand aside from the world that we experience,
MT: What’s going to occur if I get my wish?
KM: Well, your life’s going to vary. That’s all.
MT: Timewise, we should always end this here. But would you be willing to do form of part two of this interview sometime soon so we are able to proceed with this fascinating conversation?
KM: Well, I’m very grateful to you, Michael, for this chance. I speak more easily than I write. And as we’ve been having this conversation, it’s a bit strange for me to listen to myself speaking a bit bit more passionately than I’m susceptible to ordinarily. And so I believe I might very very like to proceed this. So thanks for the chance.
MT: In fact, thanks and I deeply appreciate you taking the time again. So until soon.
KM: Excellent. Look ahead to hearing from you.
