Monday, February 1, 2016

Crazy wisdom: Wikipedia

Crazy wisdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Crazy wisdom was a term coined by Chögyam Trungpa.[1] Since Trungpa described crazy wisdom in various ways, some scholars have suggested he did not have a fixed idea of crazy wisdom.[2]

Contents

Various aspects

The student

In his book "Crazy wisdom", the Tibetan tülku Chögyam Trungpa describes the phenomenon as a process of spiritual discovery:
Instead we explore further and further and further without looking for an answer. [...] We don't make a big point or an answer out of any one thing. For example, we might think that because we have discovered one particular thing that is wrong with us, that must be it, that must be the problem, that must be the answer. No. We don't fixate on that, we go further. "Why is that the case?" We look further and further. We ask: "Why is this so?" Why is there spirituality? Why is there awakening? Why is there this moment of relief? Why is there such a thing as discovering the pleasure of spirituality? Why, why, why?" We go on deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper, until we reach the point where there is no answer. [...] At that point we tend to give up hope of an answer, or of anything whatsoever, for that matter. [...] This hopelessness is the essence of crazy wisdom. It is hopeless, utterly hopeless.[3]

Non-duality

From a particular Buddhadharma spiritual lexicon and perspective, Georg Feuerstein implies nonduality in his equating the essence of Saṃsāra and Nirvāṇa as the root of crazy wisdom: "Crazy wisdom is the articulation in life of the realization that the phenomenal world (Sanskrit: संसार saṃsāra) and the transcendental Reality (Sanskrit: निर्वाण nirvāṇa) share the same essence."[4] Generally, the difference between Sanātana Dharma and Buddhadharma conceptions of "Samsara" and "samsara", respectively, are the former, a proper noun denoting a relative apparent locality, and the latter, an interiority or state of mind, the two are resolvable when understood from a nondual perspective.
Feuerstein 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 nondualist 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.[4]

Avadhuta

Feuerstein frames how the term Avadhuta (Sanskrit: अवधूत avadhūta) 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.[5]
Feuerstein equates the Avadhuta with the "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.[5]

Crazy wisdom as a universal cultural phenomenon

Feuerstein lists Zen-poet Han-shan (fl. 9th century) as one of the crazy-wise, explaining that when people would ask him about Zen, he would only laugh hysterically. He also counts Zen master Ikkyu (15th century), the Christian saint Isadora, and the Sufi storyteller Mulla Nasruddin among the crazy wise teachers.[6] Other adepts that have attained "mad" mental states, according to Feuerstein, include the masts and bauls of India, and the intoxicated Sufis associated with shath.[7]
June McDaniel, in her work on the divine madness of the medieval bhakti saints in Bengal, mentions multiple parallels to this phenomenon in other cultures: Plato in his Phaedrus, the Hasidic Jews, Eastern Orthodoxy, Western Christianity and the Sufi all bear witness to the phenomenon of divine madness.[8] 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.[9] 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.[10]
Divine madness may also be seen in the biography, hagiography and poetry of the Alvars and it has parallels in others religions, such as the Fools for Christ in Christianity, and the Sufis (particularly Malamati) in Islam.[11] The 9th-century Indian philosopher Adi Shankara also described that an enlightened man may act like a Jadvat (an inert thing), a Balvat (child), an Unmat (a manic) or a Pissachvat (ghost).[citation needed]

See also

Part of a series on
Tibetan Buddhism
Vajra

Notes


  • Divalerio, David (2015). The Holy Madmen of Tibet. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 239.
    1. Horgan (2004) 53; McLeod (2009) 158-165.

    References

    Ardussi, J. & Epstein, L. (1978). James F. Fisher (ed.). "The Saintly Madman in Tibet" (PDF). Himalayan Anthropology: The Indo-Tibetan Interface (Paris: Mouton & Co.): 327–338. ISBN 9027977003.
    Dimock, Edward C. Jr. (1966). The Place of the Hidden Moon: Erotic Mysticism in the Vaisnava-Sahajiya cult of Bengal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 8120809963.
    Feuerstein, Georg (1991). Holy Madness: The shock tactics and radical teachings of crazy-wise adepts, holy fools, and rascal gurus. Yoga Journal (New York: Paragon House). ISBN 1557782504.
    Horgan, John (2004). Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the Border Between Science and Spirituality. New York: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 061844663X.
    Kakar, Sudir (2009). Mad and Divine: Spirit and Psyche in the Modern World. Chivago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226422879.
    McDaniel, June (1989). The madness of the saints: ecstatic religion in Bengal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-55723-5.
    Mcleod, Melvin (2009). The Best Buddhist Writing 2009. Boston: Shambhala Publications. ISBN 1590307348.
    Nydahl, Ole (2004). "Verrückte Weisheit: und der Stil des Verwirklichers". Buddhismus Heute 37: 48–57. Retrieved 2012-12-14.
    Nydahl, Ole (2003). "Crazy Wisdom". Diamond Way Time 1: 48–54. Retrieved 2012-12-14.
    Phan, Peter C. (2004). Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue (PDF). Maryknoll: Orbis Books. ISBN 1-57075-565-5.
    Ray, Reginald (2005). Fabrice Midal (ed.). "Chögyam Trungpa as a Siddha". Recalling Chögyam Trungpa (Boston: Shambhala Publications). ISBN 1590302079.
    Trungpa, Chögyam (2001). Crazy Wisdom. Judith L. Lief, Sherab Chödzin (eds.). Boston: Shambhala Publications. ISBN 0-87773-910-2.
    Simmer-Brown, Judith (2001). Dakini's Warm Breath: The Feminine Principle in Tibetan Buddhism. Boston: Shambhala Publications. ISBN 1-57062-720-7.

  • Divalerio, David (2015). The Holy Madmen of Tibet. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 239.

  • Trungpa (2001) 9-10.

  • Feuerstein (1991) 70.

  • Feuerstein (1991) 105.

  • Feuerstein (1991) 69.

  • Feuerstein (2006) 15f; 28-32.

  • McDaniel (1989) 3-6. See also the lead section of this article. See the article on theia mania for more information regarding Plato's views.

  • McDaniel (1989) 7.

  • Dimock (1966).
  • end quote from:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_wisdom

    • Posted by at No comments:
    Labels:

    Nyönpa: Wikipedia

    Nyönpa

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Part of a series on
    Tibetan Buddhism
    Vajra
    The term Nyönpa (Wylie: smyon pa "mad one(s)"; Sanskrit Avadhuta) may refer to a group of Tibetan Buddhist yogis or a single individual belonging to this group. They were mainly known for their unusual style of teaching, to which they owed their names.

    Famous Nyönpa

    Further reading

    See also


    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels:

    The Normal Conservative versus the Aberrant Conservative

    The Normal Conservative would be Rubio and the aberrant Conservative would be Cruz. And then there is Trump who is not Conservative at all but just galvanizes many people with his "off the cuff" way of expressing himself.

    Then there is the Angry Liberal "Sanders". So, we have a whole lot of Angry Conservatives and Liberals in this race.

    In fact, the only person not "Really Angry" likely is Hillary Clinton. "At least she is not angry about the same things the rest are angry about in the same ways.

    Strangely enough, out of all of this I'm thinking it still is going to be either Clinton or Trump who likely will be the next President.

    However, in this crazy free for all, almost anything can and will happen from now on.
    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels:

    Rubio and Cruz: The Conservative Republican civil war

    2. Rival Factions of Top Donors Get Behind Marco ...

      www.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/us/politics/rival-factions-of...
      Jan 31, 2016 · Graphic: Which Presidential Candidates Are Winning the Money Race . But the steady rise of Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a Tea Party favorite reviled by party ...

    3. Rival Factions of Top Donors Get Behind Rubio and...

      www.cnbc.com/2016/02/01/new-york-times-digital-rival...
      Jan 31, 2016 · But the steady rise of Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a Tea Party favorite reviled by party leaders, has unleashed a new counter-establishment of conservative ... 

      Senator Marco Rubio campaigned Sunday in Davenport, Iowa. In the last six months of 2015, Federal Election Commission records show, a “super PAC” backing Mr. Rubio raised $14.3 million. Sam Hodgson for The New York Times
      The wealthy donors who have built a powerful shadow Republican Party of outside groups are rapidly cleaving into two mutually hostile and deep-pocketed factions, complicating efforts to deny the party’s nomination to Donald J. Trump, reports filed with the Federal Election Commission on Sunday showed.
      Many of the Wall Street financiers who have been mainstays of Republican “super PACs” in the six years since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision have rallied behind Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, betting that he is the party’s best chance to win a general election battle against Hillary Clinton.
      In the last six months of 2015, F.E.C. records show, a “super PAC” backing Mr. Rubio raised $14.3 million, including $2.5 million each from the hedge fund founders Paul Singer and Ken Griffin. The super PAC also drew significant support from donors who previously gave to groups backing Jeb Bush, among them Chris Cline, a coal executive, and Brian Ballard, a prominent Florida lobbyist.

      Graphic: Which Presidential Candidates Are Winning the Money Race

      But the steady rise of Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a Tea Party favorite reviled by party leaders, has unleashed a new counter-establishment of conservative donors, some from outside the universe of traditional Republican giving. They include wealthy evangelicals, libertarian businessmen, Israel hawks and others disenchanted by the party’s past nominees, and are drawn to Mr. Cruz’s uncompromising social conservatism and his promise to disrupt the party’s traditional power brokers in Washington.
      Mr. Cruz’s backers include the Wilks family of Texas, who made a fortune in the shale oil boom and are prominent donors to anti-abortion groups; Edward Czuker, a Los Angeles real estate developer and board member of the Republican Jewish Coalition; and the Illinois businessman Richard Uihlein, who gave $1 million to a pro-Cruz super PAC in January.
      “I think we’re rewriting history,” said Mica Mosbacher, a longtime Republican fund-raiser with ties to the Bush family, who decided to back Mr. Cruz because she was tired of the party nominating “moderates and career politicians.”
      “We’ve got a civil war within the party,” Ms. Mosbacher added. “And people want someone who is strong.”
      Mr. Trump has responded to their largess with an influx of his own money: In the last quarter of 2015, the billionaire businessman lent his campaign $10.8 million, according to F.E.C. reports, and raised just $2.7 million from other donors.
      Yet as caucusgoers gather in Iowa on Monday, Mr. Trump is at the top of the polls, and most of the money flowing into the Republican primary has been spent on attack ads targeting candidates other than the leader.
      Conservative Solutions PAC, which supports Mr. Rubio, has spent $3.2 million attacking Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey — an effort to stifle Mr. Christie in New Hampshire — and $3.3 million against Mr. Cruz. The main group supporting Mr. Bush, Right to Rise USA, has spent $1.5 million against Mr. Rubio and $366,000 against John Kasich. Super PACs backing Mr. Cruz have spent more than $1.4 million against Mr. Rubio.
      Watch “The Contenders,” a new virtual reality film about the 2016 race, in ,
      our virtual reality app for iPhone and Android.
      Download on the App Store Get it on Google Play
      The expensive five-way shootout is a sharp departure from 2012, when virtually all of the Republican donors inclined to write seven-figure checks rallied behind a single candidate, Mitt Romney. And it presents a stark contrast to the Democratic contest, where the biggest checks raised by outside groups have all gone to Priorities USA, a super PAC backing Mrs. Clinton. Priorities reported that it had raised $51 million since the beginning of last year, including a $6 million contribution in December from the liberal hedge fund billionaire George Soros. The biggest outside group supporting Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is funded entirely by a nurses union, pooling small contributions from members.
      The vast amounts of money still flowing into the race — combined with Mr. Trump’s knack for running an effective campaign without the benefit of substantial super PAC support — suggest that there may be no quick end to the nomination battle, despite Mr. Trump’s lead in most of the early Republican contests.
      While Mr. Bush raised less money for his campaign in the last quarter of 2015, the super PAC supporting him, Right to Rise, had $59 million on hand at year’s end, and likely has enough remaining to bludgeon other Republicans. Many of the group’s donors could move to support Mr. Rubio if Mr. Bush falters in New Hampshire.
      The pro-Rubio group, Conservative Solutions, had $14 million cash on hand, not including money held by an affiliated nonprofit that is not required to disclose its fund-raising. Mr. Cruz’s groups have recently spent another $1.4 million attacking Mr. Trump, who has overtaken Mr. Cruz in Iowa, a state where 60 percent of the Republican electorate identifies as evangelical. But the Cruz groups remain flush: As of the end of December, they had $32 million in cash on hand.
      David Barton, an evangelical activist in Texas who runs Keep the Promise, an umbrella group of pro-Cruz super PACs, said the group’s success was a reaction to earlier outside groups that wasted money on candidates uninspiring to conservative voters. Anti-establishment donors, he said, “finally have something that is closer to where they would like to give. And it is also closer to what they believe.”
      Yet the filings on Sunday reflect another reaction, as well. Mr. Sanders reported raising more than $33 million during the three months ending in December, most of it from grass-roots donors. In January, his campaign announced on Sunday, he took in an additional $20 million. The money has sustained him against Mrs. Clinton, who has built a more traditional campaign operation relying far more on donors giving the maximum contribution of $2,700. In Iowa, the two candidates are neck-and-neck, with Mr. Sanders holding on to a lead in New Hampshire. Both have enough money to compete effectively in the primaries and caucuses that follow.
      And Mr. Trump, beyond his loans to himself, has raised most of the rest of his money from small donors, including $2.7 million in the final quarter of 2015. Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders have appealed to smaller donors in part by promising supporters they cannot be bought by the bigger ones. Both have eschewed the dominant super PAC model of the 2016 cycle, where candidates typically have dispatched a trusted aide to raise unlimited money for an outside group. Neither has set up committees of wealthy “bundlers” drumming up checks from friends and family members. Neither man spends much time at fund-raisers.
      “The traditional campaign spends most of its time raising money so that it can pay to get its message out,” said John Pudner, executive director of Take Back Our Republic, a conservative group that promotes small-donor giving. “Trump broke down the means, which is collect a lot of money. He’s found a different means to the same end.”
      Find out what you need to know about the 2016 presidential race today, and get politics news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the First Draft newsletter.
      A version of this article appears in print on February 1, 2016, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Rival Factions of Top Donors Get Behind Rubio and Cruz . Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe
      end quote from:

      Rival Factions of Top Donors Get Behind Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz

       

    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels:
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)