Comments on "The Darkness Over Tibet"

by: Frai Jonah

Indeed, it is an interesting question about how positive  teachings may survive the course of our prime curse, linear time.

This is intimately related to our capacity or lack thereof to discern influences and layers which invariably will add themselves to any body of tradition over the course of the years.

So we are brought to question everything, equally that which produces results as well as that which does not even seek to do so.  Miracles do not confirm spiritual practice and logical consistency does not confirm philosophy and all is illusion, fluff and fake.

We've got a conceptual problem, right here.

Now it seems that the positive and negative are so tightly intwined around pretty much any subject that splitting one from the other by any generic definition won't cut it.  In a deeper sense I suppose this is the function of the density of choice, to have entities operate with a default language and perception that will easily misread the metaphysical orientation of things and phenomena in order to generate friction and polarity and internal conviction in the absence of clear-cut a priori proof.

Still we must operate with what we have at hand.  Not operating and not choosing and not exploring is the most assured way of being stuck.  On the other hand, the specific challenges of any parrticular  course of action are quite theoretical until they are encountered in practice.

Another part of the nature of this density seems to be  that all absolutes fail.  No set of instructions seems to cut it in itself, even though they can be useful.  It is as if the game were designed so that one could not cheat by emulating others or following without understanding.  So this must be the metaphysical reason why 3D is not more telepathic than it is.

 This is fine, but still we don't have a catch-all criterion of truth for evaluating tradition.  And I don't think we can even get one, since no matter how closely we look, how much we distill the substance, as long as we're in this world we'll continue encountering the ever more subtle forms of duality and interplay of positive and negative, an endless  succession of choices between aspects.

So no final absolute truth here. 

So what about relative usefulness and progress?  What do you suggest? 

All I can think of is to go for it, doing what we can at each moment, let the path make itself. I see no great value in dwelling on the intrinsic limitations of our capacity of distinguishing what is what.    Problems specific to each approach will manifest when the approach is pursued, so worry about them then.  Charting a specific progression of steps to knowledge or verification of statements is problematical and not even a lot of fun.  I recall the C's said to do what comes naturally and worry about what is at hand and let the path build itself.

You are visitor number .