Comments on “Disgust as Buddhist practice”

Hi, and thanks for the comment.

Yes, I've read a little about the Aghoris. Only a little, I am afraid, because I am not as interested in Hindu tantra as Buddhist. Kapalika, for those who don't know, means "one who uses a kapala", which is a bowl made from a human skull. Literally speaking, that would include most modern Tibetan Buddhists. More often it is used to refer to some of the first Tantric practitioners, who are called "kapalikas" in the earliest known texts to refer to Tantra.

I find questions about the origins of Tantra fascinating, because the Tantra we have inherited seems such a bizarre mixture -- a mixture of beauty and horror, among many other things. The history might help understand how to relate to that. Tolerance of ambiguity will probably always be a necessary part, however. After all, life is a mixture of beauty and horror, and Tantra is just a way of allowing that to be as it is.

Modern Hindu and Buddhist Tantra seem quite different, from what little I know about the Hindu side; but it appears from the history that they were once much more similar. Hindu Tantra does seem to have retained more of the "literal" elements of the practices, including relating more directly with disgust.

Funny what you say about cremation furnaces. I always find it interesting when economic factors influence religious practice. Such influences may be far more important than any religious people want to acknowledge.

I have to say that while I have no ethical problem with cannibalism, I don't really approve of stealing corpses to eat. This may be a manifestation of the ways Buddhist and Hindu Tantra use similar practices but have different fundamental principles.

Oh, I am very sorry, I misunderstood you about the implication of affordable cremation. Thank you for the correction!

Yes, we definitely don't know everything about how Tibetans practiced in Tibet, and we probably can never fully understand what we do know. From the history and anthropology, it seems that some bad behavior was justified in religious terms, which is sad but not really surprising.

I practice in a Ngakpa tradition, although I am not a Ngakpa myself. In Tibet, Ngakpas were indeed sometimes feared as well as respected. They were regarded as powerful, and therefore helpful, but also as somewhat creepy and potentially dangerous. (David Gordon White's book Sinister Yogis explores this in the Indian context.)

The current presentation of Tibetan Buddhism by Tibetans in the West is clearly different from Tibetan Buddhism as it was in Tibet. It could be regarded as "sanitized," or "telling Westerners what they want to hear." There probably is some of that. But I think many Tibetans recognize that some things that were functional in Tibet in 1950 don't function now; and maybe some things that were practiced in Tibet in 1950 didn't really function there and then, either.

The creepiness of some aspects of Tantra tends, in the West, to attract slightly crazy people; ones who want to be feared, to have a religious justification for harming people, and magical power to do so. That is a real problem. Tantra is bad for them, and they are bad for the Tantric sangha, also.

I think it is an entirely good thing that, in the contemporary West, Ngakpas are viewed as harmless and benevolent (if in some cases slightly eccentric). I would definitely not want that to change.

There is a danger that in writing about creepy aspects of Buddhism I will attract crazy people, and put sane people off. If that seems to be happening, I will just shut this site down...

Tantra is the path of transformation, and maybe what I am trying to do here is to use humor, sanity, and good cheer to neutralize negative aspects of creepiness while preserving its positive ones.