Did you bring in the whiskey for an actual relevant, ritual purpose? I was under the impression the "power" of alcohol in traditional tantric systems was because it was a forbidden substance. It seems like it might have served a different purpose here. Thank you for 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘒𝘪𝘯𝘨 link incidentally; that seems like a fascinating read and probably more accessible and fun to read than 𝘉𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘺! :p
> Did you bring in the whiskey for an actual relevant, ritual purpose?
Yes...
> I was under the impression the "power" of alcohol in traditional tantric systems was because it was a forbidden substance.
Well... sort of. In a traditional wang, it is used as a substitute for the mixed sexual fluids of the lama and their consort. The function there was partly transgressive (and water was often substituted for alcohol when even tiny amounts of ethanol were considered off-limits even in tantra, which was cowardly and absurd). But there was more going on there.
> It seems like it might have served a different purpose here.
Yes. Great question, thank you for asking! There's a lot to say about this, which unfortunately I don't have time for at the moment. The short version is: we use it for an abhisheka (literally: anointing).
The structure of this Gesar sadhana is highly traditional. The structure of the accompanying wang is entirely non-traditional, but in keeping with the ethos of the particular yidam. I hope to explain this sometime; it's a bit complicated, but interesting, I think.
I should say that I found *The Just King* a bit disappointing. The reasons he wrote it are interesting, as are its connections with the Gesar terma. But as a political document, it's pretty predictable and not significantly innovative as far as I could tell.
This is a great breakdown of how ideas actually become reality. From a big-picture view, a successful 'conduit' acts like a catalyst for change. It’s not just about having a great map (the vision), but about building the road that the rest of society is already waiting to drive on.
Many innovations fail not because the idea is bad, but because they don't find a natural 'path' that fits what the world needs at that moment. A vision only truly comes to life when it provides the easiest way for society to solve a problem and move forward. Truly insightful
This is without a doubt the most useful thing I’ve heard in vajrayana teachings. After approaching Aro I’ve been seeking something more modern and connected to both the old lineages and the evolving ground of modern and meta modern thought. This is exciting. Is the whole thing going to be released? I’m sorry I didn’t make it up to Scotland for this. Perhaps subscribing eG is the next best move for me?
Oh, I forgot to answer this. No; some would not be appropriate to make public, or just not interesting, and also some of it wasn't recorded due to technical problems. However, I may post some more excerpts.
I tentatively hope the practice can be made more public at some point. It needs more community experience, verification, and debugging, first, I think.
Glad you found it helpful! (And, thanks for the new subscription :)
I'm biased, but yes: I think if you are looking for contemporary Vajrayana, eG is the place to go.
It can be somewhat difficult to figure out how to get started there. The basic membership is free (bottom of https://www.evolvingground.org/join) and gives you access to web resources. But then you need to do some work to get involved, by going to online events, or in-person ones if they are available where you are. It may help to make contact early with an eG mentor who can suggest what activities will be most relevant for you personally. You can do that through the community web platform, which you'll have access to with the free membership.
I’m IN. I’ve reinstalled the Circle app and will seek out a mentor. See you online! And I’ll try to make sure I get to a UK event soon. Hope to find people in/near Wales. Any leads? Thanks again David, Approaching Aro was so very useful for me.
I don't know whether there's anyone else in Wales... I'm actually not much involved with eG (despite being married to Charlie, one of its cofounder/leaders). I don't even know how to find out! But if you reach out to one of the mentors there, they should be able to help with that.
Fascinating discussion! I was especially struck by your claim that “Dzogchen, uniquely in Buddhism, is meta-systematic.” And here I'd thought that Tiantai was uniquely meta-systematic! This formulation sent me down a rabbit hole comparing Dzogchen’s Atiyoga/nine-vehicle framework with Tiantai’s four teachings framework (Tripitaka, Shared, Separate, and Perfect), especially as interpreted by Brook Ziporyn.
Dzogchen's meta-systematicity seems distinctive in treating systems as useful but intrinsically partial, contextual, and self-undermining. But the more I looked into Ziporynian Tiantai, the more similarities I found.
Ziporyn’s Tiantai also seems radically meta-systematic in the sense that every standpoint is both valid and incomplete, every conceptual framework generates further frameworks, and no perspective can stabilize itself absolutely. His “raft factory” metaphor captures this beautifully: teachings are not merely rafts to abandon, but raft-generating processes.
What eventually emerged from the comparison was less a difference of substance than a difference of emphasis. Both traditions seem to converge on the idea that liberation is a perpetual process of “letting go to let come.”
Dzogchen seems to emphasize the letting go: the self-release of fixation, contrivance, and reification, while Tiantai seems to emphasize the letting come: the spontaneous proliferation and intersubsumption of worlds, perspectives, and determinations. Or as I eventually framed it:
Dzogchen foregrounds the transparency of manifestation.
Tiantai foregrounds the productivity of manifestation.
But both seem profoundly anti-foundational, anti-final, and non-renunciative in a deep sense. I ended up turning the comparison into a longer essay here:
Quite the retreat spot!
It is! It's Boreland, in Fearnan on Loch Tay.
Thank you, David. This is a very informative account.
Did you bring in the whiskey for an actual relevant, ritual purpose? I was under the impression the "power" of alcohol in traditional tantric systems was because it was a forbidden substance. It seems like it might have served a different purpose here. Thank you for 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘒𝘪𝘯𝘨 link incidentally; that seems like a fascinating read and probably more accessible and fun to read than 𝘉𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘺! :p
> Did you bring in the whiskey for an actual relevant, ritual purpose?
Yes...
> I was under the impression the "power" of alcohol in traditional tantric systems was because it was a forbidden substance.
Well... sort of. In a traditional wang, it is used as a substitute for the mixed sexual fluids of the lama and their consort. The function there was partly transgressive (and water was often substituted for alcohol when even tiny amounts of ethanol were considered off-limits even in tantra, which was cowardly and absurd). But there was more going on there.
> It seems like it might have served a different purpose here.
Yes. Great question, thank you for asking! There's a lot to say about this, which unfortunately I don't have time for at the moment. The short version is: we use it for an abhisheka (literally: anointing).
The structure of this Gesar sadhana is highly traditional. The structure of the accompanying wang is entirely non-traditional, but in keeping with the ethos of the particular yidam. I hope to explain this sometime; it's a bit complicated, but interesting, I think.
I should say that I found *The Just King* a bit disappointing. The reasons he wrote it are interesting, as are its connections with the Gesar terma. But as a political document, it's pretty predictable and not significantly innovative as far as I could tell.
This is a great breakdown of how ideas actually become reality. From a big-picture view, a successful 'conduit' acts like a catalyst for change. It’s not just about having a great map (the vision), but about building the road that the rest of society is already waiting to drive on.
Many innovations fail not because the idea is bad, but because they don't find a natural 'path' that fits what the world needs at that moment. A vision only truly comes to life when it provides the easiest way for society to solve a problem and move forward. Truly insightful
This is without a doubt the most useful thing I’ve heard in vajrayana teachings. After approaching Aro I’ve been seeking something more modern and connected to both the old lineages and the evolving ground of modern and meta modern thought. This is exciting. Is the whole thing going to be released? I’m sorry I didn’t make it up to Scotland for this. Perhaps subscribing eG is the next best move for me?
> Is the whole thing going to be released?
Oh, I forgot to answer this. No; some would not be appropriate to make public, or just not interesting, and also some of it wasn't recorded due to technical problems. However, I may post some more excerpts.
I tentatively hope the practice can be made more public at some point. It needs more community experience, verification, and debugging, first, I think.
Glad you found it helpful! (And, thanks for the new subscription :)
I'm biased, but yes: I think if you are looking for contemporary Vajrayana, eG is the place to go.
It can be somewhat difficult to figure out how to get started there. The basic membership is free (bottom of https://www.evolvingground.org/join) and gives you access to web resources. But then you need to do some work to get involved, by going to online events, or in-person ones if they are available where you are. It may help to make contact early with an eG mentor who can suggest what activities will be most relevant for you personally. You can do that through the community web platform, which you'll have access to with the free membership.
I’m IN. I’ve reinstalled the Circle app and will seek out a mentor. See you online! And I’ll try to make sure I get to a UK event soon. Hope to find people in/near Wales. Any leads? Thanks again David, Approaching Aro was so very useful for me.
I don't know whether there's anyone else in Wales... I'm actually not much involved with eG (despite being married to Charlie, one of its cofounder/leaders). I don't even know how to find out! But if you reach out to one of the mentors there, they should be able to help with that.
Fascinating discussion! I was especially struck by your claim that “Dzogchen, uniquely in Buddhism, is meta-systematic.” And here I'd thought that Tiantai was uniquely meta-systematic! This formulation sent me down a rabbit hole comparing Dzogchen’s Atiyoga/nine-vehicle framework with Tiantai’s four teachings framework (Tripitaka, Shared, Separate, and Perfect), especially as interpreted by Brook Ziporyn.
Dzogchen's meta-systematicity seems distinctive in treating systems as useful but intrinsically partial, contextual, and self-undermining. But the more I looked into Ziporynian Tiantai, the more similarities I found.
Ziporyn’s Tiantai also seems radically meta-systematic in the sense that every standpoint is both valid and incomplete, every conceptual framework generates further frameworks, and no perspective can stabilize itself absolutely. His “raft factory” metaphor captures this beautifully: teachings are not merely rafts to abandon, but raft-generating processes.
What eventually emerged from the comparison was less a difference of substance than a difference of emphasis. Both traditions seem to converge on the idea that liberation is a perpetual process of “letting go to let come.”
Dzogchen seems to emphasize the letting go: the self-release of fixation, contrivance, and reification, while Tiantai seems to emphasize the letting come: the spontaneous proliferation and intersubsumption of worlds, perspectives, and determinations. Or as I eventually framed it:
Dzogchen foregrounds the transparency of manifestation.
Tiantai foregrounds the productivity of manifestation.
But both seem profoundly anti-foundational, anti-final, and non-renunciative in a deep sense. I ended up turning the comparison into a longer essay here:
Letting Go to Let Come: Tiantai and Dzogchen as Complementary Emphases Within a Shared Vision ( https://medium.com/@ironick/let-go-to-let-come-dzogchen-and-tiantai-as-complementary-perspectives-within-a-shared-vision-b1c7fb4920d7 )
Thanks for the inspiration!