I'll drop a few thoughts I had while checking this one out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXVdjr5Dm9k

00:13:55 “This is perhaps for better or worse a more fundamentalist view: this is the truth, handed down, revealed by the Buddha, shared by the Buddha for us and it’s a truth that stands outside of culture and context and it applies to everybody.

Other people will say: this is an attempt from a certain time perhaps that even evolved doctrinally, for a certain time and a certain place describing certain kind of territory for various reasons … but in that kind of a more relativist view this doctrine may not be the ultimate beyond culture etc but it is an attempt and there are other attempts even within Buddhism to map that territory.”

Systems are formed within particular contexts and conditions and are geared towards assisting with particular contexts and conditions – this is something I cannot help but see as being the case and which by nature turns me off to fundamentalism.

Models are simply models and systems are simply systems – and then there is enlightenment itself.

Models/systems are conventional means to attain the ultimate. By nature of being conventional they are subject to flux and their ability to point us at the ultimate is relative.

I appreciate the value of models and systems in terms of their function to facilitate enlightenment but to the degree that they became a hindrance to this function I no longer appreciate them.

It seems clear that their efficacy varies from person to person and that, like anything else, all models are not equal meaning that they do not equally perform that function of facilitating enlightenment for everyone across the board. This is of course because not only are the models not equal but also people are not equal.

People need different things and what they need is relative to their unique conditions and circumstances and it is my opinion that it is impossible for one model to cover all possible conditions and circumstances - yet this is what the fundamentalist asserts.

Believing one’s system itself is absolute and applies to all contexts and conditions is a trap and it has to do with attachments to views (which the Buddha spoke on).

This is why it is ironic to dogmatize the Dharma especially but really any truly mystical science (which I would argue IS Dharma if it is true in that function of bringing us towards realization of the ultimate).

The essence of Dharma is beyond systems and models and yet we need those systems and models to access it - in the video Guru Viking mentions that Nagarjuna said that the Absolute can only be taught by relying on the conventional and this makes perfect sense.

So the point of emphasizing this is to encourage us to go beyond systems as the system itself isn’t enlightenment and because any one system can not possibly be the sole explainer of all things - but the point is not by any means to negate the utility of systems or to harm faith in them.

00:18:00 The main thing Armstrong is challenging is the idea that one school fits all

00:20:30 What hes saying hes transcended or is looking at are these models that create doctrinal chains of imprisonment. This is the prison of religiosity and dogmatism. It is pushback on the identity of Buddhist/Christian/etc as something to cling to or be attached to any more than any other identity is - the real question is not about what words one espouses but what quality of being one has realized.

"True mystics do not debate words of doctrine or quibble over words, true mystics speak of behavior only."

This comes to the idea of “the one true religion” which is at the core of this: “I have found THE way, THE truth! Everyone else that doesn’t adhere to what I adhere to is practicing falsehood and is wrong.”

Of course one may indeed have found THE Truth but that Truth is ultimate in nature and therefore beyond conventionality... meaning it is beyond systems, models, concepts, or particular combination of words within language.

This is where I think many people mistake things because they may have a legitimate experience of union/realization of the ultimate and yet when they "come back down" to conventionality they frame their experience a particular way.

The framing is what I am taking issue with because the framing itself isn't the ultimate.

That's the whole point of this and that's what I'm saying is the matter with dogmatism or fundamentalism because it asserts a particular frame as ultimate or at least somehow able to be the sole raft to the other shore - this just doesn't make sense when one considers the radical dynamism that is the nature of conventional reality.

How could there only be a single raft for all the various circumstances and conditions?

“Don't cling to the raft and understand that the other shore is not owned by one particular school."

00:21:52 Here Guru Viking brings up the idea of revising maps.

My view is that this is completely natural and in fact MUST occur in order for a map to maximize its efficacy.

The basis of this is the flux nature of conventional reality and the fact that the maps are within conventional reality.

Yes the ultimate itself is unchanging which is what the map points to (if it's a good map) but since circumstances and contexts shift endlessly the maps we are provided with must also shift. The destination may remain the same but the starting point is constantly shifting – new map required!

And yet not TOTALLY new, there is good reason to respect and utilize the ancient maps. The goal here is just to show why the maps should be (and always are outside of our ossified head canons) changing and to point out that attachment to a particular map is missing the entire point behind why that map was created/given in the first place.

Something we must consider is the essentiality of creating new terms and what amounts to new models over time but balancing that with the groundedness of tried and true models of previous times – because while reality is in flux it doesn’t entirely shift all at once. Also there are some constants within human nature as well as perennial similarities in the conditions and contexts of human society over time.

So emphasizing the need for balance and not getting ahead of ourselves while acknowledging the inevitability of models to evolve, terminologies to shift, etc is essential.

This is something to be consciously embraced and not lamented as a degeneration or corruption of something that was originally pure (not to say that this doesn't also happen but just saying that the shifting itself isn't inherently negative).

“What are Blood Memories?”

In Buddhism, especially in practice-heavy traditions like Vajrayāna, mythology takes a secondary role, the "lore" background of a deity takes merely a couple pages or some minutes of explanation, and this is unsettling for people who are used to know a deity by devouring all myths and sources about the god or goddess, what else if not?

In esoteric traditions, rather than external truths or historical accounts to be merely understood or worshipped, myths and stories about gods or enlightened beings serve as guides or tools of instruction to follow as a spiritual routine to change your life, called sadhana, because the real focus is on the personal spiritual transformation of the practitioner, that is you.

In Vajrayāna, the idea is that the practitioner becomes the deity they are meditating on. This is a practice called deity yoga. Rather than simply learning about a Buddha, the practitioner doesn’t just observe them. They become them in their practice. The practitioner embodies their qualities, like compassion, wisdom, or strength.

This process is not just about thinking or learning about these qualities, but about experiencing them directly and transforming oneself to align with those divine qualities.

The reason mythology is somewhat secondary in Buddhism is that it is not seen as something external to be admired or studied from a distance. Instead, the mythic figures and stories are seen as "flavors" of enlightenment that they can experience within themselves. The protectors, bodhisattvas, and enlightened beings in these myths are not distant or unreachable; they represent what the practitioner can interact with and become.

The real work in this is not to worship these figures as separate beings, but to embody their qualities in your own life, through appropriate initiation, transmission and life devoted practice.

Thus, our myths are not about recounting stories or glorifying for the sake of imposed hierarchy; it is not something to be passively understood as a mere observer, but a living, transformative practice that the practitioner enacts in their own life to become the hero of the story that is reality, they are about living the myth. You're the protagonist of your own myth—the spiritual journey of awakening.

Overton Window go brrrrr

How it feels to be a sensitive esoteric Whyte boy when the hoes pull up

Ok, ok Palantir did real good Q4, very nice

Oh wait what's that there on the end 👀

As Samuel Huntington has written, the rise of the West was not made possible “by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion . . . but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence.”

He continued: “Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

https://www.palantir.com/q4-2024-letter/en/