You might want to watch this. It is a very good interview about the Rainbow Body, and Vajrayana from a Catholic point of view.

I’m considering the MA in Buddhist and Tibetan Studies at the Namgyal Institute of Tibetology (NIT) in Sikkim and would appreciate hearing from anyone who has studied there or knows its reputation.

I’m a Westerner with an undergraduate degree in History and a Master’s in Law, and I’m interested in pursuing more formal academic study of Buddhism and Tibetan culture.

How is NIT regarded academically, particularly for international students? How does it compare with Rangjung Yeshe Institute in Nepal in terms of teaching quality, academic rigour, faculty, and opportunities for further study? I’d be especially interested in hearing from former students or anyone with firsthand experience of NIT, including any advice on the quality of the programme, especially the Tibetan language aspect of it all.

Thanks you!

Tashi delek! I made Mandala Atlas because every time I tried to identify a figure on a thangka, check a Tibetan lunar practice day, or look up a Wylie term, I kept landing on ad-heavy blogs or 80-page PDFs.

Three things you can try right away:

• Deity Finder: filter figures by body color, posture, and what's in their hands, paired with museum thangkas.
• Phugpa Calendar: real Men-Tsee-Khang lunar math (with doubled/omitted days) instead of Chinese lunar tables, plus .ics sync.
• Mantras & 5-Script Glossary: syllable breakdowns + Tibetan, Wylie, Sanskrit, English, and Chinese side by side.

Free, non-sectarian, zero ads. Let me know if you spot any typos or figures I should add next!

I feel awkward praying to deities to ask them for help with relative things like housing and health. Perhaps this is an impossible question to ask, but how are they able to help on the relative level? Maybe it’s the kind of thing where I need to start with faith, 100% trust, instead of starting out dubious. I know they can help show me the nature of my mind, but to ask for relative things… I don’t know! Thank you!

The title is not provocative but is simply sincere, I hope not to offend anyone.

I am a Western Rite Polytheist and in my path there is great respect for Buddhism: a great many incorporate some of its practices (such as meditation for example) or concepts (such as Karma for example), some even define it as their "second religion".

Driven by curiosity therefore I started reading books and frequenting some Buddhist centers in my city; while remaining firmly on my current path, I tried to see if there was something good in Buddhism for me.

I won't beat around the bush: the more I delve into Buddhism the less I like it.

My doubts have reached such a point that they have often led me to argue with some Buddhists, I hope the same won't happen here.

A person from the Mahayana school said that I am probably an "Icchantika", while another told me that my doubts are so great as to make me fall into what Yogacara Buddhism calls "aniyatagotra".

Even on a forum after a long discussion a guy completely flipped out at me and said that in his opinion I was a "Devaputra-mara" (the moderators banned him saying it was a horrible thing to say to anyone)

As long as we talk about meditation, search for inner peace and thoughts like "there is nothing wrong with wanting to go to bed with Jennifer but I must not suffer if I don't manage to or if I lose Jennifer after having managed to", Then we are perfectly in agreement on : they are positive things But they are things that, in a different form, I already find in my current path. In this sense Buddhism turns out to be at most a secondary inspiration on these topics.

My critical points on Buddhism are:

1) Nirvana. I am very surprised at how Buddhists candidly affirm that they do not know exactly what happens in this state of bliss: it is the only religion that does not know how to properly describe the supreme reward of its path. Above all I am referring to what happens after death to a person who has attained Nirvana: before death he lives in a state of peace and the years that remain to him because he has discernment etc etc, but after death? Yes ok he no longer reincarnates but what happens to him?

Every time I ask this question there is a charge of Buddhists with fanfares and banners in the wind who start shouting "existence and non-existence are a deception! Stop reasoning in a dual way!!" or "we are not nihilists! We are not nihilists! Oh my God why do you think we are nihilists?" or "the Buddha exists and does not exist: the question makes no sense, because if you think about it Nirvana is in Samsara!".

Honestly I find them to be somewhat weak answers, I am continually told "come and see": But the more I come to see the fewer convincing answers I find.

2) the concept of myself and its existence. This point is extremely delicate and I hope to manage to express it well, because it has been one of the points of greatest confusion between me and the Buddhists I am confronting myself with.

For Buddhists the example "you are not the same person you were when you fell asleep yesterday, because your mental processes and the cells of your body have changed: So you are not an immutable being, therefore what you call yourself in fact does not exist" seems to be very important.

This sentence has been repeated to me like a paradigm by so many Buddhists I have talked to and evidently within Buddhist theology it is a very strong example: I instead find it very weak and I will try to explain to you why.

Thinking that being must necessarily be immutable is something that Western philosophy has already amply refuted for centuries: famous is the example of the acorn that becomes an Oak while maintaining its ontological nature. For Buddhists it seems to be taken for granted that a being in order not to turn out to be illusory must be immutable: given that immutable beings do not exist Then the very concept of being collapses... But if we hypothesize being as something that intrinsically possesses the capacity to change (and it is something that a great many thinkers agree on) Then the entire paradox collapses.

As I said to a Buddhist I was confronting these days: "I agree that being as you describe it is a logical impossibility: But this does not prove that being does not exist, it proves that probably being is something else!".

That is the discourse of Buddhists on being sounds to me a bit like if they said "ice cream does not exist, because ice cream is made with kryptonite but everyone knows that in our world a material like kryptonite cannot exist (maybe in Superman's world yes but not in ours)" while I timidly raise my hand and allow myself to say "but it would be enough to make ice cream with lemon or chocolate or cream"... But every time I do so the charge of the Buddhist banners starts again and I find myself hearing for half an hour sentences like "you are not the same person you were yesterday so yourself is an illusory concept!!"

3) what happens to those who reincarnate in Samsara. If from the Buddhist perspective I do not exist and therefore there is no eternal soul of mine that reincarnates from life to life, Then what should I care about my future life?

If I and my self-consciousness and self-perception will cease to exist with death, Then what should I care about what happens to my karmic pattern after my death? Literally I will no longer be me in the future life, because I do not exist: if I is an illusory concept Then it will not be me who reincarnates... So what should I care about accumulating merits or demerits in the future life? It will not be me who lives it!

This question too usually receives only frustrating answers, like "to be or not to be is an illusion! We are not dualists!!".

I confess that all of this is becoming incredibly frustrating!

I'm sorry if someone felt offended by my words but I am simply trying to understand better

So I wanted to kind of write this post, because recently I had an interaction with a very conservative lama, who has very rigid views on things. And this guy had very "serious" views on things. And I think "serious" is a good word to start with as a jumping-off platform for this post, because it really leads into the kind of delusion this guy had.

One of the fundamental Buddhist truths is that of Anataman. Or no-self. This is often misunderstood but is essentially a teaching on Shunyata. Emptiness. That no phenomena we observe has an inherent "selfness". A banana doesn't have any inherent "banana-ness". It's an interconnected part of the endless flow of reality. The same space between the atoms of a banana in your hand, are the same basic space between the atoms in your body. And indeed, "atoms" themselves are 99.9999% space.

And this is kind of the problem when people take magic too "seriously". To train in Siddhi powers often means training oneself to very clearly visualize things in minute detail. But the problem with this, is people can start to believe that those things are fully "real". That they have a kind of inherent "selfness" to them.

They can be told these scary stories about what will happen if they do or don't do a magical thing properly, and that can be "true" to an extent... but only "true" if they actually believe in it. In other words, if they take it "seriously". The power of magic kind of depends on this actually, —taking it seriously.

When one of my teachers was teaching me about magic, he told me that "curses can only hurt you so long as you believe in them." In other words, they only work as long as you take them "seriously". The moment you don't, they stop having power over you. They don't have an inherent self-nature of their own. They're a bit like lucid dreaming. Yes, if you take them seriously, they can seriously effect you. But if you choose not to, it's very difficult for them to have any power over you.

This is one of the problems that can sometimes develop in Tantra. People get so used to deep diving into all these deities, and folk stories about magic, and what awful thing will happen if they do or doing do this sort of thing, that they can loose sight of the deeper "big picture" of the entire point of Buddhism, which is the Dharmakaya.

I've seen some tantric practitioners, who basically get lost in the magical realm. They get fascinated by the sorcery and magic, and forget that that's only "Level 2" of reality. And they can forget to go deeper because all of their efforts are essentially spent being caught up in, and reifying the magical realm.

But the problem with doing that, is it's only supposed to be done as a skillful means. Training oneself to pay attention to the subtle energies and realms can be helpful... but only to an extent. The problem is, both the Nirmanakaya and the Sambhogakaya are the realm of form. Together, combined: they are the Rupakaya. Getting caught up in fascinations with the unseen realm, can in some ways start to become a little bit like reifying our own thoughts and emotions. It's not so different than getting caught up in the material world.

The purpose of Buddhist practice is not to reify your thoughts and emotions, nor to reify the unseen realm. Or to reify the material realm. Rather, the point is to break through to the deepest level into seeing the Dharmakaya.

People can spend thousands of hours, and years of their life doing visualizations and chanting mantras to develop magical abilities. And indeed, they may develop such. But the problem is, when in groups of people, they can then have such an intense energy about them, that they can then use to convince other people of their own righteousness.

The lama I met recently had a huge amount of intense energy that he could project and use to kind of enchant others into accepting his view. But when you looked behind that, "behind the curtain" (so to speak): his personality was someone who was extremely impatient, condescending, unpleasant, and kind of unhappy actually. He wasn't somebody who had the peace of someone who had really come to deep peace and healing in his own nature: he was someone who seemed intently focused on reifying his own thoughts, with all the seriousness he could muster.

HA HA HA HA HO!

The universe is a big joke. The idea that someone's thoughts and emotions are inherently "real" just because they can concentrate on them so much, and visualize them so well, is insane. And no amount of "intense energy" that someone can emit, changes the fact that all of reality is one and interconnected, and inherently empty.

As the Diamond Sutra says:

"Thus shall ye think of this fleeting world:
A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream
A flash of lightning in a summer cloud
A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream."

I grew up in a family of people with intense siddhi energy. A lot of them were jerks. I've been around such people all my life, who able to kind of "dazzle" people with their energy. But those people aren't necessarily wise, just because they can do that. I sometimes encounter people who say, "When I met my Lama, I could just feel the energy off him. He just had such a sense of presence!" Yeah a lot of business managers can do that too. Most politicians can. Cult leaders, etc. Many actors and rock stars can do that. It's a common siddhi. It doesn't make someone wise. Encountering that sort of thing doesn't impress me, even if they are a Buddhist. Sometimes I feel like some people who dive too deep on the "wizard" side of things, miss the cosmic forest due to fascination with the magical trees. My teacher told me this was one of the dangers of the magical world. While helpful: it can suck you in if you're not careful, and become a kind of endless fascination of its own. Another distraction.

🙏

A friend brought this for me- he got it in China from a guy that sells Tibetan bracelets/necklaces/etc. any meaning to the individual beads and materials? I think he said the red is jade?

So I'm curious as to other people's perspectives on this.

I grew up in a family of people with strong siddhi energy. And they were not nice people. From a young age, I got badly hurt by this, and had to learn the hard way of how to defend against people who are trying to dominate you with their energy. I got pretty good at energy combat doing this. (Although: that's a horrible, unloving way to grow up, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.)

Later, when I lived with my teacher for ten years, he showed me how to do visualizations for shielding and blocking techniques. Basically he taught me how to defend without going on the offense.

But, here's the rub. I still run into this problem socially, including with other Buddhists, including Buddhist teachers.

Basically, these people try and force you to submit with their energy. For me: I'm not going to do that. Like ever. I tasted plenty of that when I was a kid, and I will never do that again.

But, it's still exhausting having to deal with such people. I see Lamas and such do this sometimes too. I've seen a few Zen teachers do this also. Trying to just dominate the room with their energy. It's at best: really annoying having to block them out? And at worst: kinda puts me in combat mode and makes me want to energetically take them down a peg, and teach them some manners.

I get the sense that some tantric lamas especially seem to genuinely feel that it's okay to try and dominate others with their energy.

Basically my problem is: I genuinely don't want to get into an energy fight with people. (I don't want to get into a fight with anybody!) But I also have no intention whatsoever of submitting to them. And I also don't want to sit there and just have to keep half my concentration focused on blocking them out while I'm trying to relax socially.

Some of these people basically treat my refusal to submit to their energy as a "challenge" where they double their efforts to try harder to make me. In some situations, I've genuinely just had to beat a few people in an energy fight, before they would back off, and respect me.

But it still really bothers me that I even had to do that in the first place, you know? There's just something about the fact that they would even try and do that at all, that just really bothers me. It comes across as deeply disrespectful of other people's energy autonomy, and the right to decide for themselves. It comes across as really arrogant, narcissistic, and disrespectful to me. And just rude, frankly. They just kind of come across as assholes who have no energetic manners to me.

And so I'm just not sure how to handle this? I don't want to get into energy fights with people, but it also seems like some people, including some "respected" Buddhists act like they just have a right to just go around trying to dominate others with their energy.

Does anyone know how to handle this socially? Do you just have to decide to be the biggest fish in the pond? Even if you don't want to? It just seems pretty stupid if that were literally the only option available. Don't people just know how to live and let live? Do you just walk out, even if it creates a stir by doing so?

Why do some people just want to try and dominate everyone around them? It's quite disturbing to me.

For those with some experience wielding their energy, how do you handle such people in a diplomatic way? I'm looking for some kind of win/win solution here, that if at all possible, doesn't involve conflict.

This perhaps might be a strange one, but hoping I can explain it well and others maybe have dealt with this particular issue.

For context, I've been a buddhist for almost 15 years so I'm not new to meditation. But have only been practicing in a specifically Tibetan lineage (karma kagyu) for about a year now, so visualization as a formal technique is something I'm still learning. I've done some special teachings and empowerments but nothing that would allow visualization as a deity, so my teacher instructed me that it was fine to envision the deities in front of me during certain common practices (Tara, Chenrezig, etc).

My issue is that I have a consistently hard time visualizing Tibetan buddhist deities in any way that feels "real". By which I mean, envisioning them as living, viscerally present beings in front of me.

I believe this is because as a westerner, I have only seen depictions of these figures in non-lifelike, very stylized and illustrated artistic forms (ie: thangkas and illustrated art) that are from a totally different cultural milieu than my own. So maybe something akin to a language barrier, but for aesthetic art forms.

Whenever I attempt to visualize, for example, Green Tara, I only see an illustrated version that does not translate as "real" to me, and therfore feels way less clear, harder to hold, and more "fuzzy" so to speak, and therefore it seems to take away from the core nature or intention of the yidam practice.

I have brought this issue up to one teacher and another spiritual friend, who both essentially agreed that the intention is to have clarity and vividness as much as possible. But neither really could give me practical advice on how differently to envision the deities.

Is this something anyone else has struggled with and overcome?

I’ve noticed that while I’m spinning my prayer wheel my first instinct is to chant the Tara mantra, rather than the Mani mantra. I think the reason is just because I’ve watched the Garchen Rinpoche documentary so many times that I’ve just made that brain connection, so I do it without really realizing I’m doing it. I started wondering though if that was something you could do while meditating with a prayer wheel? I know ultimately all the Buddhas and bodhisattvas are identical in their highest aspect and understanding, but practically I was wondering if it mattered so long as you were chanting and meditating properly?

Hey 👋🏻

My friend wants me to compile some powerful mantras for birthing, she is not yet a dharma practitioner but very open.

If there are playlists on YouTube or individual links anyone can recommend, I would be very grateful.

Also, what practice should I be doing while my friend is giving birth? I will ask my lama but I would also want to hear if anyone has done anything particular, or have links to literature regarding this.

Thank you so much!

I always hear that Tara is the one that accomplishes all 4 activities, but recently I heard from a teaching that actually any deity tantra you practice will accomplish these.

It can be any deity, Vajrayogini, Chenrezig, Manjushri, Chakrasamvara, Kalachakra, Guhyasamaja, etc...

He said that if we focus on one deity, that deity will accomplish it, it may not be that deity specialty, for example a white Chenrezig is mainly Pacifying, but it will also accomplish the other activities too.

What do you think about it, is it true??? Do you also heard these teachings???

Any help is very appreciated thanks

I’m currently looking to expand and deepen my practice by attending regular, ideally weekly, meditations and classes in the Tibetan tradition. Of course, a quick google search has brought a few viable results, and while I do intend to go experience them in person and see for myself, I was wondering if any Chicago locals have any preference or insight on where they like to go! 😁

Are there still any shops where I can sit for an hour and try a lot of different Tibetan bowls - various sizes and metals? There used to be so many. Thank you.