Jonathan,
Thank you kindly for your remarks. I don't really know what you mean by "harmful practices" or "disturbing tones" so I can't really address your first remark. As to Hedonism, I 'm not so certain that I agree with you but then I don't know how you define hedonism; it could be said that hedonism was a main component of the practice employed by the Mahisiddhis and the monastics expended a great deal of energy wresting control of the tantras away from the Mahasiddhis. I came to the spiritual path through comparative mythology, being an artist, but I have generally narrowed my focus to the Buddhist path expounded upon by His Holiness the Dalai Lama so my knowledge generally manifests from sources at least endorsed by His Holiness.
Madhyamaka Buddhism, as His Holiness repeats in most all of his writings, is a complete form of Buddhism; it includes the wisdom of the Pali canon, the Mahayana canon, and the Abhidharma. The Vajrayana or tantric wisdom is contained in the Abhidharma but sexual yoga practices form a very small part of that and hedonism is very much to be avoided. Some Lamas say that there can be no Mahamudra without Karmamudra and who am I to argue; however, the Karmamudra is invariably reserved for those monastics who have achieved a certain level of attainment. The fear here is that the practitioner will become lost in sensuality and stray from the path, which is what your Rinpoche was probably referring to with his admonishment to keep going.
To me, and I've been celibate for more than 15 years now, it all comes down to renunciation. And by renunciation I'm not speaking of renouncing profane existence, i.e. becoming an ascetic, rather, I'm speaking of renouncing the causes and conditions which lead to cyclic existence and suffering. This type of renunciation requires a great deal of diligence when one is first beginning any spiritual path so, unless you're the incarnation of some super advanced tulku, it would probably be best to proceed gradually by building a solid foundation before worrying about the sexual yogas. Of course humans, it has been demonstrated, rarely follow the rational path . . .
If you would care to build on the wisdom imparted by the Rinpoche you mention, I would recommend "Meditations on the Nature of Mind", a book put together by the Chair of the Religious Studies Department, University of California, Santa Barbara, Jose Ignacio Cabezon. It has a great introduction by His Holiness and several good references.
Yes, the foundations of Mathematics and Physics are fascinating topics but I don't have near the respect for consistency that others seem to. Some time ago, when trying to get a handle on Matti Pitkanen's Topological Geometrodynamics (I still don't have a good handle on it), my attention was directed to the dissertation by mathematician and General Systems theorist, Daniel Guy Schwartz, "Approximate Reasoning, Logics for Self-Reference, and the Use of Nonclassical Logics". On pages 35 - 40 (52 - 56 in the pdf), Dr. Schwartz follows Rescher and mathematically defines coherence in a manner which allows one to make meaningful inferences about inconsistent sets of data and this seems to be a profound direction in which mathematics and science are heading.
This is what gives me pause whenever I consider Godel's Incompleteness, Turing's Halting, and Chaitin's Omega; while I don't see a problem with Cantor's diagonalization, or paradox, for that matter, I do see potential problems with basing a mathematical proof of Postulates of Impossibility on paradox. I often wonder if perhaps paradox isn't simply a function of the limited mental capacity of legacy humans. Of course I tend to agree with particle physicist Gordan Kane in that impossible should mean "it's going to take a bit longer than we originally estimated." (I often wonder why no one has written a book about all of the engineering marvels, i.e. impossibilities, inherent in particle accelerator research.)
So anyway, I believe Max Tegmark's Mathematical Multiverse should consist only of those axiomatic systems which allow coherent (as opposed to consistent) self-reference. And there happens to be some fascinating literature regarding such systems or close approximations thereof:
An introduction to such can be found in Brian Josephson's short paper "Biological Observer-Participation and Wheeler's 'Law without Law'".
With special attention paid to his reference to INBIOSA.
And one of my personal favorites, Ben Goertzel's Magician Dynamics System as expounded upon in "From Complexity to Creativity".
And with regards to how mathematics applies to Physics, I think Kevin Knuth pretty well has the tiger by the tail there:
"Foundations of Inference"
"Information Based Physics: An Observer-Centric Foundation".
Again, thank you for your remarks and I'll be looking forward to reading and commenting on your essay submission.
With regards,
Wes Hansen
