Oṃ āḥ hūṃ...

The following is an explication of the maṇḍala. So read it in full.

The author, Bernadette Roberts, was Nairātmyā—“no-self”—in human form. So she explicates that the “self” can be likened to a circular piece of paper, cf. “A Passage Through Self.”

(For the remainder of this thread, any reference to “R.,” is a reference to Roberts.)

Now take the maṇḍala of _any_ Buddhist tantric deity, and observe the correspondence in question. The yab-yum and “tent of fire” indicate the “dynamics” of the “still-point” (cf. R.).

The yidam is the “deepest, ‘true,’ ‘unconscious’ self”; the ḍākinī is God Immanent, the “still-point” itself, uncreated, stable, “permanent,“ “not-self” (anatta). When the yidam and ḍākinī “hug,” their “passion” (cf. “love”) produces a “burning,” which “purifies” the...

... “obscurations.” The “obscurations,” are the “encircling” deities of the maṇḍala; these are often assigned to one of the five khandhas, or six āyatana, and therefore one of the five kleśas. In other words, they make up the _entirety_ of all “subjective,” “ontological”...

... experience, that is... “self.” This “middling”-“layer” is occupied by the “emotions,” re: kleśas, i.e. “pride,” “anger,” and so on. But the “contact”-“fire”—the yab-yum—“burns” them, from “within.” (This is the meaning of the caṇḍālī at the “navel.”)

The “rim” of the maṇḍala is the “phenomenal” “self,” that is, the “known,” “impermanent,” “created,” “untransformable” “self.” The charnel grounds lining the “rim,” indicate the impermanence of the “phenomenal” “self.”

The yidam and ḍākinī wear bone ornaments because...

... the latter depends on the “enclosing” of the former, for it to exist as an “experience,” and the latter is—because it is “self”—“impermanent.” Therefore the “experience“ of God Immanent is “impermanent,” along with the “self” that “produces” such an “experience.”

The “root” lamas and gurus, existing “beyond” the maṇḍala, “peaceful” as they are, indicate God Transcendent, meaning God-“beyond”-“the”-“self.” (“Self” = “mind” (= “discursive” “thought,” =“cognition”) and “senses.”)

The yidam is “ugly,” because “self” is “created”...

... and the “passions,” are the “source” of _all_ “evil,” in the world.

The yidam stomps the four māras, that is, what Roberts calls the “unconscious archetypes.”

The square palace within the “circle” of the maṇḍala indicates the Yogācāra view, that is “idealism”...

... that is, what Roberts calls the “unitive view.” The yidam itself, or the yidam-and-consort in “union,” represent Madhyamaka.

The “male”–“female” deities indicate the “subject”–“object” “divide” (which collapses in what Guénon calls the “Greater Mysteries”).

In some cases, the deities are assigned locations in the body, such as the joints, or the digestive system, or certain bodily fluids, and so on. This facilitates “mindfulness of the body.”

In some cases, the deities are assigned one of the “37 factors for awakening.”

In both situations, the maṇḍala simply facilitates Buddhist meditation.

Now, Kimiaki Tanaka indicates in “An Illustrated History of the Mandala,” that in certain sādhanas, the “central” deities are “generally” the last pair to be “dismissed.”

This symbolizes what Roberts...

... calls “no-self,” that is, the “disappearance” of the “still-point.”

As far as I can tell, the above is the “correct” interpretation of maṇḍala’s “meaning.” It is essentially a pictorial aid that facilitates certain types of Buddhist meditation, but it is also a genuine...

... “depiction” of the “ontological” “experience,” of “being” a “self.” The distinction between an “ordinary” person and an “initiated” person, with regards to the above, is actually “nil.” It’s merely that the the latter will be able to practically recognize the “symbols”...

... whereas the former, will not. Part of me also wants to say that only after a certain stage of initiation, will the practitioner be able to recognize the meaning of the maṇḍala; and of course this “stage” refers to the “onset” of the “Greater Mysteries,” which covers...

... the “supra-individual, but ‘still conditioned’ states,” and the “unconditioned” goal itself, which roughly correspond to the Bodhisattva bhūmis, and Buddhahood, respectively.

It is complicated, but the “no-self” event is actually the eigth bhūmi, and the “threshold”...

... of what Guénon calls “Being.” There are, however, different “stages” of the “unmanifest.” With the “ultimate” “stage,” referring to the “conjoining” of the “unmanifest,” and the “manifest,” and this is the “true” “meaning” of the term, Mahāmudrā, and the 16th bhūmi.

Let us note how certain Christian doctrines appear within the above explanation. On occasion, Roberts refers to the “‘true’ self” as “Christ,” this being a “middle”-“term” between God Immanent, and God Transcendent. One can scarcely ignore the correspondence between...

... Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and lama, yidam, and khandro. Similarly, “self,” being “untransformable,” “created,” and “impermanent”—even at the “deepest” “level”—refers to “original sin.”

Moreover, the “evil” nature of “emotions”/“passions,” clearly reminds us...

... of Richard’s “rhetoric” on the Actual Freedom Trust website: http://actualfreedom.com.au/ .

Also, Richard’s “pure intent,” in some cases reminds us of the “altruism,” of bodhicitta.

There is much to go over, that I did not go over above. Generally, Guénon says that “religion” aims at “salvation,” whereas “initiation,” aims at the “supreme identity.” Guénon also distinguishes “mysticism” from the former two categories, as “mysticism” is “hazy”...

... “emotional,” “sentimental,” and “psychic.” Guénon notes that initiation is “doctrinally” “rigorous”; that is, it is “knowable,” and “stringent.”

Now the condemnation of the “psychic,” or “imaginal,” is found both in the writings of Alfarabi and Maimonides.

Moreover, Alfarabi similarly writes that “religion” is aimed at all “indiscriminately,” whereas “philosophy,” that is the—“supra”-“intellectual”—“intelligibles,” is for the “elite.”

Guénon similarly indicates that “initiation” is for a “few,” whereas “religion” is for “all.” Now, when “religion” aims at prolonging the human state indefinitely, this is “squarely,” the “mystic’s” “union,” what may be called the “Lesser Mysteries,” and finally...