Alex Wilding

Many listeners will, of course, have a background in European culture, for which reason I find it interesting to compare this with the Christian Eucharist.

Many listeners will, of course, have a background in European culture, for which reason I find it interesting to compare this with the Christian Eucharist.

I myself have never taken communion in any kind of Christian church, but it does seem beyond doubt that when the flock takes the biscuit into their mouths, the taste is not chewy and fleshy like raw pork, nor does the wine have that salty, rather metallic taste of blood. In appearance, the bread and wine are still bread and wine.

I myself have never taken communion in any kind of Christian church, but it does seem beyond doubt that when the flock takes the biscuit into their mouths, the taste is not chewy and fleshy like raw pork, nor does the wine have that salty, rather metallic taste of blood. In appearance, the bread and wine are still bread and wine.

Yet to many Christian churches there is something much more going on, often given the name of transubstantiation. It may be that more recent interpretations have lent on the idea of this being simply a symbol or reminder of the Last Supper, as the theologians who are disposed to think in that way, if I may say so, give in to a more physicalist understanding of the world.

Yet to many Christian churches there is something much more going on, often given the name of transubstantiation. It may be that more recent interpretations have lent on the idea of this being simply a symbol or reminder of the Last Supper, as the theologians who are disposed to think in that way, if I may say so, give in to a more physicalist understanding of the world.

I'm not remotely a scholar of Christianity, but I do believe that over the centuries there has been many a dispute about the nature of transubstantiation. Those disputes have, it seems likely, arisen in the attempt to accurately describe the way in which the communion is something much more real than a mere symbol, even while the bread and wine remain apparently, yes, bread and wine.

I'm not remotely a scholar of Christianity, but I do believe that over the centuries there has been many a dispute about the nature of transubstantiation. Those disputes have, it seems likely, arisen in the attempt to accurately describe the way in which the communion is something much more real than a mere symbol, even while the bread and wine remain apparently, yes, bread and wine.

These material substances could be said to be an allegory for something much deeper and more meaningful. This is why I feel that saying that the bread and wine embody the flesh and blood or that they are an allegory for the flesh and blood is at least a little bit closer to the mark than just saying that they represent or are symbols for the presence of Christ.

These material substances could be said to be an allegory for something much deeper and more meaningful. This is why I feel that saying that the bread and wine embody the flesh and blood or that they are an allegory for the flesh and blood is at least a little bit closer to the mark than just saying that they represent or are symbols for the presence of Christ.

If I have managed to make that clear, big if, then it may make more sense if we say that much of the imagery used in Vajrayana Buddhism is to be understood allegorically rather than literally, which in many cases would be ridiculous, or as simply symbolic. That raises the question of why bother?

If I have managed to make that clear, big if, then it may make more sense if we say that much of the imagery used in Vajrayana Buddhism is to be understood allegorically rather than literally, which in many cases would be ridiculous, or as simply symbolic. That raises the question of why bother?

The same principle can be applied to dakinis, whether they are visualized in a meditation practice, called on in prayers, or described in stories. They embody truths, experiences, and visions. Those truths can perhaps be pointed at through extensive and subtle intellectual analytical thinking, although perhaps even that won't work.

The same principle can be applied to dakinis, whether they are visualized in a meditation practice, called on in prayers, or described in stories. They embody truths, experiences, and visions. Those truths can perhaps be pointed at through extensive and subtle intellectual analytical thinking, although perhaps even that won't work.

But even if it does, it's still necessary for the mystic or the yogi to bring those truths into living experience. The darkening is one way in which that is embodied. These days we know vastly more about the physics that makes the weather happen than we did, say, a century ago. It has an almost entirely mechanical explanation.

But even if it does, it's still necessary for the mystic or the yogi to bring those truths into living experience. The darkening is one way in which that is embodied. These days we know vastly more about the physics that makes the weather happen than we did, say, a century ago. It has an almost entirely mechanical explanation.

If that modern, scientifically based and unquestionably correct knowledge prevents us from experiencing the wind as the dance of the spirits of nature,

If that modern, scientifically based and unquestionably correct knowledge prevents us from experiencing the wind as the dance of the spirits of nature,

and if our knowledge of the physics of the sun prevents us from seeing the sunrise as hosts of angels, as William Blake might have said, or as hosts of darkenies, as we might say, singing to the morning, if we can't open up to that aspect of life, then perhaps, sadly, Tibetan Buddhism is not for us. We have to see these things as more than just symbolic, otherwise it simply won't quite add up.

and if our knowledge of the physics of the sun prevents us from seeing the sunrise as hosts of angels, as William Blake might have said, or as hosts of darkenies, as we might say, singing to the morning, if we can't open up to that aspect of life, then perhaps, sadly, Tibetan Buddhism is not for us. We have to see these things as more than just symbolic, otherwise it simply won't quite add up.