Lunatic or Mahāsiddha?

There is a tendency to equate anything straying from norm as lunacy or madness. At a push one might be allowed to be creatively avant garde. From inside the hamster wheel those on the outside look crazy.

A core tenet of many spiritual traditions is the renunciation of worldliness. It is easy to say this. But the chasm in life orientation that such a thing engenders is vast even if the accoutrements are not so immediately obvious. If you are grasping, ambitious and always “on the make” it is hard to believe or even see that others might not share these same compulsions. They may look similar but their orientation and essence are radically different.

People cannot countenance that which they struggle to comprehend.

All religions have their “saints” and exemplars, some also have prophets. It is logically reasonable to suggest that myth and hagiography are rarely prone to succinct accuracy. A good tale often improves in dramatic impact upon retelling. In the Buddhist and Yogic traditions there is lore about highly evolved adepts or practitioners, Siddhas or even Mahāsiddhas. Their behaviour is rumoured to be severe and errant from domestic comfort. Their approach to storming the ramparts of an illusory saṃsāra can be seen as full on, radical and harsh. Their wisdom can be seen as “crazy wisdom” in that it offends the tastes of the conventional and socially conditioned. It might also be seen as cock-waving showing off.

“Look at me I can drink diarrhoea from a human skull cup chalice!”

It is a part of the “macho” braggadocio of some would be Vajrayāna practitioners.

“Our way is hard and dangerous…like scaling a cliff face without ropes…”

To err from  societal requirements even a tad is seen as loony and lunatic. There used to be asylums where such people could be safely locked up. There is anecdotally a global mental health crisis which seen from one angle might suggest that many millions of minds are struggling to be at peace with how modern society enacts living.

“What happens when the lunatics outnumber the so-called and self-diagnosed sane?”

A partial renunciate who exists adjunct to society but not fully incorporated and assimilated therein could be seen as a weird antisocial loner bordering on a nutter, a would be mass murderer in the making. If they were however simply minding their own business and meditating people would not know, they would assume the worst. That is unless they wore robes. Tracksuit bottoms and Levis are not the garb of a siddha. A mahāsiddha is very unlikely to need to seek the refuge of a sangha. They are unlikely to need to tell all and sundry or covet attention. They may dress and look entirely normal on the outside but differ markedly within.

“How can you tell if someone is a lunatic or not?”

“Are you sufficiently experienced and well-qualified to make that diagnosis?”

--