I'm looking for a slightly better theoretical understanding of "crazy wisdom", as if that's possible.
I've seen two superficially-sensible mentions of it on this site.
If you knew what is "Spiritual Snobbism" and "Spiritual Ego" and why they are extremely dangerous, you would appreciate why some teachers go a loooong way towards shedding off any traces of that, even at the expense of hurting their public image (Trungpa) and making fools of themselves (Dalai Lama). Scandalous behavior is part of a longstanding and very respected tradition called "Crazy Wisdom" that aims to "transcend the dualistic view of repulsive and nonrepulsive" in student's mind and melt the spiritual ego.
here (quoting Chogyam Trungpa) --
The rest of The Hundred Thousand Songs deals with Milarepa's development as a teacher and his relationships with his students. Toward the end of his life he had completely perfected the transmutation process to the point where he could be called the Vidyadhara or "Holder of the Crazy Wisdom." No longer could he be swayed by the winds of hope and fear. The gods and goddesses and demons, his passions and their external projections, had been completely subjugated and transformed. Now his life was a continual dance with the dakinis.
Finally Milarepa reached the "old dog" stage, his highest attainment. People could tread on him, use him as a road, as earth; he would always be there. He transcended his own individual existence so that, as we read his last teachings, there is a sense of the universality of Milarepa, the example of enlightenment.
I suspect it's specifically-Tibetan, perhaps there are some pretty eccentric Zen teachers too.
So some questions:
- Is there a notable difference between "crazy wisdom", "just plain crazy", and, "undisciplined, predatory, sociopathic"?
- What's the 'right' way to act or react or view, if any, if you meet with or even are such a one?
- Does it have a specific direction (guiding light), or purpose (destination)?
- Does it have any limits, precepts, actions that wouldn't do? And why not those, to be clear?
- If someone appears to be, for example, homeless, drug-addict, alcoholic, prostitute, thief, con-man, bully, rather mad -- are these states distinguishable from crazy wisdom?
- Is there any particular reason to call it "long standing and very respected" -- is the principal reason, that some people are very respectful of everyone? Or is it, not that they teach a new dhamma but that they're willing to bring that to a new unpromising audience? I don't know.
If my questions sound insane and horribly rude, it's I must be deeply ignorant of the subject ... sorry! Hoping to learn better.
I gathered that Trungpa for example did hurt his public image -- stories I've read of him, presented as an exemplar of crazy wisdom behaviour, are at least a superficial reminder of remarkable or 'anti-social' behaviour of other people one can meet -- social outcasts; 'underdogs'.