07-21-07 7:07 • Unconditional Love and Heaven
Congrats Swarm and Changeling on the birth of Neo Xavier Hamm!
07-21-07 7:07 • Unconditional Love and Heaven
Polo: If I love somebody, but I want that person to go to Heaven, is that conditional or unconditional?
If you want that person to go to heaven because they are "saved" for instance, then it is conditional. In this case conditional on being "saved."
If you want them to go to heaven simply because you have no greater way of expressing love, and you could care less if your love is saved, deserving, or even if god wants them there - that is unconditional. If you will forgo heaven should your love not make it, that is true love.
Polo: i want them to go to heaven .. and want them to be saved .. even if the lord doesnt permit them to go to heaven .. (in case of some people God doesn't want them to go to heaven .. because they do bad things .. / sin .. or etc .. (i love them) (of course i believe that all people who do good wether they religion is anythin .. go to heaven .. i think .. !!
If you believe in souls then the statement that "no greater love hath one for another than to lay down their life for them" is not true. If you would forsake heaven and salvation for the sake of your love, that is a greater love and it would technically be a sin for a xtian since you love another as much or more than you love god.
Heaven as xtians portray it is the ultimate in conditional love. You have to be "saved" or you are "damned."
Personally I find the whole kit and kaboodle stinks like yesterday's diapers.
A good god would not damn any one. Period. And if there were a hell, that is where god would go, to help those most in need.
As for heaven. If you love another so much you would forsake god and heaven for them, you already *are* in heaven and there is nothing more that god needs to teach you.
Be a light unto yourself and love with all you are.
The rest will sort itself out.
NoMarks: What's with the socialist crap? There's nothing to be done for it - the needy are a part of life and they will always be with us.
"Needy" is a false desperation born out of the unnatural needs of those who want to be wealthy.
Everyone in my family loves to eat and with mom's cooking there is never enough turkey and pie. Yet thanksgiving goes off without a hitch thanks to two simple rules that would also solve most of the world's ills.
Want a rule for the gold that matches the golden rule?
Everyone gets firsts before anyone gets seconds.
Here is a bonus for resolving disputes:
The one who cuts picks last.
07-12-07 1:23 • Compassionate Killing
Mickey: Okay, none of this is happening with me, but let us imagine for a moment that I've got a large, unwanted animal population in my backyard, say raccoons or cats. Big, angry, stray, and hungry. Let's say I know of the bureaucracy of the animal control people, and can in general be sure that most animals they capture are eventually put to death, after being held in mediocre captivity for a period of time at best. Would I not be exercising a more swift and compassionate solution to the animal population problem by killing these animals myself?
Don't worry too much about what isn't real.
Mickey: What about rabies? Lost livestock? Property damage?
What about subsidence? What about the price of tea in China?
"What about"s concerning imaginary problems are endless.
The raccoons and cats which are actually in your life seem able to take care of themselves just fine.
Mickey: Not if they're rabid. Not if they're damaging property. Not if they're killing livestock. Not if they're reproducing into the realm of unhealthy population growth. Not if they carry communicable diseases...
Are they rabid? Are they damaging property? Are they killing livestock? Are they reproducing into the realm of unhealthy population growth? Are they carrying communicable diseases...
Not so you've noticed?
Then the raccoons and cats which are actually in your life seem able to take care of themselves just fine.
07-07-07 7:27 • Desire and Craving
Steven: I'd like your understanding on this. Suffering is caused by attachement to desire, or cravings.
Is it possible to have desire without absolutely any attachment to it, or is there always at least a little hidden in a dark corner or under a rock in the psyche?
If so how can one be sure if one has desire free from attachment? The only way I've been able to tell in some cases is by waiting for a particular desire to run its course and then find that I experience elation or disappointment directly related to the result.
If not then why not just be a nihilist?
So for those who have good eating habits, for example, when they desire some food, they eat what they need and then they are done and go on with life. They have attachments to certain foods which they prefer, but it doesn't cause them to eschew all other foods or leave the table and go hungry if the wrong thing is served. IF there is reason not to eat they can do so without obsessing over it constantly. Their eating is balanced and harmonious. It adds to their existence but doesn't dominate it and cause suffering, even when it is absent.
A big part of Buddhism is developing good existence habits. It is pulling those almost flawless automatic processes forward and giving them a bit of polish and then applying them to areas where they might be lacking.
How can you be sure you are free from poor habits? You can't. But you can use mindfulness to find what in your life is not working well and correct it.
Why not Nihilism? Its just more obsessing and doesn't work well.
07-07-07 7:07 • Reincarnated Atlantian
Leslie: Life can get very, very, very ugly when we lack spiritual focus. Here's an example - Maldek was a planet that existed between Mars and Jupiter. No planet there, you say? Where's the evidence you say? The Asteroid Belt. Those aren't asteroids. That's the remains, the graveyard, of a planet that was even slightly bigger than Earth and well-populated by modern humans much like us about 100 million years back.
Some say they reincarnated here and are present here now on Earth. They blew up the planet in a nuclear disaster.... blew the whole planet into large boulder-size and asteroid-size fragments. I was a child on that planet when it blew up.
What I find amazing is that there appear to be people who are studying Buddhism... and even people calling themselves Buddhists outright, who are clueless about reincarnation.
Why can't you accept that I am an ascended Bodhisattva, sent here over countless lives to redeem humanity? I've worked extensively with Dr. Norma Milanovich, who channels various ascended masters. I have also shared past life experiences with the renowned Dr. Frank Rich. I was present with him at the last moments of Atlantis as it fell.
Why the opposition to the notion that I am of such origins?
If you are actually a developed being, why have you not have gotten over the whole superior/inferior, boasting about connections, name-dropping thing? Those are signs of an undeveloped soul in any milieu.
And many of the things you boast about seem things to be embarrassed about. You were one of the last Atlantians? So you were one of the ones who lost Atlantis and failed to share the technology? Shame on you. God actually had to stop what he was doing and personally ask you to come here? Have you never heard of taking a little personal initiative?
Once one gets past the “gee whiz” factor, I find nothing you offer is really worth pursuing.
What good is remembering other lives when this one is not yet set in order?
Leslie: You read a lot into my words because of naive assumptions that are completely at odds with the whole reality.....
We disagree on what represents the whole of reality. But don't make the mistake of assuming I have no experience simply because I draw different conclusions. As you describe reality, I would be a deity slumming as a returned ascended master. While flattering, I find none of that pertinent or useful. This existence is where the tread hits the ground. Anything else is a distraction.
Leslie: Apparently you discount your best source of proof; intuition is a good thing to cultivate.
We agree and I do cultivate it and have studied and taught it.
It is a common misconception to think that intuition reduces error, or is at odds with any other mode of discernment. Integrating one's inner and outer eyes lets one see far without tripping up all the time.
Leslie: I was working to prevent the fall of Atlantis, but I could not inspire the key players there to pay any attention to the etheric messages and opportunities I provided them. I tried.
And you failed completely. It's past. Atlantis is less than dust. Let it go so it doesn't drag you down here.
In fact count yourself lucky it wasn't a huge success. Those are far harder to let go of.
Leslie: Another Deity, Amoghasiddhi Buddha requested that I (my higher self) descend back into the lower realities to provide the Love that is needed to help heal the difficulties.
Because you still think you are needed here and these poor lowly souls won't make it without you to provide the Love that is needed. Yes, I know the error of the would-be bodhisattva.
You are here not to provide, but to realize your own arrogance. The irony is that there really is love that is needed here and that if you weren't so full of yourself you could actually give some of it.
Beware of deities bearing gifts.
Leslie: I may be ascended, but have I come on as an airy-fairy jerk? No...
Yes.
Leslie: ...I've made every effort to communicate on the same level as the common ground that everyone else uses. I'm willing to grant you have good intentions. I would not be continuing to discourse with you otherwise. But there is a lot you need to learn about communicating on the same level as the common ground that everyone else uses.
Leslie: You say that, but you don't know who I really am.
I know what you present.
Leslie: I avoid "proof" like the plague. Under what possible, conceivable scenario would you accept that what I say is authentic and proven?
I can think of a few if you are actually interested, but it's not relevant to us right now. Who you are today and who you are becoming now is more interesting.
Obsession with avoiding proof corrupts the spirit. Obsession, not proof, is the fault.
Leslie: Swarm, I can see that your way of viewing Buddhism is absolutely constrained by your temporal mind, with all of its methodical systems of uncreative character.
You know nothing of my personal vistas and little of my views. How many eternities do I have under my belt? How many universes have I created and watched fall to ash? What heavens and hells have I trod? You choose to limit yourself to serial existence, and that is fine, but not everyone chooses your path.
What you don't understand is none of that matters.
Who you are now, what you understand of this reality and how well you can relate that understanding to others to aid them in understanding too, those are things which matter.
Confusing who you are now with who you were then is an error and it is worse than forgetting it all together.
You rest on laurels that are less than dust.
Leslie: How can you claim to be a Buddhist, while denying that there is a soul that reincarnates?
Anatman is a foundational concept of Buddhism, even Tibetan Buddhism. Literally no-soul.
It is one of those darn annoying things central to Buddhism that makes it very uncomfortable for any one banking on an eternal soul. And it always leads to those niggly questions like just what exactly are you claiming is getting reincarnated if there is no soul?
Man, does that lead to some wild justifying, special pleading and other rhetorical gymnastics.
If you have a soul, maybe Buddhism isn't for you.
Leslie: Okay, so Buddhism does mention Anatman - no soul. But, everything in the Cosmic creation is Interconnected, right? We Do have light bodies...astral bodies.....you are bound to find that in the references....and I can Attest to That. That is where my knowledge comes from. My experiences involve Much More than this temporal existence. Much More.
Much, much more.
We all have Immediate Personal Experiences that no-one can dispute.
Then how am I disputing it?
Leslie: Well...it gets complicated. The personal is what is foundational. But personal experience is extendable to the meta-personal and the inter-personal. Much more than linear information has been involved..... things like deep, unquestionable insights. The bottom line is that a 'personal experience' cannot be disputed by others.
I couldn't disagree more.
First, all experience is personal and certainly we can discuss and dispute some personal experiences in meaningful ways.
I think what you want to say is “subjective” or “private experience” instead of “personal experience”.
As for disputed, anything which can be communicated can be disputed, and given the ubiquitous sharing of dreams, fantasies, achetypes and other private and subjective matters, I'd say it is obvious that at least some private and subjective matters can be communicated and therefore become subject to disputes.
What I think you may be trying to get at is that the person who has the experience should be the ultimate authority on what said experience means. As long as the domain of the experience is internal then I'm willing to accept that. However when external claims are made, those claims are subject to the same standards as any other claim.
So for example if I have this experience which convinces me that I'm an ascended master and I keep that to myself there is nothing to dispute. But if I present that claim to others I need to be able to back it up if I expect them to accept it. How much backing is needed varies.
Some people will swallow about anything hook, line and sinker if it is properly presented.
Buddhists however, have a responsibility to not be that gullible concerning anything and especially to not be that gullible concerning Buddhism. Proving for oneself is key to developing insight and wisdom.
Royal: Thanks for that, Swarm. I may not have been able to put it so well, but that is an important reason why I am investigating Buddhism for my own growth.
Fifi: Where do we find peace? How do we create peace? What habits and desires get in the way of us being able to peacefully coexist with others? Are there situations where peace is not possible? What are these for you?
I'm curious, if you wish to see peace in the world around you what do you do to create peace around you?
If you wish to experience peace within yourself how do you approach this?
I find peace as a side effect of right living. If I mind my Ps and Qs then my life is at ease and without unnecessary strife.
I should note though that peace is in part a social endeavor. If those around you are without peace then your own peace is limited as well.
Fifi: Swarm - Thanks for giving me your perspective - you always say something that makes me consider things a little differently (which I appreciate). You make a good point about peace being a natural consequence of right living - whether we're talking about a collective or personal level. Where does your idea of right living come from?
Right living is what works well for all involved.
06-26-07 6:26 • Basic Buddhist Questions
John: You seem to know a lot about Buddhism and I have some questions.
Can Buddhists only find romantic love with other Buddhists?
John: Is Buddhism Veganism?
No.
John: Is entertainment, that doesn't promote enlightened thoughts, bad?
Its not so bad as long as you don't get too wrapped up in it.
John: I heard that Buddhists are not supposed to sing, or dance...?
Don't worry about all the monastic stuff, it was added to keep monks in line.
CPR: Swarm, I always dig your forthright and simple answers, but one of them seem vague, so... where does 'not so bad' lie within the realms of bad, and when does 'wrapped up' become 'too wrapped up'?
I can't be less vague than the original question.
Some people get so wrapped up in (whatever) they can't see anything else and that's not so good, even if its Buddhism.
How bad depends on the circumstances and the person.
You watch the Simpsons but it doesn't rule your life? Not so bad.
You watch "reality" shows? Might as well kick off for your next incarnation in the lowest hell.
Lost your job, haven't eaten in days and you shot the neighbor who was making noise upstairs? Maybe you are wound a bit tight. Try decaf.
Abe: Hello, I come from a very Christian Religious background--Fundamentalists to be exact.
About 9 years ago I made a break and decided not to let religion be my first priority in life and live a secular lifestyle.
Now in the past 2 years I have a sense of longing to belong to some religion. I looked at other religions and I like the buddhist teachings, so I've been trying the practice.
However, I am a very passionate person. I get angry, I feel angst towards my past life, and world politics, colonialism, war etc... I am not really feeling the buddhist way.
If you are passionate, you are passionate. How do you express this passion? Is it guided by your insight and compassion? Is it focused towards good results? There are many threads to a person. Buddhism is not about changing this so much as it is learning to weave them into a whole.
Abe: I've recently experienced some rather traumatic events with a family member, and all of my family is pretty emotional about it, but they were rather shocked at me, since I was staying calm and not worrying about her like everyone else was.
Maybe I'm just experiencing what many buddhists experience, Kind of a "life will go on" attitude. Or, does this mean I don't care for her?
Care is not the intensity of a particular feeling in a particular moment.
Feelings are capricious and empty.
Care is the manner in which your actions accept and cherish her person no matter how you happen to feel.
Read more in the Archives.