01-16-06 11:11  •  Guru as Buddha

Rob: they say that the hardest and most important realization, is seeing your Guru as a Buddha. It’s not really important if he is a Buddha or not, the point is that you need to reach a level where you can project that on him/her.

Perhaps it is so hard because it isn't correct. If some one is a buddha then you can just see them as they are. If some one isn't a buddha, then pretending they are or projecting buddhaness on them falsely is just the kind of delusion you are seeking to break out of.

See your guru as a guru and appreciate his or her realization for what it actually is. Anything else is just marketing hype of the worst kind.

Rob: Later, at a certain point you may be able to see all beings as Buddhas and receive pure teaching from everybody.

I rather see them as they are and receive what they actually have to give.

Rob: Guru devotion, ( a point which is very difficult for us westerners to grasp), is not about the guru personal, -- it’s about us, walkers on the path , and our need to humiliate and overcome our evil ego.

An evil ego is really quite something. Where do you keep it? What does it look like?

Though if you go around humiliating it, its no wonder that is misbehaves so. No one likes humiliation.

Guru is all about the guru. What is difficult to grasp is pretending otherwise about something as plain as the nose on your face.

If you like giving devotion to a guru, then enjoy. But its really just like any other devotional faith-based system. This one just happens to have infested buddhism instead of xtianity or whatever.

You will never be a light unto yourself basking in the glow of another.

01-15-06 12:55  •  Orthodoxy

Nolan: Would you say that one seeking a conscious awareness of the divine must abandon orthodoxy, or more precisely move beyond orthodoxy, or embrace it?

The quintessencial mystic experience is direct apprehention of the divine.

The essencial orthadox stricture is observance of mediated divinity and obedience to the mediators.

A few people can walk the line, mainly by keeping quiet and not scaring the flock or the priests, but by and far the majority of mystics cannot because one of the persistant messages seems to be that the orthadoxy is silly at best and disastrously wrong at worst.

But that is just half the issue, the being-a-mystic portion.

The other half of the issue is the becoming-a-mystic part. This means seeking with your whole being wherever your path lies, and the odds of it lying exactly on the path of orthadoxy are about nil or you would already be a priest by now and finding the divine outside the approved orthadoxy is a definate no-no.

Needless to say the orthadoxy doesn't take well to such messages.

01-15-06 12:55  •  Tib. B. vs. Zen B.

Ryan: if people here think that Tib. B. is any different from Zen B. they still have a long way to walk.
there are many roads to climb a mountain, but the view at the top is the same.

So what you are saying is that going north to reach a point and going south to reach the same point are the same journey because the earth is round and you end up at the same point eventually?

That's a pretty superficial understanding which does credit to neither tradition.

01-10-06 1:11  •  Chocolate vs. Shit

Oliver: The most memorable and only Zen koan my lama had was:

"Chocolate and Shit are the same" :-)

I think you missed a chance to tell her "That's a load of Bull Chocolate!"

Oliver: No, It's Dharma! The point here being: Our Perception of things. How our minds are perceiving things and attaching the thoughts of good or bad.

No, its not dharma. Dharma is about how things actually are.

Shit and chocolate are different and to not perceive this difference is to not see clearly.

That doesn't mean that either should be preferred above the other or that neither serves its purpose, which may have been the point she wanted to make, but what she said was wrong.

Perceiving correctly is not the same as attaching good and bad to those perceptions.

Rob: ultimately, there is no right or wrong.
it is all but a floating dream.
Shit and Chocolate are labels, concepts, ideas.
At the sub-atomic level, it’s all the same.
Chocolate or shit, the universe is equally unconcerned.

Reply broken out:

Rob: ultimately, there is no right or wrong.

This is just the kind of mumbo-jumbo bullcrap that gives buddhism a bad name.

"Ultimately" is just a dodge when one is discussing specifics like shit and chocolate.

Rob: Shit and Chocolate are labels, concepts, ideas.

Which refer to actual substances.

Rob: At the sub-atomic level, it’s all the same.

We do not live at the sub atomic level and no, it is not all the same.

Rob: Chocolate or shit, the universe is equally unconcerned.

The universe is neither concerned nor unconcerned.
You are also not the universe.

Eat some shit and show me how *you* are unconcerned and then we will talk.

Oliver: What is Shit?

Examine your ass closely and what shit is will eventually become clear.

Oliver: My lama did make a point....

Making a wrong point isn't that impressive.

Oliver: and Swarm you are enlightened eh???

Ah, I love it. The classic buddhist ad hominun.

Yes, as a matter of fact I'm enlightened.

Now quick, tell me what that means.

Rob: Swarm, too bad, you can't see the Forest for the Trees.

I see more than you think.

Rob: maybe one day you'll know what i'm talking about.

Ah, in case I wasn't clear, I know what you are talking about and dismiss it as bullshit.

Rob: really?
"i" this and "i" that ...
swarm, your road is long and the end is not in sight yet.
since you knew what we talking about
why the b-s about shit and chocolate not the same?
like we don't know it?
it's your big ego my friend. that's all.
your ego whisper to you "i'm enlightened" but the fact is that is still only ego talking. and trying to convince us will not change it.
you need a teacher to humiliate your ego.
go, find one.

Oliver: no teacher will have him..... besides its hopeless... a parrot just blurting out *shit*

My, my. Very impressive.

Still nothing of merit to say, eh?

Reply broken out:

Rob: "i" this and "i" that ...

Hiding from the word "I" does not make you more enlightened, or less.

Rob: swarm, your road is long and the end is not in sight yet.

Is that so Mom?

Rob: why the b-s about shit and chocolate not the same?
like we don't know it?

When you blather bullshit like you did, you don't know it.

Rob: trying to convince us will not change it.

I didn't whisper or try and convince you of anything.
I answered a question and asked a question.

You are caught up in trying to make it all about me because you are bothered that I would dare such a thing which is well known to be forbidden.

There is not one ounce of genuine concern about me or my condition here.
You only wish to put me in my place for stepping out of bounds.

Willie: Surely one can only humbly assume that Swarm is correct? After all, is not dismissive self righteousness the hallmark of the truly enlightened?

Assume I'm correct and I'll kick your ass.

Dr. Yo: Ah yes, true flame wars. A sure sign of total degeneration and an indicator of probable shark-jumping in the near future.

Swarm is brilliant, and you guys are a bunch of jackasses if you can't see that. Look back through the fossil record, he's been posting some of the best "shit" in this discussion since it began.

Finally, the "more enlightened than thou" shtick is SOOOOOO not going to work in this crowd.

Rob: "more enlightened than thou"
that's your line and swarms.

I never said "more enlightened than thou."

I said "yes" and that fit the conversation of that moment.

But until you tell me what you mean I could say "no" next time and still mean the same thing.

Willie: Dr Yo, you said, "Swarm is brilliant."

Right on, no argument here.

I appreciate and have greatly enjoyed Swarm's contributions. I also know that some of the most brilliant people can also be the biggest jackasses of all, and I reserve the right to make fun of Swarm or anyone else when I feel that they deserve it, or any other time I happen to feel like it for that matter.

Or even just because its funny.

Dr. Yo: Making fun of people is always allowed. It's even more important to do so if they are brilliant, non?

You guys are going to make my head explode, thanks.

01-08-06 1:00  •  there is no self?

Tettra: I haven't been able to give up the idea of a core-me, a self.

Should I "awaken" and see things as they are (experience right view, etc.)...how am I to go about tackling the pragmatic realities of everyday life while simultaneoulsy being so dissolved?

if someone throws a brick at me, I will certainly be the one who feels it. Not you, and not the flowers and trees that I am supposedly interconnected with. All these things I am supposedly part of (the stream, the flux, the one)...they will not turn black and blue. I will.

How does self-lessness negotiate the material/sensual realities of the body?

There is a lot of talk about this, but I will tell you a trick which is quite helpful.

Don't worry about self or no self.


There are certain things which one needs to understand to grasp the philosophy of buddhism which one does not need to grasp the practice and realization of buddhism. Of these two, it is the latter which is of paramount concern.

If you do not worry about self or no self your practice will naturally flow directly from what is actual instead of your thoughts and worries about what should be actual.

Once you have grasped your personal realization of buddhism there will be plenty of time to work on the philosophy of how to say what cannot be put effectively into words, such as no self.

12-23-05 12:23  •  
See Zen's Greetings
12-21-05 12:21  •  Poverty

Schmendrink: What does your personal religious beleif or humanistic ethic say in regards to how people should be compensated for work?

Is there a moral line?

Is a working person, regardless of profession or class morally entitled to enough money to supply food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and a humane retirement for old age?

Education, food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and a humane retirement for old age are part of the infrastructure of a healthy civilazation.

They need to be provided at a minimum level to every one regardless of work or wealth.

12-14-05 12:34  •  How to Love

Poe: ...she hurt me and now my heart is breaking...but like love it takes two people i am not alone in falt even though none are truely it is a strage place to be...

There is no fault.
There is only what each of you are doing.
Do what works.
Stop doing what doesn't.

Poe: simpule i wish i couldsee it like that you are blessed

Now you can.

Poe: think so it is not so simpule for me i think i need help i need to see it be that simpule i need some one to show me

You underestimate yourself.

You can find your own way if you wish.

Poe: love has never been good to me ever i want it and i try so hard to keep beliving but it is hard espeshaly now

I'll give you a trick, but it may seem a bit odd.

Your brain can only do one thing well at a time.

This means that when you are wanting love, what your brain is doing is wanting, not loving.

Likewise when you are trying hard to love, what your brain is doing is trying hard, not loving.

If you can stop wanting and stop trying hard, there will be mental space available to love.

If you think about it, I'm sure you have run across people who seem desperate for love, that is the outward reflection of the inner process I just outlined.

To find love be relaxed about it. Don't worry about you.

Instead start paying more attention to those around you. Find out more about them. Pay attention to their stories. Ask them about their feelings and what they think. Care about them as persons.

Avoid digs and sarcasm like the plague.

Cultivate care, kindness and being nice.

Be good first and love will find its way into your life.

Poe: Swarm,I don't think what you said is odd at all,much more to the point ...I honestly didn't quite think of it in this waybut makes perfect sense,now gives me more to ponder on myself...

12-13-05 1:23  •  What is Love

Rob: What is love?
Isn't it but a play in the mirrors of our empty minds?
let’s think clearly here:
what is 'falling in love' ? what is falling out of it ?
what sex got to do with it?
Is ‘love’ an invention of the human animal?
Is ‘mother-child’ bond the same as ‘male-female’ attraction? Why are we using the same word?
What we call ‘love’, does it make us free and happy or cause more suffering?

Love is worth doing and worth doing well.

If is just a play in the mirror of your mind,then is is not truly love yet because love is the expression of love.

Sex is a fun way to express love, but it isn't a necessity.

The mating and reproductive bonds are also fun ways to express love, but they aren't necessities either.

Love doesn't make you anything.

Being free gives you the chance to love just as it gives you the chance to be happy and free from suffering because it gives you choices.

Win your freedom and choose wisely.

Shaku: Swarm, great point.

A: What is love? I think it's just compassion.

A long the lines of what its not love and such, love is not the emotion or feeling of love.

Emotions and feelings ebb and flow, start and end. It is impossible to sustain them or keep other emotions, like being mad, from jumping in there.

If you mistake love for the emotion of love, then you are going to be lost when that emotion fades or changes.

Love is what keeps you loving through the times when the emotion is absent.

It is a way of relating to others, yourself and life which does tend to maximize the feeling of love, but that feeling is not always present.

Personally I have yet to see any real difference between compassion and love except the monks would like you to believe compassion can't be expressed sexually, which is ludicrous.

Rob: Swarm, "win your freedom and choose wisely" brings a question: *love* - is it something we really *choose* freely and wisely? or are we *falling* (in love), addicted to that transitory, yet euphoric state of mind?

Yes, it is inextricably tied to choosing wisely and it is something you can only choose freely.

The root meaning of philosophy (philo - love of, sophia - wisdom).

Part of what love is, is tied to caring deeply in a way that fosters deeper understanding.

Since real love can form without "that transitory, yet euphoric state of mind", or when that state is present, lasts well beyond its fading, there is a seperate term for the state of mind you mention - infatuation. Infatuation is there to make sure the species continues, but to confuse it for actual love is a grave, but common, error.

Rob: You wouldn't have love if you couldn't have sex with your partner.

Have you no dear friends whom you love but don't have sex with?

Did you not know that eventually your ability to have sex fades, your physical beauty fades, you grow decrepit and even senile?

If you are just with someone for the sex, it will get boring pretty quick and you'll have to find some one new to trigger your infatuation. But after a while, you loose your ability to become infatuated and drop out of the reproduction cycle.