Apech

No I think comparison and debate should be encouraged. But I would exclude the "only buddhists know anything and vedanta is for low-life scum" kind of stuff ... if you know what I mean. There has been some of that. generally I still see modding as very light touch ...

Yes I think that's a possibility .... especially as most of it would be removing threads which start '**** sucks and doesn't work' or similar and also pruning threads which contain valuable content but then descend into bitching (yes it really does happen ha ha!). Very little would be deleted mostly moved .

Socialism! ... hey don't use that word in Off Topic you'll be lynched I agree that there is an underlying unity in the message of all those different religions ... but they are not the same either in philosophy or practice ... I would not be able to mod what is ok or not in Taoism for instance ... so ok its not easy ... but I still think it's an interesting idea to try to build up some kind of resource or resource directory ... maybe a better search facility might do it ... not sure ...

I think the 'no insult' policy has worked well for this place. It's too easy to just start hurling insults and because people can't they think more about what to post. So I like the fact that it's a bit more civilised than it used to be. I don't ever want to see anyone controlling content as in censorship even if it's benign. I like the idea that people feel free to make a joke or add a tangential idea. I like the way threads go off on different directions cos it makes them lively like a real conversation. the trouble is when you have a few of the most active threads turning into an argument between certain members. Then it gets boring and dull. Going over the same ground again and again ... noooooo! (to quote the late demented Sinfest) Paradoxically while liking the banter I'd like to see more serious structured resource material on here. The interview with Bruce Frantzis is one example where people can find out about a teacher/teaching in some depth .... I think this is good because for me TTBs has been a fantastic source of info on all kinds of systems and teachers who I'd never heard of ... e.g. Max, Jenny Lamb, Wang Liping and so on ... but instead of directing people to links you could have some more info on here as well as possibly an opportunity to ask questions of a teacher if they are willing to come on here. I think maybe that the sub forums could be stricter in this sense. So if you post in Buddhist sub it should be about Buddhism and not anything personal or attacking or off subject ... if so it should be moved to General .. which should be left alone to roam widely around our subconscious. Just as the TTC sub worked by sticking strictly to the chapters of the TTC.

TBs more or less my home page ... I've learned so much from here .... so much information and some great chat.

I'm not sure if this is a typo but I was saying I should not accept these things not that I should accept them. It was a the righteous word that I was most uncomfortable in your 'righteous intolerance' phrase. It's just not a phrase I would use. It means I have good wishes towards everyone ... even those who might harm me ... because I would like to see them gain enlightenment and so stop doing harm. Happiness also to them. This does not mean I have to like them, trust them, have anything to do with them ... By sentience do you mean sense perception? or do you mean essential sentience i.e. the capacity to be aware? I don't see how you dissolve the latter. Its attachment to self .... craving and ignorance which prevent happiness I think. The world would be nirvana on the extinguishing of these obscurations. Although you could argue if 'world' means 'whirled' i.e. cyclical and therefore samsara. I haven't watched this vid because my internet is too slow.

I would not use that phrase. It sounds a little high minded for me. So it depends what you mean I suppose.

I would suggest that the next step intellectually at least is to examine phenomena to say ... ok they are not what my senses say they are then what are they? This would lead to the idea of emptiness (in Buddhism) or an idea of an underlying voidic substance (in most other systems). Then you have to examine what is it that allows me to know this or think this (or gnow this if you're going to be picky) and such examination leads to ideas of consciousness or mind or spirit as a self-luminous awareness. Then after that its a matter of reconciling, unifying or 'not-twoing' the spirit/substance, void/consciousness, appearance/emptiness apparent duality. Simple as that ...

We could argue about that!

Just to say still enjoying the flowers

I think this is an important issue. Milarepa seemed to need to move to a higher cave (i.e. one more remote from people) frequently when involved in deep practices. However for most of us this is not possible. We have to live in proximity with other people. Some places are better than others for practice but I don't think there are any earthly utopias. So the thought of moving on ... well it might be frying pan and fire. There's a saying 'the way through is the way in' ... so usually if you want a situation to change you have to work on what you have now instead of thinking out some other place where everything will be different. I don't think acceptance is the thing. It might be for some but for me I don't see why I should accept jealousy, greed, anger, bullying, stupidity and so on. Why should I? I think its more about seeing everything as part of the 'work'. And generating good will to others even in the face of their behaviour while protecting your own space/freedom. People affect you on a number of levels - not just the obvious social interaction - but also their thoughts and opinions are like a sticky glue which gets attached to you and you have to wash it and burn it out otherwise it will infect your energy. I know this sounds a bit strong but this is what I have found empirically from cultivation/spiritual work ... I would have it otherwise and I wish everyone happiness and enlightenment without reserve but I take people as I find them.

Banana skin is a slippery word ... it means one thing to the banana and another to you.

I can see where this is going so I'm not going to join in except to say if others find her inspring that's well and good for them.

What else is worth discussing?

absolutely!

That's very compassionate of you.

She is a good example of non-understanding sentiment ... her compassion is completely relative.

slice of heart-mind pie or three point one four one six when it's rounded up.

I thought you were keen on goddesses. The owl has an ancient association with wisdom through Athena Greek Goddess of wisdom and Egyptian sign for letter 'm' = the mysteries. It means the wisdom of secret initiation, that about which one keeps silent ... why? because the Sophic wisdom cannot be expressed in words. The small brain is actually an indicator of heart-mind wisdom and not brain knowledge, gnowledge not knowledge in your own terminology I think.

There's snow business like snow business.

Well you've just opened up a whole new area there I think. I wouldn't agree with the idea that jesus dying on the cross was ridiculous and I can only think that those Tibetans had not had the story properly explained to them. Why Jesus died on the cross and in what sense it was done for others ... makes sense in a theistic tradition perhaps. I don't think anyone would quarrel with the idea that helping others is a good thing generally (generally in TBs terminology means sometimes and not mostly ) ... but the purpose of Buddhist compassion and the paramitas (generosity and so on) is to awaken Buddha-nature in your own being ... because the ultimate benefit you can be to others is to be awakened. If you are not awakened but still locked into an ordinary mind then you might be able to give to charity and whatever, but your capacity to genuinely help other beings is limited to the capacity of your confused and unenlightened self. I don't think this idea appears in Christianity - or if it does I have not come across it.

The Christian idea of charity and the Buddhist view of compassion are completely different. Just thought I'd say this cos this thread seems to have decided they are the same thing.

No its not worthless to practice compassion in everyday life ... its not perfect and as they say - the raod to hell is paved with good intentions ... but I agree with you on this.

That's true but it does not mean they are separate. Relative and absolute are in the eye of beholder so to speak. In other words we recognise compassion as existing in the relative world, it is familiar to us, in the same way as a car or a tree is familiar. So in a relative (and correct) way we see an awakened person and say that person is compassionate. What we recognise is what arises from their enlightened mind. The exercise of pure compassion is selfless, spontaneous and real. Everything else is a shadow. Practicing compassion or resolving to arouse compassion/bodhicitta is something else. Its as if we know that we cannot act as a bodhisattva but we are going to wish to and try to. Making mistakes in the respect is not only inevitable but also not a problem provided you apply your mind to what happens. Its the same as if you practice generosity ... if you think you are doing it to help people you will get a shock ... but if you do it to awaken something in yourself which responds to acts of compassion, generosity, patience etc. you will start to learn quite quickly what its all about.

Enjoy the freedom!!!