doc benway

PS - I voted over a half hour ago and I still have the option to delete my vote... Ironic, huh?

Thanks for clarifying that. Sorry if I misunderstood you. Your English is fine, probably better than mine.

I just re-read your post and I see that you said yes "I have met such" - so my point is, have those people stopped practicing? Have they stopped looking for even deeper insight or for ways of manifesting that perfect knowing through their actions? Are they perfect humans without any flaw or occasional stumble? I don't think so... I won't speak to legendary and historical folks but those we can touch and see. They're still human. They've awakened and see the true nature of things and they still practice, they are still developing, and stabilizing and finding deeper ways to manifest the truths they've glimpsed until maybe one day they can manifest that truth in every waking moment and every breath. That's my meaning.

No, not at all... Sorry, I meant someone currently alive or recently deceased...

I'm having trouble knowing how to respond here. Can you name anyone that, in your mind, has awakened? Don't mean to put you on the spot and it's not a rhetorical question.

Probably just the permission setting was off when the ppf was set up. Should be an easy fix. I'll admit that this am was the first time I looked at this thread and learned about the issue. Given all of the community support for removing the editing limits, I think that's the way it should be. Cat's right about this being a community first, not a forum designed to force people to post in any particular way. As a former moderator, I don't think that the role was intended to have the authority to make that level of change on the board. Furthermore, I don't think this sort of restriction is in keeping with the original intent of the community. I'm guessing sean was involved in this decision (sorry, I haven't yet taken the time to read all the background), but if popular opinion is that strong against edit restrictions, I would agree with removing them and will vote accordingly.

Assuming you were commenting on my post, I will happily retract the word "real" and simply say "cultivator, as I choose to approach my own life." I already addressed my use of the word force. Edited to add - please accept my humble apology for any offense taken as it was not intended.

In keeping with what I said above, I want to acknowledge that the way I closed my first post was a bit of a challenge to cat. I'd like to retract that last question. No need for that. The other thing that occurs to me is that when the edit function is unlimited, we can sort of watch the relationships (the Dao, if you will) sort of play out in a natural, unimpeded manner - Ziran. But when I think about it further, it is not what happens in our lives. When I say something mean to someone, there is memory. Memory isn't perfect and it fades with time, but the effects of our actions don't vanish like our memory. And they affect our relationship forever. And life is relationship. Same if I say something nice. So whatever choices we make are captured forever in our karma, whether you like that particular word or not. I don't get a chance to edit after I've spoken and acted in my life, only a chance to explain and, if it's worth the effort to me, anticipate. So editing things on a board makes the board look neat and tidy while the feelings and relationships in the people sitting behind the keyboards is a different thing altogether. So for my selfish purposes, I like the editing restrictions. Whereas I recognize that we all should have the opportunity to choose for ourselves. That's why I still haven't voted!

Excellent question RV! No reason to force anything - cultivation needs to be a choice. Perhaps it would be better to substitute "given the opportunity" everywhere I wrote force. The reason I used the word force (aside from the fact that I wasn't really thinking about it that much) is that we have developed a sort of inertia with respect to our normal interaction with others. It is so deeply conditioned in us that it can carry us from birth to death without us ever being aware of what we are doing and what effects we are having on ourselves and others. In order to deflect this inertia, one really needs enormous energy, as Jiddu Krishnamurti used to put it. We need to have the diligence and commitment to pay attention to the smallest details and the subtlest patterns. Otherwise, the inertia will just carry us along. So while "force" has negative connotations, I do think it is something that requires deep dissatisfaction with our current patterns to manifest enough energy to make lasting and meaningful change. Thanks for calling me on that - but I'm not going to edit the original!!

It seems that in this post you are making a goal out of awakening and looking at it as an end game... Phenomenon are empty, samsara and nirvana are empty... And yet we still live in the world, we still get distracted, we are human. The path goes on for our lifetime - there is always room for calmness, even-ness, and insight.

differences baaa-nished The Tao Bums come together Commune... ication

I'm not sure that I agree that locking out the editing function after a finite time period is a restriction over person freedoms but allowing unlimited editing without a time frame does seem to be absolving people of accountability. Each of us has complete and utter freedom to post anything we want, anything at all. If it violates the TOS, it may result in consequences, including removal. Otherwise, anything goes. The question really is, am I willing to stand behind what I posted and take responsibility for it? To be honest, I don't know what we currently have in place. Assuming we have an editing time restriction currently, we are still completely free to change our post by simply quoting the original and then adding the edit below it, with or without an explanation. It may be cumbersome and take up extra space but it does maintain the integrity of the original post, for better or worse, and then shows how the author has altered the original post and why. So to answer your question, as a spiritual practitioner, I think that it would be better for all participants to HAVE a time restriction in place for editing. In this way we are forced to live with our choices, we are forced to recognize that our posts have consequences - both good and bad, and if we are really open to trying to better ourselves, editing limits are clearly preferable. They force us to look at what we do with complete transparency and accountability. THAT is much more valuable for our spiritual growth than any of the words or images posted on this forum, no matter what the subject matter. I have a very close friend and training partner who is a very unique human being. He is the most direct and transparent person I've ever met. He challenges everything I say. He has an uncanny memory. Having a relationship with him can be extremely demanding. It is like looking in a very accurate and unforgiving mirror. He has very few friends and he has been the greatest external support and stimulation for spiritual transformation I've ever encountered. I'm deeply blessed to have him in my life. On the other hand, as a regular person, not necessarily interested in complete transparency and personal accountability, having the freedom to edit posts at any time in the future would be my preference. In this way, I don't have to be embarrassed when I make an asinine post (which isn't that infrequent...). I can correct something before others know I made a blunder (also pretty common). I can get away with making jabs at other members but making a quick edit (relatively rare). I can post emotionally and then have the opportunity to cool off and change it (rare). I can fine tune things to make myself look smarter or more insightful (I take the 5th) or to genuinely try to provide better information to others. This is much easier, cleaner, and more comfortable but I don't think it challenges anyone to be a better person. It doesn't force us to look harshly and deeply at ourselves. And please don't misunderstand me here. I'm not making judgements (although as I read this, it does sound that way) or trying to push my preference on anyone else. I would personally prefer a forum where everything is etched in stone. No take backs. That is a format in which I think I will be able to actually refine myself in how I interact with other members. Not everyone wants this sort of restriction and burden and I don't feel that it's my role to impose that on anyone. So, the way I see it, editing restrictions will make the forum more suitable for those who want to challenge themselves to interact at a more transparent and accountable level. This would be a forum for real cultivators! No restrictions works better for all comers. That way, those of us who want to be more demanding on ourselves are free to do so and those of us who don't want that burden don't have to bother. So I'll throw the question back at ya - which type of forum do you prefer?

distinctly happy but stick around for a bit, I know it will pass...

On the one hand, I think the editing limit is a good way to encourage people to think before they post. Emotional and knee-jerk responses aren't generally very skillful and often push discussions in a negative direction. On the other hand, I also favor freedom to post and edit as desired... Consequently, I'm not going to vote because I'd have to vote both.

Reaching a conclusion is pre-determining your fate. It tends to close us off and opportunity sails on by without us every noticing... Answers are dead, they kill the opportunity for discovery and deeper understanding. Only questions are full of life and possibility. Much better to just simply allow there to be the open question - is there such a thing as love? And then let life answer it for you over time. Just my perspective, take it or leave it. It has worked well for me in recent years.

Some masters have expressed the opinion that the precious teachings they steward are at risk for degrading and ultimately dying out, particularly in light of what happened and is ongoing in Tibet (namely Tenzin Wangyal, Khenpo Gangshar, and Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche). I've also read that some are of the opinion that the modern world today is in desperate need of the teachings and that mass communication is a satisfactory vehicle to reach as many people as possible whose karma has brought them to a place where they may receive the teachings (TWR). Clearly, those who do mass transmissions, such as Namkhai Norbu and Tenzin Wangyal, must believe that they are able to be effective with this approach. A few quotes from Namkhai Norbu that give clues, perhaps: From his website - “When I left Tibet and settled in the West, I realised that the Dzogchen Teaching was a vast body of knowledge that could help us live our condition, as human beings, better, beyond any cultural context, allowing for a “natural” spiritual and social evolution.” In "Dzogchen Teachings" there are also some clues in the Introduction that I think point to his motivation and teaching approach. You can read some of the intro here. There are probably other reasons. Hopefully others have deeper insight.

My pleasure, glad I could help. Stosh and dawei have both hit on something here that has to do with how we look at the world. We are designed with a specific sensory apparatus that permits and encourages us to divide the world around us up into neat little bits and pieces so that it's more approachable to our little minds. Our thought patterns are then expert at labeling these bits and pieces and filing that information away so that we don't have to continually re-evaluate everything we encounter. So we know what is good to eat, what might try to eat us, where we can sleep, who has a disease we should avoid, and so on... without having to eat something poisonous twice. All of this is useful but also very limiting from a spiritual perspective. So another message I may be reading into this section is that we have an opportunity to transcend that tendency to divide and label, the very meaning of definition. Rather than divide up and slap labels on the natural world, we can open ourselves up to it. We can look at it with fresh eyes, like a child, in every instant. If we do that, we open ourselves to infinite possibilities. The gourd suddenly becomes a shovel, or a knee pad, or a bassinet. If we slap a label on it - oh, that's a calabash, I remember from last month that it's no good for carrying water, smash... next...., we kill any possibility for deeper understanding and creativity. I think one of the most fundamental messages in all of Daoism is that we need to let go of our labels, our philosophy, our preconceptions, and expectations. We need to stand naked on our own two feet and look at ourselves and our surroundings with fresh eyes every moment. This is the way I was taught to approach Daoist meditation. I was given basic instructions in each technique and never given any idea of what to expect to occur. I was even told to never discuss my experiences with our students (in the beginning, at least) and I was on my own. It takes a very long time to grow in this way. There are enormous insecurities and uncertainties. But when insights come, they are absolutely real and no amount of reading or debating makes any difference or can replace that direct knowledge. Anyway - maybe I'm off on a tangent and reading my own bias into Zhuangzi (as rene is so good at pointing out to me) but that's what flew through my head just now. Peace

one last, sweet tango... the gentle fragrance of her lingers on my tongue

Excellent thread DAO rain TAO. Really glad you posted this. It's a topic that's been close to my heart for some time now so please forgive the long post. I work pretty hard on this in myself. I still fall on my face quite often but it's getting better. In Buddhism, the teachings regarding compassion are very explicit and central to the view and many practices. It seems to be recognized that to actually achieve the level of understanding where true compassion, bodhicitta, naturally arises may be very difficult and a long process (and very easy and quick for a few, fortunate folks). For most people, I suspect it takes a very long time to get there and many never make it. While waiting and working towards that state, one opportunity we have is to begin to practice acts of kindness and generosity. First, it may help us to achieve the awakened state simply because compassion is our natural state and practicing it will allow us to come closer and closer with less and less effort. Second, it will have a positive influence on our karmic make up (acts of kindness and generosity tend to germinate more of the same). And third, it will generally be beneficial to those we come in contact with and foster their health, well being, and growth. Daoism contains much less explicit teachings about compassion. Sure, we can find a quote here and there, but it is much more subtle. I don't fully understand why that is. Perhaps it's an idiosyncrasy related to Chinese culture and values, and perhaps something altogether different. I agree with MH and Apech, that real compassion is that which flows naturally from the core of our being once we awaken to our natural state. Once it is felt it is like a bell that can't be un-rung (to quote my friend Rene), although it still requires practice and diligence to keep it alive in our daily lives until such time as it becomes effortless. I think there are very few of us who ever reach that point in life. Daoist cultivation also has the potential to lead us to this type of awakening but, as mentioned above, it is a long path and there is no guarantee for success. I agree with MH that practicing compassion is different from being a conduit for the natural flow of true compassion. There is a selfishness to intentionally compassionate acts. I love Anthony Demello's take on this. Here is an excerpt from his book "Awareness": "Charity is really self-interest masquerading under the form of altruism. You say that it is very difficult to accept that there may be times when you are not honest to goodness really trying to be loving or trustful. Let me simplify it. Let's make it as simple as possible. Let's even make it as blunt and extreme as possible, at least to begin with. There are two types of selfishness. The first type is the one where I give myself the pleasure of pleasing myself. That's what we generally call self-centeredness. The second is when I give myself the pleasure of pleasing others. That would be a more refined kind of selfishness." He later goes on to add a third type of selfishness - when I do something to avoid feeling guilty. He describes this as the least desirable motivation for action. Nevertheless, until we come to a place where we see our true nature and feel the unmistakable truth deep in the core of our being that guides us to a natural display of real compassion, what are we to do? Simply ignore the opportunity to offer those around us love, support, kindness, generosity, and sincerity, because there is some degree of self interest at the root of it? Or make the extra effort to actually try and emulate our ideal for true compassion while waiting for the real thing to show up? I'll tell you something - the person on the receiving end of our kindness and generosity won't be too concerned with your motivation and you might just find that the difference between contrived compassion and true bodhicitta gets smaller and smaller over time until you can't tell the difference. While I acknowledge that selfish compassion can also be misguided and therefore even harmful (Stuart Wilde has some interesting things to say on this topic), I've found that actually making an effort to practice compassionate acts has been very rewarding for me. And the more you try, the easier it gets, and the less your motivation is even relevant. It's kind of like sex - the true meaning of sex between two animals of opposite gender seems to be primarily related to reproduction and yet it's a wonderful thing to just practice when we're not quite ready for the real thing. (And please - this is not in any way meant to be a slam to homosexuality, I'm just making a point) Peace ... and happy new year to my Jewish friends.

Nice story roger and thanks for sharing it. I don't feel there was any pride or self-aggrandizement in your post.

Sorry, my post was sort of senseless, let me clarify. This doesn't read clearly in English: "This calabash is not because it is not big enough but it was useless. Therefore, I knocked them to pieces." I would suggest something like: It's not that the gourd wasn't big enough, but because I have no use for it, I smashed it to pieces. Calabash is an archaic term that most folks wouldn't get right away in English. I think your meaning is correct, it's just not grammatically correct in translation.

May I assist your English translation? "This calabash is not because it is not big enough but it was useless." This doesn't make grammatical sense in English. Perhaps something like - And because I have no use for it, I destroyed it. or And because I have no use for it, I smashed it to pieces.

So true, but then he would be trading his integrity for notoriety and my guess is that you would look less favorably on him as a teacher! It's nice to hear that your teacher is an honest guy - you're fortunate.

I'm the troll... No worries - if you leave me be, you won't need to ever interact with me again. I sincerely wish you well.

Have you ever thought about our need to label people and things? It really is just a defense mechanism. Our delusional self puts a label on something or someone and convinces itself that it now understands that thing or person, whether it be threat, food source, ally, foe, whatever. But the label is always inaccurate and kills any further opportunity for deeper understanding. But there I go trying to be helpful again, sorry. You're not being honest with yourself. Some part of you cares or else why would you spend so much of your precious time commenting on them? Actually, believe it or not, I am actively practicing by participating in this conversation from a place of stillness, silence, and spaciousness. Trying to allow any emotions and thoughts to simply arise, be there, run their course, and naturally dissolve into that spaciousness. It's an absolutely wonderful practice. I use it as much as possible in my interactions with people and situations lately and it's been very effective.