contrivedname!

good stuff... logical etc. but what of viewpoints that intentionally negate an open principle of paradigm? when someone refuses to not respond in an emotionally attached form... what then, should they be ignored? there are many things to be learned (or perhaps unlearned?) by such displays me thinks there is a basic idea: high creates low, beauty begets ugly, etc. and vice versa. could this same principle be at work here? by creating a form of more acceptable communication on the one hand there is an almost unintentional slighting of communication outside the bounds of the acceptable form on the other. for instance, you noted that a positive aspect of this forum is diversity, as in many folks from different areas and ergo many differing viewpoints, converge, for an opportunity to discuss in such a diverse format. it seems to follow that there would be many diverse forms of communication as well, unless we are speaking of limited diversity here (that is, limited to the enforcement of certain viewpoints, in this case, the of standards of communication). many folks here are interested in 'spiritual' development or whatever you want to call it. to me a large part of this has to do with what you hinted at about attachment to 'this' person, 'this' view, 'this' dualistic subject-object bound mentality. it could be that many are clearing that old drain pipe zhuangzi mentioned. a sutra says that all appearances are illusions (actually i think a lot of them say that). so the appearance of this text is an illusion... wtf? by appearance is meant that which the mind beholds. by illusion is meant that ego preceives figments... ...so what are we typing for again? anyway, you brought up a really important, and good ol' axiom 'walk a day in anothers shoes'; it is indeed helpful if we understand where someones point of view is coming from and what experiences, socialization, etc. have led them to adopt such a paradigm, and therefore, what drives their mode of communication.

yes, i think it is perfectly natural to have fear arise as an emotion. to fixate on any given emotion could be deemed unnatural or at least unhealthy. is fearlessness itself an emotion, or is it simply a lack of fear (ie a lack of that particular emotion)? i guess i just answered your question with another

i may be tempted here to cite all of the talk by chuang tzu about accepting death as part of life (thereby removing the fear), or laotzu speaking of loss and gain as similar conditions; so i just did

What exactly is compassion? that is a tricky question; i feel it is highly subjective. perhaps some folks just need that loving, helping hand type of compassion. but what of those whom feed off of (in the negative sense) these emotions that others project on them, and when these feelings are absent, they fall into a feeling of longing and despair (at not haveing these emotions constantly projected on them)? is it proper to just be "blissbunnies" towards everyone all the time? is a "loving" attitude (not necessarily speaking of intent here) towards all, always a wise course of action? "The sage isnt sentimental he treats the people as straw dogs" so to connect this to say, buddhist ideals, it would be a matter of developing upaya, to properly deal with circumstances and temperments individual to individual, instead of trying to apply a "compassion blanket" over people's precieved short comings, sufferings, etc. that said i feel that true compassion is an aspect of what makes humans sentient beings, or is a product of sentience; you choose

fuck nietzche, i will quote him if i want, who is he to set up dogmatic rules though in actuality that is a good pointe, i believe that he said to a friend (possibly wagner) that one thing he feared was that his name or work would ever be considered 'holy'. his work is very obviously ironic, an example would be the quote i listed above "the vanity of others offends our taste on when it offends our vanity". or the latter quote on condemnations, etc. which is itself condemning the "spiritually limited".

straightforward post, right on. right; when people just say something like 'accept things as they are' as advice they may not be taking into account that what they understand by this may be and probably is different from what someone else will understand by it. you are quite right of course, dont worry be happy doesnt work in the long run. marblehead has some good insight there about feeling your emotion as it arises good, bad, indifferent. when i stopped stuffing my emotions i found i would get angry pretty easily at first which is one of the negative emotions i was stuffing. what i found to be useful would be to contemplate why i was angry, why would something set me off? many times i found that after the emotion had passed or even in the process i would suddenly catch myself and then it would become somewhat funny like "i am pissed about that, damn i am an idiot". after a while i realized that depression and anger, etc. were completely dependent upon me and they should only be attributed to oneself; part of the stuffing, in my experience, has to do with blaming emotions on something external, not identifying them as a part of your mind, but as an outside enemy. in the past i probably read into 'accept things as they are' in a similar way you did. now i would like to think of that as meaning accept things as they are good or bad without fixating on them and thereby not causing yourself perturbation. interesting quote, what exactly does it mean to you? chris

good counterpoints. it does kind of read like commandments with the do nots and nevers

nice, i actually told an friend of mine i was corresponding with in china (a native) that i found nietzche and chuang tzu to be similar. one obvious way is the way zhuangzi uses confucius and nietzche uses zarathustra. and to be quite honest, i have felt like some of nietzche's philosophy is somewhat similar to some buddhist philosophy as well. some good nietzche quotes: "The vanity of others offends our taste only when it offends our vanity" "Once the mind has been made up close your ear even to the strongest counterargument. Sign of a strong character, and thus an occasional will to stupidity" and one i definately think is similar to zhuangzi: "Moral judgements and condemnations constitute the favorite revenge of the spiritually limited against those less limited. Also a sort of compensation for having been ill favored by nature, finally an opportunity for acquiring spirit and becoming refined, malice spiritualized..." cant remember the rest

the problem i could see with this, while rotation would be a good idea if moderators are absolutely necessary (which i dont really know, but i still like hyok's idea) i think it could be problematic to have the previous moderators pick the new because then people could just pick their like-minded friends.

how about: waiting for my coworker to show up so i can go home

yea i really appreciated this when he posted it, though i didnt have much to add Thought it may be good fodder for the newer wave of posters. Edit: Double post; and i see that Mat Black is in here, hopefully he has something to share

heres a good ol' bump

didnt you know 99% of percentages are wrong!

uhh he was a philologist and was very intentional in his use of wording, perhaps to the opposite extreme of what you just stated. nietzche also expounded on "how to philosophize with a hammer"; i dont think he was going for pop philosophy just my take

i'll second that. i was going to initially make something of a joke and suggest that we make goldisheavy a moderator, but hyok is more to the point that i agree with.

uh oh now we have just concepted a 'clear mind'. but to continue to use conceptual language to point at non-conception i will posit that if the mind conceives value of a certain state of mind it is not a 'clear mind'. i believe that a child may be born with an 'empty' mind and then concepts and beliefs are later 'chucked' on them by societial, familial and religious paradigms etc.

i thought cocaine was illegal sorry bad joke

i like the straightforward no bullshit approach that this poem illustrates. i believe that in many regards, the zen tradition did benefit from the samurai influence, though some took it over the top.

touche carson. i believe true anarchy would work... if all people would be accountable for their own actions, and i dont think that is likely to happen anytime soon

i'll agree with that and expand a bit what forms our version of what is? our experiential lens, ie our past experiences influence and dictate how we precieve the present and what we project onto our possible future. by setting up an absolute reality or truth we miss out on being able to flow with the moment. thought to thought most people are sizing up and boxing up the fluid nature of reality into conceptions and labels which, while useful as tools of communication, tend to end up being viewed of as reality as it is rather than an approximation. then when one begins to fixate on these tools it ends in suffering because when the conceptual mind loses its flexibility, reality for that individual takes on a stagnant rigid view as ruled by certain metaphysics, philosophies, dogmas, etc. what about when the mind fixates? this is a perfect opportunity for contemplation. what is the root of your fixation? how is it interconnected with your life and experiences? dont jump to conclusions allow the thoughts to rise and fall in regards to your contemplation. escapism is trying to cut off fixation with concepts; working through it is when you deal with it directly as is with out falling into more conceptualization on the subject. suffering is indeed dependent upon fixation. it would seem dependent on temperments and circumstances of individuals; different folks have differing fixation. not everybody fixates on sex, not everyone on drugs, not everyone on some spiritual trip, not every one on the pain of their cancer, etc. attachment to outcomes requires projection of a possible future which is partially why many buddhist masters encourage people to remain present. attachment to outcomes already past pulls one out of the present situation and for some, will lead to further projections about their existence, ie how they self identify based on past experience. does that say one should cut off all thoughts of past and future? no. the problem with projecting past or future is that many folks fixate and when things happen differently than expected they suffer or they perpetuate their own suffering through attachment to past 'wrongs' done to them, loved ones or things lost, etc. this is all my take of course based on my experiential lens @ Blasto - The only system? what about stoicism?, that system seems pretty concerned with the cessation of suffering. chris

i have wanted to discuss this piece of zen literature at this forum for a while. i am bit strapped for time right now as i am at work, so i was hoping someone else would start (plus i dont really like leading off topics, though this is something i would really enjoy discussing). Chris

thanks for posting it mikaelz.

Thanks for sharing gold interesting indeed. Vajra- some of the practice put forth there would seem to be in contradiction with some of what you say, at least to my perception. for example you talk a lot about liberation and buddhadharma is the only path to liberation, etc. but the text reads: "We should realise that meditation transcends effort, practice, aims, goals and the duality of liberation and non-liberation" "The everyday practice of dzogchen is just everyday life itself. Since the undeveloped state does not exist, there is no need to behave in any special way or attempt to attain anything above and beyond what you actually are. There should be no feeling of striving to reach some "amazing goal" or "advanced state." To strive for such a state is a neurosis which only conditions us and serves to obstruct the free flow of Mind. We should also avoid thinking of ourselves as worthless persons - we are naturally free and unconditioned. We are intrinsically enlightened and lack nothing." maybe i have misunderstood you? or did i perceive correct? cheers

personally i find findleys posts quite entertaining, though many tell him to mellow out and the like. i really get the impression that he isnt being completely serious when he goes off with shit like YOU FOOLS BLAH BLAH BLAH ETC ETC. perhaps he is trying to evoke a response? isnt there the chinese saying something like the best medicine is the most bitter and of course the zen saying if it offends the ear it is certainly frank advice, but i guess in spite of this timeworn wisdom we should all just be nice little care bears? of course one could overdo this and just become insulting for insults sake. on the much discussed topic of uses of "drugs" for realization(s) i will simply say that since you feel something is poisonous to you or deludes you, what is the root of that feeling/thought? always was a fan of lucretius' quote: "what may be poison to one may be food to another" i think people put too much emphasis on the aid or detriment that these substances may have on ones precious "spiritual development", if someone else thinks they it helps them, why should it matter to yours?