C T

Ascetics (i have met a few and read of a few more) do not set out to become physically weaker. Most of those who are authentically and exceptionally austere have not much care for the physical body anyhow. And yet they seemed well looked after by both the public and benefactors. The sadhus in India and some of the yogins of the Himalayan regions are prime examples of those who have not a care or concern for the physical body, and yet, the authentic ones conduct themselves in a manner as if they have tasted something far richer than what this physical plane can offer, and have therefore abandoned the norms you and I see as important. They simply scoff and carry on, blissfully, on their merry way.

Sure, physically anyway. Jesus embodied the whole woundability thing, didn't he?

I think if one takes some time to study the lives of ascetics from the various spiritual traditions, it becomes clear (to me at least) that they intentionally practice being vulnerable to the point of total surrender to grace or mother nature or higher blessings, many labels, but essentially abandoning self to a spiritual force that they know for certain is worth much much more than anything that is available on the physical realm, which we already know is full of unsatisfactoriness due to the transient nature of whats here. It is not necessarily a negative state of being, and when approached correctly, definitely transcends emotional and psychological planes. Somewhere in the teachings of Jesus it was mentioned that unless followers become like little children it will be difficult, even impossible, to enter God's kingdom. To me, this phrase speaks directly to the power of becoming or allowing for utter vulnerability. From the viewpoint of Christianity and the blessing of Grace, it would seem that should one be so fortunate as to meet that experience, one does not get to choose acceptance or rejection. When it descends, it shakes a person to the core. There is no hiding place - best not to fight it and simply surrender, or the consequences could be dire. If this is not vulnerability in its purest form, i dont know what is.

Perhaps vulnerability comes in soft or hard packaging. Nature has her own design in protecting the most vulnerable... with a caveat - almost always, barring mishaps. The problem could very well be one of indecision or the inability to go all the way, to step over the edge, so to speak. There is usually hard fear associated with thoughts of dire consequences in completely letting be. After all, most people are self-programmed to do. Soft-type vulnerability demands to-be-as-is more than to-do-and-become. my 3 rup33s

The Correct Negation of 'Self.' Today when we talk about the Buddha’s teaching of selflessness or the not-self or Shunyata, people mostly cannot comprehend the real connotations of these teachings. And they always fall into the error of negating the relative self. When you speak of selflessness, they take it to mean that they are completely devoid of self, that self does not exist at all. It is only in Buddhism and in some non-Buddhist Indian traditions that the Truth is classified into two levels: the Ultimate Truth and the Relative Truth. And these two need to be understood at their respective levels. They are two sides of one coin, yet they differ vastly. The key point is that, if you deny the relative truth, then you cannot realise Shunyata, but will fall into nihilism instead: the negation of everything. The Buddha does not negate the relative existence of anything, but teaches that whatever exists in the relative or conventional sense, exists interdependently and the common-sense of the interdependent nature of things cannot be denied by anyone. It is truth; it is a fact. Things do not exist as we view them in this moment, we who do not realise the true nature of existence. The ordinary person views phenomena as existing by their own nature, complete and independent in themselves. They impute the quality of inherent existence to these phenomena, as they do to the self. But the fact is that relative phenomena, including the self, exist in interdependence on each other and on a myriad bases. This quality of interdependence does not imply that relative phenomena simply do not exist at all, but only that their existence is not inherent to themselves. In simple terms, if you remove the interdependent factors of which phenomena consist, the phenomena themselves would disappear because they have no inherent existence of their own, or from their own side. So unless you clearly recognise what is to be negated and what is to be affirmed, there is every chance of descending into nihilism. In this case, what is to be negated is the notion that relative phenomena exist absolutely. On the other hand, it is equally important to affirm that they exist relatively or conventionally. It is important to take care and be very cautious about this; that you should not negate the relative existence of self. But the self which we conceive of now as an absolute entity having independent existence from its own side is to be negated. So, unless you very profoundly see how you conceive yourself, you will fall into the error, either of absolutism or of nihilism. But if your understanding of self is profound, then you can very easily negate the notion of an inherently-existent “I,” and that negation is Shunyata. The simple negation of inherent or independent existence is Shunyata. The way we conceive of self, the way we conceive of phenomena, need to be very precisely and clearly recognised. Then you will realise that it is completely different from the real nature of the existence of self. So, it is quite a difficult process of analysis. But unless and until you realise what is to be negated, it is very dangerous to negate anything. You might negate the whole thing, and then you would fall down into nihilism. This is not easy to verbalise; but through meditation, through observation, you will realise how you conceive the self. It is not yourself which you negate, but that self of which you have formed a conception: that conception is to be negated. At this moment, if somebody calls you or addresses you, you immediately conceive a self which is almost identical with body, mind, and speech: the gross combination. But you never conceive of self as something very subtle or very different than your conception of it. Somebody hits you, and you feel that he has hit you, he abused you, he oppressed you: and at that time your conception of “I” is so gross, so monolithic, and so singular. There is the perception of the singularity of “I” which comes forward—a sense of the singular existence of “I,” and that is a misconception, and that misconception is to be negated. After negating that mode of existence, then you will automatically understand the transitory and interdependent existence of the relative self — and when you realise the relativity of self, it will cease to create attachment or hatred — and it will see, since it is in the right view of self-existence, and it will automatically give you the right view of the existence of others, and then compassion arising from that profound understanding of the equality of all beings will come out naturally. So, the negation is not negation of the relatively existent self, but the negation is the negation of how we view ourselves right now. That view is to be negated. In the Canon and in the teachings the self as a whole, as an entity per se, is negated — but at that time the teacher is addressing you directly, attacking, as it were, the way you perceive yourself. It is a method for finding that which indeed is to be negated. So it sometimes seems as though the teachings are negating the total relative self. But we need to separate the teaching technique from the object which it seeks to accomplish. We need to separate these two and identify the object which is to be negated. Only then can the reality of selflessness be real. ~ Lobsang Tenzin ~

polarity glows in the quiet light of dusk a firefly hums

neti neti

No Time to Waste "This precious human body, supreme instrument though it is for the attainment of enlightenment, is itself a transient phenomenon. No one knows when, or how, death will come. Bubbles form on the surface of the water, but the next instant they are gone, they do not stay. It is just the same with this precious human body we have managed to find. We take all the time in the world before engaging in the practice, but who knows when this life of ours will simply cease to be? " ~ Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, A City of Dreams

How Rigpa is the Three Kāyas? "Remaining genuinely is the Dharmakāya, Accompanying awareness is the Sambhogakāya, Stillness and movement, non-dual, is the Nirmāṇakāya. This is what we call the “Three-Kāya Rigpa.” Commentary: The first line refers to remaining genuinely in the uncontrived wisdom mind of primordial purity, in which phenomena dissolve, the natural state of the ground, beyond confinement and liberation. When this 'ordinary' state of awareness is recognized just as it is, without 'changing its form' or 'altering its colour', then, as it is untainted by apparent objects externally and unspoilt by the clinging mind within, that is direct realization of the wisdom of Dharmakāya, Rigpa-Emptiness. The fact that the spontaneous radiance, which is unceasing and the ground out of which saṃsāra and nirvāṇa unfold, is not blocked, but arises, while we are aware of it, is what we call the Sambhogakāya. Even though the expressive power (rtsal) of compassionate energy arises as objects, if thoughts vanish without trace, so that there is no opportunity for habitual tendencies to form, and arising and liberation occur simultaneously, then we come to master the great wisdom in which there is no division between stillness and movement. The ceaseless arising of the display from the king-like Dharmakāya beyond transference is said to be the Nirmāṇakāya. The “three-kāya rigpa” is what we call the inseparability of these qualities. How this is spontaneously present? "While remaining at ease, there's no clinging to experience. Vivid movements of mind are freed, ungraspable. Liberated in vivid clarity, there's no post-meditative state of mind. This is what we call the “spontaneously present three kāyas.” Commentary: When the mind's 'knot' of dualistic grasping is released and undone the essence of the primordially pure ground is beyond labelling or identification. It is unfathomable by the conceptual mind and inexpressible by words. It is beyond any objective reference that could be described, and the one who might describe it is no longer present. Even if one were to remain in this experience of all-penetrating, unimpeded dharmakāya, the wisdom that is beyond the limiting confines of hope and fear, uninterruptedly day and night, still it would not feature the slightest thought of attachment to itself. (Commentary on two Vajra Verses on the Natural State from JIGME LINGPA by Yukhok Chatralwa Chöying Rangdrol) late edit to add a missing 'm'

This mind, through endless kalpas without beginning, has never varied. It has never lived or died, appeared or disappeared, increased or decreased. It's not pure or impure, good or evil, past or future. It's not true or false. It's not male or female. It doesn't appear as a monk or a layman, an elder or a novice, a sage or a fool, a buddha or a mortal. It strives for no realization and suffers no karma. It has no strength or form. It's like space. You can't possess it and you can't lose it. Its movements can't be blocked by mountains, rivers, or rock walls… No karma can restrain this real body. But this mind is subtle and hard to see. It's not the same as the sensual mind. Everyone wants to see this mind, and those who move their hands and feet by its light are as many as the grains of sand along the Ganges, but when you ask them, they can't explain it. It's theirs to use. Why don't they see it? Only the wise know this mind, this mind called dharma-nature, this mind called liberation. Neither life nor death can restrain this mind. Nothing can. It's also called the Unstoppable Tathagata, the Incomprehensible, the Sacred Self, the Immortal, the Great Sage. Its names vary but not its essence. ~ Bodhidharma ~

dripping tears of light birds of paradise in flight euphoria in pairs

Reality and a model of reality is not the same. Reality does not evolve - What seems to evolve are the ever-recurring limits of our senses superimposed on it and a natural intelligence peculiar to our species that gnaws and gnaws and create some kind of false sense of evolvement, thus making a person, mostly unknowingly, do things either all the time or some of the time, out of desperation, craving and an almost maniacal and incessant dissatisfaction with what is. The deprivation is already present due to habituated and reflexive tendencies which remain mostly unnoticeable or simply ignored, shunned or humoured at under different guises motivated by a thousand different needs. Sense information is also filtered from/through these tendencies, and are therefore limited in terms of scope and reliability so whatever little that remains cannot therefore be anywhere near true. Out of habit we unknowingly choose to take for granted most of the mundane stuff happening here and now, to the extent that we are far removed from reality but not so far removed from thinking we know what it is when pondering over it. So in fact we don't really have to wilfully act to deprive ourselves of anything - our lack of spontaneous presence already equates to being deprived. See above please

Maybe the error lies in the ill-conceived notion that reality is something other than what it is, and because of habitual tendencies, maybe the 'what is' seems too ordinary to be special, and that is why, in looking for something other than what is, the potential and subsequent force or energy which propels from that potential creates a distorted reality, and it becomes like a merry go round which never stops. The distortion i mean. Just like some people say meditation of the breath means to observe the breath. What does observation of the breath entail? Certainly self-criticism is not necessary in the observation of how the breath flows in and out, and in and out. So we want to know what is involved in the simple process above. If we can do this, then we will have understood at least some of the fundamentals of error-free observation.

The conceptual mind, constrained by conditioned frames of conventional or common reference, can only ever see a self-selected version of reality.

Aside from the speaker alluding to ETs and making some speculative statements, the overall information is pretty good.

I I I I nothing substantial yet so full of animation

http://fpmt.org/death

It must have been perfect for him if he found what he set out to find, but does that mean its perfect for someone else to follow the exact means and methods? Im not so sure. to have a good approach all ready for the big 'landing' we need to practice 'dying' each moment, and actually we are dying each moment, except this is mostly ignored or taken for granted by most hence why concentrative power, mindfulness and insight are quite important. These help to 'blend' life into death so that we can become familiar with death before actually dying Is self-enquiry alone enough? For some it is, for others not. Karma and potential varies in all beings, so no one method is universally understood the same way. This is the unequivocal truth that applies to all 'practices' and 'methods'. I think.

actually its a person's state of mind at death that matters more than anything else... while alive just because one has conquered ego does not mean one has captured the wisdom of discrimination and conquered confusion and bewilderment.

Five Ways to Rest the Mind in Meditation Rest in a natural way like a small child Rest like an ocean without waves Rest within clarity, like a candle flame Rest without self-concern like a human corpse Rest unmoving like a mountain ~ Milarepa ~

Did we or did we not have a 'What made you laugh today' thread somewhere? Where did it vanish to? Anyways, here's something my brother shared with me yesterday and which i thought was pretty hilarious. Here goes.... After getting all of Pope Benedict's luggage loaded into the limo (mind you, the Pope never travels light), the chauffeur notices His Excellency is still standing on the curb. "Excuse me, Your Holiness," says the chauffeur, "Could you please take your seat so we can leave now?" "Well, to tell you the truth," says the Pope, "they never let me drive at the Vatican when i was cardinal, and I'd really love to drive today." "I'm sorry, Your Holiness, but I cannot let you do that. I'd lose my job! What if something should happen?", protests the driver, wishing he'd never gone to work that morning. "Who's going to tell?", asks the Pope, his eyes twinkling. With great foreboding, the driver gets in the back as the Pope gets in behind the wheel. The poor driver quickly regrets his decision when, after exiting the airport, the Pontiff floors the super-charged limo, accelerating furiously, taking the car over 150 mph in a matter of seconds! (Remember, His Excellency is German....) "Please, please slow down, Your Holiness!", pleads the worried man, but the Pope keeps the pedal to the metal until the fast-approaching sounds of wailing sirens broke the excitement somewhat. "Oh dear God, I'm going to lose my license, my job, and going to jail for sure," bemoaned the fear-riddled chauffeur. The Pope pulls over leisurely, clicks the auto button to roll the window down as the cop approaches. The cop takes one look, and briskly walks back to his patrol bike and gets on the radio. "I need to speak to the Chief now," he says rather animatedly to the dispatcher. The Chief gets on the radio and the cop tells him that he's just stopped a limo going at more than 150 mph. "So bust him," says the Chief. "I don't think we want to do that, he's really important." "All the more reason," exclaimed the impatient Chief. "No, i mean, really really important," said the traffic cop with a bit of persistence in his voice. "Who do you have there, the mayor?" Cop: "Bigger." Chief: "A senator?" Cop: "Bigger." Chief: "The Minister of Transport?" Cop: "Bigger." Chief: "Don't bloody tell me its the Prime Minister?" Cop: "Bigger even." "Well," said the Chief, "who the hell is it?" Cop: "I think its God!" The Chief becomes completely baffled, and asks, "What makes you think its God?" Cop: "Because His chauffeur is the Pope!!" Give me a sense of humour, Lord. Give me the grace to see a joke, to extract a 'lighter' view from the things happening around us, and then, to derive joy from passing it on to other folks.

A quick lesson on minding my own business I was walking past a mental hospital the other day... As I passed the high fences, there was a lot of din and shouts of 13... 13... 13! Since the fencing was too high there was no chance of looking over it, but then i chanced upon a gap between the wooden planks. Overcame with curiosity, I decided to have a little peep to see what all the din was about. Suddenly I felt a sharp pain and immediately reeled back, realising that I had been poked in the eye with a stick. Just as the shock and pain began to turn to annoyance, concerted voices began chanting 14... 14... 14..... (copied from a fb post)

It is the radical transience of the world that makes it both tragic and beautiful, like the cherry blossom in Japanese aesthetics. The tragedy is that nothing actually exists; it is all passing away the instant it forms. The beauty is that we have the means to be aware of this, a moment to know the profound poignancy of this tiny corner of reality. ~ Andrew Olendzki

looks like a good movie