C T

gazing at a star pondering the M Theory interesting concept...

they ran, like nylons black stockings against pale skin scanty exposé...

It relates more to habits and repetitive unhealthy emotional reactions rather than petty incidences.

Thats so true.

Yes, latent impressions. Very good.

. _/\_ Thank you too. After 18 years, i still miss him, sometimes more so considering the loss my parents had to endure.

You'd do well to heed your doubts.

Unsatisfactoriness is a condition; suffering arise from not being able to overcome the fundamentality of that condition, due to festering dualistic tendencies (grasping/aversion) despite repeated efforts which are incongruent to reality, or seeing things as they are (Skt. Tatatha, or Suchness). This could explain why Buddhist texts repeatedly indicate clearly that the root of suffering is ignorance (of the ultimate inseparability of the dependent co-arising of form & emptiness). This ignorance pervades all of one's efforts, resulting in the cyclical inescapability of the first condition, which is unsatisfactoriness. This perpetuates further and deeper misperceived sense of helplessness and desperation, until such time one gets overtaken by desire, greed and anger. Its all connected, one fuelling the other, and so on. In the context of the Four Noble Truths, both unsatisfactoriness and suffering are admissible & relevant to the subsequent third and fourth Truths, insofar as there is an inclusive embodiment of the truth of cessation (knowledge - 3rd truth) and the path (Wisdom derived from that knowledge -4th truth) which leads to complete cessation. If this understanding is neglected, then the first two Truths, instead of containing the seeds of liberation, suddenly transform into obstacles which yield opposing, negative results. This could explain the lack of clarity and aversion common to reactions around the First Noble Truth.

Im not saying this to snub your post, but is there any chance you meant to say 'past causes'?

Perhaps that is one way to resolve the 'problem'... but there's usually other more cost-effective solutions. By 'costs' im thinking monetary as well as intangible costs, if you know what i mean. Im all for reasonable fees, but seriously, $1,000 per session?? Michael's rate is $75 a go... do the math. In my country, healers with reported consistency don't even have to put up a service price-list. Benefactors line up to repay his or her efforts as a sort of assurance that they retain certain VIP privileges so that their family and close friends can have immediate access to the healer's help when needed.

Yeah, like buzzards having their place in the natural world, that kind of way?

I'd imagine that such an occurrence is directly related to practitioners not fully understanding the purpose of the practice, one, and two, the perceived negative effects is not a direct result of abstinence, rather, they stem from having developed a lifestyle not conducive to initiating such a practice. One needs to understand that abstinence is not a random indulgence. It requires planning, sufficient hind- and foresight, discipline, moral ethics, and most vital of all, to have already put in a place a certain lifestyle that gradually eases one into a mentally-prepared, abstinence-geared phase which, over time, will lengthen proportionate to what one has learnt to sacrifice in terms not only related to semen retention, but the weaning off of unhealthy distractions, thoughts, food consumption, and other mundane dependencies, while at the same time increasing such things as altruistic wishes and activities (lends purpose), developing proficiency in certain meditative absorptions (hones discipline), learning to find joy in solitude (counters boredom), and so on. You get the picture?

is it under pants? or long johns over the head? outlining the ears...

Its always hard when someone close decides to end their life at such a young age. It was at that same age when my younger brother went on a drink binge after breaking up with his girlfriend. Picked up another girl he met in a pub (out of frustration) and together went for a crazy high speed drive. Crashed - he died, and the girl was injured. Such a waste, and so so sad. Life is different after that. But we try to mend somehow... RIP Eric Scanlan.

Anyone heard of hazelnut-flavoured beer? Roasted hazelnut-flavoured vodka?? Beer i haven't, but vodka i have tasted. A Polish chap i know brews his own to sell. Better than any commercial vodka out there.

Thats a ridiculous fee for one session.

This statement is incorrect, but i'll leave it as that, fearing another round of tiring, unproductive to-ing and fro-ing, not to mention the appearance of opportunistic buzzards whenever discussions of this nature were to be convened. While the pursuit of intellectual understanding is part of the Buddhist path, to say that such a pursuit is its mainstay is missing the mark altogether.

Core issue really is the lack of awareness around habitually 'being pissed off', like how it tends to erode some good habits already in place, or not realising how it sometimes leads to new unwholesome habits -- that is the heart of unsatisfactoriness, and not the reaction itself. Its not so much about exercising restraint to reactions (causes a seeping of it into other parts of one's base tendencies); its about being conscious enough to choose a different, more enlightened option when such reactions become self-defeating. Consciousness of the reaction is wisdom -- knowing that one has the option of choosing one's reactions is also wisdom, and then actually acting upon a more noble choice, whenever possible, is compassion.

When does a human brain deeply comprehends values it holds to be absolute? When it finally sees them from an unattached, selfless perspective. As D. T. Suzuki explained, Asian languages had pointed towards suchness for countless centuries. The Japanese used sono-mama. The Chinese employed chih mo, or chih che shih. Much earlier, the Sanskrit term tatatha had become a core notion of Mahayana Buddhism. The word referred to the absolute buddha-nature of all things in the universe. Of course, a word like suchness soon becomes wielded as though it were an abstract concept. Even so, its original "buddha nature" usage still points towards some kind of ultimate principle that human minds imagine must lie beyond all categorical distinctions. Hence, when used in this manner, suchness continued to suggest some basic reality residing behind and beyond the mere appearance of all things (and concepts) which are only temporary phenomena. Gradually, a more explicit phrase entered common English usage: "seeing all things as they really are." Each word in this phrase conveys subtleties of meaning. Together, they point to the profound qualities of the insights in kensho and satori that realize the timeless, immanent, interrelated nature of all things. Suzuki goes on to say, "I hold suchness to be the basis of all religions." If suchness were the basis of all religious experience, then why doesn't everyone know what suchness means? The problem, as Suzuki noted, is that it must be experienced. Suchness defies a clear-cut definition. It gets lost when you present it as an idea. According to Suzuki, "Strictly speaking... any philosophy built on it will be castles in the sand." So, suchness begins beyond reach of ordinary discursive intellect. It is a profound experience of realization, not some thought you can conceive from the armchair. Shunryu Suzuki had these profound words to say about selfless awareness: "Not to be attached to something is to be aware of its absolute value." The above excerpt, taken from the book Zen Brain Reflections, presents the reader with an understanding of how suffering arise when selfless awareness gets overshadowed by attachment, which is both the simultaneous cause and effect of greed, hatred and ignorance, perpetuating (rebirthing) an unending cyclical process (what 3Bob calls the 'Wheel') conditioned by dualistic views that compound every facet of the unawakened life. Experience never errs. Only your judgement errs by promising itself results which your experiments didn't produced. -- Leonardo Da Vinci

huh?

Are you inclined to take what you gather from the media to be factual all the time? I don't. For me, the usual reaction to sensationalistic news would be a maybe/maybe not approach. If i subsequently come across information which can be regarded as trustworthy, then that makes a difference in forming future opinions, otherwise, i'd opt for giving the benefit of the doubt most of the time. You mentioned above that having doubts, for him, is probably very healthy (note: very), yet, that was followed by a contradictory remark. I would like to think that perhaps he gathered the courage to face the actual mindset of his 'flock' in this current time, and being the leader of the Church, could be his way of saying, "Lets not kid ourselves, and beat around the bush." What caused him to make such a statement can only be speculated upon, but it could be one very good attempt, if he can pull it off, to reconcile a particular hypocriticalness (as indicated in GMP's post) that is utterly prevalent right now within his Church. He may already have strategies in place for this reconciliation to take shape before he even made that controversial statement (in the OP). If he didn't, then he is a fool. Even an uneducated guy like me can forward-think a bit, let alone such an educated religionist. I don't know the workings of the CoE enough to say if they have a well-positioned structure for contemplatives and meditators to hone their penchants. To say its totally deprived of such a structure comes across as unlikely. I'm sure there are some church representatives who do keep abreast with current spiritual and religious trends, besides attending to their administrative duties. Some situations naturally draw out the spiritual side -- for example, in the presence of dying and death, and bereavement counselling, which i am sure would commensurate with the positions as church leaders. Of course there will be some who would perform their duties without any real empathy or conviction, but the key point to remember is that ultimately if the grieving families find some solace from the presence of a minister at a difficult time, then at least, one could say a spiritual experience has been concluded, albeit not the kind more evolved 'spiritual experts' would acknowledge as having any substance. But this is missing the point, isn't it? I agree about the motives of the Roman Empire with their unsavoury agendas. I think at that time it was devised as part of a perverted movement to establish greater control and retain the powers already within their grasp. Maybe its for this very reason that history have recorded the utter brilliance of those who went on to become great philosophers, scientists and inventors of that era, against the odds. This goes to show that out of great oppression comes greater individuals who thrived in the face of it, so it is not entirely without merit. Ultimately, i feel strongly that any quest undertaken, be it spiritual or otherwise, boils down to singular effort. What the individual is willing to sacrifice to achieve something. While we can blame the power-hungry lords of the past for the atrocities which you claim have suppressed the sort of opportunity that would have nurtured a more spiritually-enduring legacy, i believe it is still up to the individual to carve his or her own way in, regardless what history has carved out -- after all, spiritual evolution is a sort of personal battle we each must encounter and work upon in order to transcend. Upon reflection, im wondering what the current mindset of the people will be, in relation to religious views, if the Roman Empire had been less oppressive then. I enjoyed reading your reply. Thanks!

Thats a bit harsh. I dont think its our place to make such an observation unless we have evidence to substantiate the observation. Many realised masters possess the often witty knack to be very self-effacing. Im not saying the Archbishop is one, but we never know. For the sake of conjecture, it could well be something that had been tormenting him; by making a sort of public confession could be his way to bring him closer to his God. Its highly likely he would have given much thought to the matter before making such a significant public statement, one which does not take a lot of imagination to see the kind of raising of eyebrows usually associated with such declarations. If his motivation is to be as truthful as possible, then i think he is experiencing his God in that truthfulness. Sure, his critics will gleefully hammer on about the perceived weakness(es) they see in him, but then, critics will always be critics. They will even scrutinise and bad-mouth his choice of socks if they get the right angle going.

or ban Inverness their suspicious sanguineness... whats hidden beneath?