C T

There is no joy in struggling against what cannot be changed, yet, its a very common practice. This is the root cause of misery, not the actual, temporary unsatisfactoriness of a particular circumstance or event. For years, i hated to be caught in queues. It was my biggest issue. I would grumble, mutter stupid things, blame the cashier, the customers, anything i could think of that made my utter contempt justifiable. With every queue, another layer of ignorance gets compounded, and on and on. Then, after being taught a practice to take in other people's misery, i began to try doing that each time i got stuck in queues, and after doing that for quite a few weeks, all the layers of ignorance simply dissolved. Now, its just a breeze, and also, not only has queues become tolerable, it actually helps to further my practice. From poison to nectar -- magical alchemy.

In Vajrayana, the term 'perfection' is very much related to 'aspiration'. For example, Milarepa... for many years, he led the life of a scoundrel. He was a black magician, enraged, vengeful and filled with dark thoughts. At some point, he began to realise that some aspect of his life was torturous more to himself than to those he was harming, and aspired to walk the path of the Dharma. While Milarepa may not be perfect even after the realisation, that noble aspiration was nonetheless faultless. No, he did not become enlightened immediately after the fact (of realisation), but thats not what perfection means, in this context. Therefore, even the smallest, flickering wish generated with sincerity, that is centred on wanting others to be happy and free from sorrow, and eventually followed on with altruistic action, is said to be without any stain, faultless, and perfect. The generation aspect is tied to wisdom, because one sees/realises that others as equally deserving of good things just like oneself, so this disarms all the arrogance, fear, anger and aggressiveness from the inside out, and then, when followed by altruistic action resulting from that realisation, compassion is activated. This is the ultimate perfection within the context of the Mahayana path, and really, its not that difficult to put into practice, because the noble path towards cultivating such a practice is indeed without fault.

Your intentions are very much appreciated, Ms Zambori. Thank you for making it clear what they are. There are overwhelming evidence of women being given the short end of the stick in a lot of matters surrounding their status in society. I agree that women's rights have to be given a voice in any setting, but do you agree there is such a thing as appropriate and inappropriate approach to raise such a voice? The reason im asking is based on my own observation of women's behaviour in the workplace and also out of it, and i have noticed time and time again that some strong, feministic women are superbly skilled in negotiating cooperation among peers and colleagues. These individuals know when and how to use their natural gifts to eke out the best possible leverage to get a job done, to close a sale maybe, and all this without the men having the slightest clue the hidden conviction well in check behind the face. To the keen observer, it can even be said that some of these women are cold, ruthless and immensely intelligent, they have to be in order to always remain one step ahead of their male counterparts. What is quite amazing, i have found, is that these same women were/are extremely mindful to leave their persona tucked away safely in the bottom drawer of their desks as the work day ends. At home, they naturally adopt the role of doting mother, the loving, supportive wife/partner, the strong heart that observes and listens with patience and understanding to family issues, and last but not least, become an equal giver and taker in the love arts. Many times, i have also observed these women happen to have very maternally stable, caring, non-aggressive mothers who somehow unconsciously transfer certain qualities to the children, especially the girl or girls in the nest. In my opinion, what epitomizes a true feminist is their ability to adapt to situations in such a way where the potential of intimidation and inequality are addressed even before these get a chance to rear their heads. It takes a very special set of skills to be able to carry this out, and i feel the majority of those who claim to be feminists have a long way to go in understanding the real meaning of what true feminism represents, and i am saying this because its an observable fact that a lot of so-called feminists are more concerned with making a statement (for one of many eg, retaining underarm hair, and proudly showing it off) than making the effort to develop their natural talents and gifts to the point that they can drop a man, and still get the man to kiss their hand while falling, figuratively speaking. Im only basing these observations on what i have personally observed over a period of about 30 years in the corporate world, many of these spent hopping between East & West. As far the West is concerned, i feel a little disheartened because it seems the women back home (im not a Westerner, btw) fare much better when it comes to getting what they want without having to sacrifice or suppress their charm and natural gifts. On the contrary, some of them have honed these god-given qualities to such an extent that men automatically feel intimidated in their presence, even though there is no apparent reason to justify such a reaction. Your thoughts?

let us sit awhile ponder that man's toothless smile two friends bow, in peace...

You'd be a little surprised how many wives vocalise this to their partners each and every day of their relationship. Even in the husbands' absence, their thoughts will be kind of circling around, preoccupied by the lack of potency of the man of the house (wouldn't go as far as to use the word 'impotency', but that as well). And, from experience, i know that behind every one of these wives, there will be at least a handful of confidants who will lend their support to the 'poor' wife. Am i mistaken here? Its not the fault of feminism so much as a failure in communication, one brought about thru lack of proper education and fundamental appraisals where successful relationship-building is concerned. This basic ignorance needs to be addressed before proper balance can be restored.

Interesting proposition indeed. In your own words, what do you think feminism can do for men? Prior to this, perhaps it would also be meaningful to give some idea what your thoughts are regarding what feminism can do for women, for comparative purposes, so that we may be allowed some insight into your mind in relation to this topic and its prospective course should a respectful, open debate/discussion or exchange were to develop. Looking at past trends, it probably will capture interest, maybe not. Time will tell. I just hope that in the event it does begin to gather momentum, that whoever chooses to participate do so in a spirit of kindness and empathy, and not use this platform as some sort of personal axe-grinder.

Cheers, thanks!

What is the exact purpose of this thread?

He sounds like a thousand other voices who claim to be enlightened. There is such a state as enlightenment, but no 'body' can get there. Its an experience of ongoing awareness, but the moment words enter the fray, the experiences gets frozen and zoned off into the past, which means its history. In full awareness, one loses self-consciousness. Hence, enlightenment being the state of unencumbered awareness, equates to losing the self completely. Which is why there is no 'body' to experience a state labelled 'enlightenment'. A 'body', by virtue of being a 'body', has limitations. In fact, there is only very little potential for gaining complete freedom while in the body, thats why it normally takes many transitional phases to finally attain full realization. Certainly one can use these very limitations to become unbound, but once unbounded, there is no point in re-announcing one's limitations, which is what i think most speakers of enlightenment are doing. Without announcing their limitations disguised as profound methods of achieving enlightenment, the intended audience cannot fully grasp the speaker's or writer's claim of being enlightened. Essentially, what happens is, those who listen or attend to such claims are getting a picture of the speaker's limitations, and not his actual experience of enlightenment, because the actual experience of enlightenment cannot be spoken, as its always happening as a process in the present. But, like anything else, without the dramatic contrast, there is no story to tell. As per human proclivities, there will always be a lucrative market for stories of people's limitations. This makes one's life seem to contain more possibilities for transformation into something divine and totally free, which is a natural yearning of every sentient being. By noticing other people's limits, we get distracted from seeing our own, and makes us forget the mundaneness of existence for a while -- this is one way of explaining delusional thinking.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1086979/Keanu-Reeves-The-billion-dollar-man.html

Lineage is the umbrella term here -- within one lineage there could be any number of 'Pais'.

In Chinese, 'Pai' means clan or sect, if im not mistaken.

I had enquired into this with a teacher before, and he said two of the main reasons for some of these seemingly phantasmagoric tales is to 'test' a student's resolve and reaction, from which a teacher can detect tell-tale signs as to how genuine the student is. One cannot practice guru yoga and at the same time doubt a teacher's words. So, some teachers relate such far-fetched tales (mixed with some truthful ones) to gauge subtle reactive energies from the student(s) to see if they will become easily distracted, or maybe start ridiculing the teacher, or belittling the teachings etc. Secondly, its to help expand the mind, to keep it pliable, so that if death were to occur without warning, where the mind suddenly becomes unrestrained, it will not be subject to confusion and bewilderment, which could lead to rebirth in the lower realms. By inculcating a sort of familiarity with the probable scenarios which will likely take place in the bardos, the student learns to prepare for all sorts of eventualities and not get swayed or tricked by what occurs there during the transitional phase.

That's an example of gross misunderstanding, sorry. Unless you were just saying that in a non-serious way.

A bit off topic, but this is what i wrote back on the 6th of March, 2008 --- "Breath is vital. In fact, it IS vitality itself, and the primary physical link to the potential for liberation. With the first in-breath, we were delivered into the realm of Knowing, and with the release of the last out-breath, we will reunite with the realm of Nondescript. In between this major breath cycle are little engagements with expansion, freedom and death - therefore it is good to learn how to breathe well, and be one with breath. Take not for granted this gift, for it is the gateway to being in the divine presence of now, and can be a valuable lesson in impermanence and letting go of clinging." - - a. Your post was a timely reminder to breathe well. Thank you.

It is not possible actually to experience suffering, because suffering is a conceptual idea, tied to ever-changing habits and conditions. What is experienced are the tendencies and results of these ever-changing habits and conditioning, not suffering itself, because suffering can not be a 'result', implying fruition. Since everything changes, fruition is impossible. What is perceived as a result or a fruit also goes thru changes as it arises. If suffering is a default setting, then it becomes a permanent result, which implies the impossibility of change, yet we see people changing their circumstances all the time, or vice versa. What is probable is the mind wallowing avidly in the concept that 'life is miserable and full of grief', and proceed to live out such a life. Its not my intention to argue with your good self. The purpose of wanting to address this point mainly is to correct some readers' perception that Buddhism promotes the notion that life is suffering. The Tathagatha observed the over-bearing and misdirected dualistic views that was prevalent in people's minds at that time, and concluded that due to the habits of clinging and aversion, unnecessary misery befalls a person. He then set about to devise a set of teachings that can help correct this misperception, and if diligently applied, will lead to the cessation of the delusional view that suffering is an inherent state in beings. While it is very possible we can (and sometimes will) experience a spectrum of miserable conditions, not all of these conditions will result in actual misery all of the time. If it were so, life would be impossible to cope. There are degrees of manifestation of these conditions, which then brings up the question: at which point of noticing a particular unsatisfactory condition can one actually point the finger and say, "There, that is the point where (the notion of) suffering manifests?" Since we are not able to trace the actual source at which our notions of suffering are formed, we can tentatively conclude that this notion is not at all real. It can only be real if the source of suffering is found, and since its clear that everything, including misery, comes about as a process of causes superimposing on conditions, with no single traceable source, by the same token, in reversing the process, misery will be diminished accordingly.

I disagree with the 2nd statement, GMP, if you meant that suffering is inherent.

until they all ultimately return to the still point. Not the end though. Something will start vibrating somehow, and the whole process will begin once again. Perhaps not in this world system. There are other world systems, just as there are different dimensions.

Same with life, eventually all posts are deleted.

Thats basically what Dawei said to CD, apparently it wasn't understood.

I think, sir, the UMB has affected your sharpness a little.

In post 184, Kajenx posits this interesting view -- That the label "emotionless" is stuck onto the absence of internal contraction due to 2 factors, namely, this state is empty of variation, and cannot be expressed. From a Buddhist perspective, such a view is adopted usually by pratyekabuddhas, the lone travellers who attain liberation and leave the mundane world behind. Seen in this light, the points made by Kajenx becomes much clearer and definitely valid. Some practitioners do move beyond this level, but its all down to one's affinity and experiential insights.

That encouragement applies only to middling practitioners more or less, to understand how to calm distractions. Apologies to the OP for veering off-topic.

Clarity The vajra family reflects a blue energy like a crystal-clear mirror. Vajra energy reflects what it sees without bias. When people manifest the wisdom aspect of vajra, they are clear-minded with an intellectual brilliance, sharp and precise. They maintain a perspective and are full of integrity. Vajra also has a self-righteousness that can harden into cold or hot anger. When people manifest the confused quality of vajra, they can be overly analytical, critical, opinionated, authoritarian and demanding of perfection. (extracted from http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1658) The full article is quite clear wrt the Buddhist view of emotional transmutation, the corresponding implications, and also the transcendent qualities. Basically, its not two different emotions, but how its directed which decides outcomes. Hence the saying that samsara and nirvana is fundamentally inseparable. Hope you find it helpful, Jeff! Blessings!!

Thank you, John. _/\_