C T

you cant give your life more ~ time ~ so give the time you have left more ~ life ~ * collective evolution * ?

"I'm slowly learning that even if I react, it won't change anything, it won't make people suddenly love and respect me, it won't magically change their minds. Sometimes its better to let things be, let people go, don't fight for closure, don't ask for explanations, don't chase answers, and don't expect people to understand where you're coming from. I'm slowly learning that life is better lived when you don't center it on what's happening around you; instead, center it on what's happening inside you. Work on yourself and your inner peace." ~ anon. ~

"Knock the crap out of him, would you? I promise you, I'll pay your legal fees." "If you do (hurt him), I'll defend you in court. Don't worry about it." "I'll beat the crap out of you." "I'd like to punch him in the face." "Maybe he should've been roughed up." "Part of the problem is no one wants to hurt each other anymore." "I dont know if I'll do the fighting myself or if other people will." "The audience hit back. Thats what we need a little bit more of." . . . . (drum roll) in walked press sec Sarah Sanders, declaring, "The President in no way, form or fashion has ever promoted or encouraged violence." While somewhere, in a faraway galaxy that shares a common exit strategy with ours, Kellyanne Conway, in closing another one of her controversial interviews, excitedly chirps, "Go buy Ivanka's stuff is what I would say, I'm going to give a free commercial here: Go buy it today, everybody. You can find it online!!"

.... the master appears. When he is steady, the master disappears.

Clarification please: Did you mean interaction with other traditions is unavoidable? Just need to see where you're coming from because you also mentioned the point about the vitalness of Daoism needing to stand on its own. Thank you

Enlightenment is when the bad make peace with their badness and use their bad for good.

Sometimes confusion reigns in people who reject the very thing they think guides their intentions. When this begins to affect the equilibrium of a society or group, then corrective measures are taken. That usually brings forth a master's sensibilities and wisdom. Chaos does have its merit at times.

Some confusion noted when one enthusiastically proclaims Taoism to be functionally socialistic and then some.... only to be rambunctiously followed by extreme suggestions to keep out the 'strays'. wth Apparently this one also claimed that a true Daoist is only concerned with others' welfare and put others before themselves. Discrepancy much??

The guy felt empowered by trump's sanctimonious use of the term "invasion" - how about looking at that for simple understanding to begin with? Enough said.

Mass Shootings: Definition & Trends. A March 2018 research report initiated by RAND Corp. who claims non-partisanship. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mass-shootings.html?fbclid=IwAR0AwGj7OIh4mF02DSMHgm6qH4wGZW06P3te96tlMsux3GJlCjnqh_TMuWk This report https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/03/02/what-does-research-nra-doesnt-want-funded-show-gun-restrictions-save-lives says the NRA often scuppered RAND's research efforts and funding drives.

Glad to see you back, old friend

According to an article by Grant Duwe, author of the book "Mass Murder in the United States: A History".....

Responses to oppressive situations can vary. Whats implied above seems to assert some sort of uniformed reaction to oppression. Anyway, whats your understanding on the relationship between oppression, ignorance and enlightenment?

Why do consider it a necessity to name the now as a means to "fight" delusion? Anyway, the first video mentioned the almost impossible task to define it or to fit the concept neatly into an intellectual box. It would be a tedious and unproductive task to try and encapsulate enlightenment within the confines of human intellect. How does one even attempt to describe some ineffable thing that cannot be limited even within the realm of experience due to its space-like nature? Approximations and pointers are present, and basically alludes to such. If the vids had claimed to define what enlightenment is, I would not have posted them to waste anyone's time.

Is this a realistic consideration, minus religious overlays, on the notions of enlightenment/ignorance? I like this poem by Jed McKenna asking Where Is Enlightenment?

~ KHANDRO RINPOCHE ~ Practice on the path of hinayana — or sutrayana as it’s called nowadays — is based on self-discipline. Through awareness, discipline, and the ability to discern what is useful and what is harmful, we abandon useless and harmful activities. We could say that the hinayana path of practice is about morality, or self-discipline. Practice on the Mahayana path, the “path of transformation,” not only keeps us from harming others, it allows us to develop the potential for helping them. Having developed self-discipline, we can expand a disciplined attitude towards the world and begin to involve others on our path. In this way, we can tap into qualities that might actually be helpful and allow us to be of some use to others. Such practices are referred to as the Mahayana path. Practice on the vajrayana path, the “path of transcendence,” is about training the mind in such a way that transcendence arises. It is training the mind by knowing the nature of mind; and it is knowing the nature of mind by developing awareness of what the mind is. Simply put, the vajrayana trains in awareness of the true nature, such that all falsity collapses. When the true nature is revealed, the ability to transcend our constant attachment to “self” spontaneously arises — thus allowing genuine compassion to spontaneously pervade. This is the vajrayana path of practice.

Dont you think attributing it squarely on the media sounds too convenient? Without absolving the media of all responsibility, I feel its vital to consider other variables too. Haven't had any opportunity to profile a live mass shooter, but have done some study & practical work on criminal profiling in the past, enough to know that the circle of analysis extends fairly wide, and gradually gets narrowed as things begin to piece together. Each individual is different, just as two siblings with identical exposure to a singular environment while young could, later in life, develop distinctly individualistic traits while also sharing some commonalities, of course.

Yes, its too flimsy to assign primary causation to violent content from video games. Those who are prone to destructive actions have complex, volatile psychological factors all waiting for that rare moment where suddenly all the dots (the intents) connect at once - this causes the exaggerated outward expression of what is essentially an internal conflict thats been brewing since who knows when.

Same point I was making, basically, although not in full agreement with attribution of primary cause to brainwashing, via TV and what not.

When there's a majority of society being exposed to the same, and a high percentage not swayed by some of the inherent fantastical contents by having enough common sense and moral aptitude to be able to exercise discernment, then the perversions of, and subsequent acting upon such by a minority necessitates further scrutiny. Personal responsibility is paramount because thats where the source of seeking understanding of motives lies, more so where significant discrepancies are noted. Looking into these discrepancies may clarify why some are unable to keep certain destructive attributes from taking over their personalities. Their rage can be suddenly triggered by something totally random and trivial. Usually preceded by some fundamental neurosis that keeps the potential for destruction very much in play in the background, just waiting for that one moment where all the triggers seem to go off at the same time.

Its more fun to watch the "game" when the goalpost stays put. In a game, what keeps changing is the dynamic, the flows, the strategies.... all these are constantly changing. But one can imagine the frustration if part of the change involves moving the goalposts here and there to bend the flow and strategies to one's advantage. So as the game progresses, it saps energy, and so one shifts nearer this goalpost. Is this the kind of adaptability and flexibility you mean? Contemplative traditions are not very much concerned with seeking advantages that way. Well, at least some aren't. And these are definitely not traditions that rely on beliefs, but that non-reliance does not imply being closeted and locked - on the contrary, they promote a particular type of freedom of enquiry, one guided by established, proven and systematic approaches. This is to avoid fuzzy traps, pitfalls, and at the same time, enable the practitioner to gain confidence in his or her personal endeavour by relying on a trusted yardstick to determine progress. Its an arduous path, requiring dedication, devotion and discipline. Without being faithful to an established lineage or tradition is like engaging in a game where there are no fixed placements of goalposts, and an already challenging pursuit becomes even more precarious. Especially where one is unsure of the source to which one directs one's dedication, devotion and discipline.

I much prefer the perennially solid, authentic and unchanging traditional teachings and practices where the proverbial goalpost stays put and the only thing that gets purified is the veil that distorts vision, and distracts one from recognising original wakefulness. Not convinced by claimants purporting the ability to energetically "shift" and "dissolve" issues for others, although I have met a few over the years, and know of friends who bought into such things, only to realize the flimsiness of the whole experience, especially noting how they became increasingly drawn to the sessions, and gradually noticed how they were hankering after the attention of the "lightning rod"'-like nature of the group facilitator, which they report they had no real control over. It led to some dependency issues. Its not entirely the fault of the facilitators though. It appears there's much gullibility present to have enabled the relationship, and participants might do well to take responsibility by looking deeper at their own vulnerabilities and find a proper path to work with instead of shifting the focus to someone or something external. Im reminded of all the hullabaloo surrounding one "Lama" Dorje Dondrup (real name Peter Yeung) years ago who made all kinds of outlandish claims about chi bubble, energy transfer etc. and how he was recognised as a Tulku by Penor Rinpoche and all the lineage affiliations he had. It was hogwash, and he got busted for it. Not denying the guy may have some chi manipulation ability, but he's a prime example of someone who became irresponsible and got carried away by a flimsy siddhi.I believe there were some discussion threads (or thread) here on TDB too about this fella.

Wonderful story thank you!! Perhaps somewhere along our discussion, an error in understanding manifested. I thought the contention was around the question whether the teachings on emptiness were provisional, or not. And per my limited understanding, all teachings are provisional. They are rafts for traversing mental terrains. But the truth of emptiness is final. Are we on the same page here? Eventually, progressing authentically on a path (any path) demands the shedding of all such expedients. If not, what began as supports to insight, thru clinging, will turn into obstacles and crutches. I think we both can agree that at some point, as one makes enough crossings from one shore to the next, and the next, the fascination with the craft wanes. Perhaps only then will one truly grasp the import of Dharma's functional purpose, not as a support for the determination of which view or tradition is right and which is rubbish, but solely as a guide, a manual for this project called life. As regards to your claim that I asserted the reality of mind, I think thats another misunderstanding. Its my fault the confusion arose, and I apologise. I did not mean for the remark to sound solipsistic. When I said all is mind is a finality, it was a reference to Gautama's teaching, "All experiences are preceded by mind, having mind as their master, created by mind." (Pali: Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā manoseṭṭhā manomayā.) Lama Yeshe's expansion on the teaching: "When you look at the outside world you have a very strong impression of its substantiality. You probably don’t realize that that strong impression is merely your own mind’s interpretation of what it sees. You think that the strong, solid reality really exists outside, and perhaps, when you look within, you feel empty. This is also a misconception: the strong impression that the world appears to truly exist outside of you is actually projected by your own mind. Everything you experience—feelings, sensations, shapes and colors—comes from your mind. Instead of misinterpreting whatever you experience in life through wrong conceptions, realize that it’s not outer reality, but only mind. If you can understand what I’m explaining here, you’ll see that indeed, satellites and so forth do come from the mind, and that without mind, there is not a single manifest material existence in the entire sense world. What exists without mind? Look at all the stuff you find in supermarkets: so many names, so many foods, so many different things. First people made it all up—this name, that name, this, this, this—so then, this, that, this, this and this all appear to you. If all these thousands of supermarket items as well as jets, rockets and satellites are manifestations of mind, what then does not come from mind? If you check into how your mind expresses itself, your various views and feelings, your imagination, you will realize that all your emotions, the way you live your life, the way you relate to others, all come from your own mind. If you don’t understand how your mind works, you’re going to continue having negative experiences like anger and depression. Why do I call a depressed mind negative? Because a depressed mind doesn’t understand how it works. A mind without understanding is negative. A negative mind brings you down because all its reactions are polluted. A mind with understanding functions clearly." No, you definitely do not have two heads.

Oh nice, you're back and thank you for sharing the above, helping to clarify your understanding. You're right - Buddhists do not hold the view of a non-existent, illusive universe. That would be silly. Im going to have to ponder a bit on some of the points you brought up, and if there's anything I do not understand, I hope its okay to bounce some questions off and see if clarity can be reached.

Watch from the 6min mark... you'll get an idea of the blink-free "resting" state. Over the years, I've also met and sat with such yogis, who can remain for hours absorbed in non-referential awareness.