Stigweard

Freudian slip there perhaps ... I'd like to have a sex literal day!

An interesting poll, but I am unsure of how accurate it will be because of the wording of the questions. Yes, they can. But more than that, faith and spirituality can teach us things that science cannot. Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want, rational or not. Leave them alone. No, they can’t. By its very nature, religion is an enemy of reason and will always stifle progress. It must be opposed. I’m not sure. Other I believe they have distorted the main question. I mean take, "Yes, they can. But more than that, faith and spirituality can teach us things that science cannot". What does that even mean? They should have just left it as Yes or No. I sense that the creators of the poll have woven their own beliefs into the survey and thus the validity of the results are seriously suspect. I voted: Other - True spirituality is the science of awareness

Play fair Mr Marbles. Nice answer Can we say instead then: "Humanity is dependently originated from the Earth. The Earth is dependently originated from the Universe. The Universe self-perpetuates via dependent origination." In other words, this Universe gives rise or even gives birth to the next Universe.

Yes, yes ... I know what you are saying ... truly Trust me I am not trying to "latch on" to anything, this is just an attempt for clarity. Call it Stigweard's silly little game if you want to So for you Buddhists, could you please fill in the blank: Humanity is dependently originated from the Earth. The Earth is dependently originated from the Universe. The Universe is dependently originated from _______________________.

You can use it via the plus and minus buttons at the bottom right of any post. Hit PLUS for particularly well-written, interesting, respectful posts that contribute to the discussion and overall vibe, even if you disagree with the actual viewpoint presented. Hit MINUS for particularly pointless, troll-ish, self-absorbed, hijacking, de-railing comments out of resonance with the spirit of TTB and that add nothing to the discussion or the community (even if you for some reason you kind of agree with the actual point of view of the post). Enjoy! <-- Moderation Team -->

So nice to see agreement taking place

OK let's use your words then ... "dependently originated phenomena is absolutely everything" ... therefore dependent origination is the one constant of absolutely everything ... therefore dependent origination is a constant. We could also say that emptiness, due to dependent origination, is a constant. Regardless, phenomena has arisen dependently for an eternity before now and, if dependent origination is a constant, then it will continue for an eternity. Thus, relative or not, dependent origination is eternal. OK go with me on this one because I see a glimmer of hope. All phenomena is dependently originated right? Which could lead the mind needing attachments to cling to dependent origination as an ultimate truth, that D.O. is the source of life. But because of the insight of dependent origination it is in itself empty of substance right? So could we perhaps say, and please excuse the simplicity of what I am saying: Humans are dependently originated from nature, i.e. the biology of the planet Earth? And could we say that the planet Earth is dependently originated from Universal nature? And could we say that Universal nature manifests through the process of dependent origination? OK I need your words here ... please humor me with this ... what does dependent origination depend on? If I said, "Dependent origination depends on the way of dependent origination". How, in 20 words or less (imagine you are writing someone a quick line of poetry), would you correct or better articulate that statement?

Oh pischtog and poppycock!! Yes or no? Is all phenomena in the universe influenced by dependent origination? A: Yes ... therefore dependent origination is a constant in the universe. Yes or no? Does dependent origination extend infinitely before and after this point in time? A: Yes ... therefore dependent origination is eternal. The only rational answer then is that dependent origination is an eternal constant. I thought you Buddhists didn't indulge in ambiguous speech. And you honestly don't see the hypocrisy in your words here do you?

Heya 3bob, I certainly respect what you are saying. If I was to give an encyclopedic clarification on Seeing it would be: "Seeing is the direct and instantaneous flow of knowledge between the perceiver and the perceived." Not sure if this is saying the same as you.

But isn't dependent origination both constant and eternal? Haven't you said that dependent origination extends behind us to the beginningless beginning and will extend beyond us to the endless end? That makes it both constant and eternal right? However you try and wiggle out of it, and I know you will, this makes dependent origination a fixed view. And if Buddha's view is the viewless view, why the hell are you so attached to it?

Thanks all for your comments and suggestions, this discussion proves to highlight the caliber of this forum. I was about to post up a poll so thanks Apech for beating me to the line Just to clarify with emphasis, the reputation system at no point was or will ever be a moderation tool. To be honest I think turning it on was merely a case of, "Hey that's a cool widget we aren't using yet!" -- "CLICK" As usual I see both sides of the discussion. Some interesting comments: The reputation system and Taoism are diametrically opposed Taoists of the Way (not "Taoists" of the internet ego-societies) are not concerned with "reputation" Any type of user rating/ranking system is open for abuse stemming from someone's opinion about the poster, rather than about the quality of the posts themselves. Personally the reputation system makes me disinclined to post at all. Doesn't really seem to be part of the "spirit" of this forum Sux. I think it is an interesting system. If i see someone who's given a really insightful post i usually give them a positive and feel good when i give positive feedback. I think we might be misunderstanding the purpose of the reputation function. It is designed so that any member reading a specific post can indicate that that one particular post was of positive or negative value to that individual member. It shouldn't be about judging the value of the member him/herself. So maybe this rep thing could be useful as a tool for self-investigation? Using Vaj as an example - he stimulates a lot of debate and livens up the forum but ends up with minus scores what am I supposed to do with this information? Some unpopular posts might have some great truths to them, but just got voted down because it's not popular. What it really comes down to for me is: yesterday we as a forum gave Vajrahridaya a -33 reputation. How does it feel (for anyone) to be ostracized from a community, like that? In the TTC there are guidelines for social behavior. And the government oversees these social behavior guidelines. Same here. There are guidelines for social behavior. The moderators oversee the guidelines. Moderation here is very liberal here. I am proud of our moderators. (Stig: hehehehe ... I had to throw that one in ) But there are also those who sling about cruel remarks that go well beyond simple and necessary disagreement with such regularity that having a rating system might encourage such callous individuals to refrain from familiar action. There seems also something to be said for such rabble-rousers, though. I feel like they can be helpful in so far as mixing things up... If we just make people want to leave, then all that we have left is our own stupidity, with no one to challenge it. Personally I don't give a sod whether it's on or off. But let's explore some of the thoughts presented. The reputation system is "moving away from Tao" and is "diametrically opposed to Taoism" Now that's an interesting one. It almost makes me want to launch into a whole discussion of "what is Tao" and how on earth could anything "move away from it". But to be fair the question has to be asked: "Is the Reputation System an unnecessary complication?" and "Does the Reputation System help members become more naturally minded?" If it doesn't provide benefit whilst adding a complication and if it truly does create an obstacle to a free and natural mind then I would definitely say, "Down with it!" I think perhaps the most relevant Taoist wisdom on this is TTC Ch 13: Favor and disgrace are both causes of shock. When one is favored one is shocked. When one is disgraced, one is shocked. That is because people forget the unadorned plainness of universal life. If they knew this clarity, then what is meant by saying that favor and disgrace are both causes of shock? Favor is no higher than disgrace. And also Ch 20: In high truth, is there any difference between yes and no? Between good and evil, is there any absolute distinction? Must one fear what everyone fears? Is it still too early for the subtle truth to dawn on those who are so self-assertive? Any type of user rating/ranking system is open for abuse I am quite confident that the number of people who would abuse the system would be significantly small. To give a comparative example, most businesses are terrified of the idea of giving money-back guarantees because they are deathly afraid customers will "abuse the system" and rip them off. But studies clearly show that only about 2% of people would dishonestly abuse such a system. I think we could expect the same here, so, as far as I am concerned, the consideration of people abusing the system shouldn't be given much priority at all. Personally the reputation system makes me disinclined to post at all. If we just make people want to leave, then all that we have left is our own stupidity, with no one to challenge it. This is one of my main concerns. Would the reputation system interfere with the quality and quantity of people posting? There seems also something to be said for such rabble-rousers, though. I feel like they can be helpful in so far as mixing things up... And this is valid as well. Some of the most disruptive members have been the stimulation for some of the highest quality contributions and exchanges. If the reputation system overly sanitizes the forum then we would all lose out because of it. But there are also those who sling about cruel remarks that go well beyond simple and necessary disagreement with such regularity that having a rating system might encourage such callous individuals to refrain from familiar action. The implications of this comment, which would be the most likely reason to make me vote for the reputation system, is that there is the possibility that the reputation system would serve as a process for the forum to moderate itself and decrease the need for moderators to have to intercede at all (wouldn't that be nice ). If someone saw their contributions consistently being red-tagged then maybe that would be all the force required for them adjust their contributions to become more productive and beneficial to the forum. Personally I love the idea of the forum being self-determined and self-moderated. At the very least it would save me the trouble of trying remember which damn hat I am wearing when I am posting Well there's my reflections on the matter. I am very much undecided. There is potential for good and there is also the risk of detriment from the reputation system. I think the best course of action is to keep this valuable discussion going and get the votes up to create statistical accuracy and go with the vote.

You can be assured that we cant see who voted what. And as to the obvious moderation I do apologize, it is our ideal to stay invisible if at all possible. Obviously still haven't perfected that I try and follow Laozi's advice that administration shouldn't interfere with peoples natural activities. A work in progress

You can be assured that at least one moderator would never do something as superficial as that

Yes in fact they do. As we can see with Mr Vaj. Perhaps someone did drop a -1 on a bunch of his posts. But now I notice that another someone has run around and dropped +1 on a whole bunch I will investigate if we can monitor such activity

I posted this over in the thread that's relevant to this topic but I will repeat it here: At the moment any registered user can click + or - on the rep buttons. So the "evaluation" is open to all members. Moderators have no control over it at all and, after seeing the wild accusation made, I will suggest to the other mods that perhaps we should make it a policy to disqualify ourselves from using the rep buttons at all. I hope I have made this very clear that it isn't moderators who are adjusting people's reputations but all members.

At the moment any registered user can click + or - on the rep buttons. So the "evaluation" is open to all members. Moderators have no control over it at all and, after seeing the wild accusation made above, I will suggest to the other mods that perhaps we should make it a policy to disqualify ourselves from using the rep buttons at all. Is this what you were asking?

I am certainly hearing you folks. Twas Sean's call to turn it on. If it's not working for folks then it can be just as easy to turn it right back off again. Please keep sharing your views

Hold up right there my friend. I am not the one clicking on the rep buttons I find it offensive that you think I would. So please reconsider your thoughts on this.

OK chaps, settle on with the insults or I will start swinging my paddy-whacker without prejudice I think it's interesting to see the reputation system at work here. You can check on your rep by clicking on your name and viewing your profile <-- Moderation Team -->

There are a few implications of this type of awareness, but fundamentally they link to the Warrior's quest of attaining absolute freedom of awareness. Almost the entire quotient of our life force is trapped in the cycles of our fixated conditionings and self-importance (i.e. being attached to your view of yourself and the world). The incessant thoughts, words, and subsequent repetitive behavior is a constant drain on our vitality. This wastage is further exasperated if the behaviors are detrimental in themselves (i.e. drugs, alcohol, etc.). So developing the ability to "turn off" the internal dialogue, thus freeing up and preserving life-force, actually has a tangible benefit for one's health. Though a pleasant side-effect to the Warrior's main task, it is however intrinsic with the Warrior becoming "whole" -- of achieving the "Totality of Self". The Warrior's endeavor is to have the freedom and fluidity of perception to engage the full spectrum of possible human awareness. Through socialization and self-importance our awareness is constrained to the minutest sliver of the possible range of perception that is available. Knowing that it is our internal dialogue that creates this fixation, by achieving true inner silence our fixations weaken and our awareness starts to loosen and "shift". In this shifting of awareness previously unaccessed frequencies of the human awareness start to become available to us. Initially it may simply be that you get a different understanding or perspective of the world. But with sufficient practice new alignments of perception are possible. It's like suddenly discovering a new color in the spectrum. The world takes on a whole new hue and appearance. You see life with a new "light". As a side note, many practitioners achieve this "shift" of awareness and think they are "enlightened". Though yes it is an enlightening and revelatory experience, it is only an introductory phase to the main journey ahead. We are wanting complete freedom of awareness, not just seeing the same view differently. As we continue our practice we start to develop our "personal power". This power comes from two directions: firstly from the liberated energy previously trapped in our fixations, and secondly from the extra power flowing to us from the universe now that we have begun to "unclog" our "channels". You see, universal nature (i.e. the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, etc.) is always wanting to flow through us. When we limit our awareness through fixations we are literally cutting our selves off both from parts of ourselves and from the emanations of the world around us. Our personal power has two components: Intent and Will. Intent is the power to align a perception and Will is the power to maintain it. Very much like shooting an arrow to hit a target: Intent aims the arrow, Will is the strength to draw the bow. So the practice of silencing the internal dialogue serves to train our Intent and Will. You will notice as you practice that you will slip in and out of focus, i.e. you will be silent for awhile and then your mind will start chattering and then you bring yourself back to silence. This is the fluctuation of Intent and Will. The more we train our Intent and Will, learning to progressively shift our perception, the more we will loosen our fixations until the Warrior makes the breakthrough of liberating themselves from their fixations completely, referred to as "Stopping the World". This is not just seeing the same view differently, it is the fundamental "movement" of perception to align a completely new view of the world. It is stepping entirely into the "unknown", and is subsequently very hard to speak about. And here the Warrior's true journey takes place. With the liberation of awareness the Warrior is free to perceive the world however they choose. But here is an interesting thing. It is not the Warrior's whim that "chooses" but is instead their personal power ... but that is another story The final point I would like to make for now though is that, through the process of liberating our perception, the Warrior is able to "See". By this I mean that the Warrior's perception is perfectly in sync with the forces of the world around them. Most people are 3 steps behind the truth: First is the phenomena, second is our sensory perception of the phenomena limited by our physical sensory capacity, third is the interpretation of the sensory data filtered by our fixated view of the world. This is even further diluted when we try and explain what we perceived because of the limitations of the spoken language, the other person's capacity to comprehend what was spoken, and then the filtration of that person's view of the world. In other words our perception of the world is really just an echo of reality; our cognition is in fact merely a remembrance of the moment that has already gone. So the act of "Seeing" is the process of removing the interference created from our fixated view of the world and expanding our perception beyond the limitations of physical capacities so that we can "See" life in the full spectrum of its entirety as it is actually happening; we are in fact "quickening" our perception and catching up with life. As a further clarification, if I was to give an encyclopedic clarification on Seeing it would be: "Seeing is the direct and instantaneous flow of knowledge between the perceiver and the perceived."

I had a beautiful experience with an Aboriginal gent a number of years ago ... name is Waroonga from mid-north coast New South Wales. I was attending a fire-walk and Waroonga was invited to welcome in the sacred space. He did a welcoming chant in his language and circled the pit with a bull-roarer ... goose-bump stuff. Then he joined in with the walk and the old bugger actually danced slowly across the red-hot coals. I followed shortly after and had to hot-trot it across. Much respect!

This deserves a bump as well. http://www.mapservices.org/myguestmap/map/mantis

Bumping this up seeing that the polls are working again.

Bumping this up seeing that the polls are working again.