Running into walls again....ARGH!

[Lucky7Strikes]

Is there a condition under which dependent origination is inoperative?

 

If yes, then dependent origination is itself dependent, but then it also means that dependent origination is not always what it seems to be, as it implies a transcendent and independent quality.

 

If no, then dependent origination is itself independent, thus showing that dependent origination is not the whole story, again.

 

You can use dependent origination against itself. And you should. That doesn't mean dependent origination is false or useless, but let's say, it is a lot more mysterious and less obvious than some people imagine it to be.

 

There are other way to attach DO. So all the DO lovers should not be too smug, imo. DO is a great tool though. Also I like interdependent arising as a better translation. DO is a bad translation in my view.

 

Interdependent arising highlights the bi-directionality of conditionality. Bi-directionality is important to understand. So for example, things that affect mind are, in that exact same relation, also affect by mind. In other words, it's not the case that a produces b produces c and so on. It's more correct to think this way:

 

a <---> b <---> c

<----------------->

 

There is no predefined vector within dependence. It is our mind that creates the directionality. There is no inherent directionality within phenomena.

 

Seeing dependence comes from seeing distinction. Cause is seen when this and that become established, and produces more perceptions of cause.

 

All phenomena neither exists or does not exist. The actualization of being, of experience, only comes from the mind's formation of imaginary distinctions and relativity. Hence there are only ideas: only "humanness," "causeness," "worldness." The only thing that exists is existence.

[JustARandomPanda]

Luminosity is the very nature of the mind. Tell me how this is dependently originated? From what exactly?

 

Well here's what Daniel Ingram has to say on the subject. And from what I take - he seems to disagree on some points with VH (and perhaps Norbu too? Assuming Norbu's understanding is identical to what VH has been posting all this time). Or maybe he just explains it a whole heck of a lot better than VH. That too, is a possibility.

 

His essay has much to ponder. I suspect also that Drew Hempel would appreciate Daniel's PoV.

 

No-Self v. True-Self

[voidisyinyang]

Haha -- I'll read more of Daniel Ingram but the first once-over looked excellent. SereneBlue you will enjoy Peter Kingsley's classic book "In the Dark Places of Wisdom" about the foundation of Western philosophy being from India and Persia (Allan Bloom is rolling in his grave....)

 

http://peterkingsley.com/DarkPlaces.cfm

 

 

Well here's what Daniel Ingram has to say on the subject. And from what I take - he seems to disagree on some points with VH (and perhaps Norbu too? Assuming Norbu's understanding is identical to what VH has been posting all this time). Or maybe he just explains it a whole heck of a lot better than VH. That too, is a possibility.

 

His essay has much to ponder. I suspect also that Drew Hempel would appreciate Daniel's PoV.

 

No-Self v. True-Self

 

[Vajrahridaya]

Luminosity is the very nature of the mind. Tell me how this is dependently originated? From what exactly?

 

Luminosity arises from the fact of the empty quality of things and consciousness. It is not self supported or self originated.

 

You should try to study abhidharma more. You are obviously missing out on a subtle experiential insight because your conclusion is opposed to the bodhi of the Buddhas.

 

I also used to cling to this level of examining that you are clinging to. But, your not seeing the meaning of my words, so the words don't make sense.

 

Nagarjuna's Mahamudra Vision

 

 

Homage to Manjusrikumarabhuta!

 

1. I bow down to the all-powerful Buddha

Whose mind is free of attachment,

Who in his compassion and wisdom

Has taught the inexpressible.

 

2. In truth there is no birth -

Then surely no cessation or liberation;

The Buddha is like the sky

And all beings have that nature.

 

3. Neither Samsara nor Nirvana exist,

But all is a complex continuum

With an intrinsic face of void,

The object of ultimate awareness.

 

4. The nature of all things

Appears like a reflection,

Pure and naturally quiescent,

With a non-dual identity of suchness.

 

5. The common mind imagines a self

Where there is nothing at all,

And it conceives of emotional states -

Happiness, suffering, and equanimity.

 

6. The six states of being in Samsara,

The happiness of heaven,

The suffering of hell,

Are all false creations, figments of mind.

 

7. Likewise the ideas of bad action causing suffering,

Old age, disease and death,

And the idea that virtue leads to happiness,

Are mere ideas, unreal notions.

 

8. Like an artist frightened

By the devil he paints,

The sufferer in Samsara

Is terrified by his own imagination.

 

9. Like a man caught in quicksands

Thrashing and struggling about,

So beings drown

In the mess of their own thoughts.

 

10. Mistaking fantasy for reality

Causes an experience of suffering;

Mind is poisoned by interpretation

Of consciousness of form.

 

11. Dissolving figment and fantasy

With a mind of compassionate insight,

Remain in perfect awareness

In order to help all beings.

 

12. So acquiring conventional virtue

Freed from the web of interpretive thought,

Insurpassable understanding is gained

As Buddha, friend to the world.

 

13. Knowing the relativity of all,

The ultimate truth is always seen;

Dismissing the idea of beginning, middle and end

The flow is seen as Emptiness.

 

14. So all samsara and nirvana is seen as it is -

Empty and insubstantial,

Naked and changeless,

Eternally quiescent and illumined.

 

15. As the figments of a dream

Dissolve upon waking,

So the confusion of Samsara

Fades away in enlightenment.

 

16. Idealising things of no substance

As eternal, substantial and satisfying,

Shrouding them in a fog of desire

The round of existence arises.

 

17. The nature of beings is unborn

Yet commonly beings are conceived to exist;

Both beings and their ideas

Are false beliefs.

 

18. It is nothing but an artifice of mind

This birth into an illusory becoming,

Into a world of good and evil action

With good or bad rebirth to follow.

 

19. When the wheel of mind ceases to turn

All things come to an end.

So there is nothing inherently substantial

And all things are utterly pure.

 

20. This great ocean of samsara,

Full of delusive thought,

Can be crossed in the boat Universal Approach.

Who can reach the other side without it?

 

Colophon

The Twenty Mahayana Verses, (in Sanskrit,

Mahayanavimsaka; in Tibetan: Theg pa chen po nyi

shu pa) were composed by the master Nagarjuna.

They were translated into Tibetan by the Kashmiri

Pandit Ananda and the Bhikshu translator Drakjor

Sherab (Grags 'byor shes rab). They have been

translated into English by the Anagarika

Kunzang Tenzin on the last day of the year 1973

in the hope that the karma of the year may be mitigated.

 

May all beings be happy!

Edited October 17, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[JustARandomPanda]

Haha -- I'll read more of Daniel Ingram but the first once-over looked excellent. SereneBlue you will enjoy Peter Kingsley's classic book "In the Dark Places of Wisdom" about the foundation of Western philosophy being from India and Persia (Allan Bloom is rolling in his grave....)

 

http://peterkingsley.com/DarkPlaces.cfm

 

Thank you. I will definitely have to check that book out!

 

 

 

Luminosity arises from the fact of the empty quality of things and consciousness. It is not self supported or self originated.

 

This is one of the things Daniel Ingram also mentions in that essay I linked to. Assuming I understood him correctly he would agree with the above statement.

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Here's another fun Daniel Ingram Essay. In some ways he reminds me of VH. Very in-your-face, pull-no-punches guy.

 

 

Why The Notion That You Cannot Become What You Already Are is Such Bullshit

Edited October 17, 2009 by SereneBlue

[Vajrahridaya]

Is there a condition under which dependent origination is inoperative?

 

If yes, then dependent origination is itself dependent, but then it also means that dependent origination is not always what it seems to be, as it implies a transcendent and independent quality.

 

 

Your missing the point that it explains. It's not a thing. It's realization leads to the dharmakaya, but... that's only inherent in as much as all minds and phenomena are empty of any intrinsic value, so interdependent arising, which I also like the best, because it gives more of a spherical sense to the explanation of how this is.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

So there are only objects?

 

How is that not fatalism?

Yes emptiness is to deepen the insight into the nature of the mind that grasps onto a form as real and separate. By seeing dependence of every distinguished aspect of phenomena, it's singularity is seen to be false. Nothing is beyond the mind.

 

Luminosity is the very nature of the mind. Tell me how this is dependently originated? From what exactly?

 

there are no objects either.

 

there is no singularity, there is no 'the mind', you're placing labels onto empty space.

 

Luminosity is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form. Everything is Mind but not 'the' Mind, it just is, and it's not 'your' mind either. there is no subject or object,

 

the point of Buddhist philosophy is not to explain conceptually the true nature of thing, that is impossible. the point is to question the one who questions. and to keep negating even the non-dual I AM-ness as there is still a subtle clinging to that state, since a conceptual barrier arises.

 

the purpose of Buddhist philosophy is to have purely non-conceptual vision. and all of Buddhist philosophy is a means to have that. any form of attachment to identity (such as I AM THAT) is seen as conceptual limitation

[goldisheavy]

Luminosity arises from the fact of the empty quality of things and consciousness. It is not self supported or self originated.

 

Luminosity is not an event though. Thus it does not arise and does not cease. You need luminosity to be operative prior and post arising, prior and post cessation to notice such events (arising is an event, cessation is an event).

 

There is no such thing as "experiential" insight. Don't get arrogant. All insights are just insights. Saying that some insights are "experiential" is just being puffed up over one's mystical experiences and nothing more.

 

In Buddhism there is indeed an acknowledgment of transcendent quality, so don't try to talk your way out of it. I can quote straight from Pali Canon, not to mention Mahayana Sutras to support this. So interdependent arising is not "the God of Buddhism" so to speak. Don't over-adulate it. It's a good tool. Use it. Don't marry it.

Edited October 17, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Sunya]

Well here's what Daniel Ingram has to say on the subject. And from what I take - he seems to disagree on some points with VH (and perhaps Norbu too? Assuming Norbu's understanding is identical to what VH has been posting all this time). Or maybe he just explains it a whole heck of a lot better than VH. That too, is a possibility.

 

His essay has much to ponder. I suspect also that Drew Hempel would appreciate Daniel's PoV.

 

No-Self v. True-Self

 

if memory serves me right, Ingram thinks that true self and no self teachings lead to the same realization.. but this is because Ingram is of the Vipassana technique which skips over the I AM experience and goes straight to Anatta. Non dual presence is automatically seen as empty of self because 'anatta' or 'no-self' is one of the 3 characteristics that are meditated upon in his tradition. So he never had the I AM experience, he skipped over it.. so he isn't really qualified to say what the True Self teachings lead to since he has never experienced that realization, he went beyond it.

[Vajrahridaya]

This is one of the things Daniel Ingram also mentions in that essay I linked to. Assuming I understood him correctly he would agree with the above statement.

 

I find Thusness to have a subtler grasp than Danial, in conceptual formulation at least. But... I don't know either of them personally. I find ChNNR to be one of the most powerful Masters on the planet, and my girlfriend agrees because she had a direct experience of her luminosity and various other subtle metaphysical things just through the snap of his fingers and the sacred syllable... "phet".

 

I understand that my explanations are not perfect for everyone. I sometimes re-read my statements though and get high off them, as if I'm merely writing in a way that turns on my own light and works through my own personal set of conditionings??

 

I don't know... I don't try to be that selfish... that's not my intention at least? My intent is to get to the nuance of the direct experiencing as much as possible.

 

Luminosity is not an event though. Thus it does not arise and does not cease. You need luminosity to be operative prior and post arising, prior and post cessation to notice such events (arising is an event, cessation is an event).

 

Luminosity is an event. Your thought that the level of neither perception nor non-perception is permanent or self reliant is not what luminosity is.

 

There is no such thing as "experiential" insight. Don't get arrogant. All insights are just insights. Saying that some insights are "experiential" is just being puffed up over one's mystical experiences and nothing more.

 

No, I'm distinguishing between conceptual and experiential.

 

You are making a distinction that is not the intent of the statement.

 

In Buddhism there is indeed an acknowledgment of transcendent quality, so don't try to talk your way out of it. I can quote straight from Pali Canon, not to mention Mahayana Sutras to support this. So interdependent arising is not "the God of Buddhism" so to speak. Don't over-adulate it. It's a good tool. Use it. Don't marry it.

 

You can only if you misunderstand it and don't see interdependent arising. I can quote from the Pali and Mahayana that says that pratityasamutpada is the entirety of the dharma.

 

So, don't under use it and reify some ultimate and transcendent awareness that is the God of your idealism.

[goldisheavy]

Your missing the point that it explains. It's not a thing. It's realization leads to the dharmakaya, but... that's only inherent in as much as all minds and phenomena are empty of any intrinsic value, so interdependent arising, which I also like the best, because it gives more of a spherical sense to the explanation of how this is.

 

Interdependent arising is not a thing, true. But because it is a process it is still subject to criticism.

[doc benway]

 

There is no such thing as "experiential" insight. Don't get arrogant. All insights are just insights. Saying that some insights are "experiential" is just being puffed up over one's mystical experiences and nothing more.

 

Not sure I agree with you gold.

Isn't all insight experiential?

Insight, as I define it, goes beyond intellect and analysis.

[Vajrahridaya]

Interdependent arising is not a thing, true. But because it is a process it is still subject to criticism.

 

Only if you don't get it.

 

As Nagarjuna said:

 

gal te stong min cung zad yod/ /

stong pa cung zad yod par 'gyur/ /

mi stong cung zad yod min na/ /

stong pa yod par ga la 'gyur/ /

If there were the slightest thing which were not empty,

Then there would be that much emptiness as well,

But if there is not the slightest thing which is not empty

How could emptiness exist?

Root Verses of the Middle Way, XIII, 7

 

gang phyir rten 'byung ma yin pa'i/ /

chos 'ga' yod pa ma yin pa/ /

de phyir stong pa ma yin pa'i/ /

chos 'ga' yod pa ma yin no/ /

There is not a single thing

That does not arise interdependently.

Therefore there is not a single thing

That is not empty.

Root Verses of the Middle Way, XXIV, 19

[JustARandomPanda]

the purpose of Buddhist philosophy is to have purely non-conceptual vision. and all of Buddhist philosophy is a means to have that. any form of attachment to identity (such as I AM THAT) is seen as conceptual limitation

 

Interesting. I've noticed that Swami G teaches a sort of "I AM THAT" realization. Although I take it that she is not a Buddhist or Taoist but possibly some sort of Vedantin? I have always puzzled at her "You are THAT" assertions to all the people who appeal to her for help. I take it one derives this realization from some sort of concentration or insight practice? What stage/phase/level leads one to this 'realization' and what makes someone believe they've come to the end, there's no more left to investigate and/or realize?

 

 

if memory serves me right, Ingram thinks that true self and no self teachings lead to the same realization.. but this is because Ingram is of the Vipassana technique which skips over the I AM experience and goes straight to Anatta. Non dual presence is automatically seen as empty of self because 'anatta' or 'no-self' is one of the 3 characteristics that are meditated upon in his tradition. So he never had the I AM experience, he skipped over it.. so he isn't really qualified to say what the True Self teachings lead to since he has never experienced that realization, he went beyond it.

 

You do realize don't you that your assertion can be seen as evidence that where you start determines where you end up. This is why I sometimes suspect Marble is right to consider all these squabbles as just spinning castles in the air. They certainly leave me confused a lot.

 

BTW - what meditation technique does one use to investigate this I AM experience?

 

I understand that my explanations are not perfect for everyone. I sometimes re-read my statements though and get high off them, as if I'm merely writing in a way that turns on my own light and works through my own personal set of conditionings??

 

I don't know... I don't try to be that selfish... that's not my intention at least? My intent is to get to the nuance of the direct experiencing as much as possible.

 

I know that VH. I'm the same way. I believe there must be a spark in you somewhere to want to learn to write to clearly for others and not just for yourself if A) you plan on going to college and B ) you genuinely want to get these teachings out to other people.

 

*shrug*

 

I dunno...maybe check out that grammar book I linked to earlier? Surely it couldn't hurt? You might be able to find it in a local library or request it via Inter-Library Loan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disclaimer: Even though it may appear in some posts like I "know" what I'm talking about I really don't. All I'm really being is just a Keyboard Jockey. My current attempts at meditation have slammed into a wall and are sucking uber-bad. I've even posted an appeal for help on some meditation forums. I wonder if I've hit the stage Daniel Ingram calls the Arising & Passing Away? It kinda sounds like it from what I've read so far of his descriptions of it.

Edited October 17, 2009 by SereneBlue

[goldisheavy]

Luminosity is an event.

 

Sorry, I fundamentally disagree. Luminosity is a quality of shimmeringness or livingness of awareness. It's a sense that there is experience (even if that experience is an experience of nothingness) rather than a non-experience.

 

There is no such thing as non-perception or aperception from the ultimate point of view. Perceptions can be very subtle and unfamiliar, and that's the problem. Because perception can lie outside of what we are wiling to validate using our validation framework, we think there is a state of aperception. In reality the flaw lies with our validation framework, which we need to revise and question. This is addressed in the Surangama Sutra.

 

To give you an simple example, when the person opens their eyes, they say, "I see". When they close their eyes or enter into a dark room they say, "I can't see". The real answer is "you can see darkness". Seeing darkness and seeing little specs of light with your eyes closed is still seeing, but ordinary being have a validation framework with which they compare objects of sight. So if the objects matches a valid idea, let's say you see a lamp, and lamp is a valid idea of a valid object, you recognize it as "seeing". Buddhists learn to unlearn this habit though. This is seen as a phenomenological trap in Buddhism. So if you come to a point in meditation where you recognize absence of what you thought perception were, that's still a perception and the problem is with what you thought valid perception were like -- your validation framework.

 

No, I'm distinguishing between conceptual and experiential.

 

That's an unhelpful and deluded distinctions because concepts are only known as they are experienced and experiences that you consider "non-conceptual" are indeed symbolic. To understand why, you need to understand the nature of symbols. Again, it's your validation framework that's blocking your insight right now. Currently you will only acknowledge certain experiential formations as concepts but not others. This is a bias and a prejudice that's peculiar to your own mentality. You can, with practice, undo it.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

There is no such thing as "experiential" insight. Don't get arrogant. All insights are just insights. Saying that some insights are "experiential" is just being puffed up over one's mystical experiences and nothing more.

Not sure I agree with you gold.

Isn't all insight experiential?

Insight, as I define it, goes beyond intellect and analysis.

 

 

Steve

 

This is what insight means experientially, but it's generally based upon an analysis of a formula with intent to lead to insight. So... in my remark I was differentiating between the formula created with the intent for insight and the insight itself.

 

 

 

Luminosity is a quality of shimmeringness.

 

That is it's momentariness... It arises along side the flow of phenomena, though one can hold it through focus into a timeless and formless realm. Luminosity is also empty of inherent existence.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

Only if you don't get it.

 

As Nagarjuna said:

 

gal te stong min cung zad yod/ /

stong pa cung zad yod par 'gyur/ /

mi stong cung zad yod min na/ /

stong pa yod par ga la 'gyur/ /

If there were the slightest thing which were not empty,

Then there would be that much emptiness as well,

But if there is not the slightest thing which is not empty

How could emptiness exist?

Root Verses of the Middle Way, XIII, 7

 

gang phyir rten 'byung ma yin pa'i/ /

chos 'ga' yod pa ma yin pa/ /

de phyir stong pa ma yin pa'i/ /

chos 'ga' yod pa ma yin no/ /

There is not a single thing

That does not arise interdependently.

Therefore there is not a single thing

That is not empty.

Root Verses of the Middle Way, XXIV, 19

 

 

Processes are more subtle than things, that's one.

 

Second, things are not all that should be considered. So if you only consider things, you're still missing the point.

 

Is Nirvana a thing? No. Is it a process? Also no. Since such mystical concepts as Nirvana exist, you cannot call your work "done" if all you examine are things. Luminosity is not a thing and it's not an event. When does luminosity begin? When does it end? If it's an event, it must be time bound. But if you dare to point at a beginning or end of luminocity, you will fail in a debate with qualified opponents (of which I am one).

[Vajrahridaya]

Processes are more subtle than things, that's one.

 

Second, things are not all that should be considered. So if you only consider things, you're still missing the point.

 

Is Nirvana a thing? No. Is it a process? Also no. Since such mystical concepts as Nirvana exist, you cannot call your work "done" if all you examine are things. Luminosity is not a thing and it's not an event. When does luminosity begin? When does it end? If it's an event, it must be time bound. But if you dare to point at a beginning or end of luminocity, you will fail in a debate with qualified opponents (of which I am one).

 

Nagarjuna's critique is applying to all 12 links of dependent arising. Both the Buddha and Nagarjuna have said that there is no transcendent beyond this. I can cut and paste more quotes if you like.

 

There is no Nirvana, there is only recognizing how things flow... that is merely correct cognition of the process of all, including consciousness. Nirvana is just saying that since all 12 links arise dependently, that they do not inherently exist, thus are really not established, and thus awareness of this is uncompounded and liberated, but it's luminosity is because of it's emptiness and interdependency... not independence. The stance itself is independent as a state of recognition, but it's not an inherent in and of itself. To talk about this leads to ridiculous statements and the ultimate futility of logic.

 

It seems that you think the luminosity is the "I Am" experience?

 

Like I said... it's momentary with the arisings. Just as analysis of one thing leads to the endless chain of causation, so does this include the conscious experience of luminous awareness.

 

Edit: Anyway... I'm off to Satsang and a Potluck. Cia!

[voidisyinyang]

Here's more on Daniel Ingram from the Vince Horn angle (someone Daniel considers a friend/collaborator) and then Vince Horn's readers throwing in their take on Daniels' book -- makes for a nice blend of angles....

 

http://www.vincenthorn.com/2009/01/15/a-gu...tation-mastery/

 

if memory serves me right, Ingram thinks that true self and no self teachings lead to the same realization.. but this is because Ingram is of the Vipassana technique which skips over the I AM experience and goes straight to Anatta. Non dual presence is automatically seen as empty of self because 'anatta' or 'no-self' is one of the 3 characteristics that are meditated upon in his tradition. So he never had the I AM experience, he skipped over it.. so he isn't really qualified to say what the True Self teachings lead to since he has never experienced that realization, he went beyond it.

[goldisheavy]

That is it's momentariness... It arises along side the flow of phenomena, though one can hold it through focus into a timeless and formless realm. Luminosity is also empty of inherent existence.

 

No, we use words like shimmeringness to start a discussion. Luminosity is actually beyond fluctuations, but to understand this you must first draw attention to the process of fluctuations and look at it, checking it for self-sufficiency. Are changes self-sufficient? If you answer yes, you don't need luminosity as a concept, but if you answer no, you mean to say changes are empty and then you need luminosity to explain how is it that changes can proceed at all if they are not self-sufficient. Luminosity is not empty of anything because it's not a thing in the first place, and it's not a process. If luminosity were an object, of course it would be empty. Luminosity as a word of English language is empty. The finger is empty, but not the proverbial moon. We use emptiness to go beyond emptiness.

 

Are pre-conditions fully sufficient to produce the next event? Buddha's answer is no. This is why events are not exactly conditioned. They are not unconditional either. We use the apparent conditionality to begin our examination, but we don't stop there. We keep going.

 

All definitive statements can be criticized -- that's the point of Prasangika-Madhyamaka. Even very beautiful statements, when taken to be definitive fall under Bodhisattvas' critical gaze.

 

The traditional Hindu view, which Buddha has poo-poo'ed, was that pre-conditions determine the next event definitely, certainly and completely. Thus, your were bound to karma in a deterministic fashion, like a train is bound to the railroad. So in Hindu view, whatever you do now determines, 100%, what will happen to you in the future. Buddha has rejected this point of view. In Buddha's understanding past karma, thus pre-conditions are operative but non-absolute. Thus according to Buddha it's possible to change one's destiny for the better, no matter what actions you have performed in the past. In Hindu's view, once you, say kill someone, you will experience the effect of that killing in a definite and strictly determined manner. In Buddha's view the picture is more complicated because, basically, conditionality is empty, and emptiness doesn't just mean conditionality can function (emptiness is required for function), it also means it's unstable and has an element of chaos to it.

Edited October 17, 2009 by goldisheavy

[doc benway]

[JustARandomPanda]

All these discussions make me wonder...

 

How far along in the jhanas and insight stages has each participant attained? I've already stated mine (which is basically squat and seems at an impasse so much that I've had to appeal for help from other mediators elsewhere).

[goldisheavy]

[Marblehead]

 

From the sense of relative relations, they do not... one is more likely bound to a lower incarnation. They do have equal status in the sense of they both seem to exist, thus philosophically... one can see that they are equal in this sense. The dynamic of their particular existence, as in the way in which causes and conditions that are existence enact them cause a relative inequality.

 

The thought in Taoism is similar. They both are a part of (a product of) Tao. However, that is the world of Tao.

 

What I spoke of is the world of Marbles.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Well, the rapist probably shouldn't die, he may someday have realization and redemption and become a human being again, you can't deprive him of that. Plus there's your own karma to consider. But you can always call Zed from Pulp Fiction to pay homes a visit and get Medieval on his ass with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch. And finish with a broomstick.

 

La la, have a great day!

 

Yeah. You know me well enough by now. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

 

Might that be the 'Little Richard' who you have to quiet down periodically?

 

 

Hehehe. I never thought of that. Could very well be. But then she said, "It doesn't look very little to me."

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]