Certain instances of Buddhist harping...

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Sorry, but once he publicly posts homicidal and suicidal intent (and he has here numerous times) this site has an moral and legal obligation to do something about it. He is crying out for help, and is displaying signs of lability and severe psychological instability ("when I snap", "when I beserk", etc), and for you 'curbside counselors' to get involved with internet advice is really, really stupid. We should all be supportive, but insistent that get PROFESSIONAL HELP now. I realize we are a lifeline for him, maybe the only one, but that is not enough. He needs help, and has given us plenty of warning signs. If something happens in his life that triggers him, this site may beheld responsible. This is not to be taken lightly, everyone. We have a moral obligation here, too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Mark Foote]

No kidding, eh? I will be happy with a reasonably secure income that's enough to pay rent/mortgage, to own a car if I need it for commute, or enough money to pay for public transportation if that's an option, decent food and some money to go on an occasional vacation and play plenty of computer and console games. How's that for a laundry list? As for supermodels, a non-repulsive woman who loves me is good enough.

 

What I want more than money though is to be treated like a real human being at work, and not as a resource, or as a fungible commodity. That would really make my day.

 

"Fungible commondity?" love that!

I'm the luckiest guy in the world to have two part time jobs no benefits with my girl here in the garage and a bar within 2 miles where people dance to records on Saturday night. Compost, no fungi. I can sit the lotus, for 40 minutes, with only a little numbness. Most times. Left side on top now is easier than right side on top, whoa, what's that about! I have full confidence in the place of mind, because I have seen action out of breath with the impact of consciousness and feeling.

 

My success, if you could call it that, has been because I felt I could give everything up, and yet I believed in the movement of breath as the key to an inner life. I think without the intent concentration on in-breaths and out-breaths, as it were, it's easy to become to self-effacing and do myself harm. At the same time, I have to let it go, because I am dedicated to harmlessness- is that because I was raised on Rachel Carson and peace-love, or what?

 

may all beings be happy, if any succeed than all succeed, here's to us all each and every.

[ralis]

Not at all. Buddhism was founded upon the very precept that life is suffering.

 

By recognizing this so very painfully in his own life, SSW is actually on the very first step towards liberation from it...

 

But if Buddhists turn him away, then where else would he go find answers? Aren't these the exact people Buddhists should be helping?? To help stop him from taking more drastic actions?

 

Buddha's answer wasn't psychiatry, either. His answer was enlightenment.

 

Any kind of meditation, seeking enlightenment, Buddhist or otherwise, can create more problems. Professional help is mandatory!

 

The Buddha new nothing of Psychiatry. Your point it moot!

 

 

ralis

Edited July 5, 2010 by ralis

[JustARandomPanda]

By mod vote SSW has been given a permanent TTB ban.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

By mod vote SSW has been given a permanent TTB ban.

 

 

Thanks, mod team. Wise move. Blessings to him, I hope he gets the help he needs.

[Sunya]

By mod vote SSW has been given a permanent TTB ban.

 

Nice. That'll help him. Send him back into the wild and hope he gets help!

[ralis]

Nice. That'll help him. Send him back into the wild and hope he gets help!

 

Were you trying to help? Also, it is inappropriate to give counseling on this site.

 

 

ralis

[gendao]

Nice. That'll help him. Send him back into the wild and hope he gets help!

Sadly, getting rejected by a bunch of spiritual people...could actually push him over the edge. SSW is not alone either, he is part of a growing lost generation of disenfranchised beta males. I see all the same conditions in many younger beta males, just in varying degrees... Therefore, it's a growing issue that does need to be addressed - and not just continually swept under the rug by Baby Boomer liberals. I sent him a PM back - hope he read it before he got banned. Or drops further down into despair.

 

BTW, I've traveled abroad a lot myself. All it did was show me that our country is actually even more screwed up than I had previously thought! (Particularly when it comes to women - most women overseas are measurably nicer and attractive than here due to more Old World culture/lifestyles/diets.) Although I also came to appreciate a few good points here too - namely our relative attempts at justice, good highway infrastructure and decent public facilities. Of course, these are all paid for by $15 trillion of debt - so those government projects don't really count in a fair comparison, anyways.

 

But I digress. I hope SSW the best.

Edited July 6, 2010 by vortex

[Stigweard]

When threats of suicide and homicide are made then we are morally and legally bound to take correct actions. Are any of us here professionally qualified to deal with such a situation? The answer is, "No".

 

Sorry if it offends some, but we felt that breaking the downward spiral exhibited here by SSW and referring him towards the professional help that is required was the best course of action.

 

[Birch]

Right, I'm very bad at this.

BUT I kind of wonder. As I told SSW. I'm OLD SCHOOL when it comes to communication via online etc. But this guy seems NEW SCHOOL when it comes to that. Might very well be one of the few (cultural) chances the dude gets to hang with people who have some kind of talent for helping others.

 

As I've already discussed with PW. Seems I might have a vague "messianic complex" (and I'm saying that to make myself look awesome) He was nice and interpreted it as "Bodhisattva" WTEV.

 

Would I like the "responsibility" writing the "wrong thing" that "causes" SSW to take action against himself? Nope. Not on your bloody Nelly.

 

Would I like the "responsibility" of helping someone and trying my best (and WTF there are some heavyweights here, no?)

 

I suppose I might. Yes. My problem? Or, if what SSW is saying. That it's a "society" problem is correct, then might there be a "society" answer? Even if it's a bunch of people online?

[Mark Foote]

Right, I'm very bad at this.

BUT I kind of wonder. As I told SSW. I'm OLD SCHOOL when it comes to communication via online etc. But this guy seems NEW SCHOOL when it comes to that. Might very well be one of the few (cultural) chances the dude gets to hang with people who have some kind of talent for helping others.

 

As I've already discussed with PW. Seems I might have a vague "messianic complex" (and I'm saying that to make myself look awesome) He was nice and interpreted it as "Bodhisattva" WTEV.

 

Would I like the "responsibility" writing the "wrong thing" that "causes" SSW to take action against himself? Nope. Not on your bloody Nelly.

 

Would I like the "responsibility" of helping someone and trying my best (and WTF there are some heavyweights here, no?)

 

I suppose I might. Yes. My problem? Or, if what SSW is saying. That it's a "society" problem is correct, then might there be a "society" answer? Even if it's a bunch of people online?

 

Fast thread here, but I'm not unhappy to have spoken out of turn- there is a happiness in the practice that this site puts forward, in so many ways and with so many voices, and I hope that is what brings all manner of people here. I hope that SSW returns to his happiness, that has always been the path.

[contrivedname!]

Actually the Buddha did, as did proceeding Buddhas. The Buddha said that only the contemplation of "right view" leads to liberation without residue. Not that people who are not labeled Buddhist cannot have this realization, but that this realization was not elaborated to such clarity before the Buddha did in this era. He did say this plenty of times.

 

thunderheart, if non-attachment is a basis of practice why do you attach so much value to the paradigm that buddhadharma is the only true path to liberation, blah, blah, blah? did you ever think that there is the chance that these are perhaps A) dogmatic interpolations encouragement for students already on the buddha path not to swerve and lose their focus and not to start creating a nest of views (i.e. they haven't 'left home' yet; or they are creating a new one through the buddhadharma)? think for yourself.

 

eliteism is ignorant. mind structures vary. when one turns their back on delusion and stands before themself what the fuck does it matter how they did it?

 

when one respects other traditions, their tradition shines. when one slanders others traditions it is as slandering their own and submerging it in darkness.

 

"The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!"

 

"Good friends, what are meditation and wisdom like? They're like a lamp and its light. When there is a lamp there is light. When there is no lamp there is no light. The lamp is the light's body, and light is the lamps function. They have two names but not two bodies. The teaching concerning meditation and wisdom is also like this."

 

It seems in this comparison that Jesus and a zen buddhist have just given a very similar (not the same) description of wisdom.

 

instead of slandering others paths and propelling yours above all others, why not try to find points of similarity and agreement and encourage comraderie among human spirituality. how many wars have been fought over dogmatism? how much suffering does war cause? isnt a buddhist supposed to have compassion for the suffering of any being? it is just because our views vary (as humans) that bodhisaatva's are instructed to develop skillful means:

 

A student asked a zen master:

why do you teach mind is buddha?

to stop a baby from crying.

when the baby has stopped crying, what then?

then i teach, "not mind, not buddha"

what about when someone is attached to neither?

then i teach not beings

what about when someone has no attachments, what would you say then?

then i would let him be to experience reality

 

the zen master realizes that the various teachings are not what is important, it is the outcome of such teachings.

 

i have a theme song for you vajraji:

 

Unction -

1. The act of anointing as part of a religious, ceremonial, or healing ritual.

2. An ointment or oil; a salve.

3. Something that serves to soothe; a balm.

4. Affected or exaggerated earnestness, especially in choice and use of language.

 

G'Day!

[Vajrahridaya]

thunderheart, if non-attachment is a basis of practice why do you attach so much value to the paradigm that buddhadharma is the only true path to liberation, blah, blah, blah? did you ever think that there is the chance that these are perhaps A) dogmatic interpolations encouragement for students already on the buddha path not to swerve and lose their focus and not to start creating a nest of views (i.e. they haven't 'left home' yet; or they are creating a new one through the buddhadharma)? think for yourself.

 

Buddhadharma is the only path that doesn't take up any view as ultimate, thus interdependent origination is the viewless view. So, it's the only path as explained that does lead to liberation without any residual attachments. Other paths lead to some sort of ultimate view, some sort of ultimate existence, i.e. God, Brahman, Tao... etc. All these are considered terms for that which is "beyond terms" but truly exists from it's own side. So... these are subtle forms of attachment, even if they are formless, infinite concepts beyond name and form. The Buddha said that these paths lead to higher rebirth but not liberation from Samsara as many of them say they do, but do not.

eliteism is ignorant. mind structures vary. when one turns their back on delusion and stands before themself what the fuck does it matter how they did it?

 

If they did it, then they realized interdependent origination, thus they realized the Buddhadharma.

when one respects other traditions, their tradition shines. when one slanders others traditions it is as slandering their own and submerging it in darkness.

 

I give respect to them, though they are not deemed complete in the eyes of Buddhas. The Buddha said as such himself that Brahma paths are not complete. Brahma paths are paths of subjective idealism. Taking up an experience as proof of an ultimate reality. This is the deep seed of Samsaric re-becoming. The Buddhadharma is very specific and clear.

 

"The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!"

 

"Good friends, what are meditation and wisdom like? They're like a lamp and its light. When there is a lamp there is light. When there is no lamp there is no light. The lamp is the light's body, and light is the lamps function. They have two names but not two bodies. The teaching concerning meditation and wisdom is also like this."

It seems in this comparison that Jesus and a zen buddhist have just given a very similar (not the same) description of wisdom.

 

One should not be fooled by similar descriptions. These types of comparisons are all over the place. These are nice, but Jesus did not teach a complete path of method and wisdom. Though by being a true Christian in the best sense does lead to higher rebirth, thus is a path worthy of respect, just not refuge.

instead of slandering others paths and propelling yours above all others, why not try to find points of similarity and agreement and encourage comraderie among human spirituality. how many wars have been fought over dogmatism? how much suffering does war cause? isnt a buddhist supposed to have compassion for the suffering of any being? it is just because our views vary (as humans) that bodhisaatva's are instructed to develop skillful means:

 

A student asked a zen master:

why do you teach mind is buddha?

to stop a baby from crying.

when the baby has stopped crying, what then?

then i teach, "not mind, not buddha"

what about when someone is attached to neither?

then i teach not beings

what about when someone has no attachments, what would you say then?

then i would let him be to experience reality

 

the zen master realizes that the various teachings are not what is important, it is the outcome of such teachings.

 

i have a theme song for you vajraji:

 

Unction -

1. The act of anointing as part of a religious, ceremonial, or healing ritual.

2. An ointment or oil; a salve.

3. Something that serves to soothe; a balm.

4. Affected or exaggerated earnestness, especially in choice and use of language.

 

G'Day!

 

My point here is to promote "right view" or the viewless view of dependent origination/emptiness which truly liberates. Not war. Just debate.

 

Your view, though it makes people feel nice and comfortable, does not lead to liberation.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point here is to promote "right view" or the viewless view of dependent origination/emptiness which truly liberates. Not war. Just debate.

 

Your view, though it makes people feel nice and comfortable, does not lead to liberation.

 

 

Your continuing diatribe of untenable arguments, on what you believe as superior, is not about honest debate and continually begs the question. You mistakenly believe you are absolutely correct and proceed from that conclusion. In other words, you aren't engaging in debate, when you tell someone there belief system is wrong and yours is the "right view".

 

 

 

ralis

[Birch]

Weird, but I figure Taoism is closer to a viewless view that can also explain the other ones.

 

-----Ducks-------

 

[Vajrahridaya]

Your continuing diatribe of untenable arguments, on what you believe as superior, is not about honest debate and continually begs the question. You mistakenly believe you are absolutely correct and proceed from that conclusion. In other words, you aren't engaging in debate, when you tell someone there belief system is wrong and yours is the "right view".

 

 

 

ralis

 

Begs what question? You only question because you have deeply ingrained conditions of opposition in your mind which impede your ability to read what the Buddha said. Much less understand anything I've written.

 

My view is not the right view. This is not what I speak. You find argument from the wrong position of defining, so really you are arguing with yourself, as always.

[Vajrahridaya]

Weird, but I figure Taoism is closer to a viewless view that can also explain the other ones.

 

-----Ducks-------

 

 

Taoism takes up the "Tao" as an ultimate position which all things spring from and are in essence. So basically you take the universal subjective idealism as ultimate view. Thus... this is not a viewless view. It's basically a deep comfort zone.

[Birch]

Neat!

 

Then I will hang with it for a while

[ralis]

Begs what question? You only question because you have deeply ingrained conditions of opposition in your mind which impede your ability to read what the Buddha said. Much less understand anything I've written.

 

My view is not the right view. This is not what I speak. You find argument from the wrong position of defining, so really you are arguing with yourself, as always.

 

Just look up "begging the question" which is a logical fallacy. If it is not the "right view" then why put "right view" in quotes?

You judge me from a Buddhist perspective. So, according to you, I am supposed to read the Buddha and accept unconditionally, because you say so?

 

 

 

ralis

Edited July 9, 2010 by ralis

[Mark Foote]

Just look up "begging the question" which is a logical fallacy. If it is not the "right view" then why put "right view" in quotes?

 

I think it's true that when I suffer, there is a path; when I don't, there isn't. For me the main significance of the teachings is that knowledge plays a role in freedom. DO is really a part of that, useful sometimes for that, and there is nothing that has significance outside of its relationship to each other thing, without exception. How's that.

[ralis]

I think it's true that when I suffer, there is a path; when I don't, there isn't. For me the main significance of the teachings is that knowledge plays a role in freedom. DO is really a part of that, useful sometimes for that, and there is nothing that has significance outside of its relationship to each other thing, without exception. How's that.

 

My point is that Vajraji takes the position that his point of view is superior to anyone else!

 

 

ralis

[Sunya]

My point is that Vajraji takes the position that his point of view is superior to anyone else!

 

 

ralis

 

 

/shrug

 

His point of view is backed up with good arguments as well as his own experience, so... I don't see that as the same as being dogmatic/fundamentalist since that relies on faith not experience.

 

If you have such a problem, why don't you provide a rebuttal to the content? All you do is say the same thing, every post. You mock with sarcasm and blanket statements and criticism. That's not a good way of pointing out how your position differs from anyone else's. Saying "you're wrong" 40 million times is just a waste of your time, isn't it?

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

So, why can he not bring his argument here and stop putting all other ways down? He is dismissive of other ways, and always self-references to the Buddha's way is the superior over all others, because the Buddha says it is. He is completely dense and tone-deaf about his self-admited 'preaching' here, ralis and I are far from the only people here who find it tiresome and offensive that no path is as good as his (even lesser forms of Buddhism). I see him talk very talk of compassion, social activism or engagement, only that he is going to be a Buddha someday. How will this help the world? He knows a lot, but he is unable to hold back on the put-downs of other ways. Others have pointed this out more than a few times, why can he not present his views and experiences and stop comparing it as superior to other ways constantly?

 

OK, we get it that he had some transcendent experiences at age 14, and that he has had meditations where he has "apprehended the truth" (his actual words), so whatever he says can not be contradicted because he owns the Truth. It is just so tiresome, we just get tired of the broken record. In his preaching this way, he comes across as a fundamentalist...come on, the 'faith' argument is specious mikaelz. It's his whole zeal, and the fact that he debates us to death with the same heavy Dzogchen party-line hammer.

 

OK, can you actually address the above, without coming back at me with how flawed I am, and how I "follow him around" (I don't. Please go to my profile and look up my posts and topics. 98% have nothing to do with him). Vajra, here's a dare, if you will: can you educate us about Buddhism without telling us of it's superiority to other ways, maybe try it for a month? Can you do it? If you can't, ask yourself, why not?

Edited July 9, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Vajrahridaya]

Neat!

 

Then I will hang with it for a while

 

Yes, Taoism leads to good places, but it doesn't uphold the viewless view. Everyone has their capacity.

[ralis]

Yes, Taoism leads to good places, but it doesn't uphold the viewless view. Everyone has their capacity.

 

This statement proves what Songs was just talking about! Another not so subtle put down of Taoism.

 

 

ralis