Your enlightenment in this life is assured!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

Whether you accept the Way or not, does not separate you from it.

 

 

I accept YOU as a part of ME within the everything that is the TAO.

 

You and I swim within the same Ocean that is the Way.

 

All explanation is contained within the whole that is TAO.

 

 

Peace and understanding !

 

You are of course welcome to your view. I follow the path of the Buddhas, so I have a different view.

 

I wish you peace and blessing upon your way.

[xenolith]

For me, based on direct experience, these realms spoken about in the texts do exist.

What experience?

[Vajrahridaya]

What experience?

 

Having been to various realms spoken of in various texts.

 

Inter-dimensional and other worldly travel is possible! It seems at this point though, only through meditation into the higher Jhanas.

[xenolith]

Having been to various realms spoken of in various texts.

"...various xxx...various yyy..." does not contain meaningful information. I know TTB is just an internet forum, but its also a place where people excercise genuine inquisitiveness among similarly inclined other people and as such, there is some expectation of substance to answers to questions.

 

Kindly, please share some specificity about these experiences, realms and texts.

 

Thank you.

 

xeno

[Vajrahridaya]

"...various xxx...various yyy..." does not contain meaningful information. I know TTB is just an internet forum, but its also a place where people excercise genuine inquisitiveness among similarly inclined other people and as such, there is some expectation of substance to answers to questions.

 

Kindly, please share some specificity about these experiences, realms and texts.

 

Thank you.

 

xeno

 

Been to Siddhaloka, Indraloka and Naraka. I've also seen various deities both Hindu and Buddhist in and out of meditation. A Pureland is harder to get to than these, and I have not been to a pureland, but I don't doubt their existence based upon these and other experiences. Also the only Buddhist deities I've seen are the ones who attained Jalus (Rainbow body) which is an attainment easier for us samsarins to get in touch with than those that only exist in the Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya levels. I've not actually seen a Buddha of the Sambhogakaya level yet as far as I can tell as supposedly it takes a Bodhisattva of a higher caliber to see that deeply. Only some of those Buddhas who have attained Jalus have I seen directly, and it was only during special Dzogchen retreat or transmission while in a state higher than my normal capacity.

Edited November 28, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

[xabir2005]

I think this is the order of your personal experience xabir. But you are forgetting something.

 

Some people experience things in a different sequence. Some people first start with an ordinary dualistic experience. Then they are introduced to the teaching of interdependent co-arising and the absence of inherent existence with regard to concrete objects. They ponder this teaching and become convinced that indeed it is so. Through wisdom they are able to perceive all discrete objects as one unbroken play of interdependence. Still, they continue to contemplate emptiness and interdependence. Then these people realize that even the sum total of the current experience exists in total interdependence with regard to the unborn potential of what all else there could be experienced instead of all this. Resting in this wisdom allows people to finally experience the unborn and mysterious luminocity of the I AM which is anchored nowhere and yet ever-present.

 

At this point a person understands that "I am this" is an incomplete and limiting statement and "I am not this" is also an incomplete and limiting statement. As Chuang Tzu puts it, no self, no other is where one can find the hinge of Tao.

 

This is what's called "released through wisdom."

 

 

 

There is no way to establish the absence of an agent. Why not? Nothing can be established.

 

And by the way, welcome back. Long time no hear xabir! As usual you make an entry with a War & Peace sized post!

What you said is true... as I explained before, there is no hierarchy of insights. Some penetrate emptiness first, followed by luminosity. Both are essential and one must eventually come to see the union and inseparability of luminosity and emptiness.

 

Thanks for the welcome... have been busy, serving the army. Just came back from one week of jungle training... conditions were 'hell-like' but nevertheless still fun at times. Memorable experience definitely.

 

I'm going back to camp now and wouldn't be booking out for another two weeks.

Edited November 28, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

There is no way to establish the absence of an agent. Why not? Nothing can be established.

In actuality, there is no agent and no 'no agent' whatsoever.

Just this breathe, this passing scent, this arising sound

Nothing can be established and yet nothing can be clearer then this/these obviousness.

[manitou]

Buddhahood. It's very specific. Other than that, I was being figurative and not literal. This contradiction has it's context.

I'm wondering how Buddhahood aligns with the three treasures of the Tao, once one has gotten to that point.The Three Treasures: The First is "Love", the second is "Never too much", the third is "Never be the first in the world". If one practices the Tao faithfully over an extended period of time, those would be our treasures. What does Never be the First in the World mean? My guess is that address ego directly; it's the feeling that if we are the "First" we feel that we are compelled to have all the answers. How does Buddhahood address this?

[Vajrahridaya]

I'm wondering how Buddhahood aligns with the three treasures of the Tao, once one has gotten to that point.The Three Treasures: The First is "Love", the second is "Never too much", the third is "Never be the first in the world". If one practices the Tao faithfully over an extended period of time, those would be our treasures. What does Never be the First in the World mean? My guess is that address ego directly; it's the feeling that if we are the "First" we feel that we are compelled to have all the answers. How does Buddhahood address this?

 

There's no attachment (no-non-attachment), total acceptance, though also the manifestation of total compassion, so every action is in alignment for betterment of all beings within a very vast scope of perspective, living from a state of super-normal sense of inter-connection. There is no question of ego or not ego for a Buddha. The 4 immeasurables have already been perfected even prier to Buddhahood. These are infinite 1) loving-kindness or benevolence, 2) compassion, 3) sympathetic joy, and, 4) equanimity. Buddhahood is perfection of the union between luminosity and emptiness. Also the union, or yoking (yoga) of method and wisdom. There would be no sense of gluttony, or personal pride in a Buddha.

[suninmyeyes]

In actuality, there is no agent and no 'no agent' whatsoever.

Just this breathe, this passing scent, this arising sound

Nothing can be established and yet nothing can be clearer then this/these obviousness.

 

YES! to this .Very nice.Home.

Edited November 28, 2010 by suninmyeyes

[strawdog65]

I'm wondering how Buddhahood aligns with the three treasures of the Tao, once one has gotten to that point.The Three Treasures: The First is "Love", the second is "Never too much", the third is "Never be the first in the world". If one practices the Tao faithfully over an extended period of time, those would be our treasures. What does Never be the First in the World mean? My guess is that address ego directly; it's the feeling that if we are the "First" we feel that we are compelled to have all the answers. How does Buddhahood address this?

 

 

Hello Manitou,

 

Water does not contend.

Even so, no place is

unknown to her serenity.

 

I know not...

And with knowing, I know not...

I am at One with Tao.

 

Peace!

[sweeney]

IF YOU MEET BUDDHA ON THE ROAD. KILL HIM!

[sweeney]

Zen is Tao and Tao is Zen. Way back in the mists of time the Irish monks who worshipped Jesus were for want of a better word 'Druids'. When a famous one called St Columba went over to Scotland to found Iona he had to have a 'magic' duel with the Loch Ness Monster (A Goddess)and furthermore had one of his monks buried alive to sanctify his new chapel... So if anyone can tell me of a faith, philosophy, or vehicle that is has mixed with or taken from an older system please tell me. Lao Tzu went into the West and became Buddha.

 

When sitting sit, walking walk but above all don't wobble!

 

p.s seeking nibbna is like looking for the back of your head

[fiveelementtao]

For me, the whole issue I have with enlightenment is when it is interpreted as a way of being "saved" regardless of the spiritual specifics of the belief system. If there is an element contained within the belief system that says or implies that humans are somehow incomplete or flawed and is in need of being saved or enlightened, then it does smack of fundamentalism.

If enlightenment is seen as being an eternal process, then count me in. But, if enlightenment is seen as some static state of being where one is relieved of all pain, desire, illusion, sin etc... then regardless of the original intention of the proponent, someone at some point is going to turn the idea of enlightenment into salvation and promote the idea that their way is best and yours is inferior.

 

IME, the idea of salvation through seeking some kind of ultimate enlightenment only engenders spiritual laziness, escapism and ultimately fundamentalism.

 

With respect, although I appreciate his sentiment, I disagree with my friend Sweeney. Tao is not Zen. Zen is buddhism with Tao slapped on top of it. In the early history of buddhism in China, buddhists adopted taoist concepts. The early Ch'an monks used to spend alot of time sitting "Zazen" but ended up getting kundalini sickness because of it. So, the buddhists sought out the Taoists to teach their students how to meditate and be able to keep their energy balanced, Shao lin (Ch'an/Zen) buddhists like to claim that Da Mo discovered the five elements in a cave etc... but, the truth is they borrowed the idea from taoists after Da Mo and attributed it to him claiming it for themselves and taking credit for it. Damo (Bodhidarma) was from India. his Indian understanding of the elements would be very different than current Shao Lin understanding which is essentially taoist. So, buddhists DO have a history of acting in fundamentalist ways... As far as I can see, I have never seen taoists seek to convert or appropriate the beliefs of others. I think this is because Taoism has it's roots in shamanism, not universalist religion. I also have to respectfully disagree that Druids are not christians. Early celtic christians may have carried pre christian celtic ideas into their christianity, but it was still christianity.

 

My intention is not to berate buddhism, but to point out that the fundamentalist aspects of some buddhists (not buddhism) has the same tendency as other proselytizing faiths, where they will adopt the existing beliefs and because they do believe that their way is superior, they will somehow find a way to make the beliefs they have incorporated as somehow being theirs.

 

my .02

Mike

[Lucky7Strikes]

"there must also be a total new paradigm shift in terms of view; we must free ourselves from being bonded to the idea, the need, the urge and the tendency of analyzing, seeing and understanding our moment to moment of experiential reality from a source, an essence, a center, a location, an agent or a controller and rest entirely on anatta and Dependent Origination."

 

_/\_

[Birch]

"Buddhism is NOT monotheistic and where on earth did you get the idea that it was?"

 

By looking at its behaviour and then attributing to it the same term that is used for other religions that behave the same. It's a contemplation in progress, so please forgive.

 

- one human (male) incarnation of ultimate ideal - check

- assertion that said religion holds one sole truth (and knows what that is) - check

- practices to alter/control natural human characteristics - check

- concept of sin/evil - check

 

I think it's probably one of the nicer religions and there are lots of great practices that are included in it. No offense intended anywhere.

[Vajrahridaya]

Kate, consider this an education, so that you can expand past your limited concepts concerning Buddhism. If you are interested in doing so that is.

 

"Buddhism is NOT monotheistic and where on earth did you get the idea that it was?"

 

By looking at its behaviour and then attributing to it the same term that is used for other religions that behave the same. It's a contemplation in progress, so please forgive.

 

Monotheism means one God that created everything. So, Buddhism is not that.

 

Shakyamuni also said that he was not a god, but merely awake.

- one human (male) incarnation of ultimate ideal - check

 

Actually, there are many Buddha ideals in Buddhism, including many, many female Buddhas.

 

Shakyamuni was just the fire starter, during a time when a women wouldn't even have been heard, so it's only practical that it be a man. Shakyamuni did create an order of Nuns and did ignore the caste system and said that anyone could attain Buddhahood.

 

There are some questionable occurrences in history concerning sexism in Buddhism, but most of that has been ironed out as women gain more power.

 

The Buddhas were never sexist, only some popular interpreters who gained prominence in certain regions at a certain time, or when politics mixed with Buddhism, etc.

 

- assertion that said religion holds one sole truth (and knows what that is) - check

 

There is no ultimate truth in Buddhism, which is what makes it different from other traditions that state that there is an ultimate truth, or ultimate existence to everything.

 

- practices to alter/control natural human characteristics - check

 

The term natural is an excuse to stay bound by habit patterns developed by ignorant humans over thousands and thousands of years? It's all very natural that we are destroying ourselves, isn't it? It's all so very natural that we all make war with each other out of fear of loss, now isn't it? So, the Buddha introduced a different level of nature that one could embrace for the sake of positive transformation. If you use the term "natural" as an excuse for a static concept about something, then you're lost.

 

- concept of sin/evil - check

 

There is no static concept of sin and evil in Buddhism. There is only karma. Action and reaction, which goes with intention and the reaction of intention on the one who holds it.

 

So really, all your static ideas concerning Buddhism really hold no truth outside of your own personal interpretation of things and they spring from a lack of being educated in the teachings of Buddhism.

 

Basically, you are only seeing what you want to see, instead of how things actually are.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

"there must also be a total new paradigm shift in terms of view; we must free ourselves from being bonded to the idea, the need, the urge and the tendency of analyzing, seeing and understanding our moment to moment of experiential reality from a source, an essence, a center, a location, an agent or a controller and rest entirely on anatta and Dependent Origination."

 

_/\_

 

[ralis]

Kate, consider this an education, so that you can expand past your limited concepts concerning Buddhism. If you are interested in doing so that is.

 

 

 

Monotheism means one God that created everything. So, Buddhism is not that.

 

Shakyamuni also said that he was not a god, but merely awake.

 

 

Actually, there are many Buddha ideals in Buddhism, including many, many female Buddhas.

 

Shakyamuni was just the fire starter, during a time when a women wouldn't even have been heard, so it's only practical that it be a man. Shakyamuni did create an order of Nuns and did ignore the caste system and said that anyone could attain Buddhahood.

 

There are some questionable occurrences in history concerning sexism in Buddhism, but most of that has been ironed out as women gain more power.

 

The Buddhas were never sexist, only some popular interpreters who gained prominence in certain regions at a certain time, or when politics mixed with Buddhism, etc.

 

 

 

There is no ultimate truth in Buddhism, which is what makes it different from other traditions that state that there is an ultimate truth, or ultimate existence to everything.

 

 

 

The term natural is an excuse to stay bound by habit patterns developed by ignorant humans over thousands and thousands of years? It's all very natural that we are destroying ourselves, isn't it? It's all so very natural that we all make war with each other out of fear of loss, now isn't it? So, the Buddha introduced a different level of nature that one could embrace for the sake of positive transformation. If you use the term "natural" as an excuse for a static concept about something, then you're lost.

 

 

 

There is no static concept of sin and evil in Buddhism. There is only karma. Action and reaction, which goes with intention and the reaction of intention on the one who holds it.

 

So really, all your static ideas concerning Buddhism really hold no truth outside of your own personal interpretation of things and they spring from a lack of being educated in the teachings of Buddhism.

 

Basically, you are only seeing what you want to see, instead of how things actually are.

 

 

Vajraji, you are not a teacher. Why? Your remarks are condescending and relate very little to any constructive debate.

 

Women are still not held in high regard except for use as consorts. Very few women have become teachers.

 

In regards to Bon, Padmasambhava tried to wipe out the indigenous Bon religion of Tibet. He saw it as something evil.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Women are still not held in high regard except for use as consorts. Very few women have become teachers.

 

In regards to Bon, Padmasambhava tried to wipe out the indigenous Bon religion of Tibet. He saw it as something evil.

 

Your take on things is very skewered. I think it's more your mind that likes to see evil and interpret things as evil.

 

In historical Buddhism there are plenty of examples of female Buddhas. As you are a glass is half empty type of person, a cynic, you would only see the negative things that human beings have done. Padmasambhava only re-interpreted Bon.

[Birch]

"Kate, consider this an education, so that you can expand past your limited concepts concerning Buddhism. If you are interested in doing so that is."

 

Always willing to get free education. Thank you!

 

"Monotheism means one God that created everything. So, Buddhism is not that."

 

I didn't say I was looking at what it's called. I said I was looking at how it behaves and then calling it something.

 

By looking at its behaviour and then attributing to it the same term that is used for other religions that behave the same. It's a contemplation in progress, so please forgive.

 

""Shakyamuni also said that he was not a god, but merely awake."

 

So why idealize/deify the guy?

 

Quote

- one human (male) incarnation of ultimate ideal - check

 

 

"Actually, there are many Buddha ideals in Buddhism, including many, many female Buddhas."

 

Great! Where are they? Where are the statues and the stories and the teaching from them?

 

"Shakyamuni was just the fire starter, during a time when a women wouldn't even have been heard,"

 

So, do you mean that Buddhism was started of the top of existing male-dominated culture?

 

"so it's only practical that it be a man."

 

Because?

 

"Shakyamuni did create an order of Nuns"

 

Is that positive or negative?

 

"And did ignore the caste system and said that anyone could attain Buddhahood."

 

Well, I guess if he says so then...

 

"There are some questionable occurrences in history concerning sexism in Buddhism, but most of that has been ironed out as women gain more power."

 

Ack

 

"The Buddhas were never sexist, only some popular interpreters who gained prominence in certain regions at a certain time, or when politics mixed with Buddhism, etc."

 

Which is it? They were or were not sexist?

 

Quote

- assertion that said religion holds one sole truth (and knows what that is) - check

 

 

"There is no ultimate truth in Buddhism, which is what makes it different from other traditions that state that there is an ultimate truth, or ultimate existence to everything."

 

Really? i thought you said it was a fundamentalist religion?

 

 

 

Quote

- practices to alter/control natural human characteristics - check

 

 

"The term natural is an excuse to stay bound by habit patterns developed by ignorant humans over thousands and thousands of years?"

 

I'm not sure (and I doubt that I ever will be) but through contemplation I'm leaning towards a pre-existing corruption prior to buddhist culture(through education/domestication of some kind)and in fact the split between nature, body and mentality.

 

"It's all very natural that we are destroying ourselves, isn't it? It's all so very natural that we all make war with each other out of fear of loss, now isn't it? "

 

I didn't say that, I don't thnk.

 

"So, the Buddha introduced a different level of nature that one could embrace for the sake of positive transformation."

 

A different "level" of nature?

 

"If you use the term "natural" as an excuse for a static concept about something, then you're lost."

 

I wasn't using it in those terms, I don't think.

 

Quote

- concept of sin/evil - check

 

 

"There is no static concept of sin and evil in Buddhism. There is only karma. Action and reaction, which goes with intention and the reaction of intention on the one who holds it."

 

So, no "bad" karma and "unskillful means" or "wrong livelihood"?

 

"So really, all your static ideas"

 

I said I was contemplating and it was a work in progress. Sound static to you?

 

"concerning Buddhism really hold no truth outside of your own personal interpretation of things and they spring from a lack of being educated in the teachings of Buddhism."

 

I'm very willing to learn more about it but I think I refuse to be "educated" at this point.

 

"Basically, you are only seeing what you want to see, instead of how things actually are."

 

Actually, to the contrary friend.

[ralis]

Your take on things is very skewered. I think it's more your mind that likes to see evil and interpret things as evil.

 

In historical Buddhism there are plenty of examples of female Buddhas. As you are a glass is half empty type of person, a cynic, you would only see the negative things that human beings have done. Padmasambhava only re-interpreted Bon.

 

If you debate me, stay on topic. The evil reference is from the literature. Not my interpretation. I don't appreciate your refaming my statements to suit your weak narrative.

 

There is a book on Padmasambhava that states this. What right does he have to interpret Bon according to his own belief system? None! The literature states he was subduing evil spirits and an evil goddess. Please don't recite some higher purpose in regards to this action by him.

 

I guess in your view, if Padmasambhava creates negativity, then it is for a higher cause?

 

I believe it is in this book.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Life-Liberation-Padmasambhava-Yeshe-Tsogyal/dp/0898004225/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1290998370&sr=8-13

Edited November 29, 2010 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

"Kate, consider this an education, so that you can expand past your limited concepts concerning Buddhism. If you are interested in doing so that is."

 

Always willing to get free education. Thank you!

 

"Monotheism means one God that created everything. So, Buddhism is not that."

 

I didn't say I was looking at what it's called. I said I was looking at how it behaves and then calling it something.

 

By looking at its behaviour and then attributing to it the same term that is used for other religions that behave the same. It's a contemplation in progress, so please forgive.

 

Your idea of it's behavior comes from a limited demographic for information.

 

""Shakyamuni also said that he was not a god, but merely awake."

 

So why idealize/deify the guy?

 

Quote

- one human (male) incarnation of ultimate ideal - check

 

There were many, many Buddhas. In my practice I more focus on Padmasambhava as well as my lineage teacher Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche as my Buddha and ideal. The Buddha is not deified, his image is exemplified as a human being, just like us, who realized complete freedom and total wakefulness. So again... you are only seeing what you want to see. You seem very stern in your approach too. I feel like I'm wasting my fingers, but others will read this. So, maybe not.

 

"Actually, there are many Buddha ideals in Buddhism, including many, many female Buddhas."

 

Great! Where are they? Where are the statues and the stories and the teaching from them?

 

Mostly in Vajrayana. One of the most practiced forms of Vajrayana these days seems to be Chod, of which there are a few forms, but the most practiced form is that of Machig Labdron, a female Buddha from about 1,000 years ago. There is Gomadevi, a female Buddha who attained the Jalus, who I have a personal connection with who was a Princess and one of the 21 Indian Panditas (female masters). I have a transmission of her teaching as terma (revealed treasure). Anyway, there are tons and tons, both from India and Tibet in the Vajrayana tradition. Padmasambhava taught a few women into Buddhahood, women who are well known in the tradition.

 

"Shakyamuni was just the fire starter, during a time when a women wouldn't even have been heard,"

 

So, do you mean that Buddhism was started of the top of existing male-dominated culture?

 

It was. But, the Buddha made lots of people angry when he created the first order of Nuns and also trumped the caste system by letting any caste level into his following. Basically he transcended many of the social limitations of the time.

 

"so it's only practical that it be a man."

 

Because?

 

A women wielding that much power probably would have been killed on the spot, ignorantly of course, but just the same.

 

"Shakyamuni did create an order of Nuns"

 

Is that positive or negative?

 

Positive. He allowed women to remove themselves from the role of child barer and house maker, and gave them the teachings to remove themselves from psychological suffering all together, of which was a great success. He also created a layman teaching for those that wanted to stay within regular society but practice the teachings to liberation integrating them with their regular life.

 

"And did ignore the caste system and said that anyone could attain Buddhahood."

 

Well, I guess if he says so then...

 

Yes he did, and he showed so and others did so as well.

[Vajrahridaya]

"The Buddhas were never sexist, only some popular interpreters who gained prominence in certain regions at a certain time, or when politics mixed with Buddhism, etc."

 

Which is it? They were or were not sexist?

 

Buddhas are not sexist by nature of being a Buddha. Other people, who might have interpreted the teachings into their region and time might have brought forth that element, interpreters not necessarily being Buddhas.

 

Quote

- assertion that said religion holds one sole truth (and knows what that is) - check

 

 

"There is no ultimate truth in Buddhism, which is what makes it different from other traditions that state that there is an ultimate truth, or ultimate existence to everything."

 

Really? i thought you said it was a fundamentalist religion?

 

Yes, as in to understand the fundamentals of the universe only comes through realization of dependent origination/emptiness and not through positing an independent origination/consciousness at the source of things, which is what all other religions teach, besides some forms of Taoism. So yes, Buddhism is for the most part, the odd one out. All major religions posit a truly self existing soul of the universe, Buddhism is pretty much the only one that does not.

 

Quote

- practices to alter/control natural human characteristics - check

 

 

"The term natural is an excuse to stay bound by habit patterns developed by ignorant humans over thousands and thousands of years?"

 

I'm not sure (and I doubt that I ever will be) but through contemplation I'm leaning towards a pre-existing corruption prior to buddhist culture(through education/domestication of some kind)and in fact the split between nature, body and mentality.

 

Sure, mostly started around the beginning of the agricultural area when we stopped migrating.

 

Buddhist practice is meant to bring a harmony between mind, body and energy.

 

 

"So, the Buddha introduced a different level of nature that one could embrace for the sake of positive transformation."

 

A different "level" of nature?

 

Sure, the nature of dependent origination/emptiness and the incredibly profound insight into everything this engenders through the practices revealed by a master of this insight.

 

 

Quote

- concept of sin/evil - check

 

 

"There is no static concept of sin and evil in Buddhism. There is only karma. Action and reaction, which goes with intention and the reaction of intention on the one who holds it."

 

So, no "bad" karma and "unskillful means" or "wrong livelihood"?

 

Sure, in a sense... but that's always variable. As the different vehicles to Buddhahood have different tenet systems depending upon the needs of an individual or the needs of a particular human society. The Buddhas teachings known as the Hinayana vehicle have different rules of conduct than Mahayana and Vajrayana is different as well, and so is Dzogchen. There have been female Tantric masters who attained liberation while being a consort of a king, by turning their perception around and using teachings given to them by a Tantric Master to turn the sexual experience into an inner fire of purification that turned them into Buddhas. There have been Buddha butchers as well, but I think only through the Vajra-vehicle, and only by them turning their act into a way of liberating the animal mind stream into a human mind-stream through deep insight. So really, there is only karma and there is no bad or good karma, really, only practically. Like going around kidnapping kids for ransom would practically speaking be "wrong livelihood." Due to the causes and conditions surrounding that choice of livelihood would make it impossible for that person to attain Buddhahood while undertaking such a job. Just like, being a hitman or hitwomen, or assassin of some sort would be a job that would make it extremely hard for that person to attain Buddhahood, maybe not impossible, but generally speaking... the causes and conditions surrounding that job, or karmas, would be coming from a contracted view of things and not an expanded view of things. If you want to think in terms of good and bad karma, think in terms of good karma reflects seeing inter-connectivity and bad karma comes from seeing only immediate gain at the expense of others.

 

"So really, all your static ideas"

 

I said I was contemplating and it was a work in progress. Sound static to you?

 

Ok good! But you seem to have been carrying these views around for a while, for as long as I've known you. It's just, you don't seem to me to be coming across as a person who is asking with an open mind, bur rather a defensive state of mind, which is messing with my ability to speak openly with you. If I am completely wrong, than I apologize.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Vajrahridaya