[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And, after sixty-one years of meditating, I've not seen any account about certainty in spiritual knowledge that has a claim to certainty. a Knowledge is structured in consciousness is more than a truism. As consciousness changes, so does knowledge. That is why it is so futile when discussing descriptions of consciousness to try for a consensus.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
That is a very good point. It's also true that knowledge is different in different universes. I tend to avoid universes in which catching a glimpse of a toilet trout dims my mind.a jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And, after sixty-one years of meditating, I've not seen any account about certainty in spiritual knowledge that has a claim to certainty. a Knowledge is structured in consciousness is more than a truism. As consciousness changes, so does knowledge. That is why it is so futile when discussing descriptions of consciousness to try for a consensus. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
This whole turd in the toilet problem (TTP) is just another example of the confounding of states of mind with pure consciousness. I have no problem believing that the darshan of human waste would diminish ones mental state due to its tamasic nature, but would it impact pure consciousness, no. Another comment: how weak does one's mind have to be to be impacted by TTP? Pretty weak in my book. --- Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is a very good point. It's also true that knowledge is different in different universes. I tend to avoid universes in which catching a glimpse of a toilet trout dims my mind.a jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And, after sixty-one years of meditating, I've not seen any account about certainty in spiritual knowledge that has a claim to certainty. a Knowledge is structured in consciousness is more than a truism. As consciousness changes, so does knowledge. That is why it is so futile when discussing descriptions of consciousness to try for a consensus. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This whole turd in the toilet problem (TTP) is just another example of the confounding of states of mind with pure consciousness. I have no problem believing that the darshan of human waste would diminish ones mental state due to its tamasic nature, but would it impact pure consciousness, no. Bob said he experienced a diminution of awareness. Not clear whether he mental state or pure consciousness. Perhaps he'd be willing to clarify... Another comment: how weak does one's mind have to be to be impacted by TTP? Pretty weak in my book. Maybe it would be a matter of degree: the stronger the mind, the more negligible the impact. But you would have to have an invincible mind for there to be no impact at all. I suspect Jim is right; these are DEscriptions, not PREscriptions. If you don't experience a drain of whatever from looking at a turd, it doesn't do your whatever enough harm to worry about.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
Angela Mailander Causation is a concept in trouble, and I for one, am glad to hear it since it has always seemed flimsy to me. There are only two things that are certain in life, Angela: death and taxes. However, it is a generally accepted observation that human excrement ALWAYS flows downstream. This observation applies to the demi-Gods as well as to humans. If this were not so, then, we could expect monkeys to fly up out of our ass instead of shit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
jstein wrote: If you don't experience a drain of whatever from looking at a turd, it doesn't do your whatever enough harm to worry about. So, you DO visually examine your turds after each evacuation - I thought so. Do they go down the outhouse hole or float downstream? At my place, the hole is very deep and dark so it's difficult to know what the actual turds look like. Sometimes though, I can see them actually floating downstream. But I don't usually wade out into the stream to retrieve them: I just let them go and don't worry about it much.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
Can you deny that there is a universe, especially now that you've called it into being, in which monkeys in fact fly outa your ass? Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Angela Mailander Causation is a concept in trouble, and I for one, am glad to hear it since it has always seemed flimsy to me. There are only two things that are certain in life, Angela: death and taxes. However, it is a generally accepted observation that human excrement ALWAYS flows downstream. This observation applies to the demi-Gods as well as to humans. If this were not so, then, we could expect monkeys to fly up out of our ass instead of shit. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
Peter wrote: This whole turd in the toilet problem (TTP) is just another example of the confounding of states of mind with pure consciousness. Is there some kind of rule, Peter, where you live, that turds ALWAYS have to be put in the toilet?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
Angela Mailander wrote: Can you deny that there is a universe, especially now that you've called it into being, in which monkeys in fact fly outa your ass? In your dreams, maybe, or if you were high on magic mushrooms, but if you think monkeys in fact are flying outa your ass, maybe you should see a psychologist like Dr. Peter Sutphen. Angela Mailander wrote: Causation is a concept in trouble, and I for one, am glad to hear it since it has always seemed flimsy to me. Richard J. Williams wrote: There are only two things that are certain in life, Angela: death and taxes. However, it is a generally accepted observation that human excrement ALWAYS flows downstream. This observation applies to the demi-Gods as well as to humans. If this were not so, then, we could expect monkeys to fly up out of our ass instead of shit. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
Is Toilet Paper vedic.? Or would Maharishi insist only on water to clean up so that it keeps the consiousness pure. Shemp thinks Butterflies come out of MMY.!! Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 06:09:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada This whole turd in the toilet problem (TTP) is just another example of the confounding of states of mind with pure consciousness. I have no problem believing that the darshan of human waste would diminish ones mental state due to its tamasic nature, but would it impact pure consciousness, no. Another comment: how weak does one's mind have to be to be impacted by TTP? Pretty weak in my book. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Gary Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is very astute. I find myself getting caught up in anger for just the reasons you state. Don't we all. In a bad way, it can feel good. The problem with anger and the other toxic emotions are that they are a *rush*. Your adrenaline starts pumping, your heart races, and you feel *good*, in a bad sorta way. And if your life is so empty that you perceive this minor, low-vibe rush as *better than* your normal, boring life, well, you can easily get addicted to being angry, and the low-vibe rush of the anger state of attention. That's what I think we see in the chronically angry. Have you read Thich Nhat Hanh's book called 'Anger?' It's a book I read every year. I have not, even though it has been recommended many times. Thanks for the reminder...I'm gathering up books to read this winter while my town is some- what shut down and quiet.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
Hi Barry, This is very astute. I find myself getting caught up in anger for just the reasons you state. In a bad way, it can feel good. The problem with anger and the other toxic emotions are that they are a *rush*. Your adrenaline starts pumping, your heart races, and you feel *good*, in a bad sorta way. And if your life is so empty that you perceive this minor, low-vibe rush as *better than* your normal, boring life, well, you can easily get addicted to being angry, and the low-vibe rush of the anger state of attention. That's what I think we see in the chronically angry. Have you read Thich Nhat Hanh's book called 'Anger?' It's a book I read every year. http://tinyurl.com/228bv3 Best, Gary
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
Gary Smith wrote: This is very astute. I find myself getting caught up in anger for just the reasons you state. TurquoiseB wrote: Don't we all. So, you're getting angry again.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: In this world Hate never yet dispelled hate. Only love dispels hate. This is the law, Ancient and inexhaustible. * Anger is like a chariot careening wildly. He who curbs his anger is the true charioteer. Others merely hold the reins. * Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. * You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger. Having seen, and had to interact with those that are angry, including myself, an aspect of it, i think is a type of craziness, in the sense of insanity. Or at least dangerously, unpredictably irrational. In Buddhist terms, it is a state of attention, brought about by indulging in a toxic emotion. If you don't know that you are not a slave to the state of attention, and can change it at any moment (*just* as easily as you shift from being lost in thoughts in TM to coming back to the mantra), then yes, they can come to believe that they *are* slaves to the emotional state. But they aren't. They are merely slaves to believing that they are slaves to the emotional state and its corresponding low state of attention. Dealing with someone who is angry and has some influence on your life -- spouse, parent, boss, etc., ups the stakes. The uncertainty of how far they are going to cross the line of rationality and appropriate response is great. It can be dicey. But not necessarily overwhelming, if one is cen- tered within ones Self. Per ToK (theory of Karma) -- if someone in power over you gets irrationally angry at you -- you must have done the same to someone in the past. No, that's how it is according to *one* ToK, the IMO degraded view of karma you hear a lot from Hindu sources. They are the same sources who would have you believe that the victims of the last big hurricane deserved it. Buddhist karma includes dependent origination (or independent origination, which I prefer), which says that sometimes the outside world just does shit, and you happen to be in the way. The shit *did* happen, and you *did* happen to be in the way, and yes you have to *deal* with the shit, but you didn't necessarily do the *same* shit to someone else. That's a silly over- simplification of a complex subject. If you step off the curb and see a bus bearing down on you, does that mean that in a former life you ran someone down with a bus? Of course not. It just means that you weren't paying enough attention to here and now, and were careless. The important thing is that if you *become* aware quickly enough, you can jump out of the way. You don't *have* to be run down by the bus. Same with toxic states of attention brought on by indulging in toxic emotions. You don't have to stay there in the state of attention of anger; you can step out of the way. Same with dealing with someone else's toxic anger; you don't have to let it ruin your day. You can shrug it off or laugh at them, and bring *your* state of attention to a nicer place. If they can't, well, that's just them being punished by their own anger. Wear that persons shoes for a few miles. Ouch. Not going to dothat again. That's one simplistic way of looking at karma. I don't necessarily agree with it. Remember the story of the dog in the Champs de Mars taking one look at my dog from fifty meters away and attacking him? My dog didn't do anything other than smell funny to the other dog. There is nothing for him to learn from the incident other than to be wary of big, angry dogs with stupid owners. :-) And thus we learn. Sometimes slow, sometimes fast. Its a self-correcting, self-regulating, educational mechanism -- not dependent on any code of morality, judges of morals and sins, final judgement, fear, guilt or shame. As is a Spanish proverb (help me out here Turq -- including if I have been mislead), PP (paraphrasing), God, the infinite storekeeper, said 'take what you want, but pay the price'. Don't know the proverb, but a hooker at one of the Sitges tourist hotels said that to me the other day when she noticed I was checkin' her out. I decided it wasn't worth the price, wished her good luck, and went on my way. :-) The problem with anger and the other toxic emotions are that they are a *rush*. Your adrenaline starts pumping, your heart races, and you feel *good*, in a bad sorta way. And if your life is so empty that you perceive this minor, low-vibe rush as *better than* your normal, boring life, well, you can easily get addicted to being angry, and the low-vibe rush of the anger state of attention. That's what I think we see in the chronically angry. If you encounter
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
Turquoise wrote: No, that's how it is according to *one* ToK, theIMO degraded view of karma you hear a lot fromHindu sources. They are the same sources who wouldhave you believe that the victims of the last big hurricane deserved it. Buddhist karma includes dependent origination (or independent origination, which I prefer), which says that sometimes the outside world just does shit, and you happen tobe in the way. The shit *did* happen, and you *did* happen to be in the way, and yes you have to *deal* with the shit, but you didn't necessarily do the *same* shit to someone else. That's a silly over-simplification of a complex subject. I am really glad to hear that there is a theory of Karma that is not the silly over-simplification that I hear form Hindu sources. I've always thought it was not only stupid but cruel and insensitive. When the outside world hands you something undeserved, then you get to ask for a kind of second gathering from the universe. That, I think is the real meaning behind turn the other cheek. a Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
Dealing with someone who is angry and has some influence on your life -- spouse, parent, boss, etc., ups the stakes. The uncertainty of how far they are going to cross the line of rationality and appropriate response is great. It can be dicey. TurquoiseB wrote: But not necessarily overwhelming, if one is cen- tered within ones Self. Where, exactly, in the Dhammapada, does Buddha say anything about a personal soul-monad, a Self? Per ToK (theory of Karma) -- if someone in power over you gets irrationally angry at you -- you must have done the same to someone in the past. No, that's how it is according to *one* ToK, the IMO degraded view of karma you hear a lot from Hindu sources. They are the same sources who would have you believe that the victims of the last big hurricane deserved it. Buddhist karma includes dependent origination (or independent origination, which I prefer), which says that sometimes the outside world just does shit, You are incorrect - according to the historical Buddha, there is a reason for everything - events do not just happen for no reason, and there are no chance events. Dependent origination means that for every action there is a reaction - the law of cause and effect. And, there is no outside world that does shit - the mind is the only means of action, there is nothing outside the mind. All events are mind-only - the idea that there are things that exist outside the mind is just an illusion. Your perception that another person is angry is also just an illusion - there is conciousness-only, nothing else. and you happen to be in the way. The shit *did* happen, and you *did* happen to be in the way, and yes you have to *deal* with the shit, but you didn't necessarily do the *same* shit to someone else. That's a silly over- simplification of a complex subject. If you step off the curb and see a bus bearing down on you, does that mean that in a former life you ran someone down with a bus? Of course not. It just means that you weren't paying enough attention to here and now, and were careless. The important thing is that if you *become* aware quickly enough, you can jump out of the way. You don't *have* to be run down by the bus. Same with toxic states of attention brought on by indulging in toxic emotions. You don't have to stay there in the state of attention of anger; you can step out of the way. Same with dealing with someone else's toxic anger; you don't have to let it ruin your day. You can shrug it off or laugh at them, and bring *your* state of attention to a nicer place. If they can't, well, that's just them being punished by their own anger. Wear that persons shoes for a few miles. Ouch. Not going to do that again. That's one simplistic way of looking at karma. I don't necessarily agree with it. Remember the story of the dog in the Champs de Mars taking one look at my dog from fifty meters away and attacking him? My dog didn't do anything other than smell funny to the other dog. There is nothing for him to learn from the incident other than to be wary of big, angry dogs with stupid owners. :-) And thus we learn. Sometimes slow, sometimes fast. Its a self-correcting, self-regulating, educational mechanism -- not dependent on any code of morality, judges of morals and sins, final judgement, fear, guilt or shame. As is a Spanish proverb (help me out here Turq -- including if I have been mislead), PP (paraphrasing), God, the infinite storekeeper, said 'take what you want, but pay the price'. Don't know the proverb, but a hooker at one of the Sitges tourist hotels said that to me the other day when she noticed I was checkin' her out. I decided it wasn't worth the price, wished her good luck, and went on my way. :-) The problem with anger and the other toxic emotions are that they are a *rush*. Your adrenaline starts pumping, your heart races, and you feel *good*, in a bad sorta way. And if your life is so empty that you perceive this minor, low-vibe rush as *better than* your normal, boring life, well, you can easily get addicted to being angry, and the low-vibe rush of the anger state of attention. That's what I think we see in the chronically angry. If you encounter someone like that, and try your best to remind them that there are *other* kinds of rushes, *other* ways to feel something other than boredom and frustration, they often...uh...don't appreciate the favor. In fact, they become even *more* angry. They treat the person who is trying to remind them that they don't have to *stay* angry, and that they can change their state of attention to a happier one at any moment, as if he or she is *attacking* them. And so they *redouble* their anger, and their angry actions. And so it goes, on and on and on. And from the point of view of almost anyone watching with a dispassionate or compassionate eye, Buddha's words
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turquoise wrote: No, that's how it is according to *one* ToK, theIMO degraded view of karma you hear a lot fromHindu sources. They are the same sources who wouldhave you believe that the victims of the last big hurricane deserved it. snip I am really glad to hear that there is a theory of Karma that is not the silly over-simplification that I hear form Hindu sources. FWIW, this is very far from the *real* Hindu theory of karma. I've always thought it was not only stupid but cruel and insensitive. When the outside world hands you something undeserved, then you get to ask for a kind of second gathering from the universe. That, I think is the real meaning behind turn the other cheek. a This is a lot closer to the real theory. Deserving and undeserving simply don't enter into it either way.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
When the outside world hands you something undeserved, Well, Angela, the outside world doesn't hand you anything that is undeserved. You deserve everything you get, and for a reason: everything happens for a reason, the result of cause and effect. Karma means action - actions that are the result previous actions. Every action results in a reaction. That's what the Buddha meant when he said that all things spring from causes - he taught causation. There are no actions or events outside of the play of the gunas described by Kapila. Shakya the Muni agreed with this. If it were otherwise, then individuals could change the laws of physics and cause change at will, i.e. perform magic. There is no force that enters into the physical world and causes change - there are no chance events. That's the meaning of karma, both Hindu and Buddhist. The only question is, does karma operate on the mental as well as the physical level. That's a question of moral reciprocity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: In this world Hate never yet dispelled hate. Only love dispels hate. This is the law, Ancient and inexhaustible. * Anger is like a chariot careening wildly. He who curbs his anger is the true charioteer. Others merely hold the reins. * Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. * You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger. Having seen, and had to interact with those that are angry, including myself, an aspect of it, i think is a type of craziness, in the sense of insanity. Or at least dangerously, unpredictably irrational. In Buddhist terms, it is a state of attention, brought about by indulging in a toxic emotion. If you don't know that you are not a slave to the state of attention, and can change it at any moment (*just* as easily as you shift from being lost in thoughts in TM to coming back to the mantra), then yes, they can come to believe that they *are* slaves to the emotional state. But they aren't. They are merely slaves to believing that they are slaves to the emotional state and its corresponding low state of attention. Dealing with someone who is angry and has some influence on your life -- spouse, parent, boss, etc., ups the stakes. The uncertainty of how far they are going to cross the line of rationality and appropriate response is great. It can be dicey. But not necessarily overwhelming, if one is cen- tered within ones Self. Per ToK (theory of Karma) -- if someone in power over you gets irrationally angry at you -- you must have done the same to someone in the past. No, that's how it is according to *one* ToK, the IMO degraded view of karma you hear a lot from Hindu sources. They are the same sources who would have you believe that the victims of the last big hurricane deserved it. Buddhist karma includes dependent origination (or independent origination, which I prefer), which says that sometimes the outside world just does shit, and you happen to be in the way. The shit *did* happen, and you *did* happen to be in the way, and yes you have to *deal* with the shit, but you didn't necessarily do the *same* shit to someone else. That's a silly over- simplification of a complex subject. I don't think my views are silly. But I am sure i will gain deeper understanding. And though the complexity of karma, IMO, can change the shape, color, intensity, duration of a returning packet -- as it meshes with the waves of others packets, it can maintain come commonality with the original. Regardless, unless either of us can lift the earth -- that is get outside of the cycle to see the mechanics clearly (or lack thereof), its speculation. Or perhaps its your view that your authorities are correct an others are not. So be it. That doesn't change my view (though compelling evidence and theory would). Regardless of the ultimate correctness, I find it a continually learning-based way to live. Whether I made someone angy in the past is really immaterial to this. If someone is angry at me, irrationally IMO, then I feel how odd that feels. (And one can feel oddness, and any number of thins while centered). And, using this as a simple example, its a state I suddenly grok ahah -- I realize that I don't want to impose that state on anyone else. it modifies my my behavior patterns. Someone once said that every persons you meet is the Divine, with a new mask -- here to teach you something. While the Divine part is not a necessary element of this view -- in order to get value from it -- the overall view is powerful. Liberating. Exciting. Adventurous. Every moment is a new learning experience -- (with theDivine perhaps, not necessarily -- playing die and seek. Even that aspect I don't know about the Divine -- if I would go THAT far -- creates an even deeper sense of wonder and openness to the moment. Regarding shit happens for no cause -- IMO, that stems from a weak and limited view of what is happening. Regarding changing attention -- yes, anyone can do that. Try to explain that to the person disabled by the anger. And anger, IMO, cannot be instantaneously changed. Real anger is driven by a lot of bio-chemical processes that first need to settle down, before the attention can follow. IMO, IME. If you step off the curb and see a bus bearing down on you, does that mean that in a former life you ran someone down with a bus? Of course not. You do love the good strawman dressed as red herring don't you! Same with
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
I am sure that you are stating the immutable laws of your universe. My universe is multiple, my path, apparently, is a puddle-jumping expedition from universe to parallel universe. I have noticed on this path that God herself lurches from one sublime uncertainty to another, and that she loves surprises. She also loves mercy that dropeth as the gentle rain etc. She loves a-causality as an expression of infinite freedom. Free-play is her favorite game. a Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When the outside world hands you something undeserved, Well, Angela, the outside world doesn't hand you anything that is undeserved. You deserve everything you get, and for a reason: everything happens for a reason, the result of cause and effect. Karma means action - actions that are the result previous actions. Every action results in a reaction. That's what the Buddha meant when he said that all things spring from causes - he taught causation. There are no actions or events outside of the play of the gunas described by Kapila. Shakya the Muni agreed with this. If it were otherwise, then individuals could change the laws of physics and cause change at will, i.e. perform magic. There is no force that enters into the physical world and causes change - there are no chance events. That's the meaning of karma, both Hindu and Buddhist. The only question is, does karma operate on the mental as well as the physical level. That's a question of moral reciprocity. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
Regarding shit happens for no cause -- IMO, that stems from a weak and limited view of what is happening. Well, then, according to you, karma is entirely fathomable? Is there free will in your presumably less than limited view of what is happening? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
Do you need a God to justify your views? Did you notice -- as in empirically observe --- this God/herself? Or is it simply a hypotheses that resonates with you? The God variable simply fills up missing gaps in your understanding? And is comforting? Justifying views based on (my, perhaps incorrect paraphrasing) my direct knowledge of God seem to me quite shallow, and inept. Which I don't find in your other posts. Thus I am curious as to why here. (Though others do it, and we just compassionately laugh them off. Especially the more insistent they are.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am sure that you are stating the immutable laws of your universe. My universe is multiple, my path, apparently, is a puddle-jumping expedition from universe to parallel universe. I have noticed on this path that God herself lurches from one sublime uncertainty to another, and that she loves surprises. She also loves mercy that dropeth as the gentle rain etc. She loves a-causality as an expression of infinite freedom. Free-play is her favorite game. a Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When the outside world hands you something undeserved, Well, Angela, the outside world doesn't hand you anything that is undeserved. You deserve everything you get, and for a reason: everything happens for a reason, the result of cause and effect. Karma means action - actions that are the result previous actions. Every action results in a reaction. That's what the Buddha meant when he said that all things spring from causes - he taught causation. There are no actions or events outside of the play of the gunas described by Kapila. Shakya the Muni agreed with this. If it were otherwise, then individuals could change the laws of physics and cause change at will, i.e. perform magic. There is no force that enters into the physical world and causes change - there are no chance events. That's the meaning of karma, both Hindu and Buddhist. The only question is, does karma operate on the mental as well as the physical level. That's a question of moral reciprocity. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
God is only a manner of speaking. So no. On the other hand, who else is there? a new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you need a God to justify your views? Did you notice -- as in empirically observe --- this God/herself? Or is it simply a hypotheses that resonates with you? The God variable simply fills up missing gaps in your understanding? And is comforting? Justifying views based on (my, perhaps incorrect paraphrasing) my direct knowledge of God seem to me quite shallow, and inept. Which I don't find in your other posts. Thus I am curious as to why here. (Though others do it, and we just compassionately laugh them off. Especially the more insistent they are.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am sure that you are stating the immutable laws of your universe. My universe is multiple, my path, apparently, is a puddle-jumping expedition from universe to parallel universe. I have noticed on this path that God herself lurches from one sublime uncertainty to another, and that she loves surprises. She also loves mercy that dropeth as the gentle rain etc. She loves a-causality as an expression of infinite freedom. Free-play is her favorite game. a Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When the outside world hands you something undeserved, Well, Angela, the outside world doesn't hand you anything that is undeserved. You deserve everything you get, and for a reason: everything happens for a reason, the result of cause and effect. Karma means action - actions that are the result previous actions. Every action results in a reaction. That's what the Buddha meant when he said that all things spring from causes - he taught causation. There are no actions or events outside of the play of the gunas described by Kapila. Shakya the Muni agreed with this. If it were otherwise, then individuals could change the laws of physics and cause change at will, i.e. perform magic. There is no force that enters into the physical world and causes change - there are no chance events. That's the meaning of karma, both Hindu and Buddhist. The only question is, does karma operate on the mental as well as the physical level. That's a question of moral reciprocity. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Regarding shit happens for no cause -- IMO, that stems from a weak and limited view of what is happening. Well, then, according to you, karma is entirely fathomable? Is it to you? My views are perhaps not as limited or linear your question implies (to me). At least you appear to sense some uncertainty and ask for clarification. And to whom? A posited God that can know all things at one time? To a rishi? To a jyotishee to whom, and within, the light of jyotish has become illumined? To me? I am not sure there is a universal statement about the fathomability of karma that is reference-free. But this is, to me, a red herring. Why you posit this as a key point (well its your first point, I assume you lead with your most relevant) is not clear to me (perhaps unfathomable :)). As I stated in the post you quote from, neither Turq (IMO) nor I have observed the totality of the unfolding of Karma. Yet, strangely, I can actually have an opinion, and belief about it. Go figure. As you may know, I don't hold any belief as 100% true. Some have a higher probability than others, to me, in my framework. That shit happens out of nowhere is possible, but has a lower probability of i) being a correct interpretation of a number of buddhist views than R Williams recent counter to Turq, and ii) being correct than my inherent hypothesis of completeness. YMMV. your presumably less than limited view of what is happening? Sound sort of like snarky comment to me -- but thats probably due to my incompleteness of vision. I explained the limitations of my view above. Is there free will in Diversions are nice -- so I will try to answer (longer versions in many past posts). I think volition is a myth we get sucked into. In short, I observe that thoughts just come, that i don't create or induce thoughts. Actions stem for thoughts. I believe that most if not all of our seemingly volitional decisions, are simply the result of best functioning of our innate intellectual abilities, crunching in a style honed and learned repeatedly from past experience and education. And based on the input that life has presented us -- unvolitionally. So I don't see much volition here. More an more, neuro and cognitive science seems to be at least open to such a hypothesis -- though indeed it is not a consensus view. But its my view, probabilistically weighted. Some see that pre-determination is the ONLY possible offshoot of non-volitional thought and action. And/or God must be thinking my thoughts. I refute both as quite limited views. And not my view. More on that later, if you are interested.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
Sure, I'm innerested. But as for according validity to any world view, I just have too much experience in defending and/or defeating any and all possible views I've ever encountered to put much emphasis on any of them. They're fun to play with, though. a new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Regarding shit happens for no cause -- IMO, that stems from a weak and limited view of what is happening. Well, then, according to you, karma is entirely fathomable? Is it to you? My views are perhaps not as limited or linear your question implies (to me). At least you appear to sense some uncertainty and ask for clarification. And to whom? A posited God that can know all things at one time? To a rishi? To a jyotishee to whom, and within, the light of jyotish has become illumined? To me? I am not sure there is a universal statement about the fathomability of karma that is reference-free. But this is, to me, a red herring. Why you posit this as a key point (well its your first point, I assume you lead with your most relevant) is not clear to me (perhaps unfathomable :)). As I stated in the post you quote from, neither Turq (IMO) nor I have observed the totality of the unfolding of Karma. Yet, strangely, I can actually have an opinion, and belief about it. Go figure. As you may know, I don't hold any belief as 100% true. Some have a higher probability than others, to me, in my framework. That shit happens out of nowhere is possible, but has a lower probability of i) being a correct interpretation of a number of buddhist views than R Williams recent counter to Turq, and ii) being correct than my inherent hypothesis of completeness. YMMV. your presumably less than limited view of what is happening? Sound sort of like snarky comment to me -- but thats probably due to my incompleteness of vision. I explained the limitations of my view above. Is there free will in Diversions are nice -- so I will try to answer (longer versions in many past posts). I think volition is a myth we get sucked into. In short, I observe that thoughts just come, that i don't create or induce thoughts. Actions stem for thoughts. I believe that most if not all of our seemingly volitional decisions, are simply the result of best functioning of our innate intellectual abilities, crunching in a style honed and learned repeatedly from past experience and education. And based on the input that life has presented us -- unvolitionally. So I don't see much volition here. More an more, neuro and cognitive science seems to be at least open to such a hypothesis -- though indeed it is not a consensus view. But its my view, probabilistically weighted. Some see that pre-determination is the ONLY possible offshoot of non-volitional thought and action. And/or God must be thinking my thoughts. I refute both as quite limited views. And not my view. More on that later, if you are interested. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
Angela Mailander wrote: I have noticed on this path that God herself lurches from one sublime uncertainty to another, and that she loves surprises. Even the Gods and demi-Gods are subject to the law of causation, Angela; there are no exceptions. All the Gods are subject to karma and as soon as their stock-pile of good karma is depleted, then they must reincarnate again as humans. She also loves mercy that dropeth as the gentle rain etc. She loves a-causality as an expression of infinite freedom. There are no surprises, except to those who are ignorant of the laws of causation. There are no chance events and no fateful a-causality. All humans and Gods act with free will and create their own destiny, but this is only the result of actions, in the past, the present or in the future. Free-play is her favorite game. The belief in karma is a much more reasonable notion than the idea that there is eternal damnation or universal chaos. What goes around, comes around.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
As I said, God is a manner of speaking. As there must be a manner to all speaking, and as manners of speaking are endless, God, as a manner of speaking, is an available manner which I use on occasion for a variety of rhetorical purposes and ploys, perverse, inspired, scatological, as the moment dictates. I take it that empirical observation is restricted to phenomena that are clearly physical and commonly shared through sensual perceptions or their extensions via scientific means. In that case, I have never had an experience that I would call God. I have used the term God to fill up gaps in understanding but have done so with a large dash of irony, and so I wouldn't say that I derived comfort--but certainly a measure of amusement. And no, I need no God to justify my views. Views can be justified in infinite ways without resorting to God or gods. a Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: God is only a manner of speaking. So no. On the other hand, who else is there? a new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you need a God to justify your views? Did you notice -- as in empirically observe --- this God/herself? Or is it simply a hypotheses that resonates with you? The God variable simply fills up missing gaps in your understanding? And is comforting? Justifying views based on (my, perhaps incorrect paraphrasing) my direct knowledge of God seem to me quite shallow, and inept. Which I don't find in your other posts. Thus I am curious as to why here. (Though others do it, and we just compassionately laugh them off. Especially the more insistent they are.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am sure that you are stating the immutable laws of your universe. My universe is multiple, my path, apparently, is a puddle-jumping expedition from universe to parallel universe. I have noticed on this path that God herself lurches from one sublime uncertainty to another, and that she loves surprises. She also loves mercy that dropeth as the gentle rain etc. She loves a-causality as an expression of infinite freedom. Free-play is her favorite game. a Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When the outside world hands you something undeserved, Well, Angela, the outside world doesn't hand you anything that is undeserved. You deserve everything you get, and for a reason: everything happens for a reason, the result of cause and effect. Karma means action - actions that are the result previous actions. Every action results in a reaction. That's what the Buddha meant when he said that all things spring from causes - he taught causation. There are no actions or events outside of the play of the gunas described by Kapila. Shakya the Muni agreed with this. If it were otherwise, then individuals could change the laws of physics and cause change at will, i.e. perform magic. There is no force that enters into the physical world and causes change - there are no chance events. That's the meaning of karma, both Hindu and Buddhist. The only question is, does karma operate on the mental as well as the physical level. That's a question of moral reciprocity. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
Whence your certainty? Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Angela Mailander wrote: I have noticed on this path that God herself lurches from one sublime uncertainty to another, and that she loves surprises. Even the Gods and demi-Gods are subject to the law of causation, Angela; there are no exceptions. All the Gods are subject to karma and as soon as their stock-pile of good karma is depleted, then they must reincarnate again as humans. She also loves mercy that dropeth as the gentle rain etc. She loves a-causality as an expression of infinite freedom. There are no surprises, except to those who are ignorant of the laws of causation. There are no chance events and no fateful a-causality. All humans and Gods act with free will and create their own destiny, but this is only the result of actions, in the past, the present or in the future. Free-play is her favorite game. The belief in karma is a much more reasonable notion than the idea that there is eternal damnation or universal chaos. What goes around, comes around. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whence your certainty? Yes. Its one thing to say my belief is that karma is a more reasonable, for me, notion than the idea that there is eternal damnation or universal chaos. Which his my view. Its quite another to say The belief in karma is a much more reasonable notion than the idea that there is eternal damnation or universal chaos as an absolute fact. Unless one has personally observed a whole cycle of creation (or if cycle of creation is a bogus concept, then lets say 20 billion years -- from one edge of creation to the other (edge of creation -- what a concept!) all comprehensively and similtaneously, then I suggest one knows squat about karma -- an its all speculation. Some speculation can indeed be more informed than other speculation. But that does not make it certain. Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Angela Mailander wrote: I have noticed on this path that God herself lurches from one sublime uncertainty to another, and that she loves surprises. You have noticed? I thought you just said you have no empirical observations of God? Or did you simply notice your speculative fantasy that this was so, and it SEEMED so right, you gave it a higher probability of being valid -- within your own view -- far from being an intersubjective reality. Thats what I do sometimes. But I am not arrogant enough to state it as fact. (Maybe when I master the arrogance siddhi, I will be better at that. I am in awe of the higher staters -- here an there -- who spontaneously mainfest this siddhi in its most brilliant forms.) Even the Gods and demi-Gods are subject to the law of causation, Angela; there are no exceptions. All the Gods are subject to karma and as soon as their stock-pile of good karma is depleted, then they must reincarnate again as humans. She also loves mercy that dropeth as the gentle rain etc. She loves a-causality as an expression of infinite freedom. You fantasize and speculate. I love poetry and art too. There are no surprises, except to those who are ignorant of the laws of causation. There are no chance events and no fateful a-causality. All humans and Gods act with free will and create their own destiny, but this is only the result of actions, in the past, the present or in the future. Free-play is her favorite game. Says who? Whence your certainty? The belief in karma is a much more reasonable notion than the idea that there is eternal damnation or universal chaos. What goes around, comes around. Nice platitude. But you know its true? How?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
Cool. So now, where did I say that I believe in universal chaos and eternal damnation? a new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whence your certainty? Yes. Its one thing to say my belief is that karma is a more reasonable, for me, notion than the idea that there is eternal damnation or universal chaos. Which his my view. Its quite another to say The belief in karma is a much more reasonable notion than the idea that there is eternal damnation or universal chaos as an absolute fact. Unless one has personally observed a whole cycle of creation (or if cycle of creation is a bogus concept, then lets say 20 billion years -- from one edge of creation to the other (edge of creation -- what a concept!) all comprehensively and similtaneously, then I suggest one knows squat about karma -- an its all speculation. Some speculation can indeed be more informed than other speculation. But that does not make it certain. Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Angela Mailander wrote: I have noticed on this path that God herself lurches from one sublime uncertainty to another, and that she loves surprises. You have noticed? I thought you just said you have no empirical observations of God? Or did you simply notice your speculative fantasy that this was so, and it SEEMED so right, you gave it a higher probability of being valid -- within your own view -- far from being an intersubjective reality. Thats what I do sometimes. But I am not arrogant enough to state it as fact. (Maybe when I master the arrogance siddhi, I will be better at that. I am in awe of the higher staters -- here an there -- who spontaneously mainfest this siddhi in its most brilliant forms.) Even the Gods and demi-Gods are subject to the law of causation, Angela; there are no exceptions. All the Gods are subject to karma and as soon as their stock-pile of good karma is depleted, then they must reincarnate again as humans. She also loves mercy that dropeth as the gentle rain etc. She loves a-causality as an expression of infinite freedom. You fantasize and speculate. I love poetry and art too. There are no surprises, except to those who are ignorant of the laws of causation. There are no chance events and no fateful a-causality. All humans and Gods act with free will and create their own destiny, but this is only the result of actions, in the past, the present or in the future. Free-play is her favorite game. Says who? Whence your certainty? The belief in karma is a much more reasonable notion than the idea that there is eternal damnation or universal chaos. What goes around, comes around. Nice platitude. But you know its true? How? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cool. So now, where did I say that I believe in universal chaos and eternal damnation? a I was quoting R Williams, from the post I was responding too. See second to the last. Did you look at that trout again!? --- R Williams wrote: Angela Mailander wrote: I have noticed on this path that God herself lurches from one sublime uncertainty to another, and that she loves surprises. Even the Gods and demi-Gods are subject to the law of causation, Angela; there are no exceptions. All the Gods are subject to karma and as soon as their stock-pile of good karma is depleted, then they must reincarnate again as humans. She also loves mercy that dropeth as the gentle rain etc. She loves a-causality as an expression of infinite freedom. There are no surprises, except to those who are ignorant of the laws of causation. There are no chance events and no fateful a-causality. All humans and Gods act with free will and create their own destiny, but this is only the result of actions, in the past, the present or in the future. Free-play is her favorite game. The belief in karma is a much more reasonable notion than the idea that there is eternal damnation or universal chaos. What goes around, comes around. --- new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: Whence your certainty? Yes. Its one thing to say my belief is that karma is a more reasonable, for me, notion than the idea that there is eternal damnation or universal chaos. Which his my view. Its quite another to say The belief in karma is a much more reasonable notion than the idea that there is eternal damnation or universal chaos as an absolute fact. Unless one has personally observed a whole cycle of creation (or if cycle of creation is a bogus concept, then lets say 20 billion years -- from one edge of creation to the other (edge of creation -- what a concept!) all comprehensively and similtaneously, then I suggest one knows squat about karma -- an its all speculation. Some speculation can indeed be more informed than other speculation. But that does not make it certain. Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: Angela Mailander wrote: I have noticed on this path that God herself lurches from one sublime uncertainty to another, and that she loves surprises. You have noticed? I thought you just said you have no empirical observations of God? Or did you simply notice your speculative fantasy that this was so, and it SEEMED so right, you gave it a higher probability of being valid -- within your own view -- far from being an intersubjective reality. Thats what I do sometimes. But I am not arrogant enough to state it as fact. (Maybe when I master the arrogance siddhi, I will be better at that. I am in awe of the higher staters -- here an there -- who spontaneously mainfest this siddhi in its most brilliant forms.) Even the Gods and demi-Gods are subject to the law of causation, Angela; there are no exceptions. All the Gods are subject to karma and as soon as their stock-pile of good karma is depleted, then they must reincarnate again as humans. She also loves mercy that dropeth as the gentle rain etc. She loves a-causality as an expression of infinite freedom. You fantasize and speculate. I love poetry and art too. There are no surprises, except to those who are ignorant of the laws of causation. There are no chance events and no fateful a-causality. All humans and Gods act with free will and create their own destiny, but this is only the result of actions, in the past, the present or in the future. Free-play is her favorite game. Says who? Whence your certainty? The belief in karma is a much more reasonable notion than the idea that there is eternal damnation or universal chaos. What goes around, comes around. Nice platitude. But you know its true? How? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
What goes around, comes around. Angela Mailander wrote: Whence your certainty? It is an almost universal observation that what you sow, so shall you reap. Almost everyone has experienced this. The certainty of the laws of physics always indicate that there is cause and there is effect. Can you cite a single instance where the law of causation was not present? I think not. Even the Gods and demi-Gods are subject to the law of causation, Angela; there are no exceptions. All the Gods are subject to karma and as soon as their stock-pile of good karma is depleted, then they must reincarnate again as humans. She also loves mercy that dropeth as the gentle rain etc. She loves a-causality as an expression of infinite freedom. There are no surprises, except to those who are ignorant of the laws of causation. There are no chance events and no fateful a-causality. All humans and Gods act with free will and create their own destiny, but this is only the result of actions, in the past, the present or in the future. Free-play is her favorite game. The belief in karma is a much more reasonable notion than the idea that there is eternal damnation or universal chaos. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
I studied that trout, and felt my energy go down the tubes with it, and my intelligence followed suit. a new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cool. So now, where did I say that I believe in universal chaos and eternal damnation? a I was quoting R Williams, from the post I was responding too. See second to the last. Did you look at that trout again!? --- R Williams wrote: Angela Mailander wrote: I have noticed on this path that God herself lurches from one sublime uncertainty to another, and that she loves surprises. Even the Gods and demi-Gods are subject to the law of causation, Angela; there are no exceptions. All the Gods are subject to karma and as soon as their stock-pile of good karma is depleted, then they must reincarnate again as humans. She also loves mercy that dropeth as the gentle rain etc. She loves a-causality as an expression of infinite freedom. There are no surprises, except to those who are ignorant of the laws of causation. There are no chance events and no fateful a-causality. All humans and Gods act with free will and create their own destiny, but this is only the result of actions, in the past, the present or in the future. Free-play is her favorite game. The belief in karma is a much more reasonable notion than the idea that there is eternal damnation or universal chaos. What goes around, comes around. --- new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: Whence your certainty? Yes. Its one thing to say my belief is that karma is a more reasonable, for me, notion than the idea that there is eternal damnation or universal chaos. Which his my view. Its quite another to say The belief in karma is a much more reasonable notion than the idea that there is eternal damnation or universal chaos as an absolute fact. Unless one has personally observed a whole cycle of creation (or if cycle of creation is a bogus concept, then lets say 20 billion years -- from one edge of creation to the other (edge of creation -- what a concept!) all comprehensively and similtaneously, then I suggest one knows squat about karma -- an its all speculation. Some speculation can indeed be more informed than other speculation. But that does not make it certain. Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: Angela Mailander wrote: I have noticed on this path that God herself lurches from one sublime uncertainty to another, and that she loves surprises. You have noticed? I thought you just said you have no empirical observations of God? Or did you simply notice your speculative fantasy that this was so, and it SEEMED so right, you gave it a higher probability of being valid -- within your own view -- far from being an intersubjective reality. Thats what I do sometimes. But I am not arrogant enough to state it as fact. (Maybe when I master the arrogance siddhi, I will be better at that. I am in awe of the higher staters -- here an there -- who spontaneously mainfest this siddhi in its most brilliant forms.) Even the Gods and demi-Gods are subject to the law of causation, Angela; there are no exceptions. All the Gods are subject to karma and as soon as their stock-pile of good karma is depleted, then they must reincarnate again as humans. She also loves mercy that dropeth as the gentle rain etc. She loves a-causality as an expression of infinite freedom. You fantasize and speculate. I love poetry and art too. There are no surprises, except to those who are ignorant of the laws of causation. There are no chance events and no fateful a-causality. All humans and Gods act with free will and create their own destiny, but this is only the result of actions, in the past, the present or in the future. Free-play is her favorite game. Says who? Whence your certainty? The belief in karma is a much more reasonable notion than the idea that there is eternal damnation or universal chaos. What goes around, comes around. Nice platitude. But you know its true? How? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
I'm not disputing the simple observation of what goes around, comes around. But to move from that to gods and demi gods etc. seems fanciful to me. There is some discussion that the big bang was uncaused. Causality itself is under big time review among physicists who are also considering retro-causation as a real possibility. One of them told me that in the simple phenomenon of water boiling there are 22 variables, and then, all we can be sure of is that it works on planet earth, but we are not at all sure about its causation. Causation is a concept in trouble, and I for one, am glad to hear it since it has always seemed flimsy to me. There is no way to distinguish between a cause and a 100% correlation. For the rest, I'm pretty sure only of the notion that certainty in knowledge can't be had in science. Someone wrote that science proves nothing. That is most true, and it is something every responsible science teacher I've ever met takes pains to impress on his freshmen. And, after sixty-one years of meditating, I've not seen any account about certainty in spiritual knowledge that has a claim to certainty. a Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What goes around, comes around. Angela Mailander wrote: Whence your certainty? It is an almost universal observation that what you sow, so shall you reap. Almost everyone has experienced this. The certainty of the laws of physics always indicate that there is cause and there is effect. Can you cite a single instance where the law of causation was not present? I think not. Even the Gods and demi-Gods are subject to the law of causation, Angela; there are no exceptions. All the Gods are subject to karma and as soon as their stock-pile of good karma is depleted, then they must reincarnate again as humans. She also loves mercy that dropeth as the gentle rain etc. She loves a-causality as an expression of infinite freedom. There are no surprises, except to those who are ignorant of the laws of causation. There are no chance events and no fateful a-causality. All humans and Gods act with free will and create their own destiny, but this is only the result of actions, in the past, the present or in the future. Free-play is her favorite game. The belief in karma is a much more reasonable notion than the idea that there is eternal damnation or universal chaos. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] quoted Buddha: You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger. This is the overall message in Dante's Divine Comedy as well. And that provides a definition of sin as that which will punish you. In most of the Buddhist thought I have heard or read, there is no real notion of sin, merely the consequences of karma. And there are two levels of karms -- one is potentially long-term, taking years or lifetimes to work out, and the other immediate. Indulging in the lower emotions is of the immediate type of karma, in that these emotions lower your state of attention *immediately*. There is no waiting. Indulge in anger, or hate, or any of the other toxic emotions (as they see them), and the resulting state of attention *is* your Hell, right here, right now. No need to wait for all that dying stuff. :-) In Dante, however, there is a divine limit set by divine mercy on how far in the wrong direction you can go, and hell is that limit. I doubt that Buddhism conceives of a divinely- set limit to the depths that a state of attention can sink to, because it doesn't need a divine to explain things. Modern Christianity thinks of hell as somewhere where you are punished for your sins eternally. In Dante, the situation was more like, hell is an eternal place, but that doesn't mean you have to hang out there forever. That would be more in accord with Buddhist thought, as I understand it. Each *state of attention* is a place, and an eternal place. The qualities of that state of attention, and the karmas of dwelling there, are pretty well-known. How long you choose to dwell there, however, is up to you. You can wake up from the dream of Hell, and its particular state of attention, at any time. The ability to wake up from the bad dream is just as available to you in Hell as it is in Heaven, or anywhere in between. It's just a matter of choice. The first long quote I posted from the Dhammapada is, in fact, often grouped under the heading Choice.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
Dante thinks of sin merely as a natural consequence of action. For example, Paolo and Francesca have committed adultery. The consequence, expressed symbolically, is that they are together, but they are blown here and there by a whirlwind. The implication is that they can't really relax and get into the deeper levels of a relationship. TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] quoted Buddha: You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger. This is the overall message in Dante's Divine Comedy as well. And that provides a definition of sin as that which will punish you. In most of the Buddhist thought I have heard or read, there is no real notion of sin, merely the consequences of karma. And there are two levels of karms -- one is potentially long-term, taking years or lifetimes to work out, and the other immediate. Indulging in the lower emotions is of the immediate type of karma, in that these emotions lower your state of attention *immediately*. There is no waiting. Indulge in anger, or hate, or any of the other toxic emotions (as they see them), and the resulting state of attention *is* your Hell, right here, right now. No need to wait for all that dying stuff. :-) In Dante, however, there is a divine limit set by divine mercy on how far in the wrong direction you can go, and hell is that limit. I doubt that Buddhism conceives of a divinely- set limit to the depths that a state of attention can sink to, because it doesn't need a divine to explain things. Modern Christianity thinks of hell as somewhere where you are punished for your sins eternally. In Dante, the situation was more like, hell is an eternal place, but that doesn't mean you have to hang out there forever. That would be more in accord with Buddhist thought, as I understand it. Each *state of attention* is a place, and an eternal place. The qualities of that state of attention, and the karmas of dwelling there, are pretty well-known. How long you choose to dwell there, however, is up to you. You can wake up from the dream of Hell, and its particular state of attention, at any time. The ability to wake up from the bad dream is just as available to you in Hell as it is in Heaven, or anywhere in between. It's just a matter of choice. The first long quote I posted from the Dhammapada is, in fact, often grouped under the heading Choice. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada-P.S.
I was interrupted, so in my last post the sentence got garbled. Sin to Dante is merely an obstacle on a path, and it is an obstacle because there are consequences to be worked out. The whirlwind is a consequence of Paolo and Francesca's action. The difference between hell and purgatory for Dante was that the soul in hell suffers, but does not know that there is an end to the suffering and also does not understand why this suffering has occurred. The soul in purgatory also suffers, but it knows that there is an end to suffering and it is also very clear about why this suffering is happening. a TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] quoted Buddha: You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger. This is the overall message in Dante's Divine Comedy as well. And that provides a definition of sin as that which will punish you. In most of the Buddhist thought I have heard or read, there is no real notion of sin, merely the consequences of karma. And there are two levels of karms -- one is potentially long-term, taking years or lifetimes to work out, and the other immediate. Indulging in the lower emotions is of the immediate type of karma, in that these emotions lower your state of attention *immediately*. There is no waiting. Indulge in anger, or hate, or any of the other toxic emotions (as they see them), and the resulting state of attention *is* your Hell, right here, right now. No need to wait for all that dying stuff. :-) In Dante, however, there is a divine limit set by divine mercy on how far in the wrong direction you can go, and hell is that limit. I doubt that Buddhism conceives of a divinely- set limit to the depths that a state of attention can sink to, because it doesn't need a divine to explain things. Modern Christianity thinks of hell as somewhere where you are punished for your sins eternally. In Dante, the situation was more like, hell is an eternal place, but that doesn't mean you have to hang out there forever. That would be more in accord with Buddhist thought, as I understand it. Each *state of attention* is a place, and an eternal place. The qualities of that state of attention, and the karmas of dwelling there, are pretty well-known. How long you choose to dwell there, however, is up to you. You can wake up from the dream of Hell, and its particular state of attention, at any time. The ability to wake up from the bad dream is just as available to you in Hell as it is in Heaven, or anywhere in between. It's just a matter of choice. The first long quote I posted from the Dhammapada is, in fact, often grouped under the heading Choice. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In this world Hate never yet dispelled hate. Only love dispels hate. This is the law, Ancient and inexhaustible. * Anger is like a chariot careening wildly. He who curbs his anger is the true charioteer. Others merely hold the reins. * Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. * You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger. Having seen, and had to interact with those that are angry, including myself, an aspect of it, i think is a type of craziness, in the sense of insanity. Or at least dangerously, unpredictably irrational. Dealing with someone who is angry and has some influence on your life -- spouse, parent, boss, etc., ups the stakes. The uncertainty of how far they are going to cross the line of rationality and appropriate response is great. It can be dicey. Per ToK (theory of Karma) -- if someone in power over you gets irrationally angry at you -- you must have done the same to someone in the past. Wear that persons shoes for a few miles. Ouch. Not going to dothat again. And thus we learn. Sometimes slow, sometimes fast. Its a self-correcting, self-regulating, educational mechanism -- not dependent on any code of morality, judges of morals and sins, final judgement, fear, guilt or shame. As is a Spanish proverb (help me out here Turq -- including if I have been mislead), PP (paraphrasing), God, the infinite storekeeper, said 'take what you want, but pay the price'.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada-P.S.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was interrupted, so in my last post the sentence got garbled. Sin to Dante is merely an obstacle on a path, and it is an obstacle because there are consequences to be worked out. The whirlwind is a consequence of Paolo and Francesca's action. The difference between hell and purgatory for Dante was that the soul in hell suffers, but does not know that there is an end to the suffering and also does not understand why this suffering has occurred. The soul in purgatory also suffers, but it knows that there is an end to suffering and it is also very clear about why this suffering is happening. a Then Dante's Hell is a stupid place -- base on retribution. Purgatory is a place of rehabilitation and and learning. Walking in the person's shoes one has hurt -- and learning from it. Sin as an obstacle and consequence. Per my last post, take what want, take all you desire, but pay the price at the door. I like this view, because it presents a framework of self-regulating education and learning form action. And is not a pejorative threat, as in the sense of you WILL pay the price dude!. The thing bought (sin) is not bad in and of it self. But it has consequences. And is an obstacle to buying other things. Like the economists market basket. You can have this OR that, but not both (at your revenue line). (Gotta love those isoquants.) Buying THIS, presents an 'opportunity cost' to buying THAT. and vice versa. Neither purchase is a sin, nor a great moral action. It is a framework like any store -- or warehouse superstore. You can buy that 65 1080p TV -- no sin in that. But you have to pay the fair price for it. That means, its not free. You have to trade so many hours of work for it. And you have to set it up. And be hassled by it when you move. The deal is -- you can enjoy it totally -- its all cool, but there is a price to pay for it. Just like anything, there is a price to pay. You can be a western yogi in India -- and may enjoy many things from that -- but there is a price for that. You can do a corporate job -- and enjoy the things from that -- but there i a price to pay for that. You can covet your neighbor's wife -- and enjoy -- but there is a price too pay for that. You can rob a bank -- and enjoy -- but there is a price to pay for that. In this view -- there is NO sin. Just payments. Some manage their credit cards wisely. Others don't. The sin is not in what is bought -- but only whether one has the resources to pay for it -- both physical payment and inner payment. And to be able to handle well any future returning payments. Like a dividend -- or a future balloon payment on a large loan. As written by the seers of old, You can get anything you want, at Alice's restaurant ...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quotes from the Dhammapada-P.S.
You could say that there is no sin in Dante's world. You pay a price. And he observed that there are lots of folks in the world who suffer but who do not know why they suffer. From his point of view, they are in hell. They do not remember that they are paying a price for something. That is his definition of hell. It is not a stupid place, but is populated by folks with amnesia. a new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was interrupted, so in my last post the sentence got garbled. Sin to Dante is merely an obstacle on a path, and it is an obstacle because there are consequences to be worked out. The whirlwind is a consequence of Paolo and Francesca's action. The difference between hell and purgatory for Dante was that the soul in hell suffers, but does not know that there is an end to the suffering and also does not understand why this suffering has occurred. The soul in purgatory also suffers, but it knows that there is an end to suffering and it is also very clear about why this suffering is happening. a Then Dante's Hell is a stupid place -- base on retribution. Purgatory is a place of rehabilitation and and learning. Walking in the person's shoes one has hurt -- and learning from it. Sin as an obstacle and consequence. Per my last post, take what want, take all you desire, but pay the price at the door. I like this view, because it presents a framework of self-regulating education and learning form action. And is not a pejorative threat, as in the sense of you WILL pay the price dude!. The thing bought (sin) is not bad in and of it self. But it has consequences. And is an obstacle to buying other things. Like the economists market basket. You can have this OR that, but not both (at your revenue line). (Gotta love those isoquants.) Buying THIS, presents an 'opportunity cost' to buying THAT. and vice versa. Neither purchase is a sin, nor a great moral action. It is a framework like any store -- or warehouse superstore. You can buy that 65 1080p TV -- no sin in that. But you have to pay the fair price for it. That means, its not free. You have to trade so many hours of work for it. And you have to set it up. And be hassled by it when you move. The deal is -- you can enjoy it totally -- its all cool, but there is a price to pay for it. Just like anything, there is a price to pay. You can be a western yogi in India -- and may enjoy many things from that -- but there is a price for that. You can do a corporate job -- and enjoy the things from that -- but there i a price to pay for that. You can covet your neighbor's wife -- and enjoy -- but there is a price too pay for that. You can rob a bank -- and enjoy -- but there is a price to pay for that. In this view -- there is NO sin. Just payments. Some manage their credit cards wisely. Others don't. The sin is not in what is bought -- but only whether one has the resources to pay for it -- both physical payment and inner payment. And to be able to handle well any future returning payments. Like a dividend -- or a future balloon payment on a large loan. As written by the seers of old, You can get anything you want, at Alice's restaurant ... Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
