Best Of
Re: Give
@lobster said:
Dharma is a curse if held too tight and too loose and lost …Few of us have sufficient dharma/understanding to give.
Better be kind in every way including sideways … meanwhile …
send your bad karma to:
Lobster hell realm giveaway. Nothing refused.
A lot is gained by just living in a relaxed way… many things cease to be important, like careers, status, how other people view you… I would suggest make room in your life for relaxation, and you will find a lot of stress just flows away from you.
Jeroen
Re: Newbuddhist has a MIner
Could someone translate into plain English, please?
Move along, nothing to see. Storm in a tea cup. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
oh … you want the rabbit hole? 
https://www.simplilearn.com/what-is-computer-security-article
lobster
Re: Just for fun: the random, useless announcements thread!
The Eurovision Song Contest is no longer about the song. That is almost incidental. It's just a political showcase, and a parade of people all vying for the most attention, by appearing in the most weird, eye-catching and controversial apparel. 
federica
Re: How can someone practice no-self and improve his self at the same time?
@David said:
To say it has no existence is an extreme stance.
It almost seems counter to logic but non-self doesn't point to non-existence. It points to inclusiveness.
Right. To say that the self doesn't exist = nihilism. The Buddha cautioned against nihilism. But he cautioned against eternalism as well. Everything is in a state of change and flux. And, as David so aptly put it, everything depends on everything else working together.
Another way I've heard it explained, is that we're not to get attached to a self-identity. People do, you know; they think of themselves as all kinds of things: a parent, a "family man", a member of whatever profession they've chosen (what happens when they go through a career change though? Change is an integral part of life), a problem-solver, a creative thinker, a generous person or a frugal person, etc. These are all constructs people invent to describe themselves. To become invested in that identity = ego. Ego leads to suffering, if for example, life circumstances occur to force a change in our "self"-image. It's not something we should get caught up in.
And kotishka hit the nail on the head as well, when he said:
Or maybe at some point the self has stretched enough to provide the trampoline to jump into the non-self?
Exactly. It's a tool we use to help us move toward Enlightenment, or egolessness. And to simply get through our mundane lives: to open a bank account, to apply for a job, to lead a group, as the Buddha did, or to find ways to lighten the suffering of other sentient beings in whatever way our unique individual gifts may allow us to do, or to provide others with life skills. But our focus should be on the process and the goal, not on how great or special we are to be achieving what we've set out to do. The latter is attachment to self. The former is Right Livelihood, or Right Motivation.
The self is just a tool, not a be-all, end-all, or something like a material acquisition that enhances our status in the community, a badge to wear. Forget the badge; just get on with doing what needs to be done to bring about positive change.
Dakini
Re: Blessings
I don’t like happiness, I like suffering:
If I am happy, the five poisons increase.
If I suffer, my past bad karma is exhausted.
I don’t value high positions, I like low ones.
If I am important, my pride and jealousy increase;
If I am lowly, I relax and my spiritual practice grows.
The lowest place is the seat of the saints of the past.
Patrul Rinpoche
https://www.lionsroar.com/simple-man-extraordinary-yogi-the-life-of-patrul-rinpoche/
lobster
Re: The Guru Papers discussion
@FleaMarket said:
I'm feeling a bit blind here in my examination but I'm struggling to see how this is different from any other relationship? From my observation, the same situation one who finds themselves in with a guru could be the same situation one finds themselves in with a trusted friend or family.Is it about the mental conditioning that takes place? Because that could be seen in friend and family and all relationships as well. Devoted family, friend, lover, student, worshiper all seem like the same person. Equally disillusioned family, friend, lover, student, worshiper all seem the same as well.
What am I missing?
I think its about the power imbalance and the responsibility that entails on the part of the guru that doesn't apply to many of those other relationships. There's a deep surrender and trust on the part of the student that goes beyond most other relationships. More like a parent and very young child.
If memory serves I think in the literature on guruyoga they say that one should examine a teacher for 12 years. In the real world today that almost never happens and in group dynamics there are heavy social pressures to conform.
I think the potential of a healthy, positive guru/student relationship for spiritual growth and realization is greater than other paths. But as @Vimalajāti says, when they go wrong, they go very wrong.
I also think the sort of deeply enlightened and ethical teachers are rare (maybe more so today than in the past???). So selecting a guru by proximity or first exposure or most popular or any number of other criteria, odds are you'll get one that's compromised in some way.
person
Re: The Guru Papers discussion
I’ve been reading the chapter on guru ploys, and its interesting the excuses they use to evade accountability. I must admit, these things being said to me — “you can’t possibly understand what I am doing because you are not enlightened” for instance — would cause a few alarm bells to go off in my mind.
Another interesting chapter is the one on surrender, which goes into some depth about the psychological effects of surrendering and its attractions. Another chapter goes into how those teachings often attack the strength of a person’s reason and encourage a more emotive group-thinking.
It’s curious because if I compare this to what I read about people like Ramana Maharshi and Poonjaji then I come to the conclusion that although they are commonly called ‘gurus’ they don’t teach those things, and they also didn’t use those tactics to hold onto followers. Indeed they seemed to try their best not to accumulate followers.
Jeroen
Diversity and the Dharma
When it comes to Buddhism...the Dharma is the Dharma, it does not discriminate... and from what I gather (in a nutshell that is,) it is designed, to tame and then train the mind in the ways of ending the self inflicted suffering that the self continually falls prey to....
No doubt many of us come to the Dharma for (on the surface) many different reasons, which I guess in reality all boil down to the one thing "Dukkha" AKA Unsatisfactoriness, not quite satisfied with how things are flowing when it comes to our daily lives...This dissatisfaction may be subtle, gross or somewhere in between...but it's there all the same...
Also we come from diverse backgrounds, religious, cultural, traditional, political, ideological, ethnicities, gender identities, sexual orientations, (straight, gay and in bi-tween ), along with different social economic backgrounds, materially wealthy or materially poor or somewhere in between...And it would seem these different backgrounds are part and parcel of our conditioning and this conditioning along with other things is where our preconceived ideas, biases etc etc can be found...
However, Dukkha seems to be what brings us all together in the Dharma....warts and all... and helps us (some more than others ) work through our misconceptions and preconceived ideas which more often than not feed our suffering ( the self is a glutton for punishment )...
And after awhile we come to find that we are not so different after all...We all want happiness and to be free of suffering...and there's an abundance of happiness...free to an open mind and kind heart...
Well through trial and error this is what I'm gradually beginning to discovering...How about you ?
Shoshin1
Re: The Guru Papers discussion
@Jeroen said:
Personally I think you can only surrender authority to a certain extent. You say to the guru, “I surrender until it no longer suits me”. The whole problem is, some people cease to think critically and take it way too far. For those people this book was written. It bills itself as an examination of all forms of authoritarianism, but in the actual writing it’s quite clearly anti-authoritarian. That’s not wholly a bad thing, but if your belief is still about trust it can be a bit of a shock.
@Vimalajāti said:
Guruyoga is dangerous. When it goes sour, it goes sour in a big way.
After my first spiritual experiences -ISKCON and Shambhala- everytime I hear the word guru and "unbreakeable bond".... shivers Thanks but no thanks 
In ISKCON, extreme orthodoxy and adherence to a dead guru and his words. I once asked, "why is Darwin a rascal?". The reply: "Because he is. Prabhupada said so."
In Shambhala I heard people defending the sexual abuse scandal which caused Sakyong Rinpoche's decision to "take refuge" in Nepal : "it was meditative sex" / "he is a Vajyrana master!", "it is all part of the MeToo Hysteria".
I have no time to read this book right now, but I look forward the updates you provide and this thread as it sounds damn interesting.
Not saying this is exclusive of Vajyrana, the abuse, but the concept of total surrender and obeisance to the bond....quite a hard vow!
Kotishka
Re: The Guru Papers discussion
Guruyoga is dangerous. When it goes sour, it goes sour in a big way. Why? The guru is God if you're a Hindu, or the guru is the Buddha if you are a Buddhist. Students of the secret mantra are taught to consider their guru as a Perfectly Enlightened and Perfectly Infallible Buddha. The Saṃgha is the guru's body. The Buddha is the guru's mind. The Dharma is the guru's speech. The refuge in the three jewels, to a Vajrayānika, is refuge in the guru. That's all fine and dandy if the guru is actually a Buddha. Frequently, however, gurus are simply ordinary persons. Sometimes, gurus are horrible persons, and these extreme cases get a lot of press because people get very hurt by them. They stake their entire personal salvation on the Buddhahood of the guru. If the "guru" is in fact a conman looking for fame or sex or worldly power, the students get used to these ends.
This isn't a condemnation of Tantra/Vajrayāna. It's just a description of a tradition that even labels itself as potentially dangerous and not suitable for everyone.
