Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Just so it's clear, I wasn't saying my job is "better" than hers in any way whatsoever. It was just a (probably bad) example of what we tend to view as more worth in society as a whole. I'm not a lawyer because I didn't want to be a lawyer, and I'd probably have been a bad one given my hatred of public speaking, lol. And I didn't mean to sound as if a woman (or man) can't be both a breadwinner and a good parent. My classmate is a good mom and she loves her kids very much, and as a person I like her very much. She is simply seen by many as successful while I am not and I think that plays very much into the sickness of society down to it's core.
First, @TheBeejAbides, when something is not understood, it is just as often the problem of the speaker as it is the listener.
But, more importantly, it seems as if you want to lump together entrepreneurs as all being the cause of a sick society. To begin with, I don't even agree that the society is sick. But, beyond that, it's rarely meaningful to lump any group of people together. What do we say about people who lump groups of people together by race? Or nationality? Or poor people? Or the uneducated? It's no more right to lump rich people or entrepreneurs together.
I come from a small town in western New York State. If George Eastman hadn't developed Eastman-Kodak company, several of my relatives wouldn't have had good jobs. If O.J. Garlock hadn't invested a new type of rubber sealing gasket, and then developed the Garlock Packing Company, quite a few other relatives of mine would have had much poorer jobs. Kodak -- during its prime years -- was awfully good to its employees, and, for many years, it even paid in full the cost of one school system in northern Rochester.
As you said, your diagnosis is very "narrow"...your choice of words.
@karasti- i think your last sentence in the above post is quite profound. the perception of success is a learned conditioned response, its not some fact that compells us into a limitless idea of progress and competition. thanks for sharing your personal experiences to illustrate your thought.
again, you are responding to what you think i am saying. i never said jobs are bad. or people who create jobs are bad. or that money is bad. or that i deserve some of the money that the rich have- i am saying that avarice is negative to society. people who support this avarice arent helping society, but deepening the sickness. take that and run with it wherever you want to, but i'm out.
no but when you have already accumulated enough money to survive for ten life times, but everything you do after is driven to accumulating more wealth, i think that is avarice. how much do you really need? i go back to the Ghandi quote that i like: "The moment that financial stability is secured, spiritual bankruptcy is also secured." anx that is kind of what we are talking about, i think. spiritual vs material? not that its simply that dualistic, but isnt that where our "sickness" comes from? thats my narrow diagnoses, anyway.
Generally, I agree that chasing more money after you already have more than enough to look after yourself and loved ones is unnecessary. UNLESS you use it to do good in the world. You could start several charitable foundations, hospitals, schools, whatever you want to do. You could start a foundation that helps people with health care costs (Tereza Heinz-Kerry does exactly that). You could be a venture capitalist for alternative-energy companies and other deserving small businesses. You could create low-income housing projects, or fund employment training, or support Buddhist temples. There's an endless list of charitable and humanitarian uses for extra money.
Money's just a potential tool to get things done in the world. It's humans that decide how to use it, and make the value judgments about how it's spent.
Being a mom and a housewife is a massively underrated job in the west. Somewhere someone said that if a stay at home mom got paid for her job she should be earning a salary of $117,000. Not too shabby
no but when you have already accumulated enough money to survive for ten life times, but everything you do after is driven to accumulating more wealth, i think that is avarice. how much do you really need? i go back to the Ghandi quote that i like: "The moment that financial stability is secured, spiritual bankruptcy is also secured." anx that is kind of what we are talking about, i think. spiritual vs material? not that its simply that dualistic, but isnt that where our "sickness" comes from? thats my narrow diagnoses, anyway.
See, this is where the confusion lies. Your definition of avarice appears to be simply being wealthy and then making more money. As if there is some kind of cap, a point where we should stop creating wealth. So you're painting anyone who has been succesful and continues to be successful with the avarice brush. Which is nonsense. There's nothing wrong with having enough money to live ten times over, twenty times over, and the pursuit of wealth or more wealth does not automatically constitute greed.
Industry and entrepreneurship are rewarded in our society, as they should be.
I don't think people who are wealthy should stop creating wealth. It isn't the wealth that is bad, but the ignorance behind so many of the rich when it comes to using their money for the better of all. I don't want their money. I do wish more of them would do like Bill Gates does. He's hardly suffering because he donates so much to other causes. He is still way more comfortable than any of us can imagine. But he still uses plenty to help others. The idea that "they made the money, they can do with it what they want" doesn't make much sense to me.
As Buddhism points out, we are all interconnected. We are all responsible for the health and wellness of each other because of that. We all have talents we can share with the world. We can do that in a way that enhances the world, or in a way that contributes to problems in the world. Some people are blessed with a business and financial sense (or inheritance) that allows them to have a lot more money than the average person. That doesn't mean they aren't bound by the interconnectedness of all to share their gift. That doesn't mean they have to live in a mobile home and give away all their money. It doesn't mean I think they should give their money to everyone who wants it. It just means I think that we ALL have a responsibility to the state of our planet, and everyone has to help in the way they are able.
Some people should be helping financially, some people will help medically, some people will help by growing food, some people will help by raising well-minded children, some people will help by sharing their art/music with the world. We all have to help. Rich people are not exempt from this. Most of us work hard. Just because we are not all well paid doesn't make us not important. Saying that rich people help by creating jobs is a cop out for them. When they don't contribute their share of taxes, and get filthy rich off not treating their employees well, they are not helping the planet in any way.
I agree in as far as they do have a responsibility, but the responsibility belongs to them and it's up to them whether or not they choose to shoulder it. The karmic consequences for that are theirs and theirs alone.
As for Bill Gates... He does so much work for charity because that's what he wants to do with his money. It's his money, and he spends it as he sees fit as everybody deserves the right to.
As for taxes, we must remember that a lower tax percentage would still add up to an annual tax payment of more than the average person's salary (depending on the taxable amount, obv.) We say they "pay less tax" but it's just not true. The top 40% of tax payers contribute 85% of the taxes altogether. The idea that they don't contribute their fair share is just totally fallacious. When you get away from all the political memes it's just basic math.
As for not treating their employees well, that's not a wealth problem, it's an ego problem, and we do have laws to keep those things in check. Money doesn't have anything to do with integrity or character.
About the employees, I was writing with the Walton family in mind. Greedy greedy greedy at their employees and suppliers suffering. They are bullies.
The taxes, I meant mostly corporations, not individuals. There are huge corporations that don't pay nearly close to the tax rate they are supposed to, and they are wanting the rate lowered even farther, and that ideology is supported by the rich and the republicans under the guise of creating jobs. GE for example pays only about a 10% tax rate, as the best guess of various financial people since GE refuses to say how much it is, and "some" of that was federal. When they are supposed to be paying around 30%. They would still have billions in profit. It's not their fault, because the tax law makes it legal for them to do so, but that tax law is supported by the rich. Their CEO makes $22 million a year. Under him they have sent 15% of the US jobs to China. They aren't creating US jobs with their tax loopholes.
I do agree that it is on them, the karma for misusing their money. But that doesn't mean we can't push for better laws for them to pay their share of taxes compared to the rest of us. Telling someone who dreads summer because at least at school their kids get fed, that "it's their own bad karma if they don't share their money" isn't going to help those kids when the republicans want to cut the programs that help feed them or let their parents taxes go up even more because the richest 1% of the people in the country think they shouldn't have to pay the same tax rate as the rest of us.
About the employees, I was writing with the Walton family in mind. Greedy greedy greedy at their employees and suppliers suffering. They are bullies.
The taxes, I meant mostly corporations, not individuals. There are huge corporations that don't pay nearly close to the tax rate they are supposed to, and they are wanting the rate lowered even farther, and that ideology is supported by the rich and the republicans under the guise of creating jobs. GE for example pays only about a 10% tax rate, as the best guess of various financial people since GE refuses to say how much it is, and "some" of that was federal. When they are supposed to be paying around 30%. They would still have billions in profit. It's not their fault, because the tax law makes it legal for them to do so, but that tax law is supported by the rich. Their CEO makes $22 million a year. Under him they have sent 15% of the US jobs to China. They aren't creating US jobs with their tax loopholes.
What I don't get is why politicians don't see the obvious and simple solution to this problem - charge a premium for work overseas. It's just basic sense - keep America competitive by lowering taxes here and charging more to take jobs outside. A higher tax, of course, would do the opposite, ostracizing American labor even further.
I do agree that it is on them, the karma for misusing their money. But that doesn't mean we can't push for better laws for them to pay their share of taxes compared to the rest of us. Telling someone who dreads summer because at least at school their kids get fed, that "it's their own bad karma if they don't share their money" isn't going to help those kids when the republicans want to cut the programs that help feed them or let their parents taxes go up even more because the richest 1% of the people in the country think they shouldn't have to pay the same tax rate as the rest of us.
It's not the responsibility of a corporation to feed children. That's the responsibility of their parents. The corporation can provide jobs so that families can feed themselves but I think that's all we can and should reasonably expect of them.
but what about when they can't? It's easy to say "Parents should be responsible and feed their own kids" but who suffers if they cannot? I sit ok to let children suffer to teach their parents some lesson? What if circumstances in their lives change and they can no longer provide what they once could? If they never could provide it? Of course the ideal is people shouldn't have children they cannot care for, but the fact that so many children like that are already here makes that argument pointless. Children get no say in the issue. They just want to eat.
I'm not saying it's the responsibilities of corporations to feed children. I'm saying that rich people who run and support large corporations getting big tax breaks so they can be richer while at the same time cutting programs that support children, families, elderly, disabled people is ridiculous.
but what about when they can't? It's easy to say "Parents should be responsible and feed their own kids" but who suffers if they cannot? I sit ok to let children suffer to teach their parents some lesson? What if circumstances in their lives change and they can no longer provide what they once could? If they never could provide it? Of course the ideal is people shouldn't have children they cannot care for, but the fact that so many children like that are already here makes that argument pointless. Children get no say in the issue. They just want to eat.
I'm not saying it's the responsibilities of corporations to feed children. I'm saying that rich people who run and support large corporations getting big tax breaks so they can be richer while at the same time cutting programs that support children, families, elderly, disabled people is ridiculous.
Handouts aren't the solution here, creating jobs is the solution. Obviously, that's a very black and white statement and there should always be some kind of a safety net for those who can't, for whatever legitimate reason, support their families, but it's the long and short of it. More jobs = more food on plates and more people paying taxes which goes to fund those social programs.
I would like if this was in diagram form
So you lower taxes so corps have more space to make jobs. More people working means less hungry children. More people working means more taxes are paid which then fund social programs.
It's the circle of life
You can't just cut out the middle man by raising taxes. It would probably be ok for a short time but it's not a lasting solution. You raise taxes, fewer jobs stay in America, fewer people work, more people need aid, tax even higher, fewer jobs, need more aid, need more money, tax more and on and on and on.
What American politicians really need to do is learn to compromise. It's possible to create jobs without risking those social programs. There is a middle ground, it just seems like nobody seems keen on looking for it.
I agree in as far as they do have a responsibility, but the responsibility belongs to them and it's up to them whether or not they choose to shoulder it. The karmic consequences for that are theirs and theirs alone.
:thumbsup: I read that the Kennedys (back in the day) were keenly aware of the obligations that accompany privilege. They were raised with that, apparently. It would be great if everyone were raised with that type of conscience. It would be a different world, to a degree.
GE has one of the biggest tax breaks there are, and their US workforce has decreased. More jobs yes. More US jobs, no. They already pay peanuts in taxes and now want to pay less on the promise of more jobs...in China. I agree that better jobs is most certainly part of the answer. But greed is much of the reason the jobs are poor. More corporations need to run like Costco. Giving into more greed hardly seems the answer.
It would only work if tax was lowered though. The idea is to make the American workforce competitive with the international market. If we raise taxes AND charge them for China they'll just jump ship entirely and go elsewhere.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
edited December 2012
I would like to buy a TV for my mother this year and so, I've been researching possible brands. I really can't afford the 'top' brands, so it's been quite difficult to weed out the unreliable brands. (Hold on, I promise this is relevant) I've decided to go with a newer brand called Element which has begun it's assembly here in Detroit. Yes, the parts are still manufactured elsewhere, but at least they are making strides to do more here. But in my research, I happen upon an article with an expert basically berating Element, whittling the point all down to money, saying that there is no benefit to having their assembling plant in America unless it's for publicity. It was at this point that I began to realize that some people really don't get it. All they can see is money, no loyalty or responsibility.
@karasti I don't know much about Costco, what are you referring to?
Costco is a competitor to Sams Club. They pay their workers very well, they get good benefits even if they are part time, they get retirement, and it's that way because most of the profit goes back into the company, into the employees. The CEO has a much smaller salary and bonus when you compare him to the CEO of Sam's Club and the results speak for themselves. The workers are happy, they stay in a job that isn't all that enjoyable because they work for an enjoyable company. Even the guys who bring the carts in, start a rates that only managers at walmart/sams club make. His employees don't receive nearly as much govt. assistance as walmart/sams employees. The avg. Sams Club cashier makes $8 an hour ($16k a year if they are lucky enough to be full time, and that's below the povery line) and doesn't usually get insurance because Walmart companies do not offer it to most of their part time employees and they like to keep their employees working as much as they can without having to offer benefits. The average Costco cashier makes $12 an hour , and as an employee average, Costco employees make $17 an hour. That's not that much less than my husband makes and he works for the government. 85% of costcos employees have health insurance, compared to 50% for walmart/sams employees.
The ceo of costco (largest warehouse company in the US) makes a base salary of $350k and with bonuses and other such things, makes just over $2 million. The ceo of sams (which has fewer stores) makes $800k base with up to $10 million in bonuses and extras (this is her first year on the job) and then compared to walmarts CEO who makes $35MM a year.
Wow, what an eye opener! Thanks for postingt this, @karasti! I always preferred Costco anyway, but this is even more reason to support them. :thumbsup:
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
I honestly didn't know any of that about Costco. I always thought it was the same as all the rest (Sams Club, Walmart, etc)... that is awesome though. I might just sign up with them. THAT is how you run a business.
Oscar Wilde's wisdom: Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good while preserving the system.
I cant really add anything that most have not said, but in terms of the word sick, you might say that from a buddhist point of view we are all sick...how? sick in the sense of being under the poisons of greed, hate, and dellusion. These 3 poisons when very strong have great negative effects on our mind and actions. So we need the cure. What cure is it? To understand the root of the poisons, or in short, understand the 4 noble truths. Then, 1. do what is wholesome in body speech and mind 2. avoid doing the opposite 3. purify ones mind.
In the end, there is always going to be our sick society. Some have chemical imbalances, some know what they are doing is wrong, and some do evil deeds for the sake of their own gain. However...regardless of this, we must all answer to our actions and as buddhist's we can take comfort in knowing there is a cure to the three poisons and an end to suffering.
One thousand of such world systems is called one small thous- and world system. A thousand small-thousand world systems is called one middle-thousand world system. A thousand middle-thousand world systems is called one great-thousand world system. Because the word “thousandŸ occurs three times, the great-thousand world system is referred to as the three thousand great-thousand world system. This gigantic world system contains limitless Buddhalands, and in spite of its name, the number of worlds it contains may vary, because the Dharma is not fixed. One should not become too attached to an exact number. The person who gives the seven precious gems of gold, silver, lapis lazuli, crystal, mother-of-pearl, red pearls, and carnelian does not just give a few of them. He relinquishes enough to fill an entire three thousand great thousand world system. How many that would be! Subhåti said, “Such a person would acquire much in the way of blessings and virtue. However, his blessings and virtues, being tangible, would not be the essential blessings and virtue which are markless. Therefore, although the bless- ings and virtue of which the Buddha speaks would be vast, they would be superficial and without the real nature of bless- ings and virtue. So when the Buddha spoke of the blessings and virtue as many, he was referring to their marks, and not to their nature. The section of text which begins, “If on the other hand, a person were to receive and hold from this Såtra,Ÿ was spoken 107 by øàkyamuni Buddha. Receive means that the heart re- ceives it. Hold means that the body puts the teaching into practice. A person need not receive and hold the entire Vajra Såtra, but may learn to recite no more than a four line gàthà, such as those which occur later in the text: If one sees me in form, If one seeks me in sound, He practices a deviant way And cannot see the Tathàgata The gàthà says that if a person recognizes the Buddha through tangible marks, or seeks for the Buddha in the sound of his voice, that person practices deviant, demonic externalist dharmas rather than true, actual Buddhadharma. Why? True Buddhadharma is devoid of form or appearance. It is true emptiness and wonderful existence. Effort is not to be spent on false marks. Another four-line gàthà says: All with marks is false and empty. If you see all marks As no marks Then you see the Tathàgata. Another: There is no mark of self, And no mark of others, 108 No mark of living beings And no mark of a life. Another: All conditioned dharmas Are like dreams. illusions, bubbles, shadows, Like dew drops and a lightning flash. Contemplate them thus. In general, one may memorize any four-lines which suit him and explain them to others. One should not interpret the passage of Såtra text in this section as referring only to the verses in this particular Såtra, because there are no fixed dharmas. If one insists on a given four lines, the Dharma becomes static. The Vajra Såtra subdues the rigid attaching heart and enables it to separate from all marks. It sweeps away all dharmas and separates from all marks. Separation from all marks is Buddhahood. Do not be attached to a particular four lines. Keep the Dharma alive! Let it be like a vital dragon, like a coursing tiger. Speak the Såtra until it leaps and bounds. Talk until it soars. Do not be so stuffy that you put everyone to sleep, and then be so stupid as to think your lecturing has caused them to enter samàdhi.
If you can receive and hold a four-line gàthà yourself, and speak it for others, the blessings and virtue of that act are far greater than the blessings and virtue derived by the person who gives three thousand great thousand world systems full of the seven precious gems as a gift. Why? Because the giving of Dharma is the most supreme kind of giving, and as such far surpasses the giving of wealth.
Comments
But, more importantly, it seems as if you want to lump together entrepreneurs as all being the cause of a sick society. To begin with, I don't even agree that the society is sick. But, beyond that, it's rarely meaningful to lump any group of people together. What do we say about people who lump groups of people together by race? Or nationality? Or poor people? Or the uneducated? It's no more right to lump rich people or entrepreneurs together.
I come from a small town in western New York State. If George Eastman hadn't developed Eastman-Kodak company, several of my relatives wouldn't have had good jobs. If O.J. Garlock hadn't invested a new type of rubber sealing gasket, and then developed the Garlock Packing Company, quite a few other relatives of mine would have had much poorer jobs. Kodak -- during its prime years -- was awfully good to its employees, and, for many years, it even paid in full the cost of one school system in northern Rochester.
As you said, your diagnosis is very "narrow"...your choice of words.
Money's just a potential tool to get things done in the world. It's humans that decide how to use it, and make the value judgments about how it's spent.
: See, this is where the confusion lies. Your definition of avarice appears to be simply being wealthy and then making more money. As if there is some kind of cap, a point where we should stop creating wealth. So you're painting anyone who has been succesful and continues to be successful with the avarice brush. Which is nonsense. There's nothing wrong with having enough money to live ten times over, twenty times over, and the pursuit of wealth or more wealth does not automatically constitute greed.
Industry and entrepreneurship are rewarded in our society, as they should be.
As Buddhism points out, we are all interconnected. We are all responsible for the health and wellness of each other because of that. We all have talents we can share with the world. We can do that in a way that enhances the world, or in a way that contributes to problems in the world. Some people are blessed with a business and financial sense (or inheritance) that allows them to have a lot more money than the average person. That doesn't mean they aren't bound by the interconnectedness of all to share their gift. That doesn't mean they have to live in a mobile home and give away all their money. It doesn't mean I think they should give their money to everyone who wants it. It just means I think that we ALL have a responsibility to the state of our planet, and everyone has to help in the way they are able.
Some people should be helping financially, some people will help medically, some people will help by growing food, some people will help by raising well-minded children, some people will help by sharing their art/music with the world. We all have to help. Rich people are not exempt from this. Most of us work hard. Just because we are not all well paid doesn't make us not important. Saying that rich people help by creating jobs is a cop out for them. When they don't contribute their share of taxes, and get filthy rich off not treating their employees well, they are not helping the planet in any way.
As for Bill Gates... He does so much work for charity because that's what he wants to do with his money. It's his money, and he spends it as he sees fit as everybody deserves the right to.
As for taxes, we must remember that a lower tax percentage would still add up to an annual tax payment of more than the average person's salary (depending on the taxable amount, obv.) We say they "pay less tax" but it's just not true. The top 40% of tax payers contribute 85% of the taxes altogether. The idea that they don't contribute their fair share is just totally fallacious. When you get away from all the political memes it's just basic math.
As for not treating their employees well, that's not a wealth problem, it's an ego problem, and we do have laws to keep those things in check. Money doesn't have anything to do with integrity or character.
The taxes, I meant mostly corporations, not individuals. There are huge corporations that don't pay nearly close to the tax rate they are supposed to, and they are wanting the rate lowered even farther, and that ideology is supported by the rich and the republicans under the guise of creating jobs. GE for example pays only about a 10% tax rate, as the best guess of various financial people since GE refuses to say how much it is, and "some" of that was federal. When they are supposed to be paying around 30%. They would still have billions in profit. It's not their fault, because the tax law makes it legal for them to do so, but that tax law is supported by the rich. Their CEO makes $22 million a year. Under him they have sent 15% of the US jobs to China. They aren't creating US jobs with their tax loopholes.
I'm not saying it's the responsibilities of corporations to feed children. I'm saying that rich people who run and support large corporations getting big tax breaks so they can be richer while at the same time cutting programs that support children, families, elderly, disabled people is ridiculous.
I would like if this was in diagram form
So you lower taxes so corps have more space to make jobs. More people working means less hungry children. More people working means more taxes are paid which then fund social programs.
It's the circle of life
You can't just cut out the middle man by raising taxes. It would probably be ok for a short time but it's not a lasting solution. You raise taxes, fewer jobs stay in America, fewer people work, more people need aid, tax even higher, fewer jobs, need more aid, need more money, tax more and on and on and on.
What American politicians really need to do is learn to compromise. It's possible to create jobs without risking those social programs. There is a middle ground, it just seems like nobody seems keen on looking for it.
@karasti I don't know much about Costco, what are you referring to?
The ceo of costco (largest warehouse company in the US) makes a base salary of $350k and with bonuses and other such things, makes just over $2 million. The ceo of sams (which has fewer stores) makes $800k base with up to $10 million in bonuses and extras (this is her first year on the job) and then compared to walmarts CEO who makes $35MM a year.
Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good while preserving the system.
1. do what is wholesome in body speech and mind
2. avoid doing the opposite
3. purify ones mind.
In the end, there is always going to be our sick society. Some have chemical imbalances, some know what they are doing is wrong, and some do evil deeds for the sake of their own gain. However...regardless of this, we must all answer to our actions and as buddhist's we can take comfort in knowing there is a cure to the three poisons and an end to suffering.
One thousand of such world systems is called one small thous- and world system. A thousand small-thousand world systems is called one middle-thousand world system.
A thousand middle-thousand world systems is called one great-thousand world system. Because the word “thousandŸ occurs three times, the great-thousand world system is referred to as the three thousand great-thousand world system. This gigantic world system contains limitless Buddhalands, and in spite of its name, the number of worlds it contains may vary, because the Dharma is not fixed. One should not become too attached to an exact number.
The person who gives the seven precious gems of gold, silver, lapis lazuli, crystal, mother-of-pearl, red pearls, and carnelian does not just give a few of them. He relinquishes enough to fill an entire three thousand great thousand world system. How many that would be!
Subhåti said, “Such a person would acquire much in the way of blessings and virtue. However, his blessings and virtues, being tangible, would not be the essential blessings and virtue which are markless. Therefore, although the bless- ings and virtue of which the Buddha speaks would be vast, they would be superficial and without the real nature of bless- ings and virtue. So when the Buddha spoke of the blessings and virtue as many, he was referring to their marks, and not to their nature.
The section of text which begins, “If on the other hand, a person were to receive and hold from this Såtra,Ÿ was spoken
107
by øàkyamuni Buddha. Receive means that the heart re- ceives it. Hold means that the body puts the teaching into practice.
A person need not receive and hold the entire Vajra Såtra, but may learn to recite no more than a four line gàthà, such as those which occur later in the text:
If one sees me in form, If one seeks me in sound, He practices a deviant way
And cannot see the Tathàgata
The gàthà says that if a person recognizes the Buddha through tangible marks, or seeks for the Buddha in the sound of his voice, that person practices deviant, demonic externalist dharmas rather than true, actual Buddhadharma. Why? True Buddhadharma is devoid of form or appearance. It is true emptiness and wonderful existence. Effort is not to be spent on false marks.
Another four-line gàthà says:
All with marks is false and empty. If you see all marks
As no marks Then you see the Tathàgata.
Another:
There is no mark of self, And no mark of others,
108
No mark of living beings And no mark of a life.
Another:
All conditioned dharmas Are like dreams. illusions, bubbles, shadows,
Like dew drops and a lightning flash. Contemplate them thus.
In general, one may memorize any four-lines which suit him and explain them to others. One should not interpret the passage of Såtra text in this section as referring only to the verses in this particular Såtra, because there are no fixed dharmas. If one insists on a given four lines, the Dharma becomes static. The Vajra Såtra subdues the rigid attaching heart and enables it to separate from all marks. It sweeps away all dharmas and separates from all marks. Separation from all marks is Buddhahood. Do not be attached to a particular four lines. Keep the Dharma alive! Let it be like a vital dragon, like a coursing tiger. Speak the Såtra until it leaps and bounds. Talk until it soars. Do not be so stuffy that you put everyone to sleep, and then be so stupid as to think your lecturing has caused them to enter samàdhi.