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.
Why can't Kobain just be a sensitive musician? Morrissey is similar. Is he a Bodhisattva?
You can say anyone who does good things is a Bodhisattva. Does that cheapen the value any (of a bodhisattva)?
Look at the results. Forget what you think about Kurt because that is just subjective perceptions, but look at what his existence resulted in. Morrissey was cool, but he did not have anywhere near the impact that Kurt did. It's like Nelson Mandela... to some people a terrorist, but perhaps to others a Bodhisattva. None of us can judge the being, that is impossible, but we can see the ripples that emanate from that being, and those ripples tell us a lot about the spiritual potency of that being.
I want to point out that vinlyn, to whom you are offering advice on how to view the world, is a retired educator and school principal. Imagine, if you will, the countless people who he has influenced in his career. Generations of young people. One doesn't need to make a big splash or splat to make a difference.
I didn't say they do. Everyone makes a difference. But some people do make big splashes, and it is okay to acknowledge that. I'm sure Vinlyn did a great job as an educator, but the fact that Kurt Cobain affected more than him is not a slight on him and his efforts, it's just how it happens to be.
First, thanks to Robot for his nice comments. Yes, I like to think I made a difference, at least occasionally. And have been told I did. As have and do millions of other teachers and counselors and administrators. But, I and we are just humans doing our job.
Trying to make a druggie/suicide into a Buddhist icon is crapola. I'm not saying he was a worthless person or anything close to that. But a Buddhist icon. Pure BS, IMHO.
But I'll quote another entertainer. Another just a man who once said, "Hell, it's just singin'."
One thing that I see every once in a while here is an attempt to see Buddhism in something the individual likes. Generally speaking, a movie is just a movie. A novel is just a novel. A rock star is just a rock star. A television show is just a television show.
Even entertainers who are gifted, are almost always just entertainers.
And to try to compare Kurt Cobain to Buddha and Christ...it's just plain offensive.
This isn't what i've said.
You said, direct quote: "An overt religious figure could not have achieved this. The Buddha could not have achieved this. Jesus Christ could not have achieved this."
When I look back at your threads over time, I am beginning to come to the conclusion that you want to start controversy. In your opening sentence you even said, "This will be a controversial proposal".
You said, direct quote: "An overt religious figure could not have achieved this. The Buddha could not have achieved this. Jesus Christ could not have achieved this."
Indeed, what is wrong with this? How is this controversial? If a group of people are not interested in spiritual matters then being a Buddha or a Christ is of no consequence to them. I'm sure there are millions of people on this planet who, if confronted by an enlightened being, couldn't care less, but who would respond very positively to their favourite pop star or movie star.
When I look back at your threads over time, I am beginning to come to the conclusion that you want to start controversy. In your opening sentence you even said, "This will be a controversial proposal".
That I recognise something as being potentially controversial and making statements to be controversial are two very different things. What I don't understand is why you come into my threads just to complain at me. If you don't like my views then just don't read them. There are people out there in the world spreading racism, sexism, homophobia, and all sorts of other hatred and prejudice... why not go and and disagree with them instead of someone who has made, at worst, a curious speculation? You'd have to be very, very sensitive and insecure to take what i've written here as that controversial and offensive. Just let it go. Forget me. You disagree with me, you have your views on me, so just brush me to one side. Don't waste your energies.
Mindatrisk, this is a public forum of which I am a member. I intend to participate.
That's fine, but I think we need to find a way of discussing things in a more positive manner, because there are evidently some issues. It's not nice to have someone come into your thread, ignore everything that has been written, and just say...
'Any credibility you previously had with me is now gone.'
I don't understand what the point is of this. It's not necessary, it's not healthy, i'm sure it doesn't reflect who you are, so why bother? If you have a personal issue with me then feel free to PM me and we can discuss it. But in the meantime can we just keep our exchanges respectful, please? I try not to make any personal comments about anyone. I don't have any judgements on you. I don't know you. Let's all just try to stick to the discussion, and leave the personal comments aside.
Why can't Kobain just be a sensitive musician? Morrissey is similar. Is he a Bodhisattva?
You can say anyone who does good things is a Bodhisattva. Does that cheapen the value any (of a bodhisattva)?
Look at the results. Forget what you think about Kurt because that is just subjective perceptions, but look at what his existence resulted in. Morrissey was cool, but he did not have anywhere near the impact that Kurt did. It's like Nelson Mandela... to some people a terrorist, but perhaps to others a Bodhisattva. None of us can judge the being, that is impossible, but we can see the ripples that emanate from that being, and those ripples tell us a lot about the spiritual potency of that being.
We can and do see the impact that people have and are awed and inspired by them. Some even use that inspiration to take their own gifts to new heights. It is not necessary to give them super human status to appreciate them. They don't need to be bodhisattvas, angels, pixies or leprechauns to be impressive. Jim Morrison has impact that Kurt Cobain could only dream about. Same with Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and any number of living musicians. What about the great Neil Young? Still living and making great music. Who you idolize depends on your generation of course.
Why can't Kobain just be a sensitive musician? Morrissey is similar. Is he a Bodhisattva?
You can say anyone who does good things is a Bodhisattva. Does that cheapen the value any (of a bodhisattva)?
Look at the results. Forget what you think about Kurt because that is just subjective perceptions, but look at what his existence resulted in. Morrissey was cool, but he did not have anywhere near the impact that Kurt did. It's like Nelson Mandela... to some people a terrorist, but perhaps to others a Bodhisattva. None of us can judge the being, that is impossible, but we can see the ripples that emanate from that being, and those ripples tell us a lot about the spiritual potency of that being.
We can and do see the impact that people have and are awed and inspired by them. Some even use that inspiration to take their own gifts to new heights. It is not necessary to give them super human status to appreciate them. They don't need to be bodhisattvas, angels, pixies or leprechauns to be impressive. Jim Morrison has impact that Kurt Cobain could only dream about. Same with Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and any number of living musicians. What about the great Neil young? Still living and making great music. Who you idolize depends on your generation of course.
Of course! The vast majority of humanity couldn't care less about the Buddha. Does this detract from who he was and what he achieved? Of course not. It's all relative, and as I said at the start, if you weren't part of Kurt's 'target group' then what i'm saying would seem daft to you. But then Buddhism is daft to Christians... but that doesn't mean Buddhism is daft.
Why can't Kobain just be a sensitive musician? Morrissey is similar. Is he a Bodhisattva?
You can say anyone who does good things is a Bodhisattva. Does that cheapen the value any (of a bodhisattva)?
Look at the results. Forget what you think about Kurt because that is just subjective perceptions, but look at what his existence resulted in. Morrissey was cool, but he did not have anywhere near the impact that Kurt did. It's like Nelson Mandela... to some people a terrorist, but perhaps to others a Bodhisattva. None of us can judge the being, that is impossible, but we can see the ripples that emanate from that being, and those ripples tell us a lot about the spiritual potency of that being.
We can and do see the impact that people have and are awed and inspired by them. Some even use that inspiration to take their own gifts to new heights. It is not necessary to give them super human status to appreciate them. They don't need to be bodhisattvas, angels, pixies or leprechauns to be impressive. Jim Morrison has impact that Kurt Cobain could only dream about. Same with Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and any number of living musicians. What about the great Neil young? Still living and making great music. Who you idolize depends on your generation of course.
Of course! The vast majority of humanity couldn't care less about the Buddha. Does this detract from who he was and what he achieved? Of course not. It's all relative, and as I said at the start, if you weren't part of Kurt's 'target group' then what i'm saying would seem daft to you. But then Buddhism is daft to Christians... but that doesn't mean Buddhism is daft.
Now you are making sense! It was the bodhisattva, puppet, avatar stuff that was too far out.
I am merely an aspirant. The path wends it's way through thick undergrowth at times but somewhere there is a place where I can give and receive and be received and gifted.
Forget me. You disagree with me, you have your views on me, so just brush me to one side. Don't waste your energies.
If a fellow thinks he's Napoleon and he's not hurting anyone because of it, fine, let him be.
If a fellow decides he's Napoleon and chooses to go on some Napoleonic crusade, well, then there is some reason to step up and say something.
Just saying.
counting down ........
It's true. Using the Internet to spread speculative misinformation about Buddhism can surely not be in Buddhism's best interest. Using different forums and your blog is how you, @mindatrisk , are intending to spread the Dharma. It is best to stick to the curriculum where ever uncertainty arises and flights of fancy start to take hold. I really hope you can contain yourself when you are running your Buddhism class for the recovering addicts. You are going to need to be credible or you will lose them fast. Remember they are vulnerable and are looking for something solid.
Forget me. You disagree with me, you have your views on me, so just brush me to one side. Don't waste your energies.
If a fellow thinks he's Napoleon and he's not hurting anyone because of it, fine, let him be.
If a fellow decides he's Napoleon and chooses to go on some Napoleonic crusade, well, then there is some reason to step up and say something.
Just saying.
counting down ........
Interesting theory. I'm not sure I agree. For one thing, the above is very speculative. Does this fellow think he's Napoleon? Is he on a Napoleon Crusade? Is there good reason to say something? I think this is why it is said that only fools criticise others, and wise men criticise themselves. Many thought that Jesus thought himself to be a bit of Napoleon, that he was on a crusade, and that he was hurting people and so there was good reason to step up and say something. What time proved was that these self-appointed policemen were simply too small minded to understand what was happening and in their ignorance caused a greater harm than in fact they were attempting to avoid.
It's true. Using the Internet to spread speculative misinformation about Buddhism can surely not be in Buddhism's best interest. Using different forums and your blog is how you, @mindatrisk , are intending to spread the Dharma. It is best to stick to the curriculum where ever uncertainty arises and flights of fancy start to take hold. I really hope you can contain yourself when you are running your Buddhism class for the recovering addicts. You are going to need to be credible or you will lose them fast. Remember they are vulnerable and are looking for something solid.
I think this is a little bit strong. This is just a discussion forum, and i'm just discussing an idea, it's hardly me spreading misinformation about Buddhism. And again, as I said Vinlyn, if you are so concerned with people spreading misinformation about Buddhism then there are plenty out there doing a very good job at that, and i'd suggest you target them.
I don't generally use different forums to spread Dharma at all, and if you read my blog you'll see I don't talk about the dharma there. So, again, the same problem i've encountered on other threads here comes up again. There are a few of you who seem to feel it is your place to speculate on me, what my motives are, what i'm doing, what i'm like, all based on some words on a screen. Since none of you know a single thing about me, as none of you have met me, for the sake of quality discussion in a discussion forum, can I just suggest that you stick to discussing the subject and leave the speculative judgements aside? I don't comment on you as people because I don't know you. I just respond to your comments.
@mindatrisk, Morrissey was more intelligent and his music was more powerfully supportive of the alternative crowd.
and the music there they play... it says nothing to me about my life
I love The Smiths, don't get me wrong, I disagree with your assertion here, but it's just a personal thing. I'm not talking strictly about Kurt's music, but his cultural impact, which I think is much bigger than Morrissey.
Why can't Kobain just be a sensitive musician? Morrissey is similar. Is he a Bodhisattva?
You can say anyone who does good things is a Bodhisattva. Does that cheapen the value any (of a bodhisattva)?
Look at the results. Forget what you think about Kurt because that is just subjective perceptions, but look at what his existence resulted in. Morrissey was cool, but he did not have anywhere near the impact that Kurt did. It's like Nelson Mandela... to some people a terrorist, but perhaps to others a Bodhisattva. None of us can judge the being, that is impossible, but we can see the ripples that emanate from that being, and those ripples tell us a lot about the spiritual potency of that being.
We can and do see the impact that people have and are awed and inspired by them. Some even use that inspiration to take their own gifts to new heights. It is not necessary to give them super human status to appreciate them. They don't need to be bodhisattvas, angels, pixies or leprechauns to be impressive. Jim Morrison has impact that Kurt Cobain could only dream about. Same with Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and any number of living musicians. What about the great Neil young? Still living and making great music. Who you idolize depends on your generation of course.
Of course! The vast majority of humanity couldn't care less about the Buddha. Does this detract from who he was and what he achieved? Of course not. It's all relative, and as I said at the start, if you weren't part of Kurt's 'target group' then what i'm saying would seem daft to you. But then Buddhism is daft to Christians... but that doesn't mean Buddhism is daft.
Now you are making sense! It was the bodhisattva, puppet, avatar stuff that was too far out.
Too far out? I think what i'm saying is positively mundane next to much of what is said in Buddhism! Buddhism is about as 'far out' as 'far out' can be!
Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"
"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"
Don't take it so seriously! It's just a discussion. What I say on here once in a while can not be used as some kind of reflection of who I am in life. I am certainly not full of my own opinions and speculations, but if you are going to judge my whole existence by the infrequent words on a screen I share here then maybe you could think I was. But I think this would be a problem with you, not with me.
FWIW....I think some folks have a resonance or able to tune-in to a resonance or vibe of the time or gestalt. I think there are lots of folks that are able to do this and every generation has its celebrities. Are they enlightened or not….are they bodhisattvas or not…is their influence a referential measure?…idk….but I don’t think that being enlightened or a bodhisattva is a necessary requirement. A person could easily present John Lennon, Jimi, Jerry, Janice, MLK, Mandela, Tricky Dick, Adolf, the Bushies as examples. I would more subscribe to the notion that bodhisattva is an energy or frequency that a person can access or manifest...frequently in part but rarely fully actualize for a sustained time during a person's life.
Why can't Kobain just be a sensitive musician? Morrissey is similar. Is he a Bodhisattva?
You can say anyone who does good things is a Bodhisattva. Does that cheapen the value any (of a bodhisattva)?
Look at the results. Forget what you think about Kurt because that is just subjective perceptions, but look at what his existence resulted in. Morrissey was cool, but he did not have anywhere near the impact that Kurt did. It's like Nelson Mandela... to some people a terrorist, but perhaps to others a Bodhisattva. None of us can judge the being, that is impossible, but we can see the ripples that emanate from that being, and those ripples tell us a lot about the spiritual potency of that being.
We can and do see the impact that people have and are awed and inspired by them. Some even use that inspiration to take their own gifts to new heights. It is not necessary to give them super human status to appreciate them. They don't need to be bodhisattvas, angels, pixies or leprechauns to be impressive. Jim Morrison has impact that Kurt Cobain could only dream about. Same with Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and any number of living musicians. What about the great Neil young? Still living and making great music. Who you idolize depends on your generation of course.
Of course! The vast majority of humanity couldn't care less about the Buddha. Does this detract from who he was and what he achieved? Of course not. It's all relative, and as I said at the start, if you weren't part of Kurt's 'target group' then what i'm saying would seem daft to you. But then Buddhism is daft to Christians... but that doesn't mean Buddhism is daft.
Now you are making sense! It was the bodhisattva, puppet, avatar stuff that was too far out.
Too far out? I think what i'm saying is positively mundane next to much of what is said in Buddhism! Buddhism is about as 'far out' as 'far out' can be!
What is far out about the 4nt? Buddhism teaches that the solution to life's suffering is found by examining the nature of the suffering itself. Then applying yourself to a new way of living. Shoot for getting a handle on that. The rest you can take or leave in time. It doesn't teach us to to look for magical beings who wear humans like a sock puppet.
What is far out about the 4nt? Buddhism teaches that the solution to life's suffering is found by examining the nature of the suffering itself. Then applying yourself to a new way of living. Shoot for getting a handle on that. The rest you can take or leave in time. It doesn't teach us to to look for magical beings who wear humans like a sock puppet.
I'd say that given the nature of samsara that the Four Noble Truths are far out! Indeed, perhaps the most radical idea ever expressed on this planet. However, Buddhism does not end with the Four Noble Truths, and, rightly or wrongly, i'm sure you'll agree that Buddhism has managed to incorporate many outlandish ideas into those core truths. I didn't make up the concept of Bodhisattvas incarnating in various guises to benefit certain beings in certain ways, this is a part of Kadampa Buddhism. When I heard about the concept it got me thinking about what forms Bodhisattvas have already taken in the world... Jesus, Gandhi, Mandela, Mother Theresa, would all be obvious candidates. In non human form then maybe certain plants like Ayahuasca would be a strong contender. In no life forms then things like the internet could be said to be the manifestation of a Bodhisattva given the immense benefit it has provided to human beings.
also ya know the thought I had when reading this. Why do only "kind and sensitive" types have to be bodisattvas... I wonder if Hitler was one. Think about it. His actions brought about more positive change in the last century then most anyone else.
also ya know the thought I had when reading this. Why do only "kind and sensitive" types have to be bodisattvas... I wonder if Hitler was one. Think about it. His actions brought about more positive change in the last century then most anyone else.
I don't know whether you are being sincere with this response or not, but it is an interesting counter-argument nevertheless. My suggestion is that we should look at the results of an individuals life, not the appearance of it, i.e. Kurt Cobain positively affected millions of lives even though he was a drug addict and committed suicide. Your suggestion is that positive results came from Hitler's life too, so why could he not be a Bodhisattva?
I suppose on balance it would be difficult to say that Hitler was responsible for more good than bad. It would seem that his life was much more negative, much more harmful, the cause of much more suffering, than it was the cause of much goodness. 125 million people died in WW2. The fact that from this situation some positive things arose in reaction doesn't balance out that immense suffering.
Overall i'd suggest Hitler was still very much in debt. Kurt didn't create anywhere near that amount of suffering. He was very much in credit. The other point is the difference between reacting to and responding to something. People responded to the positives in Kurt and created more positives from that. Whereas people reacted to Hitler's negativity and created positives from it.
However, at the level of ultimate reality I am certain that all is goodness, all is love, all is positive, and all has its place. Hitler was our karma. He was our creation. He didn't gatecrash a utopia, he was a product of problems already firmly present. He provided us with a chance to see ourselves and to reflect upon who we are and what we want. Maybe over the course of the next 1000 years the problems he posed us and the solutions that arose from those problems will mean that his life ultimately was more positive than negative.
It's a difficult one to talk about. We are ignorant beings, it's all speculation. My interest in this thread is less to do with Kurt and more to do with a way of seeing reality, i.e. to see the manifest blessings we receive in as many plays as possible. If you can sincerely extend this to Hitler then well done you, i'm not sure I can, but maybe that is my small mindedness. Ultimately, it's worth thinking about it. All these discussions, questions, ideas are worth reflecting upon.
Comments
You can say anyone who does good things is a Bodhisattva. Does that cheapen the value any (of a bodhisattva)?
When I look back at your threads over time, I am beginning to come to the conclusion that you want to start controversy. In your opening sentence you even said, "This will be a controversial proposal".
'Any credibility you previously had with me is now gone.'
I don't understand what the point is of this. It's not necessary, it's not healthy, i'm sure it doesn't reflect who you are, so why bother? If you have a personal issue with me then feel free to PM me and we can discuss it. But in the meantime can we just keep our exchanges respectful, please? I try not to make any personal comments about anyone. I don't have any judgements on you. I don't know you. Let's all just try to stick to the discussion, and leave the personal comments aside.
:coffee:
It is not necessary to give them super human status to appreciate them.
They don't need to be bodhisattvas, angels, pixies or leprechauns to be impressive.
Jim Morrison has impact that Kurt Cobain could only dream about. Same with Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and any number of living musicians. What about the great Neil Young? Still living and making great music.
Who you idolize depends on your generation of course.
It was the bodhisattva, puppet, avatar stuff that was too far out.
A Cup of Tea
Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"
"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"
If a fellow decides he's Napoleon and chooses to go on some Napoleonic crusade, well, then there is some reason to step up and say something.
Just saying.
counting down ........
Using different forums and your blog is how you, @mindatrisk , are intending to spread the Dharma.
It is best to stick to the curriculum where ever uncertainty arises and flights of fancy start to take hold.
I really hope you can contain yourself when you are running your Buddhism class for the recovering addicts. You are going to need to be credible or you will lose them fast.
Remember they are vulnerable and are looking for something solid.
I don't generally use different forums to spread Dharma at all, and if you read my blog you'll see I don't talk about the dharma there. So, again, the same problem i've encountered on other threads here comes up again. There are a few of you who seem to feel it is your place to speculate on me, what my motives are, what i'm doing, what i'm like, all based on some words on a screen. Since none of you know a single thing about me, as none of you have met me, for the sake of quality discussion in a discussion forum, can I just suggest that you stick to discussing the subject and leave the speculative judgements aside? I don't comment on you as people because I don't know you. I just respond to your comments.
I love The Smiths, don't get me wrong, I disagree with your assertion here, but it's just a personal thing. I'm not talking strictly about Kurt's music, but his cultural impact, which I think is much bigger than Morrissey.
What is far out about the 4nt?
Buddhism teaches that the solution to life's suffering is found by examining the nature of the suffering itself. Then applying yourself to a new way of living.
Shoot for getting a handle on that. The rest you can take or leave in time.
It doesn't teach us to to look for magical beings who wear humans like a sock puppet.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/?ref_=nv_sr_1
"I'm brian and so's my wife!" ... LOL
also ya know the thought I had when reading this. Why do only "kind and sensitive" types have to be bodisattvas... I wonder if Hitler was one. Think about it. His actions brought about more positive change in the last century then most anyone else.
I suppose on balance it would be difficult to say that Hitler was responsible for more good than bad. It would seem that his life was much more negative, much more harmful, the cause of much more suffering, than it was the cause of much goodness. 125 million people died in WW2. The fact that from this situation some positive things arose in reaction doesn't balance out that immense suffering.
Overall i'd suggest Hitler was still very much in debt. Kurt didn't create anywhere near that amount of suffering. He was very much in credit. The other point is the difference between reacting to and responding to something. People responded to the positives in Kurt and created more positives from that. Whereas people reacted to Hitler's negativity and created positives from it.
However, at the level of ultimate reality I am certain that all is goodness, all is love, all is positive, and all has its place. Hitler was our karma. He was our creation. He didn't gatecrash a utopia, he was a product of problems already firmly present. He provided us with a chance to see ourselves and to reflect upon who we are and what we want. Maybe over the course of the next 1000 years the problems he posed us and the solutions that arose from those problems will mean that his life ultimately was more positive than negative.
It's a difficult one to talk about. We are ignorant beings, it's all speculation. My interest in this thread is less to do with Kurt and more to do with a way of seeing reality, i.e. to see the manifest blessings we receive in as many plays as possible. If you can sincerely extend this to Hitler then well done you, i'm not sure I can, but maybe that is my small mindedness. Ultimately, it's worth thinking about it. All these discussions, questions, ideas are worth reflecting upon.