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.
@person what you say is certainly true of South American native population. In fact a mini ice age was said to have occurred after Columbus landed because of the cooling of the planet due to depopulation
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Take from this what you will, but the sad and sorry state of many Indian Reservations - and the inhabitants therein - is testimony to yet more influence by the boys with their hand on the purse strings.
I don't get this 'casino' business.... It rather looks as if American Indians are developing their own 'Money is everything' attitude though. Crying shame. Sincerely, a crying shame.
Casinos are often the only decent source of income that families have. On many (but not all) reservations, the casino money is split to all the people who live on the reservation. Sometimes, the money allows the kids to actually go to college and get out of the cycle of poverty, abuse and addiction that is so prevalent. The reservations that do not have them are usually much worse off. Not saying they are the best answer, but they provide jobs in areas where decent paying jobs are rare and money that goes to them that white people can't take away. In most states, it is only tribes that can have casinos. It is exclusively available to them as a means of income for the tribe as a whole. If it wasn't that way, you can bet white folks would set up their own to take advantage. Just like so many communities that lie just outside of reservations put up liquor stores to draw Natives out of their dry communities, where laws against alcohol have been passed to try to curb the extreme problems they have related to alcohol.
Really, the US government should just live up to their promises and give them the land they are supposed to have. But when they were kicking Natives off their land as recently as 40 or so years ago, it's not very promising at this point.
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@Swaroop said: @person what you say is certainly true of South American native population. In fact a mini ice age was said to have occurred after Columbus landed because of the cooling of the planet due to depopulation
I think I heard about from Jared Diamond in his popular Germs, Guns and Steel. There is more direct evidence for the South American pandemic but supposedly it spread to North America too before European settlement started there. The thought puts a different light on how uninhabited and the abundance of wildlife they found there since the native population wasn't keeping it in check.
On the west coast of Vancouver Island is a place called Friendly Cove. Apparently it was named with some irony, since there was some hostility and violence between Chief Maquinna and his people, and the European explorers who landed there.
There is a man living there who is the last of his people to reside at this village site. The remaining Yuquot people have moved closer to civilization.
In the small graveyard there he has buried 4 sons, a daughter and a granddaughter. Most of the graves there are from early in the last century when smallpox and other infections nearly wiped out the band.
I think about how we used to treat minorities and the vulnerable... how the disabled (physical and mental) were treat, how women were treat, how different races were treat, how homosexuals were treat, how children were treat, and it is clear that we have made some incredible progress as a species. I guess it's not quick enough for most with compassion, but evolution seems to be a slow moving beast, and there is still much to be done. Overall, though, I think we should be smiling.
4
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@mindatrisk said:
I think about how we used to treat minorities and the vulnerable... how the disabled (physical and mental) were treat, how women were treat, how different races were treat, how homosexuals were treat, how children were treat, and it is clear that we have made some incredible progress as a species. I guess it's not quick enough for most with compassion, but evolution seems to be a slow moving beast, and there is still much to be done. Overall, though, I think we should be smiling.
Agreed. In many places and hearts this is still not the case but in general and as a whole, we've come a long way.
Please can I attend the X-Church with totem poles?
I know some outstanding Churches, one of my relatives decommissions churches for use as supermarkets, homes, mosques, dojos etc.
I was unaware that during medieval times, ornate gothic churches were brightly painted outside on the stone statues. I can find no pictures/paintings of this. It must have been awesome.
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
I am interested in the effect of the Internet, and the media. If you look at the spread of something like Buddhism 2500 years ago, it was slow, travel by foot or horse via trails in the Himalayas or on the Silk Road, bringing enlightenment to people one at a time.
Nowadays, the Internet puts knowledge at your fingertips, the spread of information can be very fast. But what people mostly look at is not the dharma but the quick trends, Instagram, Twitter, their Facebook page. What people find is driven by base instincts and old habits. So despite the potential for religions to spread quickly, they don't.
Is this progress? Is the role of a monk trying to teach the dharma now to have a really good website and blog? The Internet is a good platform for search and knowledge acquisition, not for proselytising.
@Kerome said:
I am interested in the effect of the Internet, and the media. If you look at the spread of something like Buddhism 2500 years ago, it was slow, travel by foot or horse via trails in the Himalayas or on the Silk Road, bringing enlightenment to people one at a time.
Nowadays, the Internet puts knowledge at your fingertips, the spread of information can be very fast. But what people mostly look at is not the dharma but the quick trends, Instagram, Twitter, their Facebook page. What people find is driven by base instincts and old habits. So despite the potential for religions to spread quickly, they don't.
Is this progress? Is the role of a monk trying to teach the dharma now to have a really good website and blog? The Internet is a good platform for search and knowledge acquisition, not for proselytising.
I think a Buddha now would love the internet. The Buddha worked tirelessly spreading his teachings... he tried to reach as many people as possible, and yet -in his time - reached a tiny fraction of all of humanity. To have, now, the opportunity to reach millions - billions, even - is incredible, and if we are so blessed as to have an enlightened being able to transmit a message through these mediums available to us, then we could experience a huge global shift in consciousness.
We would still have the same old issues of people misunderstanding because of translation issues, and because of a lack of instruction to go along with the texts. There are quite a lot of teachers who are still adamant about in-person teaching because anyone can write a book and most people won't know if that book is a good teaching or not, as far as how close it is to what Buddha taught. Or even if he taught it at all. Some of them are quite angry that others have chosen to put what used to be "secret" teacher-to-student transmissions of teachings into books and the internet. They feel that connection to a teacher is necessary for full understanding and not having that can be psychologically harmful to some. I see both points, I'm not sure which I agree with more. Part of me thinks all information should be available to people to be able to make use of, especially wisdom traditions that were so selective in the past that they are at risk of dying out. But I see the point as valid that something is lost without a teacher and that some things can be harmful to people.
For me, I find that things I am not ready for, I simply cannot grasp. So it's hard for me to hurt myself with any teachings when I don't even know what they are saying, LOL.
There are a lot of teachings that have webpages and youtube channels and such. I think though that sometimes you end up with saturation and then it gets overwhelming for people who are new to try to find someone to follow. Then they try to follow it all and learn it all and end up burned out.
1
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
I find that written teachings and video's are only useful up to a point. They give you the basic framework, but the knowledge doesn't truly become yours until you discuss it, preferably with someone more knowledgeable than you. I think that it's an important aspect of 'working through' the teaching, to test your understanding in a debate or lively conversation.
But I do think the Internet has a range of advantages over just the written word. You can make accounts, track people's progress, provide video or audio. It can be interactive in ways that the written word cannot. We are still in the infancy of dharma teaching via this medium, I believe.
As for how necessary the connection to a teacher is, I find it hard to put a value on it one way or the other. I am an autodidact, I learn quickly and easily from a range of sources so perhaps I am biased.
Learning isn't necessarily the same as knowing, however, and those who have learned but also have experience to share can be vital in helping to provide the knowing part. Plus, when you have a relationship with a teacher, they get to know you and can see where you are coming from so they know how to explain it specifically so that you can understand it. Everyone learns differently, but each medium has its pros and cons. There is almost always benefit in learning from actual contact with people versus just watching videos.
My dad taught himself how to build houses, how to build airplanes, how to build virtually anything that can be built. He can come up with and repair things in ways most people can't even fathom. He is highly intelligent and virtually everything he knows has been self-taught. He didn't even graduate high school. However, his emotional and communication intelligence is severely lacking. He is quite a hermit and while he could be a wealth of information for people because of his vast experiences with so many different fields, he is uncomfortable with people and largely keeps to himself. Not saying there is anything wrong with that, just that had he been willing to go out of his comfort zone of books, computers and now the internet, his influence could have helped a lot of people. Instead he has all of this knowledge stored in his brain that he uses for doing his own car repairs and dental work. He has learned a lot. And he uses it a lot. But his knowing, his wisdom about what he has learned, is lacking.
1
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@karasti said...
There is almost always benefit in learning from actual contact with people versus just watching videos.
I think it depends... Most classroom settings do not have much preference over video, in my experience. The benefit from learning from a teacher comes from the interactive asking of questions and debating, and in practice a lot of classrooms do not have that, although it does depend on the individual style of the teacher.
Small group tutorials can be a lot more successful. The few teaching sessions I have had with monks have been closer to this, although we haven't yet started tackling the subjects that I have questions about.
Most of us I feel are aware that 'better' and 'worse' are a conditioned processing of the original input. In other words, the situation interpreted by our interior reflection says more about our attitude than the real nature of the situation ...
@Kerome I wasn't talking necessarily about institutionalized educational settings. Actual interaction with people usually enhances both the learning process and communication, I was talking about a give-and-take process versus institutionalized education where a teacher talks at you. Not a single meditation, yoga or Buddhist retreat I have been to represents institutional education.
We do small group (3-15 people or so), larger group (20+ people) and then individual meetings as requested with our teacher. We have google group and a FB page where we have some fabulous discussions. He also has a youtube channel so that those of us who are too far away who cannot be at every teaching, can still learn. But the bonding comes in spending time together, it comes in the little jokes and the questions that you don't hear because they happen at lunch when the camera isn't recording. People have left the online group in a huff over typical internet misunderstandings, while this never happens in person, because a soft touch on the arm, a smile, a soft voice-all of it makes such a difference in how receive and how you are received by others. One can offer some loving criticism in person that comes across as impersonal and even rude online.
@Kerome said:
Small group tutorials can be a lot more successful. The few teaching sessions I have had with monks have been closer to this, although we haven't yet started tackling the subjects that I have questions about.
You are letting those monks bamboozle you? Tsk, tsk! The uniformed branch (sangha) are here for the edification of us questionable types.
Here are some suggested questions ... no doubt you have better ...
Is life 'better' as a monk or are you just more aware of suffering?
Are you aware of any awakened beings? Are they better now?
After two and half thousand years of refinement, why don't we have more chance of enlightenment? Who is irresponsible?
1
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
Well... Letting them bamboozle me is overstating the case. It is part of the journey along my path, which started with Osho and now I am looking deeply at and learning from Buddhism. No doubt this makes me thoroughly disreputable and an inveterate questioner
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Starting with Osho, is good. Leaving him behind, is better.
3
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
edited May 2016
In the vein of, "if you see Buddha on your path, kill him", perhaps? Osho does have some virtues - he introduces you to deprogramming, thinking for yourself, a wide range of spiritual thought, concepts of enlightenment, and meditation. That is not a bad beginning for a spiritual journey.
However he talks largely about enlightenment as a process beyond the mind, saying it can be referred to, the finger pointing to the moon, but he doesn't give a clear path. Whereas Buddhism provides a clear set of instructions, including both a progression for the mind and systems that reach beyond.
I have also heard it said that the path is different for everyone, and some stories like those of Hotei or Ikkyu or the Zen patriarchs back this up. So maybe one needs to acknowledge that one's path is individual and traditions are merely stops along the way. I am following my intuition, my feeling for resonance and truth, to find what suits me now.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
During a little random mind wandering today I thought maybe the long term progress of civilization could be compared to the realms of existence in Buddhism. So in the past with all the warring and killing it was like we were living in the hell realm and now with the world being much more peaceful but the prominence of consumerism we've moved into the craving world of the hungry ghosts. Perhaps in the future, material and robotic success will allow us to have all our needs met and we will devolve into the animal realm of Idiocracy.
At least I can be sure of one thing, I'm either on to something or I'm on something.
@mindatrisk said:
I think about how we used to treat minorities and the vulnerable... how the disabled (physical and mental) were treat, how women were treat, how different races were treat, how homosexuals were treat, how children were treat, and it is clear that we have made some incredible progress as a species. I guess it's not quick enough for most with compassion, but evolution seems to be a slow moving beast, and there is still much to be done. Overall, though, I think we should be smiling.
Well said.
I would mention the spiritual evolution is perception based, whereas biological evolution is circumstance or environment driven. In other words temporary environmental changes can result in the emergence of Donald Trumpets.
In the spiritual or internal 'progression' one becomes aware that our response to heir and hair manifestations, reflects our inner nature. We do not have to devolve into name calling, unless that name will cause suffering to our fellow Jedi or Dharmaists.
Making Dharma Great Again
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@person said:
The world is definitely getting worse,
On the other hand, the world is definitely getting better. >
So which is it?
The world is a mixed bag, as always. Humans are as fallible and susceptible to egoic behavior as always. One step forward, one step back, a few stumbles, wandering around in circles now and then. Without the existence of samsara, people, consciousness streams (no, I didn't say anything about "souls" ) wouldn't have an environment in which to progress.
"The World"? Actually trying to conceptualize what that encopasses and act like i have the ability to assess it is literally the most daunting of tasks i could imagine. I'd like to see someone try it and not use the filter of their news channel of preference. I'm still trying to understand the narrow corner that i can touch so i won't be attempting to assess "the world" anytime soon. Statistics are misleading and outside sources are steeped in bias.
How's YOUR world? Might be a better question that might be answerable with some degree of accuracy.
Comments
@person what you say is certainly true of South American native population. In fact a mini ice age was said to have occurred after Columbus landed because of the cooling of the planet due to depopulation
Take from this what you will, but the sad and sorry state of many Indian Reservations - and the inhabitants therein - is testimony to yet more influence by the boys with their hand on the purse strings.
I don't get this 'casino' business.... It rather looks as if American Indians are developing their own 'Money is everything' attitude though. Crying shame. Sincerely, a crying shame.
Casinos are often the only decent source of income that families have. On many (but not all) reservations, the casino money is split to all the people who live on the reservation. Sometimes, the money allows the kids to actually go to college and get out of the cycle of poverty, abuse and addiction that is so prevalent. The reservations that do not have them are usually much worse off. Not saying they are the best answer, but they provide jobs in areas where decent paying jobs are rare and money that goes to them that white people can't take away. In most states, it is only tribes that can have casinos. It is exclusively available to them as a means of income for the tribe as a whole. If it wasn't that way, you can bet white folks would set up their own to take advantage. Just like so many communities that lie just outside of reservations put up liquor stores to draw Natives out of their dry communities, where laws against alcohol have been passed to try to curb the extreme problems they have related to alcohol.
Really, the US government should just live up to their promises and give them the land they are supposed to have. But when they were kicking Natives off their land as recently as 40 or so years ago, it's not very promising at this point.
And improve them without thrashing the little devils....
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160425143106.htm
I think I heard about from Jared Diamond in his popular Germs, Guns and Steel. There is more direct evidence for the South American pandemic but supposedly it spread to North America too before European settlement started there. The thought puts a different light on how uninhabited and the abundance of wildlife they found there since the native population wasn't keeping it in check.
On the west coast of Vancouver Island is a place called Friendly Cove. Apparently it was named with some irony, since there was some hostility and violence between Chief Maquinna and his people, and the European explorers who landed there.
There is a man living there who is the last of his people to reside at this village site. The remaining Yuquot people have moved closer to civilization.
In the small graveyard there he has buried 4 sons, a daughter and a granddaughter. Most of the graves there are from early in the last century when smallpox and other infections nearly wiped out the band.
There is a church there that is fairly intact, though apparently it's never used because only one man and his wife live there.
Inside the church are some amazing carvings. Must be worth a fortune.
I like to think that they are a kind of "up yours!" To the missionaries.
-At least both...
Maybe this just goes to show that even at their worst they were still monks preserving a venerable tradition?
Buddhism - not brawling
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/peoplesdaily/article-3563111/That-s-not-zen-Bizarre-moment-members-public-pull-apart-three-MONKS-brawling-Buddhist-temple.html
@IronRabbit people become monks for various reasons. Some of those may not be purely spiritual.
I think about how we used to treat minorities and the vulnerable... how the disabled (physical and mental) were treat, how women were treat, how different races were treat, how homosexuals were treat, how children were treat, and it is clear that we have made some incredible progress as a species. I guess it's not quick enough for most with compassion, but evolution seems to be a slow moving beast, and there is still much to be done. Overall, though, I think we should be smiling.
Agreed. In many places and hearts this is still not the case but in general and as a whole, we've come a long way.
Please can I attend the X-Church with totem poles?
I know some outstanding Churches, one of my relatives decommissions churches for use as supermarkets, homes, mosques, dojos etc.
I was unaware that during medieval times, ornate gothic churches were brightly painted outside on the stone statues. I can find no pictures/paintings of this. It must have been awesome.
The world as experienced is reflective of our interior being. Better? Yes thank you. Come on you Foxes!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/30/leicester-citys-good-karma-the-buddhist-monks-behind-the-foxes-d/
I am interested in the effect of the Internet, and the media. If you look at the spread of something like Buddhism 2500 years ago, it was slow, travel by foot or horse via trails in the Himalayas or on the Silk Road, bringing enlightenment to people one at a time.
Nowadays, the Internet puts knowledge at your fingertips, the spread of information can be very fast. But what people mostly look at is not the dharma but the quick trends, Instagram, Twitter, their Facebook page. What people find is driven by base instincts and old habits. So despite the potential for religions to spread quickly, they don't.
Is this progress? Is the role of a monk trying to teach the dharma now to have a really good website and blog? The Internet is a good platform for search and knowledge acquisition, not for proselytising.
I think a Buddha now would love the internet. The Buddha worked tirelessly spreading his teachings... he tried to reach as many people as possible, and yet -in his time - reached a tiny fraction of all of humanity. To have, now, the opportunity to reach millions - billions, even - is incredible, and if we are so blessed as to have an enlightened being able to transmit a message through these mediums available to us, then we could experience a huge global shift in consciousness.
We would still have the same old issues of people misunderstanding because of translation issues, and because of a lack of instruction to go along with the texts. There are quite a lot of teachers who are still adamant about in-person teaching because anyone can write a book and most people won't know if that book is a good teaching or not, as far as how close it is to what Buddha taught. Or even if he taught it at all. Some of them are quite angry that others have chosen to put what used to be "secret" teacher-to-student transmissions of teachings into books and the internet. They feel that connection to a teacher is necessary for full understanding and not having that can be psychologically harmful to some. I see both points, I'm not sure which I agree with more. Part of me thinks all information should be available to people to be able to make use of, especially wisdom traditions that were so selective in the past that they are at risk of dying out. But I see the point as valid that something is lost without a teacher and that some things can be harmful to people.
For me, I find that things I am not ready for, I simply cannot grasp. So it's hard for me to hurt myself with any teachings when I don't even know what they are saying, LOL.
There are a lot of teachings that have webpages and youtube channels and such. I think though that sometimes you end up with saturation and then it gets overwhelming for people who are new to try to find someone to follow. Then they try to follow it all and learn it all and end up burned out.
I find that written teachings and video's are only useful up to a point. They give you the basic framework, but the knowledge doesn't truly become yours until you discuss it, preferably with someone more knowledgeable than you. I think that it's an important aspect of 'working through' the teaching, to test your understanding in a debate or lively conversation.
But I do think the Internet has a range of advantages over just the written word. You can make accounts, track people's progress, provide video or audio. It can be interactive in ways that the written word cannot. We are still in the infancy of dharma teaching via this medium, I believe.
As for how necessary the connection to a teacher is, I find it hard to put a value on it one way or the other. I am an autodidact, I learn quickly and easily from a range of sources so perhaps I am biased.
Learning isn't necessarily the same as knowing, however, and those who have learned but also have experience to share can be vital in helping to provide the knowing part. Plus, when you have a relationship with a teacher, they get to know you and can see where you are coming from so they know how to explain it specifically so that you can understand it. Everyone learns differently, but each medium has its pros and cons. There is almost always benefit in learning from actual contact with people versus just watching videos.
My dad taught himself how to build houses, how to build airplanes, how to build virtually anything that can be built. He can come up with and repair things in ways most people can't even fathom. He is highly intelligent and virtually everything he knows has been self-taught. He didn't even graduate high school. However, his emotional and communication intelligence is severely lacking. He is quite a hermit and while he could be a wealth of information for people because of his vast experiences with so many different fields, he is uncomfortable with people and largely keeps to himself. Not saying there is anything wrong with that, just that had he been willing to go out of his comfort zone of books, computers and now the internet, his influence could have helped a lot of people. Instead he has all of this knowledge stored in his brain that he uses for doing his own car repairs and dental work. He has learned a lot. And he uses it a lot. But his knowing, his wisdom about what he has learned, is lacking.
I think it depends... Most classroom settings do not have much preference over video, in my experience. The benefit from learning from a teacher comes from the interactive asking of questions and debating, and in practice a lot of classrooms do not have that, although it does depend on the individual style of the teacher.
Small group tutorials can be a lot more successful. The few teaching sessions I have had with monks have been closer to this, although we haven't yet started tackling the subjects that I have questions about.
Most of us I feel are aware that 'better' and 'worse' are a conditioned processing of the original input. In other words, the situation interpreted by our interior reflection says more about our attitude than the real nature of the situation ...
@Kerome I wasn't talking necessarily about institutionalized educational settings. Actual interaction with people usually enhances both the learning process and communication, I was talking about a give-and-take process versus institutionalized education where a teacher talks at you. Not a single meditation, yoga or Buddhist retreat I have been to represents institutional education.
We do small group (3-15 people or so), larger group (20+ people) and then individual meetings as requested with our teacher. We have google group and a FB page where we have some fabulous discussions. He also has a youtube channel so that those of us who are too far away who cannot be at every teaching, can still learn. But the bonding comes in spending time together, it comes in the little jokes and the questions that you don't hear because they happen at lunch when the camera isn't recording. People have left the online group in a huff over typical internet misunderstandings, while this never happens in person, because a soft touch on the arm, a smile, a soft voice-all of it makes such a difference in how receive and how you are received by others. One can offer some loving criticism in person that comes across as impersonal and even rude online.
You are letting those monks bamboozle you? Tsk, tsk! The uniformed branch (sangha) are here for the edification of us questionable types.
Here are some suggested questions ... no doubt you have better ...
Well... Letting them bamboozle me is overstating the case. It is part of the journey along my path, which started with Osho and now I am looking deeply at and learning from Buddhism. No doubt this makes me thoroughly disreputable and an inveterate questioner
Starting with Osho, is good. Leaving him behind, is better.
In the vein of, "if you see Buddha on your path, kill him", perhaps? Osho does have some virtues - he introduces you to deprogramming, thinking for yourself, a wide range of spiritual thought, concepts of enlightenment, and meditation. That is not a bad beginning for a spiritual journey.
However he talks largely about enlightenment as a process beyond the mind, saying it can be referred to, the finger pointing to the moon, but he doesn't give a clear path. Whereas Buddhism provides a clear set of instructions, including both a progression for the mind and systems that reach beyond.
I have also heard it said that the path is different for everyone, and some stories like those of Hotei or Ikkyu or the Zen patriarchs back this up. So maybe one needs to acknowledge that one's path is individual and traditions are merely stops along the way. I am following my intuition, my feeling for resonance and truth, to find what suits me now.
During a little random mind wandering today I thought maybe the long term progress of civilization could be compared to the realms of existence in Buddhism. So in the past with all the warring and killing it was like we were living in the hell realm and now with the world being much more peaceful but the prominence of consumerism we've moved into the craving world of the hungry ghosts. Perhaps in the future, material and robotic success will allow us to have all our needs met and we will devolve into the animal realm of Idiocracy.
At least I can be sure of one thing, I'm either on to something or I'm on something.
It's all bleedin' darnhill. Even Cockney tea is weaker than it used to be.
Crash Course does a great job of explaining the times
Well said.
I would mention the spiritual evolution is perception based, whereas biological evolution is circumstance or environment driven. In other words temporary environmental changes can result in the emergence of Donald Trumpets.
In the spiritual or internal 'progression' one becomes aware that our response to heir and hair manifestations, reflects our inner nature. We do not have to devolve into name calling, unless that name will cause suffering to our fellow Jedi or Dharmaists.
Making Dharma Great Again
Finally!
About ruddy time!
The world is a mixed bag, as always. Humans are as fallible and susceptible to egoic behavior as always. One step forward, one step back, a few stumbles, wandering around in circles now and then. Without the existence of samsara, people, consciousness streams (no, I didn't say anything about "souls"
) wouldn't have an environment in which to progress.
"The World"? Actually trying to conceptualize what that encopasses and act like i have the ability to assess it is literally the most daunting of tasks i could imagine. I'd like to see someone try it and not use the filter of their news channel of preference. I'm still trying to understand the narrow corner that i can touch so i won't be attempting to assess "the world" anytime soon. Statistics are misleading and outside sources are steeped in bias.
How's YOUR world? Might be a better question that might be answerable with some degree of accuracy.