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.
If you look at what I said, I think you will notice that I didn’t name, Names. If someone wants to take what I have said, personally, and hit themselves in the head with it, so be it. I cannot be responsible for such an act as that. I am only responsible for my own actions.
Like I say, reading and reciting the sutras IMO proves very little about what is actually understood and personally experienced in that area.
Obviously you see yourself and DD as some kind of a tag team…I don’t want to swap insults with you, or DD. : ^ (
I will only take the advise of those person who I respect for one reason or another. I'm funny that way...Sorry.
But just saying things about what you know, and how great you are because of it, proves nothing to me. If someone however says something that is similar to my own personal experience in this area, and/or even helps me to move along to some extent, I will certainly be very grateful for that.
Go ahead…say something wonderful. : ^ )
If we limited ourselves to speaking about ideas, and our own personal experiences, life would be a lot more pleasant and far less aggressive. Shouting and posturing gains us absoltuely nothing.
Obviously you see yourself and DD as some kind of a tag team…I don’t want to swap insults with you, or DD
Excuse me ? You continue to write ridiculous insults yourself, yet you won't take responsibility for them?
If we limited ourselves to speaking about ideas, and our own personal experiences, life would be a lot more pleasant and far less aggressive. Shouting and posturing gains us absoltuely nothing.
Actually if we speak about ideas and personal experiences which have little connection to the real Buddhist teachings,then we merely enjoy the sound of our own misperceptions - and sink into a delusional la la land of twaddle.
Shouting and posturing ? Huh ? Where?...on TV?...outside my window?.. ...
If we limited ourselves to speaking about ideas, and our own personal experiences, life would be a lot more pleasant and far less aggressive. Shouting and posturing gains us absoltuely nothing.
Personally, if I used your personal experiences as a guide, this would gain me absoltuely nothing.
Funny how our own words & vanities become a trap for us.
Thinking suttas "point" simply proves they are not discerned. The Buddha taught his teachings are straightforward & unconvoluted. They do not "point".
The simple fact that they are words means that they are only representations. For instance from the definition of what a word is:
word [wurd] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a unit of language, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation, that functions as a principal carrier of meaning.
principal carrier of meaning=a pointer
Buddha used words, which means he was pointing. He was using sounds as archetypal symbols to carry the meaning of non-conceptual forms from his view to others. Therefore, they are subject to convention and misinterpretation... I'd bet you've seen this happen quite a bit.
Subjectivity9, in this regard, seems to have some direct experience with non-conceptual form, and is wise to compare his/her experiences against words spoken 2500 years ago in a different language. I personally find the suttas to be direct, but I can usually see to what they point.
It is folly to expect all words to mean the same things to all people, which is why it is directly important to look toward the archetype that is being described without getting to caught up in your direct meaning of the words.
You spoke of this when you talked about understanding the meaning of Dukkha. Because the word is a wide pointer, it takes some contemplation to let the full meaning (ie, the amount of experiences that are dukkha)
Subjectivity seems to be suggesting that some words, such as faith, belief, confidence and so forth have to be given that same consideration to know all of the places those words points toward. To say 'belief is only THIS' is as unacceptable as saying 'dukkha is only THIS'. It just is not true. The words point to more than the simple.
In logic one never uses the word "ALL" as it is impossible to defend, because there almost always seems to be an an exception. You could however say "almost all of the time" and probably get away with it, but even that is asking for it. ; ^ ) So I might have said it a bit differently than GBS, but his point is well made in good part.
My quote was referring to how some people might see what I say here as blasphemy or even the most evil thing of all, sometimes similar to the great wisdoms found in abundance in Hinduism. SPIT!
Almost like anything Hinduism shares with Buddhism has to be wrong. Which is pretty silly in my way of looking at it. : ^ (
Buddhism isn’t one THING; many great minds come at it from alternate perspective. Perhaps in the end all of these intimate roads converge. But we have to let people trust in their own hearts and slowly if necessary remove what was obstructing them. Beating people over the head with our ideas, or even being rude, seems IMO to lack compassion.
If someone makes a typing error, or misspells a word, you can bring that to their attention in a kind or gentle fashion, don’t you think? Just a thought, but one I think is worth mentioning.
If you are afraid that my words could cause harm, in some horrible way, just think about the impression given persons new to Buddhism by being either petty, or mean spirited.
It doesn’t fool anyone to say, “I think you are a jerk, S9, dear.” ; ^ )
Why does Buddhism have to be a war of words? Do you think that is what Buddha had in mind with the suggestion that sangha could be very helpful, for ALL seekers?
Subjectivity9 - I don't consider you to be some kind of 'teacher' giving me personal advice- and I don't want it now or at any other time thanks.
I've had more than enough snide remarks and criticisms from you, so I suggest you move on to something else now. Additionally I certainly don't require you to be telling me what Buddhism is or isn't. Plus I've never called you 'a jerk' you're just trying to put words in my mouth for dramatic effect.
A: The simple fact that they are words means that they are only representations.
S9: Exactly. And also, I see words (even written words like the sutras) in a rather Zen way, simply as the “finger pointing” where we must look beyond mere words, at a more intimate experience that the words are indicating. Words can only mirror the truth. (Mirroring the truth is, of course, useful.) Yet at the same time, is a mirror (itself) actually the same exact Truth (the Living Truth) that these mirrors/words are trying to reflect? Of course not.
Zen master, “Don’t look at my finger (words), look were I am pointing.”
To stay with the words and refuse to move beyond them, or even to go on to find the living truth within, more deeply within our own hearts, is a dead thing. : ^ (
Some call this type of thinking a form of “Spiritual Materialism.” Trying to Own the truth, like it is a mental object, rather than be/live the truth.
I would certainly be ungrateful, if I didn’t pay homage to what has been given to me through the efforts of many great sages over multiple centuries through the medium of words. But, we must take them in as nourishment, and travel on from there. Ultimate Truth is intimate, and found in solitude.
Dukka is a strange thing and really quite personal. Some people might laugh, and take it well, when they are shot in the arm with an arrow, other people break down and weep when we forget to cut the crust off their bread.
We all fight our own demons, and it is an intimate battle. The guy with the crust problem isn't just weak. We have no idea what he is going through.
Buddha simply tried to provide us with a few tools for doing this battle.
I quite agreed with your posting, it showed both wisdom and compassion. Thank you for sharing. : ^ )
I am not applying for the job as your teacher. Do I look like a masochist? : ^ (
Give me a BIG old break, will ya? If you don’t like my answers to your postings to me, the better part of wisdom would be to stop posting me…now there is an idea. ; ^ )
I am not going to just stand here with my arms limp at my sides, while people like you and DD smack me around at whim. Sorry, if that is your idea of fun.
....I am not going to just stand here with my arms limp at my sides, whilepeople like you and DD smack me around at whim. Sorry, if that is your idea of fun.
S9
Oh good grief, not even more exaggerated melodrama ! Put a sock in it matie !
With lots of warm kissie huggies from me and my imaginary friend Mr Sock.xxxx
The simple fact that they are words means that they are only representations. For instance from the definition of what a word is:
I don't see how straying further from the Dhamma and into the English language and related philosophy helps clarity here.
...to carry the meaning of non-conceptual forms from his view to others. Therefore, they are subject to convention and misinterpretation... I'd bet you've seen this happen quite a bit.
Subjectivity9, in this regard, seems to have some direct experience with non-conceptual form, and is wise to compare his/her experiences against words spoken 2500 years ago in a different language.
Matt
I have repeated many times the Buddha did not teach non-conceptuality.
Non-conceptuality is part of developing concentration but it is not related to the core outlook of the Buddha.
The Buddha's mind was liberated via wisdom and not via non-conceptuality.
The core teachings of the Buddha are about the nature or characteristics of phenomena.
They are not about non-conceptuality.
It follows your comments on the suttas are tenuous.
I am not going to just stand here with my arms limp at my sides, while people like you and DD smack me around at whim. Sorry, if that is your idea of fun.
:poke:
Personally, I am more interested in differences in dhammic views rather than personality views
Interested in the differences between notions like enchantment vs disenchantment, the characteristics of phenomena vs non-conceptuality, dispassion vs non-conceptuality, insight vs concentration, blind faith vs bright faith, Buddha's reported experience vs S9's reported experience
Exactly. And also, I see words (even written words like the sutras) in a rather Zen way, simply as the “finger pointing” where we must look beyond mere words...
S9
I do look beyond the mere words.
The words you keep using to describe what you regard as Buddha-Dhamma such as "Ultimate Self", "Ultimate Mind", "Ultimate Presense" "Ultimate Awareness" etc do not point to ultimate reality as I see it.
As I see it (to borrow your phraseology), Buddha-Dhamma is the Ultimate Voidness of self.
I personally do not need to refer to any suttas to disagree with what you are pointing to.
Personally, I regard you posts as describing precisely certain mental experiences or states of mind.
I cannot see how they are related to ultimate truth in any way, shape or form.
This is my view of ultimate reality & ultimate benefit compared to yours.
That is all.
To me, when you point, you may as well be pointing to the toilet.
Ultimate truth can been found by simply looking at a leaf sprout on a tree, then fall from the tree and then lie on the ground.
Dukka is a strange thing and really quite personal.
Dukkha is the same for each & every human being. It is attachment to one or more of the five aggregates as "I", "me" and/or "mine". The strange & personal differences are some human beings do not comprehend it and others do.
We all fight our own demons, and it is an intimate battle. The guy with the crust problem isn't just weak. We have no idea what he is going through.
All dukkha is the same. The guy with the bread is suffering from ignorance, craving & attachment. The Buddha taught to ellucidate these matters precisely, diagnostically. The Buddha was not pointing to the moon, to the toilet or anywhere else of the nature. The Buddha was pointing directly to the "I", "me" & "mine". The Buddha was pointing to "self-view".
Buddha simply tried to provide us with a few tools for doing this battle.
The Buddha did not provide a "few tools". He diagnosed the problem and ellucidated the solution in completeness.
I quite agreed with your posting, it showed both wisdom and compassion.
I did not agree with your posting. I will refrain from making comment on its wisdom & compassion.
Views or spiritual experience is a strange thing and really quite personal (unlike dukkha).
S9: Exactly. And also, I see words (even written words like the sutras) in a rather Zen way, simply as the “finger pointing” where we must look beyond mere words, at a more intimate experience that the words are indicating. Words can only mirror the truth. (Mirroring the truth is, of course, useful.) Yet at the same time, is a mirror (itself) actually the same exact Truth (the Living Truth) that these mirrors/words are trying to reflect? Of course not.
To stay with the words and refuse to move beyond them, or even to go on to find the living truth within, more deeply within our own hearts, is a dead thing. : ^ (
Some call this type of thinking a form of “Spiritual Materialism.” Trying to Own the truth, like it is a mental object, rather than be/live the truth.
For some, the truth of subjective reality is difficult to grasp... instead of accepting, it seems they attempt to project their subjective reality into the ultimate... meanwhile summarily rejecting the notion other people's subjective realities are worth respecting. Its really just another manifestation of ego.
Don't you wonder why some people insist their words are the ultimate definition, their ideas the ultimate ideas, etc etc? Spiritual materialism is certainly a way to describe it... have you read the Chögyam Trungpa book Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism? It might make the stuff being thrown at you more understandable and digestible.
DD: The core teachings of the Buddha are about the nature or characteristics of phenomena.
S9: This is true Only for beginners. After you see these things more clearly, you can (should) build upon this foundation of "This is not me." That is why they call it "Liberation" and not just biology, or psychology, or such. ; ^ )
You are supposed to move on from there, and to travel more deeply into what the Buddha was indicating as being completely beyond our mental constructs.
DD: I acknowledge & accept here you have taken GBS as your refuge.
If I quoted Donald Duck in order to add a little humor to the mix, would that be proof that I took refuge in Donald Duck, too? Be serious will ya?
How on earth do you expect people to take you serious, let alone respect your opinions when you say such obvious stuff in an attempt to either just be aggravating, or play “one up-manship games?” : ^ (
You are supposed to move on from there, and to travel more deeply into what the Buddha was indicating as being completely beyond our mental constructs.
Where? Please quote?
What the Buddha indicated was completely eradicating greed, hatred & delusion.
It follows there are defiled mental constructs & undefiled mental constructs.
Beyond mental contructs does not mean the absence of mental constructs.
It means not regarding any form of mental functioning as "I", "me" or "mine", to see them as merely natural phenomena or elements.
DD: The core teachings of the Buddha are about the nature or characteristics of phenomena.
S9: This is true Only for beginners. After you see these things more clearly, you can (should) build upon this foundation of "This is not me." That is why they call it "Liberation" and not just biology, or psychology, or such. ; ^ )
You are supposed to move on from there, and to travel more deeply into what the Buddha was indicating as being completely beyond our mental constructs.
if by beginners you mean everyone who is not enlighten, then yes
DD: The core teachings of the Buddha are about the nature or characteristics of phenomena.
S9: This is true Only for beginners.
S9
In Buddhism, this is for fully enlightened beings, for arahants.
"And what is the development of [mind using] concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is perception, such its origination, such its passing away. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' This is the development of [mind using] concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents.
Re: the OP and blog. This use of faith in practice does not make sense to me. What arises, arises regardless. This faith is a filter. The idea of "allowing" things to arise is the same, they arise.
No. It is a comment on posts about things that are contrary to the enlightened state.
The enlightened state is to understand the nature of phenomena so craving & attachment end towards those things.
The enlightened state states manifests as the cessation of craving rather than the cessation of mental functioning & concepts.
Fully enlightened beings continue to use concepts when they speak & act.
They do not dwell like dumb & mute animals.
Main Entry: re·sent·ment
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈzent-mənt\
Function: noun
Date: 1619 : a feeling of indignant displeasure or persistent ill will at something regarded as a wrong, insult or injury
Mental hindrances & discursive thoughts are things that "arise".
Faith is the opposite of such discursiveness. Faith is a spiritual power.
:cool:
Faith in the truth of the teachings, and confidence in the effectiveness path is one thing, but the OP/Blog seems to be referring to something else. It sounds more akin to trusting or allowing as a component of mindfulness, as in trusting things to be as they are. This is not needed since things will be as they are.
Perhaps I read it wrong, perhaps this thread to rancorous to bother discussing.
If you try to practice meditation by holding to beliefs, you will inevitably come into conflict with your experience. Beliefs are conditioned ways of interpreting experience. As your capacity in attention deepens, you will see beyond your conditioning, and the beliefs you hold will lead you to dismiss what you experience then, or lead you to shut it down.
Really, the original post is quite absurd.
It is an example of taking blind faith in an esoteric teaching.
It is the same as those who believe in "no mind". This is superstition.
If there was no mind, then one would be like a rock or block of cement.
Often, we have a blind faith in esoteric words without examining the meaning of those words.
The quote states: As your capacity in attention deepens [fine], you will see beyond your conditioning [fine], and the beliefs you hold will lead you to dismiss what you experience then [], or lead you to shut it down [].
The very essense of enlightenment is to see beyond the mind's pre-existing knowledge or epistemology.
Personally, I have never heard such absurd words as: "the beliefs you hold will lead you to dismiss what you experience" or "or lead you to shut it down"....
AMatt: For some, the truth of subjective reality is difficult to grasp... instead of accepting, it seems they attempt to project their subjective reality into the ultimate... meanwhile summarily rejecting the notion other people's subjective realities are worth respecting.
S9: Indeed, I see it is a form of fundamentalism to hold on to the written word like your life depended upon it. Perhaps this is just one more symptom of just how afraid the mind can get when it views emptiness, and see emptiness as being identical with either chaos, or a complete loss of control, or even death. : ^ (
We must try like anything to remain compassionate with each other, even those persons we would normally view as a blister. ; ^ )
A think, too, that very often the person(s) who are the biggest “pains in the ‘A” are simply manifesting that they are “howling like dogs in pain.” : ^ (
A mantra type Quote of mine: “Try not to hate people for your gifts.”
I have a number of such things I say to myself, being all too human, in order to remind myself of the pain of others and to attempt to translate my own aggravation into compassion.
Another mantra Quote: "This person is somebody's baby."
I think too that I am not always as successful in this area as I wish I might be, and so I thank you for your gentle reminder that they simply cannot see.
I think too, like you have said, that the inability to “let go” and be free may really be an incapacity to either see 'the BIG picture,' or to dive below the surface and go more deeply into subjective experience, or even a “Fear of Freedom,” (a little jewel of a book by Erich Fromm), rather than a actual choice on their part.
We all seem to have our ‘blind spots.’ I am thinking this is why Buddha wanted us ALL to get all together in sangha in order to mill these thing over, and he didn’t just send us off to our own individual caves to dig ourselves (and our mistaken views) in deeper.
Yet the ego cries in a very loud voice, when we ask it to give up these very mistakes, or our own ideas of specialness. : ^ (
AMatt: Its really just another manifestation of ego.
S9: I always liked the Quote from Ecclesiastes: “All is vanity.”
Unfortunately from what I have witnessed, I am not sure that it is possible for any dream entity to be completely ego-less any more than we can stop breathing. Ego can only be transcended completely and trained (skillful means) to not cause itself and others quite so much pain.
The ego is just an instrument to use will we are still here dreaming this life (a bit like a car that we sit in and move about in). If we use ego (the car) correctly all goes relatively well. If we do not pay attention to what we are doing, or drive like clowns, we will certainly wrap ourselves around a tree (of life), one of these fine days.
We live on multiple levels simultaneously. (Very Chinese: heaven, earth, and the Middle Way [transcendence]).
The ego is one level. But certainly too, our ‘Buddha Nature’ (the Middle Way) is a calm and nourishing island that we can tap into, even live from, at any time. As the Buddha Nature it is always “Present,” (right Here and Now in this Immediate Moment), as well. In fact our Buddha Nature cannot be lost no matter how inattentive we might be at times. The Buddha, himself, was folly Awake to this, while at the same time using the ego in a skillful manner.
Buddha was awake in this dream similar to how a Lucid Dream is described.
AMatt: Don't you wonder why some people insist their words are the ultimate definition, their ideas the ultimate ideas, etc etc?
S9: I have always been a bit of an idealist with a dash of naivety thrown in. ; ^ ) Over and over again, I am completely flabbergasted by what others just can’t seen to see, and also how they go about causing so much pain to rain down upon them and upon others. Consequently, and repeatedly, I make the same mistake of trying to tell them stuff that just makes them mad at me. : ^ (
A favorite Quote of a good friend of mine, (and said to me by the same person, repeatedly).
“Don’t try to teach a pig to sing. They cannot sing, and you will only aggravate them.”
; ^ )
AMatt: Spiritual materialism is certainly a way to describe it... have you read the Chogyam Trungpa book Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism? It might make the stuff being thrown at you more understandable and digestible.
S9: I do have a number of his books. Perhaps it is time to revisit them. Thanks for the suggestion. : ^ )
Last Q maybe ; ^ ): “Fool tread in where angels fear to tread.”
That’s me the BIG FAT FOOL. ; ^ )
I always hope against ALL of the odds that I can help. I do, however, believe that I could learn more social skills from people such as your self. You are very kind, and able to show this in your choice of words. Thanks for the good example.
A great master once said that we should approach ALL of our thoughts and concepts more from what he called the ‘Beginners Mind.” (A little jewel of a book)
In other words, we should try to stay receptive, with every moment being a 'new birth' full of wonderful possibility.
If we are not very careful, our own minds will build a huge wall of words around us, and imprison us within what we think we already know. : ^ )
R: What arises, arises regardless. This faith is a filter. The idea of "allowing" things to arise is the same, they arise.
S9: I am with you on this issue, if I am understanding you correctly.
What appears to arise within the mind is completely automatic. (see Alan Watts, "When do we chose to chose, and chose to chose to make a choice, etc?") Letting go of these is the same as dropping a great burden. Seeing this is a big part of setting ourselves free.
However, don't you think Trusting is an attitude that naturally comes about (albeit automatically) when we we do see with more clarity?
5B: If you try to practice meditation by holding to beliefs, you will inevitably come into conflict with your experience. Beliefs are conditioned ways of interpreting experience. As your capacity in attention deepens, you will see beyond your conditioning, and the beliefs you hold will lead you to dismiss what you experience then, or lead you to shut it down.
S9: I quite agree with you in this.
I can’t tell you how many times I have come to a conclusion because of something I witness during meditation, and because I found it either delightful and/or temporarily satisfying I tried to hold onto it with my mind. This eventually proved painful and dissatisfying, simply because this is the nature of mind to change and to be dissatisfied.
In the end, my greatest discoveries had nothing to do with the mind. They were both surprising and familiar, and completely effortless. : ^ )
Q: “We are not trying to free the mind. We are looking for freedom FROM the mind. “
The ego is one level. But certainly too, our ‘Buddha Nature’ (the Middle Way) is a calm and nourishing island that we can tap into, even live from, at any time. As the Buddha Nature it is always “Present,” (right Here and Now in this Immediate Moment), as well. In fact our Buddha Nature cannot be lost no matter how inattentive we might be at times. The Buddha, himself, was folly Awake to this, while at the same time using the ego in a skillful manner.
Buddha was awake in this dream similar to how a Lucid Dream is described.
.
Could you define exactly what it is that you term "Buddha Nature", Subjectivity9 ?....and also give some textual evidence of the Buddha being "folly Awake to this, while at the same time using the ego in a skilful manner" ?....and also examples illustrating how "Buddha was awake in this dream similar to how a Lucid Dream is described " ?...... please ?
R: What arises, arises regardless. This faith is a filter. The idea of "allowing" things to arise is the same, they arise.
S9: I am with you on this issue, if I am understanding you correctly.
What appears to arise within the mind is completely automatic. (see Alan Watts, "When do we chose to chose, and chose to chose to make a choice, etc?") Letting go of these is the same as dropping a great burden. Seeing this is a big part of setting ourselves free.
However, don't you think Trusting is an attitude that naturally comes about (albeit automatically) when we we do see with more clarity?
S9
Yes this is what I mean. What DD says about needing trust is true as well. When beginning practice I was flayling all over the place because there wasn't trust in having no ground. Initially there had to be an active receptivity in mindfullness, an active letting be. After a while this gave way to things simply presenting of their own accord.
S9: Sometimes you say something really wonderful. : ^ )
R: When beginning practice I was flailing all over the place because there wasn't trust in having no ground.
S9: What you said above makes me think of a quote. I bet the surprises the H*ll out of everyone…NOT!
“Everything we grab onto is falling with us.” (para) De Mello
Little stories like the one about a seeker walking along peacefully one day, after going to the well to gather water, when all of a sudden the bottom of his water bucket falls out and all the water in the bucket spills out, abound in Buddhism, an archetypal metaphoric event that repeats, and repeats, and repeats over centuries within Buddhist wisdom.
Very often we ALL lose the ground beneath our feet, if we persist in this search long enough, and everything we were relying upon to make sense of who we are, and where we are, and where we are going, simply shows itself to be nothing but smoke and mirrors. The mind constantly makes up little (word) stories to live within, but fortunately these cannot endure when we look ever more closely at them.
R: Initially there had to be an active receptivity in mindfulness, an active letting be. After a while this gave way to things simply presenting of their own accord.
S9: Exactly! : ^ )
At first...we think we are doing everything (in control), and we try like anything to juggle what we think we know, and to keep everything in the air without dropping anything…but that is exhausting work (and impossible). So, very often or should I say inevitably, when we get tired enough and cannot keep it up, or we become what some might call disappointed or even DIS- ILLUSIONED, or what others have call "hitting bottom," we take a little rest, just for a second, from our frantic activity, or dare I say DROP our responsibility.
WHAM!
In comes an insight…or a surprising clarity…
I am not doing this…it is doing me.
Just perhaps, this is why, or how, we finally come to realize that this life we call "mine" is completely automatic, a dream dreaming itself, effortlessly, and we can just sit back and enjoy the ride.
S9: We must try like anything to remain compassionate with each other, even those persons we would normally view as a blister. ; ^ )
A think, too, that very often the person(s) who are the biggest “pains in the ‘A” are simply manifesting that they are “howling like dogs in pain.” : ^ (
Another mantra Quote: "This person is somebody's baby."
Matt: It can be very helpful to look at people with tricks such as these, much like meditation focuses on tricks to move beyond monkey mind. Even howling dogs have wisdom, once you adjust your ears to their frequency I like "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater"
s9:I think too that I am not always as successful in this area as I wish I might be, and so I thank you for your gentle reminder that they simply cannot see.
We all seem to have our ‘blind spots.’ I am thinking this is why Buddha wanted us ALL to get all together in sangha in order to mill these thing over, and he didn’t just send us off to our own individual caves to dig ourselves (and our mistaken views) in deeper.
Yet the ego cries in a very loud voice, when we ask it to give up these very mistakes, or our own ideas of specialness. : ^ (
Matt: Yes, certainly on many of these points. Relating back to the OP about faith and belief, until one opens up to the community we might not see what these words mean to others, and how our own equanimity can be further deepened by relating to these conceptions from another's view.
s9: The ego is just an instrument to use will we are still here dreaming this life (a bit like a car that we sit in and move about in). If we use ego (the car) correctly all goes relatively well.
and
s9: The ego is one level. But certainly too, our ‘Buddha Nature’ (the Middle Way) is a calm and nourishing island that we can tap into, even live from, at any time. As the Buddha Nature it is always “Present,” (right Here and Now in this Immediate Moment), as well.
Matt: I would go further with this and look at how ego arises dependently with clinging. Its not that we transcend it or use it correctly in my view, but that as we learn to let go of clinging our ego no longer rises/clouds/yells to make us unskillful. The ego and clinging are the same entity, created by the same conditions.
S9: I have always been a bit of an idealist with a dash of naivety thrown in. ; ^ ) “Don’t try to teach a pig to sing. They cannot sing, and you will only aggravate them.”
Matt: Its funny, I was contemplating yesterday your interactions around here, and wondered if you were getting upset that a dog does not meow. If you listen carefully, even as the dog barks in direct defiance, there is a bit of meow that also arises later.
s9: That’s me the BIG FAT FOOL. ; ^ )
Matt: The fool in tarot is not stupid, but perhaps simply does not know the natural cycle it takes to move from ignorance into wisdom.
s9: I always hope against ALL of the odds that I can help. I do, however, believe that I could learn more social skills from people such as your self. You are very kind, and able to show this in your choice of words. Thanks for the good example.
Matt: Thank you for your kind words. I feel much resonant happiness when others seem to be untangling themselves from the tricky nature of dukkha, and recognize that unskillfulness (in the form of ego and all its forms) is not an inherent darkness in the soul of a person, but a simple, common and communal challenge every being faces, and so it is easy to be kind with minds and hearts that suffer. We are family.
Comments
If you look at what I said, I think you will notice that I didn’t name, Names. If someone wants to take what I have said, personally, and hit themselves in the head with it, so be it. I cannot be responsible for such an act as that. I am only responsible for my own actions.
Like I say, reading and reciting the sutras IMO proves very little about what is actually understood and personally experienced in that area.
Obviously you see yourself and DD as some kind of a tag team…I don’t want to swap insults with you, or DD. : ^ (
I will only take the advise of those person who I respect for one reason or another. I'm funny that way...Sorry.
But just saying things about what you know, and how great you are because of it, proves nothing to me. If someone however says something that is similar to my own personal experience in this area, and/or even helps me to move along to some extent, I will certainly be very grateful for that.
Go ahead…say something wonderful. : ^ )
If we limited ourselves to speaking about ideas, and our own personal experiences, life would be a lot more pleasant and far less aggressive. Shouting and posturing gains us absoltuely nothing.
Sincerely,
S9
Excuse me ? You continue to write ridiculous insults yourself, yet you won't take responsibility for them?
Actually if we speak about ideas and personal experiences which have little connection to the real Buddhist teachings,then we merely enjoy the sound of our own misperceptions - and sink into a delusional la la land of twaddle.
Shouting and posturing ? Huh ? Where?...on TV?...outside my window?.. ...
......
.
Funny how our own words & vanities become a trap for us.
:rolleyesc
The simple fact that they are words means that they are only representations. For instance from the definition of what a word is:
principal carrier of meaning=a pointer
Buddha used words, which means he was pointing. He was using sounds as archetypal symbols to carry the meaning of non-conceptual forms from his view to others. Therefore, they are subject to convention and misinterpretation... I'd bet you've seen this happen quite a bit.
Subjectivity9, in this regard, seems to have some direct experience with non-conceptual form, and is wise to compare his/her experiences against words spoken 2500 years ago in a different language. I personally find the suttas to be direct, but I can usually see to what they point.
It is folly to expect all words to mean the same things to all people, which is why it is directly important to look toward the archetype that is being described without getting to caught up in your direct meaning of the words.
You spoke of this when you talked about understanding the meaning of Dukkha. Because the word is a wide pointer, it takes some contemplation to let the full meaning (ie, the amount of experiences that are dukkha)
Subjectivity seems to be suggesting that some words, such as faith, belief, confidence and so forth have to be given that same consideration to know all of the places those words points toward. To say 'belief is only THIS' is as unacceptable as saying 'dukkha is only THIS'. It just is not true. The words point to more than the simple.
With warmth,
Matt
George Bernard Shaw:
“All great truths begin as blasphemies.”
Miles of smiles,
S9
Apart from the fact that I cannot see what connection your quote has to the discussion, Sub dear, it isn't even correct. It should be 'all' not 'a'.
Sub-zero again !
.
In logic one never uses the word "ALL" as it is impossible to defend, because there almost always seems to be an an exception. You could however say "almost all of the time" and probably get away with it, but even that is asking for it. ; ^ ) So I might have said it a bit differently than GBS, but his point is well made in good part.
My quote was referring to how some people might see what I say here as blasphemy or even the most evil thing of all, sometimes similar to the great wisdoms found in abundance in Hinduism. SPIT!
Almost like anything Hinduism shares with Buddhism has to be wrong. Which is pretty silly in my way of looking at it. : ^ (
Buddhism isn’t one THING; many great minds come at it from alternate perspective. Perhaps in the end all of these intimate roads converge. But we have to let people trust in their own hearts and slowly if necessary remove what was obstructing them. Beating people over the head with our ideas, or even being rude, seems IMO to lack compassion.
Peace be with you,
S9
If someone makes a typing error, or misspells a word, you can bring that to their attention in a kind or gentle fashion, don’t you think? Just a thought, but one I think is worth mentioning.
If you are afraid that my words could cause harm, in some horrible way, just think about the impression given persons new to Buddhism by being either petty, or mean spirited.
It doesn’t fool anyone to say, “I think you are a jerk, S9, dear.” ; ^ )
Why does Buddhism have to be a war of words? Do you think that is what Buddha had in mind with the suggestion that sangha could be very helpful, for ALL seekers?
But, thanks, I corrected the quote. : ^ )
S9
I've had more than enough snide remarks and criticisms from you, so I suggest you move on to something else now. Additionally I certainly don't require you to be telling me what Buddhism is or isn't. Plus I've never called you 'a jerk' you're just trying to put words in my mouth for dramatic effect.
Relax, lighten up a little.
.
A: The simple fact that they are words means that they are only representations.
S9: Exactly. And also, I see words (even written words like the sutras) in a rather Zen way, simply as the “finger pointing” where we must look beyond mere words, at a more intimate experience that the words are indicating. Words can only mirror the truth. (Mirroring the truth is, of course, useful.) Yet at the same time, is a mirror (itself) actually the same exact Truth (the Living Truth) that these mirrors/words are trying to reflect? Of course not.
Zen master, “Don’t look at my finger (words), look were I am pointing.”
To stay with the words and refuse to move beyond them, or even to go on to find the living truth within, more deeply within our own hearts, is a dead thing. : ^ (
Some call this type of thinking a form of “Spiritual Materialism.” Trying to Own the truth, like it is a mental object, rather than be/live the truth.
I would certainly be ungrateful, if I didn’t pay homage to what has been given to me through the efforts of many great sages over multiple centuries through the medium of words. But, we must take them in as nourishment, and travel on from there. Ultimate Truth is intimate, and found in solitude.
Dukka is a strange thing and really quite personal. Some people might laugh, and take it well, when they are shot in the arm with an arrow, other people break down and weep when we forget to cut the crust off their bread.
We all fight our own demons, and it is an intimate battle. The guy with the crust problem isn't just weak. We have no idea what he is going through.
Buddha simply tried to provide us with a few tools for doing this battle.
I quite agreed with your posting, it showed both wisdom and compassion. Thank you for sharing. : ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
I am not applying for the job as your teacher. Do I look like a masochist? : ^ (
Give me a BIG old break, will ya? If you don’t like my answers to your postings to me, the better part of wisdom would be to stop posting me…now there is an idea. ; ^ )
I am not going to just stand here with my arms limp at my sides, while people like you and DD smack me around at whim. Sorry, if that is your idea of fun.
Have a nice day,
S9
Oh good grief, not even more exaggerated melodrama ! Put a sock in it matie !
With lots of warm kissie huggies from me and my imaginary friend Mr Sock.xxxx
.
Matt
I have repeated many times the Buddha did not teach non-conceptuality.
Non-conceptuality is part of developing concentration but it is not related to the core outlook of the Buddha.
The Buddha's mind was liberated via wisdom and not via non-conceptuality.
The core teachings of the Buddha are about the nature or characteristics of phenomena.
They are not about non-conceptuality.
It follows your comments on the suttas are tenuous.
Regards
:smilec:
Personally, I am more interested in differences in dhammic views rather than personality views
Interested in the differences between notions like enchantment vs disenchantment, the characteristics of phenomena vs non-conceptuality, dispassion vs non-conceptuality, insight vs concentration, blind faith vs bright faith, Buddha's reported experience vs S9's reported experience
:coffee:
I acknowledge & accept here you have taken GBS as your refuge.
Its OK. You are allowed.
Buddhism has a democratic & secular outlook.
Could, by any chance, your "great mind" be one of them?
This was used in the phrase: "Sabbe dhamma anatta ti: All things without exception are not-self".
This is the unique & special teaching of all Buddhas, not found in any other religion or philosophy.
This kind of rhetoric can also become a form of blind faith & blind superstition.
:eek2:
I do look beyond the mere words.
The words you keep using to describe what you regard as Buddha-Dhamma such as "Ultimate Self", "Ultimate Mind", "Ultimate Presense" "Ultimate Awareness" etc do not point to ultimate reality as I see it.
As I see it (to borrow your phraseology), Buddha-Dhamma is the Ultimate Voidness of self.
I personally do not need to refer to any suttas to disagree with what you are pointing to.
Personally, I regard you posts as describing precisely certain mental experiences or states of mind.
I cannot see how they are related to ultimate truth in any way, shape or form.
This is my view of ultimate reality & ultimate benefit compared to yours.
That is all.
To me, when you point, you may as well be pointing to the toilet.
Dukkha is the same for each & every human being. It is attachment to one or more of the five aggregates as "I", "me" and/or "mine". The strange & personal differences are some human beings do not comprehend it and others do.
All dukkha is the same. The guy with the bread is suffering from ignorance, craving & attachment. The Buddha taught to ellucidate these matters precisely, diagnostically. The Buddha was not pointing to the moon, to the toilet or anywhere else of the nature. The Buddha was pointing directly to the "I", "me" & "mine". The Buddha was pointing to "self-view".
The Buddha did not provide a "few tools". He diagnosed the problem and ellucidated the solution in completeness.
I did not agree with your posting. I will refrain from making comment on its wisdom & compassion.
Views or spiritual experience is a strange thing and really quite personal (unlike dukkha).
You had me at "don't see"
Good luck,
Matt
For some, the truth of subjective reality is difficult to grasp... instead of accepting, it seems they attempt to project their subjective reality into the ultimate... meanwhile summarily rejecting the notion other people's subjective realities are worth respecting. Its really just another manifestation of ego.
Don't you wonder why some people insist their words are the ultimate definition, their ideas the ultimate ideas, etc etc? Spiritual materialism is certainly a way to describe it... have you read the Chögyam Trungpa book Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism? It might make the stuff being thrown at you more understandable and digestible.
With warmth,
Matt
DD: The core teachings of the Buddha are about the nature or characteristics of phenomena.
S9: This is true Only for beginners. After you see these things more clearly, you can (should) build upon this foundation of "This is not me." That is why they call it "Liberation" and not just biology, or psychology, or such. ; ^ )
You are supposed to move on from there, and to travel more deeply into what the Buddha was indicating as being completely beyond our mental constructs.
Sincerely,
S9
DD: I acknowledge & accept here you have taken GBS as your refuge.
If I quoted Donald Duck in order to add a little humor to the mix, would that be proof that I took refuge in Donald Duck, too? Be serious will ya?
How on earth do you expect people to take you serious, let alone respect your opinions when you say such obvious stuff in an attempt to either just be aggravating, or play “one up-manship games?” : ^ (
S9
What the Buddha indicated was completely eradicating greed, hatred & delusion.
It follows there are defiled mental constructs & undefiled mental constructs.
Beyond mental contructs does not mean the absence of mental constructs.
It means not regarding any form of mental functioning as "I", "me" or "mine", to see them as merely natural phenomena or elements.
You can't offer better than that?
Best wishes in Outer Space.
In Buddhism, this is for fully enlightened beings, for arahants.
The enlightened state is to understand the nature of phenomena so craving & attachment end towards those things.
The enlightened state states manifests as the cessation of craving rather than the cessation of mental functioning & concepts.
Fully enlightened beings continue to use concepts when they speak & act.
They do not dwell like dumb & mute animals.
Faith is the opposite of such discursiveness. Faith is a spiritual power.
:cool:
I have read your words, and don't feel compelled to go further with you at this time. Thank you for your input.
With warmth,
Matt
Perhaps I read it wrong, perhaps this thread to rancorous to bother discussing.
It is an example of taking blind faith in an esoteric teaching.
It is the same as those who believe in "no mind". This is superstition.
If there was no mind, then one would be like a rock or block of cement.
Often, we have a blind faith in esoteric words without examining the meaning of those words.
The quote states: As your capacity in attention deepens [fine], you will see beyond your conditioning [fine], and the beliefs you hold will lead you to dismiss what you experience then [
The very essense of enlightenment is to see beyond the mind's pre-existing knowledge or epistemology.
Personally, I have never heard such absurd words as: "the beliefs you hold will lead you to dismiss what you experience" or "or lead you to shut it down"....
Seeing is believing!
A similie is when one is a child, one enters water with a parent because one trusts the parent. But then when one learns to swim, one trusts oneself.
Trust is always there, functioning in the mind. The Buddha taught the highest faith is viraga saddha, namely, faith in non-attachment.
This is taking the big leap.
Faith or trust evolves. From holding onto our father's back to holding on to nothing (viraga saddha).
AMatt: For some, the truth of subjective reality is difficult to grasp... instead of accepting, it seems they attempt to project their subjective reality into the ultimate... meanwhile summarily rejecting the notion other people's subjective realities are worth respecting.
S9: Indeed, I see it is a form of fundamentalism to hold on to the written word like your life depended upon it. Perhaps this is just one more symptom of just how afraid the mind can get when it views emptiness, and see emptiness as being identical with either chaos, or a complete loss of control, or even death. : ^ (
We must try like anything to remain compassionate with each other, even those persons we would normally view as a blister. ; ^ )
A think, too, that very often the person(s) who are the biggest “pains in the ‘A” are simply manifesting that they are “howling like dogs in pain.” : ^ (
A mantra type Quote of mine: “Try not to hate people for your gifts.”
I have a number of such things I say to myself, being all too human, in order to remind myself of the pain of others and to attempt to translate my own aggravation into compassion.
Another mantra Quote: "This person is somebody's baby."
I think too that I am not always as successful in this area as I wish I might be, and so I thank you for your gentle reminder that they simply cannot see.
I think too, like you have said, that the inability to “let go” and be free may really be an incapacity to either see 'the BIG picture,' or to dive below the surface and go more deeply into subjective experience, or even a “Fear of Freedom,” (a little jewel of a book by Erich Fromm), rather than a actual choice on their part.
We all seem to have our ‘blind spots.’ I am thinking this is why Buddha wanted us ALL to get all together in sangha in order to mill these thing over, and he didn’t just send us off to our own individual caves to dig ourselves (and our mistaken views) in deeper.
Yet the ego cries in a very loud voice, when we ask it to give up these very mistakes, or our own ideas of specialness. : ^ (
AMatt: Its really just another manifestation of ego.
S9: I always liked the Quote from Ecclesiastes: “All is vanity.”
Unfortunately from what I have witnessed, I am not sure that it is possible for any dream entity to be completely ego-less any more than we can stop breathing. Ego can only be transcended completely and trained (skillful means) to not cause itself and others quite so much pain.
The ego is just an instrument to use will we are still here dreaming this life (a bit like a car that we sit in and move about in). If we use ego (the car) correctly all goes relatively well. If we do not pay attention to what we are doing, or drive like clowns, we will certainly wrap ourselves around a tree (of life), one of these fine days.
We live on multiple levels simultaneously. (Very Chinese: heaven, earth, and the Middle Way [transcendence]).
The ego is one level. But certainly too, our ‘Buddha Nature’ (the Middle Way) is a calm and nourishing island that we can tap into, even live from, at any time. As the Buddha Nature it is always “Present,” (right Here and Now in this Immediate Moment), as well. In fact our Buddha Nature cannot be lost no matter how inattentive we might be at times. The Buddha, himself, was folly Awake to this, while at the same time using the ego in a skillful manner.
Buddha was awake in this dream similar to how a Lucid Dream is described.
AMatt: Don't you wonder why some people insist their words are the ultimate definition, their ideas the ultimate ideas, etc etc?
S9: I have always been a bit of an idealist with a dash of naivety thrown in. ; ^ ) Over and over again, I am completely flabbergasted by what others just can’t seen to see, and also how they go about causing so much pain to rain down upon them and upon others. Consequently, and repeatedly, I make the same mistake of trying to tell them stuff that just makes them mad at me. : ^ (
A favorite Quote of a good friend of mine, (and said to me by the same person, repeatedly).
“Don’t try to teach a pig to sing. They cannot sing, and you will only aggravate them.”
; ^ )
AMatt: Spiritual materialism is certainly a way to describe it... have you read the Chogyam Trungpa book Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism? It might make the stuff being thrown at you more understandable and digestible.
S9: I do have a number of his books. Perhaps it is time to revisit them. Thanks for the suggestion. : ^ )
Last Q maybe ; ^ ): “Fool tread in where angels fear to tread.”
That’s me the BIG FAT FOOL. ; ^ )
I always hope against ALL of the odds that I can help. I do, however, believe that I could learn more social skills from people such as your self. You are very kind, and able to show this in your choice of words. Thanks for the good example.
Peace is a skill that I am still learning.
Warm Regards,
S9
A great master once said that we should approach ALL of our thoughts and concepts more from what he called the ‘Beginners Mind.” (A little jewel of a book)
In other words, we should try to stay receptive, with every moment being a 'new birth' full of wonderful possibility.
If we are not very careful, our own minds will build a huge wall of words around us, and imprison us within what we think we already know. : ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
R: What arises, arises regardless. This faith is a filter. The idea of "allowing" things to arise is the same, they arise.
S9: I am with you on this issue, if I am understanding you correctly.
What appears to arise within the mind is completely automatic. (see Alan Watts, "When do we chose to chose, and chose to chose to make a choice, etc?") Letting go of these is the same as dropping a great burden. Seeing this is a big part of setting ourselves free.
However, don't you think Trusting is an attitude that naturally comes about (albeit automatically) when we we do see with more clarity?
With respect,
S9
5B: If you try to practice meditation by holding to beliefs, you will inevitably come into conflict with your experience. Beliefs are conditioned ways of interpreting experience. As your capacity in attention deepens, you will see beyond your conditioning, and the beliefs you hold will lead you to dismiss what you experience then, or lead you to shut it down.
S9: I quite agree with you in this.
I can’t tell you how many times I have come to a conclusion because of something I witness during meditation, and because I found it either delightful and/or temporarily satisfying I tried to hold onto it with my mind. This eventually proved painful and dissatisfying, simply because this is the nature of mind to change and to be dissatisfied.
In the end, my greatest discoveries had nothing to do with the mind. They were both surprising and familiar, and completely effortless. : ^ )
Q: “We are not trying to free the mind. We are looking for freedom FROM the mind. “
With great respect,
S9
Could you define exactly what it is that you term "Buddha Nature", Subjectivity9 ?....and also give some textual evidence of the Buddha being "folly Awake to this, while at the same time using the ego in a skilful manner" ?....and also examples illustrating how "Buddha was awake in this dream similar to how a Lucid Dream is described " ?...... please ?
Many thanks.
.
S9: Sometimes you say something really wonderful. : ^ )
R: When beginning practice I was flailing all over the place because there wasn't trust in having no ground.
S9: What you said above makes me think of a quote. I bet the surprises the H*ll out of everyone…NOT!
“Everything we grab onto is falling with us.” (para) De Mello
Little stories like the one about a seeker walking along peacefully one day, after going to the well to gather water, when all of a sudden the bottom of his water bucket falls out and all the water in the bucket spills out, abound in Buddhism, an archetypal metaphoric event that repeats, and repeats, and repeats over centuries within Buddhist wisdom.
Very often we ALL lose the ground beneath our feet, if we persist in this search long enough, and everything we were relying upon to make sense of who we are, and where we are, and where we are going, simply shows itself to be nothing but smoke and mirrors. The mind constantly makes up little (word) stories to live within, but fortunately these cannot endure when we look ever more closely at them.
R: Initially there had to be an active receptivity in mindfulness, an active letting be. After a while this gave way to things simply presenting of their own accord.
S9: Exactly! : ^ )
At first...we think we are doing everything (in control), and we try like anything to juggle what we think we know, and to keep everything in the air without dropping anything…but that is exhausting work (and impossible). So, very often or should I say inevitably, when we get tired enough and cannot keep it up, or we become what some might call disappointed or even DIS- ILLUSIONED, or what others have call "hitting bottom," we take a little rest, just for a second, from our frantic activity, or dare I say DROP our responsibility.
WHAM!
In comes an insight…or a surprising clarity…
I am not doing this…it is doing me.
Just perhaps, this is why, or how, we finally come to realize that this life we call "mine" is completely automatic, a dream dreaming itself, effortlessly, and we can just sit back and enjoy the ride.
Friendly Regards,
S9
A think, too, that very often the person(s) who are the biggest “pains in the ‘A” are simply manifesting that they are “howling like dogs in pain.” : ^ (
Another mantra Quote: "This person is somebody's baby."
Matt: It can be very helpful to look at people with tricks such as these, much like meditation focuses on tricks to move beyond monkey mind. Even howling dogs have wisdom, once you adjust your ears to their frequency
s9:I think too that I am not always as successful in this area as I wish I might be, and so I thank you for your gentle reminder that they simply cannot see.
We all seem to have our ‘blind spots.’ I am thinking this is why Buddha wanted us ALL to get all together in sangha in order to mill these thing over, and he didn’t just send us off to our own individual caves to dig ourselves (and our mistaken views) in deeper.
Yet the ego cries in a very loud voice, when we ask it to give up these very mistakes, or our own ideas of specialness. : ^ (
Matt: Yes, certainly on many of these points. Relating back to the OP about faith and belief, until one opens up to the community we might not see what these words mean to others, and how our own equanimity can be further deepened by relating to these conceptions from another's view.
s9: The ego is just an instrument to use will we are still here dreaming this life (a bit like a car that we sit in and move about in). If we use ego (the car) correctly all goes relatively well.
and
s9: The ego is one level. But certainly too, our ‘Buddha Nature’ (the Middle Way) is a calm and nourishing island that we can tap into, even live from, at any time. As the Buddha Nature it is always “Present,” (right Here and Now in this Immediate Moment), as well.
Matt: I would go further with this and look at how ego arises dependently with clinging. Its not that we transcend it or use it correctly in my view, but that as we learn to let go of clinging our ego no longer rises/clouds/yells to make us unskillful. The ego and clinging are the same entity, created by the same conditions.
S9: I have always been a bit of an idealist with a dash of naivety thrown in. ; ^ ) “Don’t try to teach a pig to sing. They cannot sing, and you will only aggravate them.”
Matt: Its funny, I was contemplating yesterday your interactions around here, and wondered if you were getting upset that a dog does not meow. If you listen carefully, even as the dog barks in direct defiance, there is a bit of meow that also arises later.
s9: That’s me the BIG FAT FOOL. ; ^ )
Matt: The fool in tarot is not stupid, but perhaps simply does not know the natural cycle it takes to move from ignorance into wisdom.
s9: I always hope against ALL of the odds that I can help. I do, however, believe that I could learn more social skills from people such as your self. You are very kind, and able to show this in your choice of words. Thanks for the good example.
Matt: Thank you for your kind words. I feel much resonant happiness when others seem to be untangling themselves from the tricky nature of dukkha, and recognize that unskillfulness (in the form of ego and all its forms) is not an inherent darkness in the soul of a person, but a simple, common and communal challenge every being faces, and so it is easy to be kind with minds and hearts that suffer. We are family.
With warmth,
Matt