steve

I find it is less threatening and confrontational to share with someone how their words make me feel, rather than saying they are this or that, or that their words were wrong or inappropriate.

Here are a few others, some quite explicit and others open to interpretation and my own projection: The Inner Light by George Harrison (lyrics adapted from Juan Mascaro's translation of Ch. 47 of DDJ) All Things Must Pass by George Harrison (lyrics adapted from Timothy Leary's poem All Things Pass - Lao Tzu) Within You Without You by The Beatles (probably more Veda-influenced but that last line!) Sitting by the Riverside by The Kinks Let's Live for Today by the Grassroots Letting the Days Go By by the Talking Heads

If you haven't seen it yet consider checking out The Beatles: Get Back, a documentary about their final sessions and performance together by Peter Jackson. It's long but really wonderful if you're a fan.

It's always interesting to notice how we tend to assume our experience, or our conceptual framework, is necessarily true for others. I suspect you are on the youthful side of life based on your posts. Life has taught me to sometimes 'be OK with no solution.' Perhaps you will come to agree with this someday and perhaps not. While you are entitled to hold on to the belief that "a 'perceptual-bliss' that transcends both pain and joy, is fallacious" you have not made your case to my satisfaction. Conceptual arguments definitely have value but there is much that transcends logic and intellect and much to discover there. I'm not too concerned with whether or not Buddhism breaks its own rules. Rules are artificial and conditional by nature. I'm much more interested in understanding what the wisdom teachings are trying to show me. With proper study and practice a deeper and more comprehensive understanding is possible if one has the interest and drive. You're welcome. I appreciate your considered response.

I don't see it as a paradox. It simply says you can disagree with others but not insult them, regarding lifestyle choices and other things.

I think the best way to discover why people do what they do is to look inward at my own motivation and patterns. I started studying martial arts about 50 years ago. Looking back a primary motivating factor was insecurity. I've always been a pacifist and have never fought unless I or a loved one was threatened or attacked. I don't think pacifism is at at odds with an interest in self-preservation or the desire to protect loved ones. We can love and strive for peace in our lives without being willing to permit others to take advantage of us. Of course we can define pacifism in very absolute terms which are theoretically well and good but I don't find such constructs to be practical or realistic for most people, certainly not for me. For the very few individuals that are truly pacifists in an absolute sense, there would be no reason to study martial arts. I reached a point through my own meditation practice where I felt I had to give up my martial training. The implicit and explicit violence became simply too much of a disturbance, too distasteful. That said, under the right circumstances I would still defend myself and others and after along hiatus I even engage in some martial training again. I suspect the majority of people who identify as pacifists have some threshold beyond which violence becomes an option, maybe more accurate to say a necessity. I'm not sure I would believe most people's claims that they would never fight under any circumstances. Not saying absolute pacifism is wrong or right, just extremely challenging to achieve for most living creatures.

@Kojiro @Zoya My apologies for the delay - your PPD's are now available.

Thank you for your patience, your PPD awaits you

Looking forward to checking this out when I have some time. I'm also a fan of exploring the convergence, and divergence for that matter, between science, philosophy, and spirituality. I've enjoyed Carlo Rovelli's writings in this area recently.

Mine as well

Recommended short story - https://steveschutzman.com/the-bank-robbery

I understand your point and maintain that contradictions can give us an opportunity for growth and deeper understanding, particularly in the spiritual arena. Rather than looking at them as problems, the quote I offered suggests they can be opportunities. Everyone experiences challenges, it’s not optional. The only option we have is how we deal with them. We can avoid them but that rarely leads to a long term solution. Over time they tend to gain power and eventually catch up to us. Another approach is to face them with full awareness and openness. When we face them with awareness and openness we tend to have access to more possible solutions and if there is no solution, we can stay with the experience and eventually find a way to be OK without one. The whole subject surrounding impermanence is fascinating and, for me at least, worthy of considerable reflection, practice, and study. Impermanence relates to all things that are conditional. When considering that which is unconditional, the same rules don’t really apply. For example, we often see “space” used as a metaphor for the ground of being, particularly in dzogchen. This is because space has unique and particular characteristics that help us to come to a deeper understanding of the unconditional. These characteristics include the fact that space is indestructible, unbounded, unborn, undying, has no edge or center, and so forth. When we consider these characteristics, especially that space is indestructible, how can we say that it is impermanent? So this is where the idea comes in that while everything in our field of experience is impermanent, the fundamental ground of being is not. Regarding the prolonged or permanent nature of liberation, it has to do with the fact that the liberation referred to in dzogchen is not related to a subject being liberated from an object or a set of circumstances. It is more related to the sense of individual identity shifting as a consequence of non-dual realization. This is a long term shift. It’s not that one no longer encounters problems but rather that we don’t identify with the subject as strongly so that problems tend to come and go without causing much turbulence. Anyway, just some thoughts on an interesting topic. Thanks for your comments.

If you ever want to discuss my contradiction, please point it out. Perhaps I could learn something that way. Contradictions in spiritual discussion sometimes have a different significance than they do in rational arguments. I have benefited from this guidance from a great poet and teacher. “And if you want a point of departure for this new journey of soul, don't choose an intention, don't choose a prayer, don't choose a therapy, and don't choose a spiritual method. Look inwards and discover a point of contradiction within yourself. Stay faithful to the aura and presence of the contradiction. Hold it gently in your embrace and ask it what it wants to teach you." ~ John O’Donohue

I enjoy the similarity of discussions here and …

My pleasure, I don't mind but also not sure my answers will be satisfying! No, there is no renunciation in dzogchen whatsoever. That said, nearly every practitioner of dzogchen has at some point engaged in sutric or tantric practice, renouncing or committing to samaya vows but none of this is a part of the dzogchen path which is one of radical non-avoidance. No, I don't think it would accurate to say that. To posit an identity of any sort that takes the place of the individual, conditioned identity would be to simply substitute a more sophisticated conceptual identity which would continue the cycle as you point out. From the side of the absolute, there is no need tot fill that space created by the absence of self-identification. From the side of the conceptual mind, we need to fill that gap or we are unable to continue the dialogue, internally or externally. Consequently we can use terms and concepts to describe what is present when the self-identification drops away but these are simply conceptual labels that attempt to communicate characteristics of the ineffable, nothing more. We can list a variety of characteristics but must not mistake them for what they describe. Interestingly, what we describe when we engage in this exercise is not the absolute itself but only the obstacles we experience as a part of our samsaric nature. I hope that makes some sense. Anytime @whocoulditbe? PS - another way to say it is that if there is a sense of me present that is identifying with something, no matter how great or small, there is already subject/object duality present and this is a wrong not the dzogchen view

@liminal_luke and @Daniel I’ll leave it to others to quote Buddha Shakyamuni. I can best speak to the way I’ve been taught to practice and understand dzogchen. Dzogchen is unequivocally rooted in non-avoidance. The view is to be completely open to each and every moment. Consequently, all experience becomes the path. The sutric path is different. Avoidance of actions leading to negative karma is the method - renunciation. Tantric practice does not avoid but rather transforms. Dzogchen is a path of leaving experience just as it is, allowing full engagement and spontaneous liberation. The only thing that is extinguished, or maybe better to say seen through, is the illusion of my existence as a separate and independent agent. And this has to be spontaneous and experiential in nature, not conscious avoidance or denial. When the identification with a limited and separate sense of self is no longer as much of an obstacle, through grace, understanding, or practice, there is a profound and pervasive sense of completeness, of belonging, of being that is often described as great bliss. It is called great because it is unconditional, it is called bliss because there is no limitation or karmic traces related to identification with a separate and limited body and mind. As always this is just my flawed understanding and explanation, ymmv

Be safe my Mexican and Californian friends! ❤️

I haven’t read much of this thread but wanted to comment on this. One error in your argument can be seen in the comments above. Non-duality is not something one escapes into. There is no severing of pain and holding on to joy. Non-duality is not in any way devoid of experience, not at all blank in any sense. These are wrong views. I’m coming from a dzogchen background so I am not referring to nirvana as non-duality. Non-duality embraces both nirvana and samsara in the dzogchen paradigm.

For me, this instruction is inviting me to look inside and to find something in myself that is similar to what I can observe in the natural world around me. It is not overly obvious or explicit, it is subtle and deep. It is something to which I'm often disconnected. It's qualities include spontaneity, purity, and authenticity among others. It cannot be created or destroyed, it cannot be grasped or even named in a meaningful way, but it is very real and the ultimate resource.

I don’t need an amulet for that!

I love this little parable by Anthony Demello on the relationship between spirituality and religion. ”After many years of labour an inventor discovered the art of making fire. He took his tools to the snow-clad northern regions and initiated a tribe into the art — and the advantages — of making fire. The people became so absorbed in this novelty that it did not occur to them to thank the inventor who one day quietly slipped away. Being one of those rare human beings endowed with greatness, he had no desire to be remembered or revered; all he sought was the satisfaction of knowing that someone had benefited from his discovery. The next tribe he went to was just as eager to learn as the first. But the local priests, jealous of the stranger’s hold on the people, had him assassinated. To allay any suspicion of the crime, they had a portrait of the Great Inventor enthroned upon the main altar of the temple; and a liturgy designed so that his name would be revered and his memory kept alive. The greatest care was taken that not a single rubric of the liturgy was altered or omitted. The tools for making (ire were enshrined within a casket and were said to bring healing to all who laid their hands on them with faith. The High Priest himself undertook the task of compiling a Life of the Inventor. This became the Holy book in which his loving kindness was offered as an example for all to emulate, his glorious deeds were eulogized, his superhuman nature made an article of faith. The priests saw to it that the Book was handed down to future generations, while they authoritatively interpreted the meaning of his words and the significance of his holy life and death. And they ruthlessly punished with death or excommunication anyone who deviated from their doctrine. Caught up as they were in these religious tasks, the people completely forgot the art of making fire.”

99.9% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real AND significantly impacted by human behavior, an unprecedented concordance. And their conclusions are in opposition to the interests of the deepest pockets on the planet… About 30-40% of Americans don’t believe them. That lack of belief IMO is directly related to trust. Similar statistics regarding natural selection. People choose their paradigms and are skilled at reifying and defending them.

The question is how many are aware of this?

Unpopular opinion #37: Nearly everything everyone says here is an expression of their own personal condition and experience and has relatively little to do with the outside world.