Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, ilumairen said:


I have had a few of those, “what was I thinking?” moments..

 

One of which involved me drinking too much and crashing at a male friend’s house, only to have his ex girlfriend (with her child in her arms) show up and start kicking the door at O’ holy hang over a.m. I actually heard the door crack from the force of the kicks before he finally answered it, and I briefly went back to sleep - only to be awoken by her saying something about cutting his heart out. I mumbled a resigned “aww shit” to myself as I got up, and wandered into the kitchen where she had her infant (which wasn’t his) on her hip, and a butcher knife in her other hand. 
 

What did I do? 

 

I said, “not in front of the baby,” and held my hands out to take her.. the baby leaned towards me, mom handed her over, and we went into the living room.. leaving angry/crazy ex with the knife and him to work out whatever the hell madness they were working on.

 

Eventually they wandered together into the living room where me and the kid were chilling on the couch, and she had a long chat with me about all the things that were bothering her.
 

Yeah, he wasn’t real happy with me leaving her with the knife and all.. but it worked out.

 

Regarding situations like this, I used to tell people I wasn’t smart enough to be afraid.. much easier than trying to explain..

 

In parts of Indonesia it isnt that rare for an angry person to use a knife . They might wave it around, they might threaten someone with it , they might even stab a bit in someone's bum, or even cut themself on the arm . A rather pacifist friend of mine was horrified . The locals asked ' What's your problem ? Its only a bit of blood ." But one day it went very different , not even a knife involved but  a couple was arguing  and it got physical but the man had a baby in his arms .  The locals all immediately surrounded them  , one grabbed the baby and took it away while others stopped the fight  and then they got a multiple person scolding about fighting  with  child involved .  They stopped immediately and looked shamefully at the ground and after that the baby was returned .

 

So , congratulations on taking an action of   'first importance '  . 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, old3bob said:

some tangents people might want to kick around:

 

fear of the unknown

"what you fear shall come upon you"

a leap of faith greater than the fear to do so

"Fear not"

dare devils risking death to feel alive

"nothing to fear but fear itself"

"the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom"

malice and greed are linked to fear

stop feeding your fear

 

 

 

 

One of those I will  ' kick around '   :

 

"the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom"

 

 

Like this

 

 

image.png.5f280ef45b87c7230d57c87d334ba807.png

 

and this

 

image.png.7f6670558f8f9d30176f15ab50605d25.png

 

 

and this 

 

image.png.97a9d56344b3c6bd60c5bfe284e808f1.png

 

 

and  this

 

image.thumb.png.336e20d9ee3ed9f128e17b827c1204ed.png

 

 

Edited by Nungali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Piyadasi said:

more Qi = more potential for the acquired mind/defilements to get out of control?


Yup - that’s one side... Particularly for the jhanic approaches which generate a lot of Qi as a byproduct of their concentration (as you mentioned the Buddhist take on this)

 

Another side is that as certain emotional reactivity is broken down, the ‘protective’ mechanism of the emotions is no longer present.

 

Imagine if you felt no guilt or shame or empathy - and you had no moral compass... that’s basically a psychopath right? Well that’s what happens at certain stages of Xing work.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, freeform said:

Yup - that’s one side... Particularly for the jhanic approaches which generate a lot of Qi as a byproduct of their concentration (as you mentioned the Buddhist take on this)

 

Another side is that as certain emotional reactivity is broken down, the ‘protective’ mechanism of the emotions is no longer present.

 

Imagine if you felt no guilt or shame or empathy - and you had no moral compass... that’s basically a psychopath right? Well that’s what happens at certain stages of Xing work.


I see, thank you. Very interesting question to me.

So this tendency would carry on into the next life then I assume? Even if you don't act out of line with virtue, would there be a danger that you might in the next life? That's why completing certain processes in the life you started them in is important?

Am I understanding this point right?

Is there a way of working that still gets to the highest goals but doesn't contain these dangers?

If yes, are these the older styles of practicing that are not really 'tantric' in nature? Though it seems even without direct energy work, just from concentration the danger also does arise.. so maybe not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Piyadasi said:

So this tendency would carry on into the next life then I assume?


that I’m not sure about.

 

3 minutes ago, Piyadasi said:

Even if you don't act out of line with virtue, would there be a danger that you might in the next life?


From what I understand it’s your actions that count.
 

So even if you have complete disregard for fellow beings, but treat them kindly - that still results in positive or neutral karma.

 

And conversely if you feel an outpouring of love and compassion for all beings, but then use them to satisfy your desires in some way (for sex, money, power) - then you generate negative karma.

 

Thats what I’ve been told. I certainly don’t understand the full depth of karma and Ming - it seems like such a deeply profound subject...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, freeform said:


that I’m not sure about.

 


From what I understand it’s your actions that count.
 

So even if you have complete disregard for fellow beings, but treat them kindly - that still results in positive or neutral karma.

 

And conversely if you feel an outpouring of love and compassion for all beings, but then use them to satisfy your desires in some way (for sex, money, power) - then you generate negative karma.

 

Thats what I’ve been told. I certainly don’t understand the full depth of karma and Ming - it seems like such a deeply profound subject...

 

The Buddha taught that there are basically three kinds of karma and they are all the results of intentional action. 

 

There is the karma of actions, the karma of speech, and the karma of thoughts. Each one is progressively more subtle. 

 

The grossest karma is the karma of actions. So if you kill someone or steal something for example this would be the karma of actions and is the most weighty.

 

Then there is the karma of speech. This is more subtle than the karma of actions. For example, the Buddha said the karma of killing someone is to have a shorter life span, or the karma of harming others is to have bad health. The karma of saying disrespectful things on the other hand is to not have much respect or influence. Still a serious matter but not as gross as life span or health. 

 

The most subtle form of karma of all is the karma of thoughts. Thoughts such as greed or envy poison the mind and increase delusion thus making liberation more difficult, but don't have the effect of shortening the life span or reducing one's influence unless of course one acts on such thoughts in a more obvious way. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dmattwads said:

 

The grossest karma is the karma of actions. So if you kill someone or steal something for example this would be the karma of actions and is the most weighty.

 


What are your thoughts regarding tales of killing which leaves no karmic trace?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

The grossest karma is the karma of actions. So if you kill someone or steal something for example this would be the karma of actions and is the most weighty.

 

Karma literally means "action". Are you sure that the Buddha said anything about the "karma" of actions? Or did he mean something else?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ilumairen said:


What are your thoughts regarding tales of killing which leaves no karmic trace?

 

Since karma is created by volitional acts, killing that involves no volition would have no karma. For example, if you are walking down the sidewalk and you accidentally step on a bug and kill it but you have no idea that you even did it or were about to do it, then there would be no karma created in such a situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dwai said:

Karma literally means "action". Are you sure that the Buddha said anything about the "karma" of actions? Or did he mean something else?

 

 

You are correct, technically I should have specified "bodily actions" 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ilumairen said:


What are your thoughts regarding tales of killing which leaves no karmic trace?

 

In Hinduism, there is the general body of Dharma (the right way to live), and there is the concept of svadharma (personal dharma). When one abides by the general dharma and lives by their personal dharma, that is considered good karma. Go against it, and it is considered bad karma. 

 

The personal dharma of a warrior is to defend the weak, protect the nation; the personal dharma of a doctor is to heal wherever he/she sees the sick and suffering; the personal dharma of a scholar is to develop his/her intellect and disseminate knowledge without seeking disproportionate compensation and so on. 

 

Due to that reason, in the Bhagavad Gita, which is in essence Lord Krishna's teachings to the warrior Arjuna in the midst of a massive battlefield, Arjuna is told to take up arms against even his own relatives in order to uphold dharma. In Hinduism, it is said, "Ahimsa paramo dharma, dharma rakshā tathaiva cha", meaning, "Nonviolence is the greatest dharma, as well as violence if it is for the protection of dharma". 

 

When one has truly given up the sense of doership, then they no longer are bound by the rules of karma. And that's why Lord Krishna urges Arjuna to fight without fear of consequences (Karma) by realizing that he is not the doer at all and that he is on the side of dharma. And by that same token, even though the warriors on the other side did not side with the general body of dharma, and fought in the war (losing side), they earned positive karma for living by their personal dharma of being warriors. 

Edited by dwai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dwai said:

 

In Hinduism, there is the general body of Dharma (the right way to live), and there is the concept of svadharma (personal dharma). When one abides by the general dharma and lives by their personal dharma, that is considered good karma. Go against it, and it is considered bad karma. 

 

The personal dharma of a warrior is to defend the weak, protect the nation; the personal dharma of a doctor is to heal wherever he/she sees the sick and suffering; the personal dharma of a scholar is to develop his/her intellect and disseminate knowledge without seeking disproportionate compensation and so on. 

 

Due to that reason, in the Bhagavad Gita, which is in essence Lord Krishna's teachings to the warrior Arjuna in the midst of a massive battlefield, Arjuna is told to take up arms against even his own relatives in order to uphold dharma. In Hinduism, it is said, "Ahimsa paramodharma, dharma rakshā tathaiva cha", meaning, "Nonviolence is the greatest dharma, as well as violence if it is for the protection of dharma". 

 

When one has truly given up the sense of doership, then they no longer are bound by the rules of karma. And that's why Lord Krishna urges Arjuna to fight without fear of consequences (Karma) by realizing that he is not the doer at all, and that he is on the side of dharma. 

 

That is a good point. I've always found it curious that when the Buddha is defining the things that count as "wrong livelihood" he does not mention being a soldier. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

In Hinduism, there is the general body of Dharma (the right way to live), and there is the concept of svadharma (personal dharma). When one abides by the general dharma and lives by their personal dharma, that is considered good karma. Go against it, and it is considered bad karma. 

 

The personal dharma of a warrior is to defend the weak, protect the nation; the personal dharma of a doctor is to heal wherever he/she sees the sick and suffering; the personal dharma of a scholar is to develop his/her intellect and disseminate knowledge without seeking disproportionate compensation and so on. 

 

Due to that reason, in the Bhagavad Gita, which is in essence Lord Krishna's teachings to the warrior Arjuna in the midst of a massive battlefield, Arjuna is told to take up arms against even his own relatives in order to uphold dharma. In Hinduism, it is said, "Ahimsa paramodharma, dharma rakshā tathaiva cha", meaning, "Nonviolence is the greatest dharma, as well as violence if it is for the protection of dharma".

 

When one has truly given up the sense of doership, then they no longer are bound by the rules of karma. And that's why Lord Krishna urges Arjuna to fight without fear of consequences (Karma) by realizing that he is not the doer at all, and that he is on the side of dharma. 


Thank you for the reply.

 

I would like it if you shared more regarding the quote I bolded, and explained how this is somehow different than a fundamentalist/extremist view.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ilumairen said:


Thank you for the reply.

 

I would like it if you shared more regarding the quote I bolded, and explained how this is somehow different than a fundamentalist/extremist view.

 

Not that I'm very knowledgeable about Hinduism but I think this is one of the main points of the Gita. If interested I would suggest reading it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ilumairen said:


Thank you for the reply.

 

I would like it if you shared more regarding the quote I bolded, and explained how this is somehow different than a fundamentalist/extremist view.

The difference is in knowing what is Dharma and what is not. Dharma is not the propagation of a religion -- By that token, phenomena like Crusades, Jihad, etc would be against Dharma

 

  • Dharma is maintaining the correct way to live, as a society and as an individual.
  • The correct way to live as a society is one
    • which is just
    • which provides certain freedom to its citizens
      • the freedom to choose their personal religion (or none if that is how they wish to live)
      • The freedom to love and live with any partner of their choice
      • The freedom to practice a profession that is appropriate for their temperament and ability
      • the freedom to seek appropriate education
    • Where crime is appropriately dealt with
    • where the citizens live in harmony with nature
  • On the individual front, the person doesn't act contrary to their profession
    • Doctors don't hoard wealth and don't seek disproportionate compensation for their services
    • Warriors don't turn on the innocent and terrorize populations outside the context of a just war/engagement
    • Teachers open-heartedly disseminate their knowledge without seeking disproportionate compensation
    • Everyone in their respective profession doesn't do it to seek compensation disproportionate to the service being offered, and offer services to every citizen irrespective of their social status. 

These are just a small list I could think off the top of my head. Of course, no society can exactly live up to these standards, but the effort should be ongoing to do so. 

 

In the Hindu context, Dharma involves four pillars of human endeavor (called the four purushārthas) --

 

  • Dharma - the correct choices to make as an individual
  • Artha - acquisition of enough personal wealth so that they can fuel the ultimate objective, keeping dharma as the guiding light
  • Kama - The healthy fulfillment of sensual experiences, keeping dharma as the guiding light 
  • * Moksha - liberation or spiritual enlightenment (this is the ultimate objective) 

 

This calls for the following of the four stations of live (called varna ashrama dharma) --

 

  • Brahmacharya -- celibacy during formative years of acquiring appropriate knowledge
  • Grihastha -- Life of a householder, contributing to society and producing progeny and imbibing in them a love for dharma and the dharmic way of life
  • Vanaprastha -- After the progeny come of age, the parents must retire to a forest-dwellers life, living amidst nature and studying and contemplating on the next phase of life that needs to start, i.e., towards spiritual empanication
  • Sanyasa -- Renunciation of the samsara (mundane world) and seeking out moksha or liberation.

 

 

Edited by dwai
Updated a few grammar, formatting things
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

 

Not that I'm very knowledgeable about Hinduism but I think this is one of the main points of the Gita. If interested I would suggest reading it. 


I have read it (first as a grade-school aged child, and used to carry a small copy with me when traveling), and I am simply feeling conversational today. 

 

Dwai has been conversing with me for some years now, and has generally been quite open (and rather welcoming) to whatever queries I make, and this is most appreciated on my part.

 

Edited by ilumairen
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ilumairen said:


I have read it (first as a grade-school aged child, and used to carry a small copy with me when traveling), and I am simply feeling conversational today. 

 

Dwai has been conversing with me for some years now, and has generally been quite open (and rather welcoming) to whatever queries I make, and this is most appreciated on my part.

 

 

Oh I see. I find it impressive as an elementary school age child you were reading the Bhagavad Gita. 😌

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dmattwads said:

 

Oh I see. I find it impressive as an elementary school age child you were reading the Bhagavad Gita. 😌


I was precocious, and my father allowed me to read (almost) anything I wanted out of the library he maintained in our home. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take refuge in the Buddha the Dharma and Sangha- 

just is not my language.

it doesnt honor my lifes canvas completely.

I had to retrace steps to Christianity and make my way. my way includes partaking in religion of Orthodox faith.

responding to the black. didnt read anything else on fear

and like poetry I think it would be difficult to discuss fear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by sagebrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sagebrush said:

I take refuge in the Buddha the Dharma and Sangha- 

just is not my language. it doesnt honor my lifes canvas completely.

I had to retrace steps to Christianity and make my way.

 

try hard not to be poured in cement

 

 

 

 

 

I'm glad it works for you, but have no not considered that Christianity has a "Buddha" (one who has transcended) a "dhamma" (teachings) and a "sangha" (church/community)?

Edited by dmattwads
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

 

I'm glad it works for you, but have no not considered that Christianity has a "Buddha" (one who has transcended) a "dhamma" (teachings) and a "sangha" (church/community)?

 

it works against me actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, sagebrush said:

 

it works against me actually.


I think perhaps there may be a misunderstanding here.

 

As a Christian, you have Christ, teachings (the words of Christ, the Bible, the clergy and their teachings (of whatever denomination/variety)), and the Church you attend.

 

This is then (as I understood it) being equated as, 

 

Taking refuge in:

 

One who has transcended, I.e. the Buddha and Christ.

 

The teachings of these transcended beings i.e. (a) dharma.

 

And the supportive societal structure of like-minded followers/believers/adherents/practioners i.e. (a) sangha 

 

(And if you were Catholic or some other variation which believes in Saints, they would be included in the idea of sangha (like the boddhisattvas), and also a source of refuge/petition/contemplation/prayer.)


So what is it that “works against” you?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2020 at 12:49 PM, anshino23 said:

 

This begs the question - how then do you "die before you die"? :) 

 

 

Yes.  Fear dies when ego is diminished and the connection to the whole is realized.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

 

I'm confused, does Christianity work or not work for you?

 

 

It seems to me that any 'ism' at all is limiting by its own dogma.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites