just_be_hoppy's Friends
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
[Friends View]
Below are the most recent 17 friends' journal entries.
[ << Previous 25 ]
| Monday, November 9th, 2009 |
buddhists
[ nakedmen ]
|
7:32p |
expectations
I've been talking to a lot of depressed people lately. Like a huge, ridiculous amount. Also, the news is always grim, there is anger and hostility everywhere, and even people who you're close to display it and aren't always doing things "in your favor." Even when you do kind things to win them back, it doesn't work. It can seem like there's no place to turn. I thought and came to the conclusion: my expectations are too high. Every single person is suffering. Every single person is in samsara. To expect anything else is wrong. To expect people to see things your way, or the right way, or half way towards the right way, or to act decently, or to act in ways that don't hurt themselves, is untruthful. When Wojtesticles makes ridiculous posts, which disturb people or incidentally entertain some others, he is suffering. When someone bans Wojtesticle, they are suffering. When someone likes it, they are suffering. When someone dislikes it, they are suffering. To expect anyone to be anything above that, to expect anyone to be excellent, to be anything of a high expectation, is wrong and not truthful. To have expectations of anyone beyond the fact that they are suffering, is untruthful. When someone is hostile, or depressed, or doesn't respect your wishes or feelings, or doesn't listen to advice, or gives you attitude when you try hard to give advice humbly, what do you expect? To expect anything else is not truthful. Rise to the occasion. See it with compassion, work towards enlightenment to benefit all beings. That is thinking that helped me today, maybe it will be useless to anyone else. |
buddhists
[ yukontodd ]
|
11:42a |
Thinking about "insane" folks lately, how they make us uncomfortable, and what we do with them.
Ever watch FOX news? How about that guy on there who likes to cry on cue, calls Obama a racist and compares him to Hitler? Actually lots of folks on FOX news like to compare him to Hitler. Anyhow. People choose to watch that because they like to think that's real. Sane people. Yes, indeed, unless half of the USA is insane, which, according to the prevailing view, would be impossible: people happily clinging to a norm are quite fine. It's people who have trouble with FOX news that need psychiatric help. Wait, though, it's still almost half of Americans that dislike FOX news! SO they're clinging to a norm, too! So, is it clash of FOX news followers vs. FOX news haters in a war fought on the airwaves to decide the prevailing view of reality which shall be hereafter called the norm, which we will all, in the end, agree with? If so, we'd all better get yelling at each other! Which is what 80% of Americans seem to think, as I watch from a comfortable distance in Canada's north. Maybe it's just how TV shows it. Probably is. How many Americans also only really know about America through TV though? And, since I think that both halves of America (or rather both 40 percents of America) on the FOX news crises are barking mad, making me and the left-over 20% of Americans who feel similarily and don't really give a damn one way or the other over FOX news except to hope people stop giving such a damn one way or the other over FOX news ... me and that 20%, are we gonna end up locked up, drugged up, shut-up, so that the norms can keep going batshit over ratshit? Well, that's the way it goes, isn't it? The Stupid Way posted the story about the monkey with two eyes. Here: http://thestupidway.blogspot.com/2009/11/tale-of-two-eyed-monkey.html |
| Sunday, November 8th, 2009 |
buddhists
[ okmyturn ]
|
11:27p |
|
| Saturday, November 7th, 2009 |
buddhists
[ sublimevisions ]
|
6:10p |
eSangha
this place is supposed to be a sangha of sorts, right? if the sanga could be loosely considered an electronic billboard. Until I am enlightened,
I go for refuge to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.
Through the virtue I create by practising giving and the other perfections,
may I become a Buddha to benefit all sentient beings. I really love this one. it's just so basic.. ya know? |
| Friday, November 6th, 2009 |
buddhists
[ owl_clan ]
|
7:40p |
China... is so out of touch
The Chinese government actually believes that it is going to be allowed to choose the next Dalai Lama, by finding and promoting his reincarnation. You have got to be kidding me. Any Tibetan Buddhist (or Buddhist otherwise) with more than eleven brain cells would never accept that. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091106/ap_on_re_as/as_india_chinaHas China never considered... the utter asinine transparency of declaring themselves Atheist, being violently oppressive to many, and thinking that others will trust them to make religious decisions for a religion they've excoriated and persecuted for decades? |
| Thursday, November 5th, 2009 |
buddhists
[ yukontodd ]
|
8:59p |
|
buddhists
[ jajunk ]
|
10:04p |
|
buddhists
[ owl_clan ]
|
4:07p |
Retrospective Knowledge
Yeah, this is a big compassion fail, but whatever. When Buddha was awakened, it is said, he gained retrocognition of all of his previous existences in various states of life, in the many worlds. He recalled being animals, hell-beings, other humans, etc. It makes me wonder; did he recall being a jackass human being who was a fanatical member of some religious sect that beat their holy book in other people's faces and condemned the rest of the world that wasn't just like them in belief to some hell? He must have. Such people have always existed; an ancient book of no less stature than the Bhagavad Gita discusses such people, saying "There are men who have no spiritual vision and yet they speak about my spirit as they follow every word of their chosen scriptures, and they say, “there is no other truth than this”. Their thoughts are darkened by selfish desires; their heaven is a selfish desire; they pray for pleasures, possessions, and power; but the reward of this is an earthly rebirth. Only when their minds are free from such delusions, free from the contradictions of aging scriptures, in true divine contemplation, their understanding will grow beyond the limits of ancient scriptures and even scriptures yet to come."The reason why I wonder is because I deal with the worst of the worst Christian fundamentalists every day. Talk about an exercise in developing compassion! The trouble is, it usually just makes me into a bigger asshole, which is fine. I never claimed to be a saint or a role-model. And I wonder if Buddha realized, at that golden timeless moment, what a deluded creep he had been, countless times over. We've all, technically speaking (or should I say "Buddhistly speaking") been earthworms countless times, as well as fundies, other animals, saints, gods, humans, hungry spirits, and hell beings. Time really doesn't enter into this picture; just possibilities of mind. The further reason why I wonder this is because I really, really want to think that the fundy jackasses I know now will realize, at very distant moment of their full enlightenment, how epically wrong they were about everything. You see, I try to speak reason and even compassion to them at times- granted, more reason than compassion- but I get nowhere. You can't reach some people. And that's fine. I'm pretty unreachable myself in some ways. And these debate partners of mine are going to remain entrenched in their savage delusions and then die. They are escaping my wrath and our debates in death! And they'll arise again, gods know where, gods know why, without any memories of these fine times we all had arguing over ridiculous shit. They'll escape these cursed times- times that their delusions helped to curse- and be reborn somewhere else. And this will go on and on and on for countless kalpas, until they gain enlightenment (through some twist of fate). I hope, if we all have to wait that long, that "Retrocognition" is real, and then, I shall be vindicated. I, and all people who have ever had to suffer under their delusions. That's right. I've found a way to use enlightenment to continue my petty struggles with people over bullshit. But the problem is, it isn't just bullshit. These deluded perspectives I'm facing- and you're facing- are the root of nearly all our suffering today. And, as the Bhagavad Gita would indicate, a lot of suffering in the past. Sure, let's say that all of these new Buddhas will be like "Oh crap, I was a dickhead all those millenia ago..." that's enough. I know they won't suffer shame or guilt over it, because being Buddhas, they'll see the emptiness of it all. But just the retrocognitive knowledge will be enough. I'll finally be able to take these pricks off of my millenial "ban" list. |
| Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009 |
buddhists
[ nakedmen ]
|
3:20p |
speech
"Speaking or not should depend always on your motivation and the readiness of the listener. Speak for the benefit of the listener and not your ego, always. Whatever you say or communicate should benefit the other. If your communications are not beneficial, you're speaking from a place of hiding. Critics show their true intentions by what they criticize you on. Listen to their criticism to know what they're missing in their lives. If a person has never met you, but they comment on you negatively, they must be psychic or just plain angry. Forgive. If you criticize anyone, make sure you're better than them. But if you criticize, are you better?" - Tsem Tulku Rinpoche [compiled from his Twitter page, 20 hours ago] Particularly relevant to communicating on the internet, I thought. |
| Monday, November 2nd, 2009 |
buddhists
[ owl_clan ]
|
10:01a |
The Zen of Meat Eating
Dharma master Zhi seeing Dharma master Yuan accepting alms in the butcher's street asked him: "Didn't you see the butchers slaughtering sheep?" Dharma master Yuan answered: "My eyes aren't blind, so how could I not see them?" Dharma master Zhi insisted: "So you admit having seen them!" Dharma master Yuan replied: "But you keep seing them even now..." |
| Sunday, November 1st, 2009 |
buddhists
[ nakedmen ]
|
9:48p |
E-Sangha
Just curious, but does anyone know why e-Sangha is down? Or did the site move? Thanks. |
buddhists
[ ocha_no_hanashi ]
|
4:00p |
Some Thoughts on Buddhology
Buddhology is still a very small field in the English speaking world. Even here in Asia while the quantity of research is larger, there still remains a great amount of unexplored areas that nobody really touches for various reasons. This is due to the fact that Buddhist Studies as a specific field has only really been around for at most one hundred years even in Japan. Unfortunately, there is a sharp division between the researcher of Buddhism and the practitioner-scholar. The secular scholars have their viewpoints which are generally thought of, at least by those occupying that circle, as more objective than those of the Buddhist scholars of Buddhism. On the reverse, the Buddhists can easily make the claim that their research is often backed up by actual experience and thus having that point of reference makes their conclusions all the more valid and worthy of consideration. It isn't just armchair intellectuals discussing what samadhi is -- it is Buddhist scholars who have spent many years regularly meditating and have a point of reference from which to discuss samadhi. This is not unlike other fields. For example, one might be a keen researcher of Medieval European armour, but hobbyist blacksmith who makes armour by hand with wrought iron has that much more to say about the how and why because he has the experience of actually constructing armour. So, in Buddhology which is preferable? To have secular scholars describe the evolution of the Buddhadharma over the ages or scholar monks describing various subjects from their orthodox perspective? I think both are valid and should be recognized. I think if we are describing an actual practice, then firsthand knowledge is obviously desirable. On the other hand, we need to as much as possible objectively examine and trace the evolution of certain strains of thought and perhaps recognize and re-evaluate how the traditional histories often go against the larger history we have come to understand. For example, the actual physical origins of various sutra and so on are often discussed. So, if a well known sutra was composed in China, it might go against centuries of common knowledge that posited the text was a translation of a Sanskrit sutra. On the other hand, the faithful Buddhist can assert that the sutra, while not spoken by Shakyamuni Buddha, was a teaching given by the dharmakaya and thus represents the truth just as much as those sermons given by the Blessed One. The Buddha's words are not limited to a single individual man, so it might be said. Anyway, it just seems to me that there is a notable division between the secular scholars of Buddhism, both in the east and in the west, and Buddhists. The later make use of the former's works for their own religious purposes while ironically some of the secular scholars publicly criticize the Buddha's teachings. One day you use their translation of a text and take it to heart, and the next day you read an article by them complaining about certain aspects of Buddhism that they find displeasing and disagreeable. |
| Saturday, October 31st, 2009 |
buddhists
[ owl_clan ]
|
1:54a |
Towards a Criteria for Debating Vegetarianism and Dharma
After watching this community fall into conflict numerous times with regard to the discussion on vegetarian and vegan lifestyles and their relationship to "Dharmic living", I thought I'd suggest a few salient points that might help us all in the future. This is me trying to be ecumenical and even-handed. Note that I said "trying". I hope that we can all agree, to some extent on the following points, and that they will inform our future discussions on this contentious, emotional topic.
* * *
1. It is perfectly clear that our lifestyle choices say a lot about us, and a life touched by the Dharma, even to a small extent, will reflect some sort of change in lifestyle- even if it is a minor change in perspective which conditions how we think. "Thinking" is, after all, a part of living. 2. It is clear that Buddhists from all time periods have experienced a revision of thinking and living which came to include how we perceive our relationship to both human and non-human beings, including animals. Animals are clearly "sentient beings" by the Buddhist definition of the term; this is beyond argument, really, for Buddhists. 3. Even though the Buddha himself and the original Sangha ate meat (perhaps out of expediency) traditions of dietary restriction- up to and including the avoidance of eating meat- have existed in the Buddhist world, just as they existed in the parallel Brahmanist world (and in other parts of the ancient world) for a very long time. 4. As traditions and schools of Buddhism developed- multiple manifestations of the Dharma- various traditions gave varying degrees of focus to diet and dietary restrictions. There is no one "standardized" teaching on diet that can be found across all Buddhist schools of thinking, from all periods in history. As is the case with Buddhism as a whole, these teachings vary from place to place, time to time. There is no modern consensus among Buddhists in all parts of the world regarding diet. While a fixation on compassion is mandated and maintained by all Buddhist traditions, the particulars of that compassion's expression in various fields of life are different. 5. It is clear that a healthy and balanced vegetarian lifestyle, consciously chosen as an expression of one person's highest ideals of compassion, cannot be a bad thing. 6. But it is equally clear that the grounds for making the decision to omit meat or animal products from one's diet cannot come on the heels of scorn or insult or negative pressures from others. As an example, I would like to point out that Buddhism teaches, in a general and widespread way that what we normally think of as a "self"- an enduring and eternalist "self" which most people dearly believe in- is not a part of reality beyond our deluded conceptions. This is a very difficult doctrine to grasp and understand; but those who direct their contemplations in a prescribed way towards the dissolution of this delusion, bolstered by compassionate support from wise and attained Sangha members, nearly always reach the conclusion on their own that, indeed, the "self" of the eternalists does not exist, and never did. No one comes to the conclusion that this "self" doesn't exist through being attacked and aggressively criticized or mocked for their initial belief in it. 7. Just so, those who do not understand the deeper grounds for giving up the consumption of meat (if there truly are any) will not be converted to a vegetarian lifestyle by the verbal battery of people who have become vegetarian. 8. It is said that "Truth will out"- if a principle of thinking and living is True- True according to the Dharma, or the "universal way of things as they are"- then this truth will conquer; it will become known and accepted, though none can really "hurry" this process. If it is true that consumption of meat is a great evil that creates hell states of terrible potency, then this fact will become apparent to those who make an honest, searching meditative exploration of it. Like Buddha's initial Turning of the Wheel of Dharma, the impact of these spiritual transformations will not be sudden or overnight. But they will arrive, in time. Nothing can change the speed of this awareness; it plays out in accordance with the laws of awakening, which are not written by human beings. 9. It is not enough to point out that "this or that teacher", who supposedly realized the Dharmic truth of vegetarianism, has said "this or that" about it. Like all of the deepest realizations of truth, it must be attained by the individual in meditation and discipline. A trusted teacher's words can give comfort, guidance, hope, and faith, but they cannot grant certainty by any means. Not by others are defilements removed, but by one's own efforts. Your faith in your teacher is commendable, but it is not and will never be shared by all other Buddhists. This diversity and plurality within the tradition is a good thing, as will be pointed out again in point 11. 10. It is a well-established fact that countless Buddhists from all over the world and from nearly every school of Buddhist thought eat meat. Northern Buddhists of the Mahayana traditions, especially, eat meat, as a result of their traditional cultures and other factors such as living conditions, demands of environment, and climate. This includes ordained Sangha members. No amount of wishful thinking can change this fact, nor the fact that the Buddha himself ate meat, after his enlightenment. It is useless, on many levels, to criticize others as being "not Buddhist" or "less Buddhist" or "hell bound" on the basis of their choice to eat meat. It is also arguably against the ideals of patience and compassion that represent the best aspects of Buddhist Dharma. 11. It is equally as well established that certain Buddhists from all traditions- including ordained Sangha members- are vegetarian. Some traditions have created an enormous scriptural justification for vegetarianism. Some have not. There is no "ruling body" of Buddhist authorities to mediate these differences or make declarations on who is "right" for all Buddhists- and thank the Gods for that, because Buddhism remains capable of meeting the needs of many people, perhaps all people, through this decentralized reality of its existence. It can be the true "great vehicle" of enlightenment that has the power to bring about positive transformations in the lives of many. 12. There is no actual conflict in the dietary differences among Buddhists, nor implied judgments, and the only reason we see so much tension and conflict in a group like Livejournal Buddhists is because we are mostly inculcated with idealized and extreme Western notions of what vegetarianism/veganism is, and how it should relate to our lives as well as to other cultures- and how it should relate to Buddhism as we have come to know it in the west. In the West, vegetarian/vegan lifestyles are often (nearly always) parallel to political positions and lifestyle positions that have deep and radical social implications- perhaps much deeper and more radically apparent than in older Eastern cultures that also have similar lifestyles. People who forget this tend introduce an element of conflict where one need not exist. Our two worlds, East and West, take different things for granted, and approach these issues from different angles. 13. At all times, a dialogue between vegetarian/vegan Buddhists and Buddhists who eat meat should include a central element of respect for the fact that each person is different, conditioned to approach these choices about living by radically different karmic histories and backgrounds. That defilement and delusions exist on both sides of this debate is without a doubt; all people debating on Livejournal are sentient beings, struggling at various levels to attain unshakable freedom of mind and freedom from suffering. Sharing one's perspective is always welcome; but if debaters on either side of the fence truly believe in the Buddhist way, then compassion must rule their words and discussions. There is no other way to make meaningful progress forward. 14. Using emotional and inaccurate phrases like "murder" when discussing the death of an animal which is to be used as food is not compassionate or skillful- murder is a legalistic term, specific to various legal codes in different cultures, and not a universal term for the killing of a sentient being. The implication that those who eat meat, or participate in the process of the creation and sale of animal products, are "murderers" is supremely unskillful. However, it is worth stating that the deep concern for the well-being of animals is commendable, not a weakness or an error. But the way forward to a satisfying conclusion for all sentient beings involved in this debate is not through emotional language or veiled implications. The unskillful use of language only reveals attachments and defilements, thus harming the speaker and diminishing their own ability to help others to see whatever truths they dearly believe in. If those truths are legitimate, they will be sustained by that fact, or sustained by the Dharma itself. If they are not, if they have always been based on attachments and delusions, then they will cease in time naturally. Principles upheld by the Dharma alone are inexhaustible. |
buddhists
[ ocha_no_hanashi ]
|
12:00a |
What is the meaning of your life right now? |
| Thursday, October 29th, 2009 |
buddhists
[ funnel101 ]
|
11:43a |
Compassion Fail
One of these days I'll be compassionate enough to hear something like "I can't believe I'll never be a runner again" and not immediately think "At least she knows what it feels like to have been a runner". Or at least to not respond with "I'm sorry to hear that, but I've never been a runner and never will be." But I'm not there yet. Current Mood:  disappointed |
buddhists
[ qwertyuiop321 ]
|
12:21a |
visualizations
So the only real meditation experience I have is with zazen and some vipassana. I have always been interested in Tibetan visualization meditations, but have never been able to find out anything about them really. Does anyone know of where I can find some good instruction for some of these? Thanks! -Mike Cross posted from TibetanBuddhism, so I'm sorry if any of you are seeing this twice. |
| Wednesday, October 28th, 2009 |
buddhists
[ owl_clan ]
|
12:10a |
Missionfdfe (A poem I wrote in free verse to express myself tonight after my self expression class)
Missionaries BANG! *chik chak* BANG! *chik chak* BANG *plinking of spent shells falling to the ground* Fucking shiny happy white girl missionaries BANG! *chik chak* BANG! *chik chak* BANG *plinking of spent shells falling to the ground* 17 and 18 year old over-privileged know-it-all shiny happy white girl missionaries BANG! *chik chak* BANG! *chik chak* BANG *plinking of spent shells falling to the ground* Shiny little christian beeyotches telling ancient and wise foreign cultures that they need to give up their ignorant, satanic ways for Jesus BANG! *chik chak* BANG! *chik chak* BANG *plinking of spent shells falling to the ground* Missionary work to Catholic Countries? Telling Catholics about JESUS? BANG! *chik chak* BANG! *chik chak* BANG *plinking of spent shells falling to the ground* |
[ << Previous 25 ]
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
just_be_hoppy's Friends Page