Guest guest Posted January 15, 2001 Report Share Posted January 15, 2001 My last post, the web is too slow tonight. Jerry, During WWII, many ugly things were said of many people, many people died for rumors and less. I find it exceptionally difficult to believe that from what I have seen and read of HRH Dalai Lama that he would endorse violence in any form. Don't you find this totally antithetical to everything you know and have seen of him? Any film, newsprint and quotes can be edited. As my grandfather, a pacifist, once said when someone was repeating slander about him, "oh well, then at least they are leaving someone else alone." I would think deeply on whether or not the *facts* presented align themselves harmoniously with what you have read, know and your intuition. I think it is impossible for the Dalai Lama to endorse violence. Love*Light, ~ bo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2001 Report Share Posted January 15, 2001 Wise grandfather!!! Sounds like a cool guy! Love, --Greg At 11:30 PM 1/15/01 -0000, Rainbolily wrote: >As my grandfather, a pacifist, once said when someone >was repeating slander about him, "oh well, then at >least they are leaving someone else alone." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2001 Report Share Posted January 16, 2001 Dear ~ bo, Jerry >I think it is impossible for the Dalai Lama >to endorse violence.I agree. Am sure he tries to talk the political Tibetans out of it. The articles and TV documentary seemed to be 2 to 3 years old and the various webpages as well. Also Jerry, I wonder what the state of affairs is now. These Tibetans that are with you, is there anything you can do "mutual compassion" wise? We sponsored a young monk from the Tibetan Dzonkar Ghode Monastery near Mysore, I believe they are also involved. My wife visited there, she will be back this Thursday, I'll ask her how it affected them. Love, Wim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2001 Report Share Posted January 16, 2001 Hello: Nothing is "impossible." Unless you know him personally and have lived with him, or anyone else for that matter, don't assume you know him. Everyone, I repeat, everyone has a shadow. Mark Dear ~ bo, Jerry >I think it is impossible for the Dalai Lama >to endorse violence. I agree. Am sure he tries to talk the political Tibetans out of it. The articles and TV documentary seemed to be 2 to 3 years old and the various webpages as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2001 Report Share Posted January 16, 2001 Hi Mark: You wrote: >Everyone, I repeat, >everyone has a shadow. True enough, The past is not a good model for the future though, that never works. Love,Wim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2001 Report Share Posted January 16, 2001 Wim: The past? Mark Hi Mark: You wrote: >Everyone, I repeat, >everyone has a shadow. True enough, The past is not a good model for the future though, that never works. Love,Wim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2001 Report Share Posted January 16, 2001 On 1/16/01 at 6:31 AM Milarepa wrote: º[...] Everyone, I ºrepeat, ºeveryone ºhas a shadow. º ºMark Photons don't cast a shadow - there is nothing to illuminate them... Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2001 Report Share Posted January 16, 2001 Dear Mark (Milarepa), You wrote: >Everyone, I repeat, >everyone has a shadow. I wrote: >The past is not a good model >for the future..., that never works. You wrote: >The past? Mark, I'm known for long posts, but maybe I can keep this one short. As I said, it does not work, it will not, it can not, it has not worked. Just like the future... The past, the future, even 'now' is all conceptual. ALL THIS IS... IS some form or another of pure energy, ... (Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara in the Heart Sutra) You talked about 'shadow' That somehow refers to light does it not...? As primal energy PLAYS its mysteries, it somehow breaks its SELF up, refracts, diffracts, transforms into this wonderful something that YOU and I apparently experience as life in all its forms and manifestations. As IT does that manifesting, IT creates space and time in waves and densities, whirling and twirling, folding, enfolding, unfolding into denser and subtler intensities, in all the aggregates that we may be able to see... the myriad of ALL THIS, THAT IT IS. void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is What is there to it? I You The stuff we communicate to each other shares a-voiding and a-forming miraculous stuff An intense play of mutuality. Call it love. We are it void is form is void is form is I is YOU is IT. The senses (skandhas), however many we may have, are the tools we humans employ, that allow us to contact and play with that wonderful conundrum. (The brain collects those data and the mind conceptualizes about it.) That previous sentence in brackets is very unimportant. Hee hee. THIS is what you are confronted with, right here and now, what you are handling at this moment, in this timeless and spaceless void that plays form that plays void that plays form that plays void that plays form that plays void that plays form that plays void that plays form that plays void that plays form that plays void that plays form that plays void that plays form that plays void that plays form that plays void that plays form that plays void that plays form that plays void... We happen to measure it in many newfangled ways... sticking our necks out, extending our senses. No end to that endeavour of measuring reality. We call that what we size up 'maya' or the 'physical stuff' (the meted out, the measurable, measuring relatednesses, proportions.) This measuring extends our sensed experiences, helped along by concepts that may make us understand more and more of it. Time, past, future, space, now, later, here, there, somewhere, nowhere... mentalized concepts to make sense of what our senses sense... But... No but... I got to go and eat my porridge... Love, Wim http://www.aurasphere.dhs.org "Indirect knowledge gathered from books or teachers can never set a human free until its truth is investigated, applied, experimented with and experienced. Only direct, factual and actual realization does that. Realize your whole self, reintegrate your mind and body." - Tripura Rahasya, 18: 89-90 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2001 Report Share Posted January 16, 2001 Wim: You are going off into never, never land my friend. By shadow, I'm referring to the psychological shadow, not a physical one. You should go to India and explain your cosmic principles to the monks with the bruises from the beatings they took. They know very well that their pain isn't real in absolute terms but I'll bet they still hurt like hell. Like it or not, there is a conditional realm to deal with and it has all it's laws and karmas in place and the psychological shadow is one of them. BTW, this discussion is about the DL, not absolute dharma. Mark Dear Mark (Milarepa), You wrote: >Everyone, I repeat, >everyone has a shadow. I wrote: >The past is not a good model >for the future..., that never works. You wrote: >The past? Mark, I'm known for long posts, but maybe I can keep this one short. As I said, it does not work, it will not, it can not, it has not worked. Just like the future... The past, the future, even 'now' is all conceptual. ALL THIS IS... IS some form or another of pure energy, ... (Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara in the Heart Sutra) You talked about 'shadow' That somehow refers to light does it not...? As primal energy PLAYS its mysteries, it somehow breaks its SELF up, refracts, diffracts, transforms into this wonderful something that YOU and I apparently experience as life in all its forms and manifestations. As IT does that manifesting, IT creates space and time in waves and densities, whirling and twirling, folding, enfolding, unfolding into denser and subtler intensities, in all the aggregates that we may be able to see... the myriad of ALL THIS, THAT IT IS. void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is void is form is What is there to it? I You The stuff we communicate to each other shares a-voiding and a-forming miraculous stuff An intense play of mutuality. Call it love. We are it void is form is void is form is I is YOU is IT. The senses (skandhas), however many we may have, are the tools we humans employ, that allow us to contact and play with that wonderful conundrum. (The brain collects those data and the mind conceptualizes about it.) That previous sentence in brackets is very unimportant. Hee hee. THIS is what you are confronted with, right here and now, what you are handling at this moment, in this timeless and spaceless void that plays form that plays void that plays form that plays void that plays form that plays void that plays form that plays void that plays form that plays void that plays form that plays void that plays form that plays void that plays form that plays void that plays form that plays void that plays form that plays void that plays form that plays void... We happen to measure it in many newfangled ways... sticking our necks out, extending our senses. No end to that endeavour of measuring reality. We call that what we size up 'maya' or the 'physical stuff' (the meted out, the measurable, measuring relatednesses, proportions.) This measuring extends our sensed experiences, helped along by concepts that may make us understand more and more of it. Time, past, future, space, now, later, here, there, somewhere, nowhere... mentalized concepts to make sense of what our senses sense... But... No but... I got to go and eat my porridge... Love, Wim http://www.aurasphere.dhs.org "Indirect knowledge gathered from books or teachers can never set a human free until its truth is investigated, applied, experimented with and experienced. Only direct, factual and actual realization does that. Realize your whole self, reintegrate your mind and body." - Tripura Rahasya, 18: 89-90 eGroups Sponsor // All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. To from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at www., and select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. This menu will also let you change your subscription between digest and normal mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 << On 1/16/01 at 6:31 AM Milarepa wrote: º[...] Everyone, I ºrepeat, ºeveryone ºhas a shadow. º ºMark Photons don't cast a shadow - there is nothing to illuminate them... Jan >> The moon at noon... Also there is a nice theory in physics that goes that there is only one photon. Antoine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 , Antoine Carré <carrea@v...> wrote: > << On 1/16/01 at 6:31 AM Milarepa wrote: > > º[...] > Everyone, I > ºrepeat, > ºeveryone > ºhas a shadow. > º > ºMark > > Photons don't cast a shadow - there is nothing to illuminate them... > > Jan >> > > The moon at noon... > > Also there is a nice theory in physics that goes that there is only one > photon. > > Antoine And what a busy little thing it is! Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2001 Report Share Posted January 18, 2001 Antoine Carré wrote: > Also there is a nice theory in physics that goes that there is only one > photon. > > Antoine > Of course! LOL! I love it! andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2001 Report Share Posted January 18, 2001 On 1/17/01 at 10:17 PM Antoine Carré wrote: ºThe moon at noon... º ºAlso there is a nice theory in physics that goes that there is only one ºphoton. º ºAntoine º In this part of the world, the moon at noon is visible enough to take a picture of good quality... And I don't know the theory about the one photon... But the world of sense objects simultaneously appearing with the sentient entity, it follows that the laws of nature do not exist apart from a sentient (here meaning feeling qualities) observer. Patanjali Chapter III, dealing with siddhis, attainable by modifying identification - which is a modification of sentience. And so are states of mind like hypnosis, somnambulation, precognition, to mention a few... Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2001 Report Share Posted January 18, 2001 jb wrote: But the world of sense objects simultaneously appearing with the sentient entity, it follows that the laws of nature do not exist apart from a sentient (here meaning feeling qualities) observer. > > Jan > Hi Jan, This has it's counterpart in science as well. It's called the anthropic principle, and cosmologists love to play with it for one. I am not particularly well versed in it, but I understand there are at least two versions of it - the weak anthropic principle that states something like "you should not be surprised that sentience has arisen in this universe because if it hadn't, how would you have noticed?" That's probably not well stated, but the idea is that sentient beings will tend to find themselves living in universes which have produced sentient beings, and not in universes that have not produced sentient beings. That is not to suggest that there might not be universes which have not produced sentient beings, but they are not observed because sentience is required to do the observing. The weak anthropic principle allows us to ignore universes that do not produce sentient beings because we can't do anything other than ignore them anyway, so it cuts down on the paperwork involved in keeping track of all possible universes, which is good because cosmologists often don't have large budgets to work with anyway. The strong anthropic principle suggests that there could never be universes which don't produce sentient being sometime in their existence because universes are basically made in order to produce sentient beings. That is to say that universes appreciate being appreciated and that sentience is a requirement for appreciation. This sounds more like the mystical point of view to me, but I don't know what it's consequences are for cosmology. I think there are proponents of both anthropic principles, and also those who don't support either, but are too busy trying to get funded to think about these things. Love, Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2001 Report Share Posted January 18, 2001 On 1/18/01 at 9:41 AM Mark W. Otter wrote: [...] º ºHi Jan, º ºThis has it's counterpart in science as well. It's called the anthropic ºprinciple, and cosmologists love to play with it for one. I am not ºparticularly well versed in it, but I understand there are at least two ºversions of it - the weak anthropic principle that states something like º"you should not be surprised that sentience has arisen in this universe ºbecause if it hadn't, how would you have noticed?" [...] Although sentience is the rule, there have been some cases where sentience was changed to the extent that only "sight and sound" remained. And then, the laws of nature will have changed accordingly - but in the sense of a micro-cosmos as Buddha remarked. In other words, a "local relative reality" that is but a less restrictive subset of "Reality" than the subset for "fully sentient beings". Regarding this, my interest has always been for the exceptions - on this planet about 1 in 1,000,000,000 Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2001 Report Share Posted January 18, 2001 << ºThe moon at noon... º ºAlso there is a nice theory in physics that goes that there is only one ºphoton. º ºAntoine º In this part of the world, the moon at noon is visible enough to take a picture of good quality... Jan >> Yes, it was what I wanted to say by the moon at noon. The moon you see in the sky at noon becomes the light that illuminates the alchemical sun. As you know, Antoine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.