posted January 13, 2015 06:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Btw, Faith, I bet you'd love the movie Cloud Atlas, about reincarnation of many people as they dance through history (past, present, future) and is more of a circle rather than a linear progression. It's long to sit through but I highly recommend seeing it in one viewing as I believe you catch more and the impact is much greater that way!

---

posted January 13, 2015 07:02 AM            

quote:

---

For that, a normal beginner student needs an "anchor," and that would be the meditation object. Such objects can be virtually anything, and every meditation school will typically assign different objects to beginners, and when one progresses and gains greater skill focusing the mind, the objects become more subtle until at one point, some people make the mind itself the object (but that is still technically an object).

---

Ohhhh I thought they always start by having you focus on your breath.

quote:

---

Some people are seemingly born with the ability to meditate and can go right into advanced forms of practice; in my experience, this invariably seems to be the result of previous intense practice in past lives, and this is also the standard take in the Buddhist and Yoga schools.

---

Whenever I've tried to meditate I was surprised and confused about how quickly it seemed to "work." I thought it was supposed to develop more slowly.

quote:

---

(BTW, isn't it nice to know that things one worked really hard for in one life are indeed transferred forward into the next life, much like money in a bank account waiting to be inherited?)

---

It's something that I'd like to grasp experientially, maybe through past life regression, where I might see the skills I have today being honed in a different setting. That would make me feel less lonely actually...like having a twin who happens to be in the past. Or being a quintuplet...well it depends on how many past lives I could see.

quote:

---

In Buddhism, many schools start with focusing on the breathing process...

---

Thanks for elaborating.

quote:

---

...there is a certain danger that suppressed trauma could surface with a vengeance, at least with certain practices.

---

I think I've grasped that intuitively which is why I've been wary of meditating by myself without anyone or anything to fall back on.

quote:

---

There are perfectly safe ways to practice without guidance.

---

If you say so. =)

quote:

---

But normally, meditation on something leads to greater insight regarding the nature of that object, so it's only logical to think that meditating on the chart (or rather, some aspects of the chart) could lead to revelations regarding its meaning.

---

I wonder if my state is meditative at all when I am simply studying a chart for a long time. Is there a gradient scale of meditative states, I wonder? Sort of like the brain wave charts you see that track what's going on when one is sleeping...? Hmm.

quote:

---

Access to subconscious karmic memories of past lives, btw, is typically gained when they suddenly surface at a certain threshold the mind reaches before becoming one-pointed enough to enter what the Theravadin Buddhists call a Jhana (and the Yogis, Samadhi). During that transitory stage it can be possible for past-life images to surface - and often, these are not so pleasant.

---

quote:

---

Happened to me several times, the first time I had no idea what was happening and completely freaked out, literally jumped out of the meditation, and did not dare try again for several years (yeah, chicken, I know…). Later, I learned not only what that was, but also to control that process. Hoewever, getting into deeper layers of the mind can definitely be unsettling at first.

---

I thought it might be...

quote:

---

Actually, Buddhists would say that the joys of the world "pre-nirvana" are so much less intense than the joys after it, and that after one has had even a small glimpse of the one reality only once, and experienced "dissolution" or being burnt away by the "cold fire", what one found pleasurable before would by comparison become to seem very bland.

---

Similar to how some people cannot recover and readjust to normal life after a NDE? But they weren't adherents of Buddhism, these people I'm thinking of...they made it sound like this glorious afterlife is open to all. Hmm

quote:

---

And it's true that gradually, this overflowing would lead to a state where that kind of love would be extended to more and more people, as one's appreciation for other people would start to rise in general, and this process is basically what ultimately leads to a state of mind as in a saint, who would not be able to differentiate any more very clearly between the love for his/her lover, child or mother, and the love for a beggar he just met on the street.

---

I understand what you mean. Most of us can empathize with both but there is again a matter of degrees with love. And some people are hard to feel love for, because of their hostility or what have you...but I suppose a saint wouldn't be thrown off by that.

quote:

---

That would be a good example of the Buddhist ideal of parental love, and it is perfectly possible that such a foster mother as described here might in fact have a much more intense and pure love for the child under her care than a biological mother who confuses love with addiction or control, because she might see more facets of the child, and thus, understand it better than someone who has a preconceived notion of how that child should be.

---

I find this a bit confusing, as biological and foster mothers seem equally prone to the same addictions and control issues, but that's okay. I think I get the gist of it.

quote:

---

And I totally loved it when Han Solo was put into that freezing machine and after Leia said, "I love you" just replied, "I know…"

---

Did you know that Harrison Ford just made that up on the spot? He was supposed to say something else but...that was so much better.

quote:

---

It really depends on the individual circumstances in each case, I think…

---

posted January 13, 2015 09:26 AM            

If we can transcend both by learning to be fully attuned to the present moment, there is an astrological significance there...

As if we are constantly renewed by the freshness of the transits affecting us without distortion or impediment...

Like wind blowing through an instrument. Then the idea is just to be a pure instrument...and I would imagine that's a function of self-awareness which includes, but is in no way limited to, the awareness of one's chart and intrinsic tendencies.

And I suppose it theoretically is good for one's karma if they ascribe negative feelings to impersonal causes, rather than identifying with them, as that's step one to detachment and freedom.

posted January 13, 2015 09:40 AM            

This is what I'm getting at.

For example, I have been on edge lately. It could suck me in, except I take a step back and look at it like something I will just have to walk through, like it's a muddy river I have to cross. And I use astrology as a crutch to give some structure to why I am on edge...once I have that idea substantiated, it's easier to externalize it.

A more ego-centric way of dealing with that edginess would be to blame everyone who annoys me for the annoyance; blame myself for being a spaz after I got pi$$y with them; look at this as a lifelong issue of touchiness, etc.

posted January 13, 2015 03:58 PM            

To get started here, two points of note. I don't have a whole lot of time per day to post, so I find it difficult to keep up with threads. Even this one since I last posted has now got several facets of it's own going in varying directions, so if you can extended to me some patience Ill do my best to stick to the key points of our discussion in an effort to move the conversation further along. Secondly, thanks for taking the time to respond and sharing some of your background, and while I'm running the risk of having this appear to you as somewhat of a backhanded compliment. I assure you my delight in being gifted the opportunity to discuss philosophy with a Buddhist scholar/student and practitioner of such teachings for some 20 years to be quite genuine.

And yet... It is this very fact that perhaps troubles the me most.

(I understand you said not to quote you and that's fine, and so I've been careful to only quote the non-personal history parts, but if it bothers you so... I can remove this one too.)

quote:

---

I might add, for someone demanding a lot of intellectual rigor from a random internet poster on a board which regularly sees various untested theories presented as fact, you seem to make a lot of sweeping assumptions about other people yourself.

---

Encase you were not aware Vajra, this is a public forum and not a private chat board. Meaning in the course of this threads infinite life (excluding the total deletion of the internet) it will be viewed by 100's, 1000's, if not millions of users from all over this planet.

And for each of us here, we are all ambassadors of our own thoughts, of our own being. But for you Vajra, as a self declared veteran of Buddhism; This I feel counts DOUBLY so! You are an AMBASSADOR of Buddhism whether you are aware of that or not!

If the man known as the Buddha ever existed (will get to that!) and taught anything of worth, surely you would be in agreement with me that complacency, and a lack of mindful thoughts and actions would be something he would have warned against!?

So firstly, let me address what you have suggested are my sweeping assumptions / unmindful thoughts.

For the sake of moving the debate forward, I'm willing to conceded that what I felt (assumed even) was you being complacent in your response to Faith (but understand, I would have said the EXACT same thing to you whether the poster in question was Faith, Pix, or a completely UNKNOWN random user that I never met before, my comments had NOTHING do with Faith) and let it go... somewhat. And if that was indeed just a once off mind slip for your part, I accept your genuine plea that such was the case, and that there was no mindful attempt at misrepresentation despite my duly concerns otherwise.

Perhaps though, what you see as my sweeping assumptions, my audacity even. Is that who am “I” in calling you out on such matters to possibly be my greatest transgression in this thread. What madness is this to call into question the writings of someone who appears fully confident in uttering the words as if they were FACT. Buddha taught...!

Now while I can extend to you a courtesy in saying that, well since you have studied such things for X amount of time, and in the presence of Scholars, Masters even...! That if anyone is close to knowing what a man known as the Buddha may have said, you certainly have the right to make such ASSUMPTIONS with at least a degree of educated guess work.

Yet when I questioned you about this EXACT instance, in relation to Buddha... IMMEDIATELY you back peddled away from using the term “Buddha taught...” And instead opted for: Earliest detectable traces of the Buddhist practices and teachings!

Whether you are aware of it or not, instantaneously you removed much credibility in being able to say with confidence: Buddha taught...!

You answered none of my direct questions, and for the most part choose to hide behind the robes of your master, the walls of your order and the books and manuals that you know I have not read (Now while you could say, well that's MY problem for not doing the research, and its a fair comment) Yet... Is that kind of an answer really the measure of 20 years of Buddhist scholarship?

Is this the lot you have cast me as a simple beggar boy on the internet? That I am unworthy to know what it is that Buddha taught...! Or is it perhaps something else, something even more troubling for you Vajra... That you don't know what Buddha taught...!?

But here you are, as an Ambassador for Buddhism, a student of 20 years of scholarship and you say with confidence... Buddha taught!

Sigh... Placing a namesake before an instance of “wisdom teaching” makes it no more valid than saying Lei_Kuei taught...! The validity and the wisdom gained is from the measure of the teaching itself, NOT the persona of the teacher. But WHY then must we look to “The Buddha”, “Jesus”, whatever, in an effort bolster and strengthen its affirmation …!?

And yet you might say to me... But Lei, you posted a parable tagged by a Discordian “Master” and are guilty of the very same fallacy...

Am I!? It may surprise you to know then, that I both conceived and WROTE that parable 20mins before posting it. That I in fact lied about it being written in 1976! And as for Malaclypse the Wiser... He does NOT exist, and NEVER did... Discordian Masters do NOT Exist, only Discordian Fools !

But surely though, and I know you would agree! Truth spoken by that of a beggar/Fool has no less meaning than that spoken of by a Sage!?

I think back now, towards the anecdote I posted... What if it was just as Yashodara said: Buddha was a.sshole!

Or worse still... what if Buddha did not exist...

Would you be so quick then as to say: Buddha taught..!?

posted January 14, 2015 11:44 AM            

quote:

---

The validity and the wisdom gained is from the measure of the teaching itself, NOT the persona of the teacher.

---

Yes

quote:

---

But WHY then must we look to “The Buddha”, “Jesus”, whatever, in an effort bolster and strengthen its affirmation …!?

---

Who's saying we must? We were just talking about Buddha, who happens to have a good reputation, for reasons that seem to be apparent.

Usually if I am influenced by a particular author and quote him or her, it's not so much a call to exalt the author as an organizational tool. It keeps everything in its place, so if a person wonders if I am the type of girl who speaks authoritatively about ego, for example, I want them to know that No, I am merely subscribing to another's thoughts. This highlights for them my level of expertise or complete lack of it.

Quotes also mark out the route a thought has travelled from brain to brain. I've quoted Eckhart Tolle above, not because I think he's superior to the Dalai Lama or other Buddhist luminaries, but because I find his writing style more readable, given the peculiarities of my preferences and attention span.

posted January 14, 2015 12:46 PM            

quote:

---

But WHY then must we look to “The Buddha”, “Jesus”, whatever, in an effort bolster and strengthen its affirmation …!?

And yet you might say to me... But Lei, you posted a parable tagged by a Discordian “Master” and are guilty of the very same fallacy...

Am I!? It may surprise you to know then, that I both conceived and WROTE that parable 20mins before posting it. That I in fact lied about it being written in 1976! And as for Malaclypse the Wiser... He does NOT exist, and NEVER did... Discordian Masters do NOT Exist, only Discordian Fools !

---

If I need to buy the Principia Discordia just to translate your intentions and see your text in a clear light, then are they "your" intentions? And your text carries the implicit affirmation of Greg Hill...why do you do that except to "bolster and strengthen" your own words?

Why do you take on a religious persona, designed by someone else, when talking about religion? Do you think staightforwardness would limit your efficacy?

Not expecting any answers...

posted January 14, 2015 08:34 PM            

quote:

---

Not expecting any answers...

---

Will reply soon, probably tomorrow

And...

Christ on a Bike, been waiting forever for someone to call me out in relation to Discordianism, Good job

posted January 15, 2015 01:25 PM            

quote:

---

Who's saying we must? Who's saying we must? We were just talking about Buddha, who happens to have a good reputation, for reasons that seem to be apparent.

---

Who indeed! For the most part, such was my own musings as to why in general we as people feel the need to invoke an external force separate from ourselves in order to give our words extra clout/meaning when it comes to the passing on of wisdom, of which I feel the answer is two fold:

(The below is a simply thought experiment, just a very basic example of how Masters/Wisdom Teachers have the potential be deadly dangerous constructs of the human mind)

[1] In the case of someone who for the sake of argument is a Christian! When they say to another person who they are trying to pass on wisdom to via what they perceive as the teachings of Jesus;

Most likely they will say, Jesus said this... Jesus said do that... and you will be saved/righteous/whatever.

So, what's actually happening in that conversation plays out like this;

Person who is a believer in Jesus has said knowledge (Is comfortable to pass this along as they feel Jesus was a perfect Human being, Godlike even) >>> Information sent to waiting disciple/convert-potential

Basic breakdown:

>>> Information received by Disciple: Teaching accepted/possibly questioned a bit but ultimately accepted, and possibly even accepted as fact.

>>> Information received by Convert-potential, Teaching questioned – Originator of the Teaching called into question (in this case Jesus) – Teaching rejected / or possibly accepted as fact

By employing Jesus (Prefect Human) as the firewall between the Human (Me/You/Whoever) speaker of the Wisdom Teaching which bears Jesus's seal of approval! It creates a safety zone in the mind of the sender allowing the wisdom to be passed on because the sender has confidence in their (Perfect Human) and removes personal accountability (That's KEY), which makes them capable of feeling good/safe in passing that message onto others regardless whether or not such a person (Jesus) even ever existed! Its just perception/illusion!

So that's your setup for the basic transfer of teachings in an already established religion/whatever!

But then... Dun Dun Dun...!

[2] Say for example in my case, with regards to the anecdote I posted! Now whether you consider the anecdote informative or garbage it doesn't matter. What's interesting to me is at the time nobody question whether “Malaclypse the Wiser” was in fact a master/wise man or not! (Even though his name suggested such)

Pix / Vajra please forgive me for what I'm about to demonstrate using you two as my test subjects lol

[PixieJane]

Pix said she found the anecdote/alternative view point informative, she didn't question the validity/integrity of Malaclypse the Wiser because either:

(a) Didn't see it as relative to the message of the anecdote, and so by default may have accepted Malaclypse the Wiser as someone she has lent credence to for future reference, as I know she has moderate interest in Discordianism (And as for Discordianism... Will get to that later!)

(b) Didn't see it as relative to the message of the anecdote, and also didn't give a damn whether Malaclypse the Wiser was real, fictitious, an as.shole, a guru or all of the aforementioned or none of the aforementioned.

In either case, I sent a Wisdom Teaching to Pix... Message Received, Message Explored/Questioned, Message Accepted, Malaclypse the Wiser NOT questioned! Oh Oooo...!

[Vajra]

Vajra at first rejected the anecdote with regards to Buddhism because as it appeared to me she favoured a certain branch of Buddhism that rejects the message of the anecdote! She also didn't question the validity/integrity of Malaclypse the Wiser! (For the same reasons as Pix, minus the Discordian element)

Later, when I posted my own symbolic interpretation of the anecdote encase Vajra had misinterpreted the meaning of it - Because I KNEW it was relevant to the Mahayana Buddhists schools of thought and was interested if Vajra had her own take on the anecdote itself.

At which point: Vajra accepts the Wisdom Teaching as being relevant to Mahayana Buddhists and said that she was already aware of that view point without my need to post my symbolic interpretation.

In either case, I sent a Wisdom Teaching to Vajra... Message Received, Message at first Pass Rejected, Later Message Accepted, Message Explored/Questioned, Malaclypse the Wiser NOT questioned! Oh Oooo...!

Now here is where it REALLY gets interesting!

Why did I invoke a FICTITIOUS Master to serve as my vehicle for passing on a wisdom teaching relevant to the Mahayana Buddhists school of thought, and not just post it WITHOUT the pen-name ~ Malaclypse the Wiser circa 1976

Two reasons!

Reason One – To Hack A Brain!

For the exact SAME reason as the person passing on a message/teaching spoken by Jesus/Buddha!

As this methodology is necessary in order to get a Human mind to allow you to breach their firewall, or at the very least [port scan] someone for an entry point before you can pass on a message.

So..

[A]: You either coat the package/message with information that you know is acceptable to the human mind in question (I knew Pixie liked Discordianism, I knew Vajra was a Buddhist ).

Or

[B] Tag the message with an already verified/secure source (Jesus/Buddha/Buddhism) and commence [port scan] firewall breach of the Human mind in question.

Message Sent, Message Received / Message Questioned or Not / Message Rejected!

….But if Message Accepted!!!

(Trojan horse [Malaclypse the Wiser] inserted into brains of said receivers as now “Verified Safe Source”, but can still be challenged as to verification at any time hence forth and rejected/deleted... maybe )

Reason Two – The Guru Factor & The Master of Illusions!

I wanted to pass on a message that I felt was an alternate view point from the notion of Buddha resting on his laurels in Nirvana for eternity because I simply find such things interesting to explore. (Other people/groups often have different agendas)

But more importantly, I wanted to create an illusion of DISTANCE between the message and it coming from ME! Why...!?

Think about it!!!!

MY reason was this, and its a selfish one...! I am terrified of anyone thinking for ONE second that I am some kind of wise man (PLEASE, feel free to laugh at that thought! Laugh HARD... I'll feel a WHOLE lot better I assure you!), I just don't want that kind of responsibility, EVER!

...Would you want that responsibility?

But then contemplate this, what if I felt differently... what if I had an agenda!?

What if.... I had a WHOLE book of teachings that were of a similar caliber of that which as I just showed, breached the brains of both PixieJane (Incredibly Intelligent Person) & Vajra (Incredibly Intelligent Person) very easily and WITHOUT question as to its progenitor!

Malaclypse the Wiser over time... could... >>> Become the next F.UCKING BUDDHA/JESUS!

Leaving me “Lei_Kuei/Simple Beggar Boy” hands free to construct ANY background, history, deeds, creed that I want that will automatically TRIGGER the [Malaclypse the Wiser]-[Trojan Horse] in anyone who has accepted my teachings, allowing me to over the course of 1000's of years to reinforce the validity of my own message and thus start my own religion... and eventually take over this planet

….......

….......

Hmmm sound familiar to anyone I wonder...!?

The true identities of Buddha and Jesus sure are shady areas you know... Muhammed too... Krishna... Zoroaster... and many others also! Have you looked into it? I wonder why that is, why is their origin often so obscured... hrmmm...?

Now think...! I'm just ONE guy having FUN in this thread, but what if I was a large corporation or empire with unlimited resources who wanted to start their own Religion!

Scary thought perhaps... Scary indeed...!

Hands up if your brain is hacked!

(Ofc this has further interesting angles to explore in relation to people who we view as Wisdom Teachers, Why we do... And is it REALLY such a bad thing!?)

But let me think on it some more... However more importantly, YOU should think on it more Stop letting me trigger the Lei_Kuei Trojan!

posted January 15, 2015 05:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lei_Kuei:
Pix said she found the anecdote/alternative view point informative, she didn't question the validity/integrity of Malaclypse the Wiser because either:

(a) Didn't see it as relative to the message of the anecdote, and so by default may have accepted Malaclypse the Wiser as someone she has lent credence to for future reference, as I know she has moderate interest in Discordianism (And as for Discordianism... Will get to that later!)

(b) Didn't see it as relative to the message of the anecdote, and also didn't give a damn whether Malaclypse the Wiser was real, fictitious, an as.shole, a guru or all of the aforementioned or none of the aforementioned.

In either case, I sent a Wisdom Teaching to Pix... Message Received, Message Explored/Questioned, Message Accepted, Malaclypse the Wiser NOT questioned! Oh Oooo...!

---

Nothing I need to forgive, and you're right, I'm familiar enough with Discordianism to realize Malaclypse is a Fool meant to question all dogmas and that Discordianism goes to great pains to keep its own religion disguised as a joke from becoming dogmatic (such as its use of hot dog buns, which also doubles as poking at the contradictions in the more established religions).

But I should point out that I have been weighing the views expressed rather than who expressed them, and furthermore I didn't question the validity/integrity of Jesus or Buddha either, but rather those who claim to speak for them (from ancient times to the present). Frankly, I have no real idea what those 2 were like, and knowing how crazy rumors and reputation can get for someone alive (*), let alone dead, and then throwing in both psychological and political motives to tweak that further still (as in the case of Buddha and Jesus) then everything said about them and attributed to them becomes questionable. So I consider it academic (or even moot) until I have a time machine (and damn good translator) to go see for myself...heck, in this case I wouldn't even trust the astral memory bank because I'm not certain that I wouldn't accidentally get the Archetype rather than the person.

Speaking of Archetypes...ever read a short scifi story in which some inventor managed to give physical manifestation to them but then had to get rid of them (used Loki to help) as they were trashing civilization? (In the end they succeeded but then hostile aliens took them over while they called out for the gods to come back in vain, not sure if that was a morality tale of some sort.) As this was the future they even had 20th century figures there with John F. Kennedy one of the gods or at least messianic figure of sort that was far removed from the reality (the story may have been too old to have Elvis as such...but the Shadowrun universe in which magic works in a cyberpunk future does have an Elvis shaman, but then there's another shaman that derives real magical powers from The Great Toaster...there's also an especially feared kind seen as insane that gets them from the entities described by Lovecraft...)

posted January 15, 2015 05:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lei_Kuei:
Think about it!!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lei_Kuei:
Malaclypse the Wiser over time... could... >>> Become the next F.UCKING BUDDHA/JESUS!

---

posted January 15, 2015 06:34 PM            

quote:

---

Nothing I need to forgive, and you're right, I'm familiar enough with Discordianism to realize Malaclypse is a Fool meant to question all dogmas

---

Yea, I haven't even gotten to Faith's questions about Discordianism yet either

Lmao... that High school prank! I wish I thought of something like that, but where I grew up just wasn't religious enough to give a damn! So guess I have mixed feelings about that then Cause Id have probably been put on a cross as a kid if I grew up in the Bible Belt haha...

Also too, pretty much in agreement with you as regards been able to determine the true origin of Jesus/Buddha... And yet when people invoke such archetypal persona's in an effort to teach/manipulate others but seem to be viewing said archetypes as glorified “real people”. This ofc pis.ses me off no end as its got many branching dangers in the grand scheme of things

In which case you will always have people (That Chaos Factor of The Universe) or atleast should have, challenging said scholars of various religions to show the measure of their actual God Men in a clearer light! But generally they either wont answer, or cant. Its disconcerting to say the least, but that in of itself says a lot too...

Ahh yea, you can call me an as.shole for being the one who stands up and causes people to walk away from debates, but then you know... maybe I've done you a favour on some level!

Id want others to do so for me, and In many cases I've been very much enlightened by those who have dared to challenge the status quo of religion over the ages by causing people to stop and maybe think for a moment about wtf they are doing and examine the actual evidence and credence of such dogmas.

LOL... that clip!

No Pix!!! Imagine it!!!

Think of the insanity that would ensue...!

[Looks around]... Wait a gods damn minute, someone has beaten me to it

posted January 15, 2015 08:08 PM            

quote:

---

Ahh yea, you can call me an as.shole for being the one who stands up and causes people to walk away from debates, but then you know... maybe I've done you a favour on some level!

---

Your presumption is that we're (or I'm) incapable of putting the information I seek into context.

If you knew anything about me and could put me into context, you'd see how much you could have spared me this "rescue."

Funny how both religious people and non-religious glorify their own forms of sabotage and presumption...which gets us nowhere, collectively. Fighting fire with fire.

posted January 15, 2015 09:30 PM            

quote:

---

Funny how both religious people and non-religious glorify their own forms of sabotage and presumption...which gets us nowhere, collectively. Fighting fire with fire.

---

And there you have it in full view, my greatest flaw! My totally inability to bow down in the face on another dogma when its displayed to me.

A dogma in of itself, the counter balance of religious dogma...!

The dogma of being non-dogmatic, and the constant examination of ones self imposed dogmas [Shakes Head]

When it comes to discussions such as these I can put on a very authoritative demeanor, or at least I try to anyhow in order to see how far can I push the other dogma back from whence it came.

Or as you said... Fire with Fire!

Because the real answers we are all looking for are found somewhere between the Chaos of Flames and Shadow that only the observer of such a battle can sometimes see, I envy you then...

Cant YOU sometimes play the role of Fire for me so that I can see too?

But no problem! Until such a day comes, Ill stay and NOT turn away... as some others have!

quote:

---

Oh well. At least you and Pixie understand each other

---

Two people then, who cant see s.hit....

Although Id rate Pix as being less dogmatic than me by a damn sight... That Libra luck wouldn't you know

posted January 15, 2015 09:59 PM            

You're weird.

My only "fire" is personal preference. I prefer to have conversations without hecklers laughing on the sidelines making me wonder if I've embarrassed myself (again?)

But if I try and control the situation, I just bind myself up in a knot...

Invested in an outcome.

That's something to weigh...it is worth being invested in any outcome? No probably not.

posted January 16, 2015 12:03 AM            

However, if you want to understand Discordianism without experiencing it then I highly recommend the section on it in the book Drawing Down the Moon by Margot Adler (many libraries have it or can at least get it) in the chapter on Religions of Paradox and Play. This isn't me telling you to convert, this is letting people who don't want to experience it on how to best understand it which may go a long way to avoiding feeling bothered and worse by the things LK says.

Btw, thought I'd point out, LK even questioned the validity of my goddess and experience (not to say he said I was lying or even entirely deluded), but I took no offense (why should I?), I ran with it exploring that aspect as can be seen here:
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum21/HTML/000667.html

posted January 16, 2015 10:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
I was the member of a Discordian cabal once along with 4 others and it transformed all of us and gave us insights into psychic and spiritual reality that we did not have before. I found it transforming because we all entered into it as a joke (and we can still break out laughing over pranks we pulled back then that doubled as culture jamming) but found out it was real and then it became so we were not Discordians at all...even though we know it's true/real we are no longer Discordians (at least in the popular sense) and that makes perfect sense to us, though I'm sure it doesn't to those who never experienced it which makes it something of a mystery religion, it's something that has to be experienced rather than taught.

---

How is it different than just entering into religious conversations as a regular old skeptic or curious person like myself? Can you elaborate on that?

I get interesting reactions from people, too, but there's no name brand or wikipedia page for my approach, it's just puzzling around.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
However, if you want to understand Discordianism without experiencing it then I highly recommend the section on it in the book Drawing Down the Moon by Margot Adler (many libraries have it or can at least get it) in the chapter on Religions of Paradox and Play. This isn't me telling you to convert, this is letting people who don't want to experience it on how to best understand it which may go a long way to avoiding feeling bothered and worse by the things LK says.

---

'Might check it out ~ thanks for the reference.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Btw, thought I'd point out, LK even questioned the validity of my goddess and experience (not to say he said I was lying or even entirely deluded), but I took no offense (why should I?)

---

Before seeing the conversation, I can't answer "why should I?" because as far as I'm concerned, it's not so much the disbelief as the manner of expressing that disbelief that can be offensive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
I ran with it exploring that aspect as can be seen here:
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum21/HTML/000667.html

---

Yeah...see, LK was not talking to you the way he was talking to Vajra. There was no "Au contraire mon cherie..." and other gratuitously condescending remarks. But Vajra wasn't talking to him the way you were, either. Apples and oranges.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Such contributions (as the one on astrological transits during religious conversion and other fresh insights by other people) make threads far more interesting IMO, though I suppose I seek the truth rather than believe I already know it.

---

To me it's distracting. Polite conversation flows easier than conversation that's riddled with cryptic insults, which siphon attention off the main topic and draw it to the rather boring issue of, "So what is your problem, anyway?"

I would have rather talked about Buddhism than Discordianism, but that choice was sort of made for me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
I'm not saying that makes me better, I'm trying to explain why I get LK and also why I don't get snippy with him...

---

Well..he doesn't get snippy with you first... that could have something to do with it? He buffered his Freya comments with:

quote:

---

I hope you do not feel I'm belittling your experience, because what you described and the effect it has had upon you seems pretty damn to awesome to me

---

And then he withdrew from the thread and let you speak your mind, unhindered.

Things like that do take the edge off.

I'm surprised you seem to be blaming me and Vajra for being "snippy" without using any pejorative terms for LK's essentially ridiculous, overblown critique of Vajra.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
...and when I don't get snippy then neither does he.

---

Well if he ever started getting snippy with you, ever, maybe that would change, but you two seem to be friends, and this is unlikely to happen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
And again, because I've experienced Discordianism and been transformed by it then the things he says and posts are a lot easier for me to handle than I'm sure it is for someone unfamiliar with it and who mistake it as just an upstart version of the older traditions and with similar assumptions that other religions hold which judge people not so much by what they do but by what they believe (which is very different from Discordianism which actually ENCOURAGES schisms).

---

What's the value of the schisms, I wonder?

Seems LK was judging Vajra on the basis of what she believes. And he was judging me on the basis of what he thought I was in the process of coming to believe, ie "Faith is listening to Vajra and may be influenced unduly, therefore I must interfere for Faith's sake"...as if my mere interest in religion (which I saw as an intellectual adventure more than anything) renders my discernment so weak and inept that I need someone to intervene and save me from myself.

Conversations like this are probably more satisfying to you because you are just observing, not getting cast as the ignorant schlep in the drama, whose lack of knowledge about Discordianism is used against her (ie, "If you knew what was driving him, you would see how enlightening this experience really is and wouldn't get snippy" kinda thing.) It's always more fun for the person who has the Secret Decoder Ring, so to speak, and therefore by default has an upper hand in the confusion he or she generates.

posted January 16, 2015 05:18 PM            

quote:

---

There was no "Au contraire mon cherie..." and other gratuitously condescending remarks. But Vajra wasn't talking to him the way you were, either. Apples and oranges.

---

I'm taking a liberty here but I think you will see the irony... Au contraire mon cherie...

So I come into this thread, I'm reading a lot of stuff and I quickly realize we have ourselves some kind of a Buddhist scholar who knows a lot about its core philosophy and I was really enjoying reading her responses, and she seemed to be giving all of the various schools of thought a good showing and she hadn't digressed to such things as: Buddha taught... Yet!

Then ~ “Enter the Lei”

Now I love Buddhism...! (Surprised!?) Aspects of it anyhow, so I figured Vajra would be someone who would actually both “get” and appreciate the anecdote I posted and probably too have her own take on it which was of great interest to me for my own reasons!

Next, I post the anecdote... The Acid Test! And wait...

So, while I didn't ask Vajra directly to comment on it - Meaning, I understood too that I was running into the high probability that Vajra would have ignored it! Since she was mostly in conversation with other people and I can accept that.

But what choice does she then appear to make in her next post...?

quote:

---

Here is however a common misconception regarding Buddhist ideas of love that I'd like to address. Many people think that love and joy become bland if one follows the Buddhist way, and say they would prefer to stay as they are because they would not like to give up having these intense experiences (basically as in the story that Lei_Kuei posted above, which would be a very good example of such a misunderstanding)

---

[1] With regards to the theme of the anecdote in order to address its meaning she collapses all schools of Buddhism into “Buddhist Ideas ”, One entity: Wrong! - Strike One!

(Here is the punch line... if she was more mindful of her thoughts and addressed the difference of opinion between the Buddhist schools, we might not even be here right now... lol

Instead though...

[2] Bear in mind folks, Buddhist Scholar: Consciously chooses one school of Buddhist thought over another while beforehand, was happy to talk about the differing opinions... When push came to shove, she chose a Dogmatic response in favour of Theravada Buddhism! - Strike Two!

[3] Took no issue at all with using me as a vehicle in saying that “I” was misleading “You” Faith, and everyone else too in relation to Buddhism as a WHOLE! - Strike Three

REALLY!... Who was being : Gratuitous & Condescending... Apples and Oranges, no sh.it... (But was it really as bad as that...!?)

Now.. lets be FAIR here! She DID apologize and gave a FULL discourse on both Theravada Buddhism & Mahayana Buddhists AFTER I called her out on it... Afterwards! - AFTER!

But what if I just walked away and not posted a rebuttal causing her to do such, (I know you wished I had done... but we can get to that later)?..

Plenty more to say... Oh joy lol

But right now, need dinner
Later I can get back to what you said here:

quote:

---

I would have rather talked about Buddhism than Discordianism, but that choice was sort of made for me.

---

quote:

---

Seems LK was judging Vajra on the basis of what she believes. And he was judging me on the basis of what he thought I was in the process of coming to believe, ie "Faith is listening to Vajra and may be influenced unduly, therefore I must interfere for Faith's sake"...as if my mere interest in religion (which I saw as an intellectual adventure more than anything) renders my discernment so weak and inept that I need someone to intervene and save me from myself.

---

*****************

But you are right Faith, this is becoming an interesting conversation and I feel it is VERY much in line with the title topic : Karma and the Subconscious Mind!

Clearly I have alot of my own demons to work on lol...

posted January 16, 2015 06:52 PM            

The Real God: An Epiphany
I was reminded of this video recently: http://youtu.be/-j8ZMMuu7MU

And on a re-watch I realized how when I assumed the Mantel of a Mahayana Buddhist I instantly fell into the same trap!

Holy **** ...! Talk about the exception that proves the rule!
This really cracks me up in how I fell into the exact same hole

Love it...

posted January 16, 2015 10:15 PM            

Vajra throwing in clarifications was fine, but she was the one to first become snippy, though it was mild (I'd have easily overlooked it, unlike LK), and could have either chosen her words with a bit more care OR just left LK out of it completely while pursuing her clarification as she did and then it wouldn't have been snippy/condescending in my book (though gentle and very mild, well within acceptability and easily overlooked IMO). And LK wouldn't have responded the way he did and the sitch wouldn't have escalated (if he had responded the same way then I'd say LK was the first one to get snippy).

Ah, but the ego generally won't allow for that. Again with the ironies, I think it's good to include ego (while mastering it) and I'd have been less prone to escalate the sitch by getting snippy, especially just because someone promotes an alternate view. (Though the ones who really get WAY over the top tend to claim they have completely overcome their ego, and bonus negative points when they include the name of a goddess for their online name to make posts about how stupid and degenerate the vast majority of the human race is. )

posted January 16, 2015 10:37 PM            

quote:

---

Because the real answers we are all looking for are found somewhere between the Chaos of Flames and Shadow that only the observer of such a battle can sometimes see, I envy you then...

Cant YOU sometimes play the role of Fire for me so that I can see too?

---

I know I'm authoritative when it comes to Theological discussions, nobody is more aware of that than me!

But then why then do put myself in that role!

The answer is 2 fold!

[1]: Because of INSIGHTS like as I just discovered for myself by taking on the role of a Theist!!! - Which can only really be found and properly understood by the practical application of debate/experience. Its that simple... In many ways I applied true Discordianism (if such a thing existed beyond labeling) to a problem and had my own mini-revelation lol!

And Secondly... This has always been my main reason!

[2]: People deserve to hear all POV's with regards the complexities of religion/spirituality, and we as people SHOULD be interested in ALL points of view and never accept anything less than the full picture so that we can discern our own truth!

And I'm not going to wait around for others to do what I know I CAN!

….Call BUL.LSHIT!

Whats that you smell..? Yep, a dash of Self-righteousness often mixed with my own Bul.**** ..!! (least I'll admit to it :p)

Now...

quote:

---

I would have rather talked about Buddhism than Discordianism, but that choice was sort of made for me.

---

Honestly me too, as strange as that may sound... But Vajra choose for herself to not face me, and walk away...

(But we don't know this for sure, her internet could be down, maybe she is sick, we just don't know)

Sometimes we really need to rattle each others cages (Is that just my Aries Mars talking!?), and its likely nobody has challenged Vajra in they way I did with regards to her own belief system in quite some time, if ever even... :bheart:

quote:

---

And he was judging me on the basis of what he thought I was in the process of coming to believe, ie "Faith is listening to Vajra and may be influenced unduly, therefore I must interfere for Faith's sake"...as if my mere interest in religion (which I saw as an intellectual adventure more than anything) renders my discernment so weak and inept that I need someone to intervene and save me from myself

---

I'm abit confused here... I already said in my post to Vajra that my calling her out on a few things had essentially NOTHING to do with you Faith, If anything it was about Vajra and I! Your thread just happened to the be karmic-gravity connection point for us to collide with one another.

Another thing though! Since you pointed to the fact that Pix and I are less challenging of one another at times! Then just the same, I'm sure you can see that you will be prone to making the same sort of allowances towards Vajra in your defense of her, meaning your discernment with regard to her philosophies is going to be tapered towards NOT rattling her cage.

That's also exactly why I said yesterday in reference to Pix:

quote:

---

Two people then, who cant see s.hit....

---

Pix and I often have a similar world view, and its something I've even complained to her about in the past with respect to philosophy/theology as 9 times out of 10 we agree (and that can be a fun learning experience too), but then BOTH of us could be completely wrong in our understandings 90% of the time lol! Who is going to call bullsh.it on us!?

posted January 16, 2015 10:38 PM            

Just looked over the thread again...

Vajra seemed level-headed, (to me...not sure what buttons she was pushing with her casual dismissal of LK's anecdote)...and then LK was saying she is being "lazy," borderline "disingenous"...that her words make him want to throw up.

Then she gave her background which could be construed as "snippy" but that was after he said she makes him want to throw up.

*shrug*

If he is really interested in Buddhism and interested in keeping the language pure and meticulous, I didn't even catch that until later...I thought he was joking, especially after he said "Pix: shhh "

So, yeah...I don't get where he is coming from.

posted January 16, 2015 11:02 PM            

quote:

---

I'm abit confused here... I already said in my post to Vajra that my calling her out on a few things had essentially NOTHING to do with you Faith, If anything it was about Vajra and I!

---

I know it had nothing to do with me because of who I am...just relative to what you said:

quote:

---

Ahh yea, you can call me an as.shole for being the one who stands up and causes people to walk away from debates, but then you know... maybe I've done you a favour on some level!

---

I inserted myself as the "you" in that sentence since I think I played that role.

Maybe one key difference between you, PJ, and Vajra, the three of you...and myself...is that I am truly not only pretty darn ignorant with respect to religion...but it's a vacancy in my mind that I keep vacant on purpose. Information drifts through without sticking. I muse about things...marvel at the way people talk about religion...listen with respect and curiosity...and more often than not, I forget what they said. Or it lies there inert, not really affecting my life. I'm trying to work up the motivation to meditate, and my interest in Buddhism is supplementary to that goal.

Though I've had enough experiences with orthodox (lower case "o") Christianity that I can turn the tables on Christians who seek to convert me. Not that I know more than them, but I know different from what they know...so they can't refute me too easily.

Maybe that's inadvertantly Discordian. (?)

But I only get involved as a defense mechanism, ie:

"Faith, you should go to church."
"No"
"You should ask to be saved"
"I'm not Arminian.
"???"
"You don't even know what an Arminian is and you want me to go to your Arminian church?"

---

quote:

---

Then just the same, I'm sure you can see that you will be prone to making the same sort of allowances towards Vajra in your defense of her, meaning your discernment with regard to her philosophies is going to be tapered towards NOT rattling her cage.

---

Not exactly. I was talking about Buddhism with another LL member who I admire last year, and I was so hard to "convert," with so many questions and "but...but...but...." this person really lost patience with me. (Shocker, right?)

---

Anyway, if Vajra really was bothering and offending you with her answers about Buddhism, I'm sorry, I misinterpreted your intentions. I really couldn't tell.

All the best ~

posted January 18, 2015 12:47 AM            

Faith, sorry I've been gone. The "ususal" reasons :eyeroll: ... the 'hood. It's one of the reasons I usually don't get involved in complex discussions. It's not fair to the group (imo). So many apologies to all. So, just saying, I didn't run away!

Faith, love your thoughts. And thanks for the bullet-points you made for the Howell interview. What I have to say is not as 'scholar-level' as everyone... but I'll add my bit, later.

P.J. That clip from Daniel Craig in Invasion! I had seen the film long ago, but introducing this particular short scene where you did, was chilling and thoroughly on-point! Your thoughts, experiences, and depths of your research also add so much to topics, always.

L_K 'The real God' video has interesting use of graphics. But I think the man skipped 'a step' in his thinking, just-after around mark 2:45, which skewed the whole rest of the argument. Thanks for all you're saying! So enriching! (hey, the tin-foil works)

Vajra {{{hug!}}} w o w! ... , Namaste!

-------
btw! ... Here's a Radio Talk show I came across in a newsletter {ty Julie S!}, that I think you may appreciate here in Divine Diversities Forum.