Mysticism? (was Re: For the one stuck)
cupcake
Minkphhfffffffftttttttttttttt wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 6:44:27 -0400, Tang Huyen wrote
>(in message <3D87078B...@yahoo.com>):
>
>>
>>
>> Messer Xin wrote:
>>
>>> Vanya:
>>>
>>>> Messer Xin <x...@woc.org>
>>>>
>>>>>> But you wouldn't know it by anyone here, would you?
>>>>>> - Vanya
>>>
>>> Xin:
>>>>> Oh, I don't know. There's a lot more going on if you read
>>>>> between the lines. A lot of it is even worse, granted, but
>>>
>>> Vanya:
>>>> But there is only emptiness between the lines...
>>>
>>> This is supposed to be bad? Or true? Or what?
>>>
>>> There is a lot of information to be had between the lines,
>>> like, "Why didn't she rake him over the coals just then,
>>> when he had him pinned to the pole?" "Why does he always
>>> choose *that* kind of put-down?" See what I mean?
>>>
>>> Like when some people interminably tweak others for no good
>>> reason but that they can, and they enjoy that they can.
>>>
>>> Like me, for example.
>>
>> You do a piss-poor job of it, son.
>
>Just bait to get you to expose your poverty.
>
>> Now, if some people interminably tweak others for no good reason but
>> that they can, and they enjoy that they can, don't the people tweaked by
>> them volunteer day in day out, month in month out, year in year out to
>> cooperate unasked in getting tweaked?
>>
>> And don't *they* enjoy it (namely being tweaked), too? Why else would
>> they keep on with it, long-term and unasked?
>>
>> Isn't it give-and-take in full freedom, on both sides? Isn't it a case
>> of "One hand washes the other"?
>
>Is this anything but another form of, "She wanted to be
>raped, officer! Why else would she put herself in a
>situation where I could do it?"
>
>Your blind spot makes you unable to see how reprehensible
>your behavior seems to many, probably the majority, of
>people here. Even worse, you actively claim that you are
>not responsible for your instigation of ill feeling.
>
>Please don't get all gushy with gratitude for receiving an
>honest impression. I'd do it for Vanier, too.
>
we're not interested in your personal social agenda,
Minkphhhhfffftttttt, yu fucking sap
>--
>
> |Xin|
>
Tang Huyen
Messer Xin wrote:
> Tang Huyen
>
> >> I can think of lots of arguments to pursue here. However, I
> >> will agree that good Dharma should not be ignored, whoever
> >> bespeaks it.
> >>
> >> Was good Dharma the *only* reason you chose a post of
> >> Evelyn's to embellish your point? The thought that any
> >> reference to her, bad OR good, might rouse suspicion and
> >> rancor -- this never occurred to you?
> >>
> >> If not, then perhaps things are improving.
> >
> > To rouse suspicion may be a good trick, Xin luv.
>
> Which is why I added rancor.
>
> Please explain the dynamics of the skillful rousing of
> suspicion, so as to further the Dharma.
Ooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! Looooook at that!
When your friend Sphere claimed to have entered the stream earlier this
year, you didn't ask him the dynamics of the skilful proclamation of
entering the stream, so as to further the Dharma.
When your friend Tohsu Roshu Tohu Bohu recently dug up stories about
what happened (or did not happen) decades ago, you didn't ask him the
dynamics of the skilful bringing up of stories about what happened (or
did not happen) decades ago, so as to further the Dharma.
When you yourself committed blatant acts of hypocrisy (which I then
pointed out), you didn't ask yourself the dynamics of the skilful acts
of blatant hypocrisy, so as to further the Dharma.
And now you ask me the dynamics of the skilful rousing of suspicion, so
as to further the Dharma?
So you hold me to *higher* standards than you do your friends and
yourself?
How self-abnegating of you!
Wouldn't that rouse suspicion about your objectivity and fairness?
Tang Huyen
cupcake
Tang wrote:
yeh, Minkfhhhffffffftttttt! -- so how's come yer
such a little asshole? huh?
> Tang Huyen
>
cupcake
> Re: Mysticism? (was Re: For the one stuck)
>
> From: gyong khal <rokt...@hotmail.com>
> Reply to: [1]gyong khal
> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 20:33:41 GMT
> Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet
> Newsgroups:
> [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [3]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,
> [4]alt.zen,
> [5]alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
> Followup to: [6]newsgroups
> References:
> [7]<f59a3b3e.0209...@posting.google.com>
> [8]<01HW.B9AC20330...@news.earthlink.net>
> [9]<3D87078B...@yahoo.com>
> [10]<01HW.B9AD62B30...@news.earthlink.net>
> [11]<3D88630B...@yahoo.com>
> [12]<01HW.B9AE02EC0...@news.earthlink.net>
> [13]<3D888F7A...@yahoo.com>
> [14]<01HW.B9AEAFF20...@news.earthlink.net>
> [15]<3D89B1E2...@yahoo.com>
> [16]<01HW.B9AF78280...@news.earthlink.net>
> [17]<3D8A28B7...@yahoo.com>
>On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:42:47 -0400, Tang Huyen <tang_...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Messer Xin wrote:
>>
>>> Tang Huyen
>>>
>>> >> I can think of lots of arguments to pursue here. However, I
>>> >> will agree that good Dharma should not be ignored, whoever
>>> >> bespeaks it.
>>> >>
>>> >> Was good Dharma the *only* reason you chose a post of
>>> >> Evelyn's to embellish your point? The thought that any
>>> >> reference to her, bad OR good, might rouse suspicion and
>>> >> rancor -- this never occurred to you?
>>> >>
>>> >> If not, then perhaps things are improving.
>>> >
>>> > To rouse suspicion may be a good trick, Xin luv.
>>>
>>> Which is why I added rancor.
>>>
>>> Please explain the dynamics of the skillful rousing of
>>> suspicion, so as to further the Dharma.
>>
>>Ooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! Looooook at that!
>>
>>When your friend Sphere claimed to have entered the stream earlier this
>>year, you didn't ask him the dynamics of the skilful proclamation of
>>entering the stream, so as to further the Dharma.
>>
>
>
>>When you yourself committed blatant acts of hypocrisy (which I then
>>pointed out), you didn't ask yourself the dynamics of the skilful acts
>>of blatant hypocrisy, so as to further the Dharma.
>>
>always some other guy
>people not even party to the thread
>and ure not even there
>
>
>>And now you ask me the dynamics of the skilful rousing of suspicion, so
>>as to further the Dharma?
>>
>
>
>>So you hold me to *higher* standards than you do your friends and
>>yourself?
>>
>
>so he's wrong because he's human and ure right because ure not?
>
>not much of an arguement
>
>
well, seein's how yu wur an asshole ta begin with --
who cares!
>
>>How self-abnegating of you!
>>
>>Wouldn't that rouse suspicion about your objectivity and fairness?
>>
>not as much as using slander and gossip in responce to a point
>
>
>ya wanna talk thots talk about thots
>ya wanna gossip why bother with points
>gossip kills the point if you care about the point
>and somehow i dont think ure the kinda guy
>that shits on themselve to not smell too sweet
>
cupcake
>
> Re: Mysticism? (was Re: For the one stuck)
>
> From: gyong khal <rokt...@hotmail.com>
> Reply to: [1]gyong khal
> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 20:37:43 GMT
> Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet
> Newsgroups:
> [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [3]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,
> [4]alt.zen,
> [5]alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
> Followup to: [6]newsgroups
> References:
> [8]<SQpi9.245$q9....@news.more.net>
>On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 19:46:58 GMT, cupcake <t...@r.slrup> wrote:
>
>> yeh, Minkfhhhffffffftttttt! -- so how's come yer
>> such a little asshole? huh?
>>
>
>
only an *asshole* accuses other people of
being a *bigger* asshole! :(
cupcake
cupcake wrote:
ASSHOLE!
Tang Huyen
gyong khal wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:42:47 -0400, Tang Huyen <tang_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Messer Xin wrote:
> >
> >> Tang Huyen
> >>
> >> >> I can think of lots of arguments to pursue here. However, I
> >> >> will agree that good Dharma should not be ignored, whoever
> >> >> bespeaks it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Was good Dharma the *only* reason you chose a post of
> >> >> Evelyn's to embellish your point? The thought that any
> >> >> reference to her, bad OR good, might rouse suspicion and
> >> >> rancor -- this never occurred to you?
> >> >>
> >> >> If not, then perhaps things are improving.
> >> >
> >> > To rouse suspicion may be a good trick, Xin luv.
> >>
> >> Which is why I added rancor.
> >>
> >> Please explain the dynamics of the skillful rousing of
> >> suspicion, so as to further the Dharma.
> >
> >Ooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! Looooook at that!
> >
> >When your friend Sphere claimed to have entered the stream earlier this
> >year, you didn't ask him the dynamics of the skilful proclamation of
> >entering the stream, so as to further the Dharma.
> >
>
> when som posted john 16:3 i didnt see you disagee
>
> >When you yourself committed blatant acts of hypocrisy (which I then
> >pointed out), you didn't ask yourself the dynamics of the skilful acts
> >of blatant hypocrisy, so as to further the Dharma.
> >
> then ure pure hypocracy
> always some other guy
> people not even party to the thread
> and ure not even there
>
> >And now you ask me the dynamics of the skilful rousing of suspicion, so
> >as to further the Dharma?
> >
>
> since when is gossip skillful
>
> >So you hold me to *higher* standards than you do your friends and
> >yourself?
> >
>
> try makin ure points with out refence to other posters for a change
> so he's wrong because he's human and ure right because ure not?
>
> not much of an arguement
>
> >How self-abnegating of you!
> >
> >Wouldn't that rouse suspicion about your objectivity and fairness?
> >
> not as much as using slander and gossip in responce to a point
>
> ya wanna talk thots talk about thots
> ya wanna gossip why bother with points
> gossip kills the point if you care about the point
> and somehow i dont think ure the kinda guy
> that shits on themselve to not smell too sweet
Well, thank you, dar luv, for also holding me to higher standards than you
do your friends Sphere, Toshu, Xin, etc.
I knew you would.
Tang Huyen
cupcake
Tang wrote:
does this mean that yer calling dar a "fucking little
weasel asshole", too, tang, huh?
> Tang Huyen
>
Messer Xin
(in message <3D8A28B7...@yahoo.com>):
A simple "No, I won't" would have sufficed. What about that
question excites you so?
--
|Xin|
"Once you learn to love hell, you'll be in heaven... "
Kim Bonfils, Danish Rock Star Dude
============================================================
==
Posted with Hogwasher. For a free Test Drive click on:
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.pl?58/hogwasher.htm
l
============================================================
==
Messer Xin
(in message <SQpi9.245$q9....@news.more.net>):
> yeh, Minkfhhhffffffftttttt! -- so how's come yer
> such a little asshole? huh?
Should I then ask how come you're such a big one?
Probably not, but it's sooooo tempting :)
--
Q. Holy cow! Do you kiss your mother with that mouth . . .
A. No, but I kiss yours.
ba-da-bump ____Lee Dillion
============================================================
==
Posted with Hogwasher. Mac first, Mac only:
Messer Xin
(in message <3D8A4E75...@yahoo.com>):
Dar:
>> ya wanna talk thots talk about thots
>> ya wanna gossip why bother with points
>> gossip kills the point if you care about the point
>> and somehow i dont think ure the kinda guy
>> that shits on themselve to not smell too sweet
Tang:
> Well, thank you, dar luv, for also holding me to higher standards than you
> do your friends Sphere, Toshu, Xin, etc.
>
> I knew you would.
Xin:
Same standards all around. You haven't been elected the
referee, you know. None of the "cases" cited have been
ceded by anyone. The only "evidence" you have is your own
say so.
Take them one-by-one, if you want to pursue it. All the
evidence is available so long as it was public on these
forums. Quote the relevant posts, and let us all judge with
a consensus concerning the fairness of behavior.
I repeat, though, since you have tried to misdirect
attention yet again, how does rousing suspicion further the
Dharma?
--
|Xin|
Mike Fischer, August 2, 1995:
My young son walked up to me with an onion in his hand.
"Why is this an onion?" he asked.
I'm still not sure what I should say to him.
============================================================
==
Posted with Hogwasher. For a free Test Drive click on:
Tang Huyen
Messer Xin wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> Dar:
> >> ya wanna talk thots talk about thots
> >> ya wanna gossip why bother with points
> >> gossip kills the point if you care about the point
> >> and somehow i dont think ure the kinda guy
> >> that shits on themselve to not smell too sweet
>
> Tang:
> > Well, thank you, dar luv, for also holding me to higher standards than you
> > do your friends Sphere, Toshu, Xin, etc.
> >
> > I knew you would.
>
> Xin:
> Same standards all around. You haven't been elected the
> referee, you know. None of the "cases" cited have been
> ceded by anyone. The only "evidence" you have is your own
> say so.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Seriously, Xin my sweetie sweetie pie.
Are you aware of what you say or write? Do you ever apply any of it to yourself?
(Hint: not applying to oneself what one says or writes is called hypocrisy).
As you rightly write: "You haven't been elected the referee, you know."
Have you ever thought about that? Has it ever dawned on you that it also applies
to *you*?
You say rightly: "Same standards all around." Would that include you?
Or are you the Uebermensch, who says the Law but remains above all laws?
Tang Huyen
Evelyn Ruut
"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D8B01D3...@yahoo.com...
I have not noticed him behaving as such, but I certainly HAVE noticed you
appointing yourself to that position in that way, while being very quick to
accuse anyone else who speaks up.
Evelyn
Messer Xin
(in message <3D8B01D3...@yahoo.com>):
>
>
> Messer Xin wrote:
>
>> Tang Huyen:
>>
>> Dar:
>>>> ya wanna talk thots talk about thots
>>>> ya wanna gossip why bother with points
>>>> gossip kills the point if you care about the point
>>>> and somehow i dont think ure the kinda guy
>>>> that shits on themselve to not smell too sweet
>>
>> Tang:
>>> Well, thank you, dar luv, for also holding me to higher standards than you
>>> do your friends Sphere, Toshu, Xin, etc.
>>>
>>> I knew you would.
>>
>> Xin:
>> Same standards all around. You haven't been elected the
>> referee, you know. None of the "cases" cited have been
>> ceded by anyone. The only "evidence" you have is your own
>> say so.
>
> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
No need for hysteria.
> Seriously, Xin my sweetie sweetie pie.
>
> Are you aware of what you say or write? Do you ever apply any of it to
> yourself?
> (Hint: not applying to oneself what one says or writes is called hypocrisy).
>
> As you rightly write: "You haven't been elected the referee, you know."
>
> Have you ever thought about that? Has it ever dawned on you that it also
> applies
> to *you*?
Quite. Which is why I proposed that you try to prove a case
or two, rather than repeat the same baseless stuff. You
*can* prove these points, right?
> You say rightly: "Same standards all around." Would that include you?
>
> Or are you the Uebermensch, who says the Law but remains above all laws?
>
> Tang Huyen
>
>>
>>
>> Take them one-by-one, if you want to pursue it. All the
>> evidence is available so long as it was public on these
>> forums. Quote the relevant posts, and let us all judge with
>> a consensus concerning the fairness of behavior.
>>
>> I repeat, though, since you have tried to misdirect
>> attention yet again, how does rousing suspicion further the
>> Dharma?
>>
>> --
>>
>>> Xin|
>>
>> Mike Fischer, August 2, 1995:
>> My young son walked up to me with an onion in his hand.
>> "Why is this an onion?" he asked.
>> I'm still not sure what I should say to him.
>>
>> ============================================================
>> ==
>> Posted with Hogwasher. For a free Test Drive click on:
>> http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.pl?58/hogwasher.htm
>> l
>> ============================================================
>> ==
>
--
|Xin|
"Occasionally, go burn a bandage! Get your generally
receiving ointment behind my star." -- from spam on
<alt.zen>
============================================================
====
Hogwasher: You don't have to sacrifice friendliness for
power
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.pl?58/hogwasher.htm
l
============================================================
====
Tang Huyen
Messer Xin wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
> >
> > Messer Xin:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Simplistic diversionary tactic, Xin sweetie sweetie.
If the same standards apply all around, why is it that you have never asked
anybody else -- surely not your friends, like Sphere and Toshu Roshu Tohu Bohu,
and last but not least, yourself -- the same question that you asked of me, with
the part between asterisks to be changed according to the situation:
"Please explain the dynamics of the skillful *rousing of suspicion*, so as to
further the Dharma."
Again, are you applying higher standards to me than to your friends and to you?
If so, you're flattering me, but it leaves the impression of double standards.
Tang Huyen
Messer Xin
(in message <3D8C6A87...@yahoo.com>):
Tang:
> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Xin:
You don't have to be hysterical.
> Simplistic diversionary tactic, Xin sweetie sweetie.
>
> If the same standards apply all around, why is it that you have never asked
> anybody else -- surely not your friends, like Sphere and Toshu Roshu Tohu
> Bohu,
> and last but not least, yourself -- the same question that you asked of me,
> with
> the part between asterisks to be changed according to the situation:
>
> "Please explain the dynamics of the skillful *rousing of suspicion*, so as to
> further the Dharma."
>
> Again, are you applying higher standards to me than to your friends and to
> you?
>
> If so, you're flattering me, but it leaves the impression of double
> standards.
It's really quite simple. I do not see the relish in poking
for wounds, and poking harder if you think you've found
them, in anybody else, with the exception of Ardent.
(Cupcake, too, but he doesn't put as much effort into it
and so is ineffectual.) How then, can I ask the people you
name as my friends how the enjoyment of poking wounds
furthers the Dharma?
You may say that they do plenty of poking, but there is a
qualitative difference in intent. It is not to validate
themselves by showing someone else weaker. This I see in
you.
Of course, I could be wrong about you, the people you
mention, and even myself -- but obviously, I don't think
so.
--
|Xin|
"So why speculate about such things?"
-- Lee Dillion
============================================================
==
Posted with Hogwasher. Mac first, Mac only:
Jen
> It's really quite simple. I do not see the relish in poking
> for wounds, and poking harder if you think you've found
> them, in anybody else, with the exception of Ardent.
> (Cupcake, too, but he doesn't put as much effort into it
> and so is ineffectual.) How then, can I ask the people you
> name as my friends how the enjoyment of poking wounds
> furthers the Dharma?
>
> You may say that they do plenty of poking, but there is a
> qualitative difference in intent. It is not to validate
Those who feign to not have war in their hearts are dead already. The
intentions to war only seem to be many. Ahimsa is fantasy.
William H
>Those who feign to not have war in their hearts are dead already. The
>intentions to war only seem to be many. Ahimsa is fantasy.
>
I had to go and look that up
Ahimsa
Etymology: Sanskrit ahims A noninjury
Date: 1875
: the Hindu and Buddhist doctrine of refraining from harming any living being
okay, then.
A better fantasy than most others
william
Kimberly
(in message <3d8d6e79$1...@news.teranews.com>):
Anger is in all of us. Still, to make enemies lightly is
stupid.
Alright, so stupidity is in all of us :)
--
|Xin|
It is too clear and so it is hard to see.
A dunce once searched for fire with a lighted lantern.
Had he known what fire was, he could have cooked his rice
much sooner.
-Mumon
Tang Huyen
Messer Xin wrote:
How can anybody *still* have wounds after years and decades of study and practice
under luminary teachers from exotic lands who look funny, talk funny and dress
funny?
Do you mean that their long-term investment in time and energy has been a total
waste? And that they would have spent their time better flying a kite in a park?
And if per impossibile they still have wounds after years and decades of study and
practice under luminary teachers from exotic lands who look funny, talk funny and
dress funny, why on earth should they attempt to perpetuate that state in
themselves (instead of doing something to mend it, like, at a minimum, dropping
such teachers and their useless, even harmful teachings) and even propagate it to
others?
Given that the Dharma is to help people end their suffering, how can their
behaviour further the Dharma, if they follow teachers and teachings that have
wrecked them and even attempt to propagate the same disaster to others?
Tang Huyen
Dirk Bruere
jibbering.
FFF
Dirk
Kimberly
(in message <3D8DB9EE...@yahoo.com>):
Whether they have wounds or not is secondary to your
believing so, and trying to inflame them. Now, everybody
could use a good gadfly, but a person who enjoys the pain
aroused in that kind of work certainly should not be
surprised when someone questions the propriety of their
fun.
--
|Xin|
the only guide we have to your mental state is what you
say, and
the intensity with which we say it. --Nick Argall
Messer Xin
(in message <amlot8$70vls$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de>):
Dirk the Ueber:
> Saw the title and thought it was about me, but really just a load of unters
> jibbering.
Being an unter ain't so bad. People expect less of you, so
you can impress them more.
--
|Xin|
"Surely you have read enough posts
by different Buddhas online to know
they war with words only because they are
not close enough to throw their own shit!"
---<IamSpncycl> 01/10/04
Tang Huyen
Kimberly wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
I cannot inflame people who are at peace with themselves. That would be a
contradiction in terms, flat out. Especially in the medium of Usenet, where only
words are used, and they appear coldly, on a screen, and not delivered in person,
in the heat of a face-to-face encounter.
Seasoned, grooved-in practitioners who have spent years and decades in study and
practice under luminary teachers from exotic lands who look funny, talk funny and
dress funny should not be susceptible to being inflamed or poked with mere words,
sheer dots on a screen.
If they can be inflamed and poked with mere words on a screen, they only show that
their massive investment in time and energy has been a total waste, and that
therefore it should be stopped right away and not in any way perpetuated in
themselves, even less propagated to others as *means of ending suffering*, when it
obviously is ineffective, even counterproductive *in them*.
Remember, the Buddha said that the Dharma is "come-and-see-ish" (ehi-passika). What
evidence have they for the effectiveness of their methods in ending suffering, when
their methods have not helped them end suffering but rather have wrecked them,
after so many years and decades of dedication to them?
How can their behaviour further the Dharma -- the Dharma being the method of ending
of suffering?
Tang Huyen
Evelyn Ruut
Nonetheless, you are the perpetual dreamer, the one who seeks someone,
anyone, so ardently who cannot be ruffled by your provocations. You
redouble your efforts when you find someone who does not get ruffled, if not
at first, than later. The reasons for this are known only to yourself, but
I think you are in some way desperate to find something 'beyond'.... Again
it is a part of your obsession with self that makes you seek meaning by
provoking others. When you are comfortable with yourself you will cease
your concern, interest, provocation with other.
E.
John
Tang Huyen <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-posts removed
The better question seems to be why Tang do you take such obvious
delight in being an asshole.
Are you trying to win a popularity contest child (I have no idea how old
you are,I use child to describe your actions and conduct).
You might well be 115 but you behave like a petulant 10 year old.
Grow up little boy and learn how to play well with others or you will
always be the last one picked to be on anyones team.
--
remove spamisicky to e mail.
Tang Huyen
John wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
> > in person in the heat of a face-to-face encounter.
> >
> > Seasoned, grooved-in practitioners who have spent years and decades in study
> > and practice under luminary teachers from exotic lands who look funny, talk
> > talk funny and dress funny should not be susceptible to being inflamed or
> > poked with mere words, sheer dots on a screen.
> >
> > If they can be inflamed and poked with mere words on a screen, they only
> > show that their massive investment in time and energy has been a total waste,
> > and that therefore it should be stopped right away and not in any way
> > perpetuated in themselves, even less propagated to others as *means of
> > ending suffering*, when it obviously is ineffective, even counterproductive
> > *in them*.
> >
> > Remember, the Buddha said that the Dharma is "come-and-see-ish"
> > (ehi-passika). What evidence have they for the effectiveness of
> > their methods in ending suffering, when their methods have not helped
> > them end suffering but rather have wrecked them, after so many
> > years and decades of dedication to them?
> >
> > How can their behaviour further the Dharma -- the Dharma being the method of
> > ending of suffering?
>
> The better question seems to be why Tang do you take such obvious
> delight in being an asshole.
>
> Are you trying to win a popularity contest child (I have no idea how old
> you are,I use child to describe your actions and conduct).
>
> You might well be 115 but you behave like a petulant 10 year old.
>
> Grow up little boy and learn how to play well with others or you will
> always be the last one picked to be on anyones team.
Thank you, John.
Tang "spoilt child, little boy" Huyen
Tang Huyen
Evelyn Ruut wrote:
> but I think you are in some way desperate to find something 'beyond'....
That's the definition of Perfect Wisdom in general ...
Tang Huyen
Pema
Hello dear Ev,
I see your points made, excellent post. The basic illusion of that
this is real to him is painful exsistance. the fact we even exsist is
painful to him. basic suffering, basic poisions. I wish Tang finds his
Buddha.
thinking of you! we got married on the 20th by Namhka Rinpoche. I'll
send you an email about it :) and the retreat ;)
stay well!
Pema
Pema
You missed the story about the little peacock who could. So should
we just give up? or just continue to nurture that suffering until it
has us so socked in that the prospect of non harming could only be a
fanstasy?, or see the illusion of what is, medecine taken too much is
poision, taken correctly, the right dose is a cure. your just really
socked in right now, remember times when you were like this and then
you got out of it. it can change with our state of mind.
stay well :)
Pema
Andrew Boniface
Jen wrote in message <3d8d6e79$1...@news.teranews.com>...
>>>
[smip]
>Those who feign to not have war in their hearts are dead already. The
>intentions to war only seem to be many. Ahimsa is fantasy.
>
>
anyway, ahimsa is experiencing anger, but doing something other than its
stong crude urging. Mahatma Ghandi, who didn't have much of a reputation for
going to the bod, said he had to husband his anger, implying that there was
some.
Jen
"Pema" <Radio...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7cc3084b.02092...@posting.google.com...
Life is war. One cannot desire life and peace. Death is peace.
Evelyn Ruut
Congratulations and I wish you a long life and great joy together!
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Evelyn Ruut
You will never find it then, since you continue to seek it in "other" rather
than self.
Evelyn