How stupid can I get?
George Cherry
to think that getting angry, expressing anger, and
yelling at someone will change them. It's so dumn,
but "my practice" doesn't seem to have any effect
on such stupidity. One occasion was when Patti
made a chocolate pudding without reading the
directions on the box. She made it as an instant
pudding, but the box called for cooking the mix.
What really pissed me off was that we had
pudding of the same flavor that WAS instant. But
she used a mixture that called for cooking and she
didn't cook it: she just whisked it together (using
organic cottage cheese and organic milk). When
I asked her how she liked the pudding, she said
that for some reason it wasn't setting and it tasted
"chalky". I suspected what happened and asked
her to show me the box. The box was clear and
unambiguous--it called for cooking. And then I
flipped because she didn't say she was sorry for
fucking up our chocolate pudding.
Okay, here's the other situation. Today we went
to Seapoint Beach, a public beach in Kittery
Point, ME near our house where people walk
their dogs off-leash. The dogs have a ball and
I love it. There were about a dozen breeds and,
of course, mixed breeds, about two dozen dogs
running and chasing each other and the balls
their owners throw to them. What a ball they
were having. We have one strict rule there.
Owners must pick up their dog's poops. There
are dog-haters in Kittery Point who would like
to see the beach off-limits to dogs "from away"
(say, New Hampshire) or still better to see the
beach off limits to all dogs. One of these killjoys'
major complaints is dog poop on the beach.
So we (Patti and I) pick up all the poops we
see, not just Greta's and Emmy's. And we
carry extra poop bags to give to others who
have forgotten to bring bags. Today a couple
with three dogs watched their biggest dog
deposit a HUGE dump on the beach. Then
they started to walk away. So I ran over to
them and offered the guy--who was closest
to the poop--a bag. He said "What's this for?"
I said "To pick up your dog's poop." He told
me "Pick it up yourself." I flipped. It got really
ugly before the woman with the guy dragged
him away. Patti wound up picking up their
dog's poop.
What would Buddha have done in these cases?
What would Lee do? Stumper, Evelyn? How do
I behave with a modicum of patience, skill?
: o )
George
Hollywood Lee
Dang. That's a good one. When I lived on the south side of Chicago, I
had a good friend who had just purchased a condo in one of the old
"railroad" flats that had just converted from apartments. Each day he
would go down to meet me and walk to the train for work. If he saw dog
poop in the yard, he would go nuts. One day, I was at his place and he
looked out the window and there was this huge guy, three of his friends,
and two monster dogs. The dogs started crapping on his yard and my
friend proceeded to run down the stairs, screaming at these guys to pick
up the crap. They could have pulverized him, even though he was a
healthy, strong looking guy, but they were so startled by his
breathtaking anger that they picked it up and never came by his place
again.
Despite his victory, I always wondered whether the crap was worth the
actual mental violence and potential physical violence of the situation.
I don't think my friend got the lesson, but I let go of worrying about
dog crap that day.
On the other hand, when I've got stumper cleared up, ask me about the
incident with the bicycle thief, a baseball bat, and a third floor railing.
Night!
stumper
Smile.
The Buddha would have asked
what would the Awakened do in these cases
before he become reactive.
Do you know why
some Zen masters smile so much?
Probably because they have nobody there
to be reactive in most circumstances.
--
~Stumper the anger management parrot
Buddha Pest
"George Cherry" <GWCherryHatesG...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
message news:BbWdncIarfebyI_Z...@comcast.com...
whatever may have happened is
now just memory and not worth
the admission cost of beating
yourself up over it, or anything else
that happened in the past. natural
reactions due to the psychosomatic
apparatus' need to survive may be
automatic and short fused but it is
my substantially less than humble
opinion that all experience can be
an aid to an expansion of the horizon
of one's awareness even if only to
set an example as how not to proceed
or behave in the future. *all* can be an
interesting and rewardingly illuminating
experience when seen through certain
specific perspectives.
Buddha Pest
"stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
news:sEudnRzCK8_...@ptd.net...
> Do you know why
> some Zen masters smile so much?
they've never met the stumpman?
Ananda
person. If you were to look at yourself as a person than you will not get
angry easily. We are all the same, we want something and we get it we are
happy. When we don't get what we want we are angry. In this case you are
angry because you didn't get a clean environment. Cheer up! Next time you
see that chap with his dog and the dog poops just imagine that his next life
will the dog poop worms eating the poops as you pick it up and throw it away
into the bin
"George Cherry" <GWCherryHatesG...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
message news:BbWdncIarfebyI_Z...@comcast.com...
dee
Who's Patti? Sounds like she's awakened....? :-p :)
Ananda
http://craphound.com/images/pooflag.jpg
"Ananda" <chi...@nospamsingnet.com.sg> wrote in message
news:duuflk$fqp$1...@mawar.singnet.com.sg...
Evelyn Ruut
"George Cherry" <GWCherryHatesG...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
message news:BbWdncIarfebyI_Z...@comcast.com...
Hi George,
About the pudding.... you should have simply laughed it off. It was a
simple mistake, and it certainly wasn't done on purpose. She just wasn't
paying close enough attention, and we are all guilty of that sort of
unmindfulness at times.
I would take notice of the situation and if there were lots of these kinds
of things happening, it might actually warrant a little kindly chat, asking
Patty if there was something on her mind, or something worrying her. If
it continued to happen and often, it would maybe warrant some sort of
inquiry or attention, or even a medical exam, but certainly not anger.
About the dogs on the beach: That is more complicated, and it was a
deliberate act by the guy with the big dog. Are there signs posted on the
beach about poop pickup? Is it a legal offense to "litter" there? Is it
just a thing that is "understood" by the locals? Those are important
things to consider. The guy may have just perceived you to be a cleanup
nut, a nitpicker, rather than an environmentally concerned citizen who is
actively preserving the right for everyone to run their dogs there.
I live on an exquisite country road in a beautiful forest. It is so
beautiful here that idiots travelling along it have dumped old washing
machines, tires, assorted trash and bottles, fast food bags and coffee
cups.... you name it. When the snow melts in the springtime, all sorts of
junk becomes visible. My neat-freak husband goes down that road with a
trash bag and picks the trash up himself, and brings it to the dump. We
call the town to pickup the larger items (which they do) and we have even
called the police and reported people in the process of unloading a huge
truckload of stuff. (that was a really satisfying moment!) So I can truly
relate to how you feel, seeing a natural and beautiful place being wantonly
littered by ignorant slobs. We see it all the time.
George, you don't personally confront people like that in anger. If the
guy refused to pick up his dogs poop when you were kind enough to offer him
the plastic bag, you should either call the cops and report him, or you pick
up the poop yourself (like Patty did). Confronting a mindless idiot like
that will result in some nasty and abusive argument in which anything can
happen.
What would you do if the guy was really disturbed, and he had a knife? Is
it worth losing your life over? Would it be worth leaving Patty alone for
the rest of her life because of such silliness? Unfortunately the
conscious have to pick up for the unconscious in this world. We have laws
about littering, and police to enforce them. If you get into a
confrontation with the wrong guy it can be disastrous.
I think the way to avoid losing your cool in an emotional moment is
something that comes from real wisdom, and you can't get it by living in a
place where there are no irritants. Remember the story about the guy who
was meditating on patience while living alone in a cave? The wise teacher
laughed at him (which drove him to rage) told him that one can never learn
patience in a cave. You can only learn patience in society, (or maybe on
usenet)....where you are tested again and again.
So maybe you and the other locals who like to use the beach should organize
a cleanup group, and periodically do a weekly beach pickup, much like the
road signs you see, where this or that civic organization takes
responsibility to keep a certain road clean. But stay out of personal
confrontations with unknown lunatics with big dogs!
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox')
>
>
Evelyn Ruut
OOOOH Ananda, that is a good one!
Mayura
"George Cherry" wrote
Don't just get mad, George. Get even. Adapt the following -
From: "Mayura" <grf...@lineone.net>
<<...They were discussing the erosion of civil liberties on TV tonight and
had a phone line for suggestions of what one liberty you would like added.
One bloke wanted the liberty to go and crap in his neighbour's cat-litter
tray and say "There! That's where it should go!" :)>>
Jonathan
P.S. Although, if you want to stay married, it might be better not to do
this in Patti's desert bowl ;)
P.P.S. (A friend of a friend's farmer mother found a bag of rubbish left on
their
land by fly-tippers. So she rummaged through it and found an address on an
envelope and took the bag round there and spread the rubbish all over their
lawn. Unfortunately, she had to pick it all back up again when she
discovered that the previous occupier had moved :)
Jonathan
Buddha Pest
> You were angry because you believe you are a better person than the next
> person. If you were to look at yourself as a person than you will not get
> angry easily. We are all the same, we want something and we get it we are
> happy. When we don't get what we want we are angry.
true joy and peace are found
within, unconditionally. if pre-
arranged conditions are set to
color one's perspective ahead
of time, the joy and peace that
one seeks will be too fragile to
be lasting or worthwhile. if one
can truly find that peace within,
no outside conditions can sway
that imperturbability.
Evelyn Ruut
"Buddha Pest" <313...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lMCQf.2616$k75....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Yes, exactly, and well said, Lee.
But achieving that state is more difficult than talking about it, or knowing
that it exists.
:-)
Buddha Pest
"Evelyn Ruut" <mama-l...@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%QCQf.14788$4%1.1...@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
i may have not worded that quite
correctly because here's the rub.
you already are that grand imperturbability
so any practice at attaining it is self defeating and
even recognizing it is using a perspective
of disenchantment to see one's inner
peace as such. it's like trying to change
a tire with a volt ohm meter. any effort in
the direction of *being* the peace that one
already is or any effort towards such will only
distract and de-route one from abiding as
that which one already is. it's like the woman
looking for her glasses which are on top of
her head.
bogmyrtle
"George Cherry" <GWCherryHatesG...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
message news:BbWdncIarfebyI_Z...@comcast.com...
missus ...everyone makes mistakes ...
stumper
Thank you.
If you feel that way,
I guess I need to change my attitude toward you.
How would you like to be treated?
A baby?
A Zen master?
A Buddhist monk?
Let me know.
BTW
what did you expect from a student of Zen
when you use a name like "Buddha Pest"?
--
~Stumper
Evelyn Ruut
Yes! Beautifully explained.
Everything I have heard and read and understood, shows our neurotic patterns
and conflicting emotions to be an overlay. We already ARE buddha-nature.
stumper
It's more like a man blowing his brains out
to silence the voices in him.
Do you have any faith?
--
~Stumper
Buddha Pest
of course, but thoughts and
feeling cover up this nature
and we tend to abide as the
thoughts and feelings rather
than the true nature underneath
it all. as krishnamurti was fond
of saying "just be, don't try to
*be* anything.*
Buddha Pest
> Buddha Pest wrote:
> > "stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
> > news:sEudnRzCK8_...@ptd.net...
> >
> >>Do you know why
> >>some Zen masters smile so much?
> >
> >
> > they've never met the stumpman?
> >
> >
>
>
> Thank you.
de nada
> If you feel that way,
> I guess I need to change my attitude toward you.
why the need to change? don't
like yourself as you are? well
i guess that's a notional given, eh?
> How would you like to be treated?
heat treated.
> A baby?
> A Zen master?
> A Buddhist monk?
how about a baby zen master
buddhist monk? naw, nevermind,
titles and names don't do much
for me but thanks for your
considerations anyway.
> Let me know.
you can't know on your own
without permission from me?
how quaint.
> BTW
> what did you expect from a student of Zen
> when you use a name like "Buddha Pest"?
you're the one making expectations.
don't drag me into your conceptual
frameworking cage until you fashion
yourself an escapement key.
George Cherry
the humorous and/or thoughtful responses to my
confession and asking for help. I thought that my
public confession would help shame me into better
behavior and that you folks would, so to speak, be
in my head and watch me. (I could have invited
more shame if I had recounted the full shameful
details of my angry behavior. But I opted to save
a little face.)
I've often thought: how would I act in a situation if
I had an audience (of people whose respect I
sought) observing me? For example, what if I
had closed-circuit television which allowed all
my neighbors to observe my interactions with
Patti? A sangha to observe me? Now I'm going
to use you guys and gals. I'm going to imagine
you can observe me henceforth--since my
consciousness and conscience aren't sufficient
to make me behave wisely and skillfully. It's
humbling to realize that I have to imagine--in
order to behave well--that others are watching
me.
Here are the dynamics of my behavior: a
situation arises in which I conceive that I know
the appropriate action--but some other agent
executes the "wrong" or "immoral" action--
whereupon I become outraged and rail in an
vituperative way against the agent and I
immediately become wrong instead of right.
It only takes such a moment to fall from grace.
So welcome to the beach and my home in
Kittery Point, folks. Watch me and watch over
me.
TIA,
George
Buddha Pest
Buddha Pest
> Wow! How lucky can I get? I've overwhelmed by all
> the humorous and/or thoughtful responses to my
> confession and asking for help. I thought that my
> public confession would help shame me into better
> behavior and that you folks would, so to speak, be
> in my head and watch me. (I could have invited
> more shame if I had recounted the full shameful
> details of my angry behavior. But I opted to save
> a little face.)
>
> I've often thought: how would I act in a situation if
> I had an audience (of people whose respect I
> sought)
seeking approval from others is
always a dead end street. most people
don't even completely approve of
themselves so expecting or awaiting
approval from others shouldn't be high
on the totem pole of one's goals as such.
if you are needing approval give it to yourself
and let go of any disapproving energies stored
there in your gut. only you know you well
enough to make the judgement call of
dishing out approval to yourself, so give
yourself some approval and keep giving
yourself approval because you deserve it.
George Cherry
>
> "George Cherry" <GWCherryHatesG...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
> message news:n8OdnXqHz6J...@comcast.com...
>> Wow! How lucky can I get? I've overwhelmed by all
>> the humorous and/or thoughtful responses to my
>> confession and asking for help. I thought that my
>> public confession would help shame me into better
>> behavior and that you folks would, so to speak, be
>> in my head and watch me. (I could have invited
>> more shame if I had recounted the full shameful
>> details of my angry behavior. But I opted to save
>> a little face.)
>>
>> I've often thought: how would I act in a situation if
>> I had an audience (of people whose respect I
>> sought)
>
> seeking approval from others is
> always a dead end street.
I don't know. Maybe conscience is just imagining
another better person in my head. It's well known
that a lot of crimes are folie de deux ou de trois.
Good behavior may be folie de congregation. Of
the three jewels, maybe the Sangha is the brightest.
> most people
> don't even completely approve of
> themselves so expecting or awaiting
> approval from others shouldn't be high
> on the totem pole of one's goals as such.
Maybe I'm not very good, but I can sure spot it
when you're bad. : o )
> if you are needing approval give it to yourself
> and let go of any disapproving energies stored
> there in your gut.
I like company. I like to share ideas, thoughts,
theories, and theorems. I'm a rule-act utilitarian.
Given that I am only transient here, I must find
satisfaction in community. I disapprove of my
making things worse all around.
> only you know you well
> enough to make the judgement call of
> dishing out approval to yourself, so give
> yourself some approval and keep giving
> yourself approval because you deserve it.
Obviously you don't know me. I don't deserve
approval when I'm a dumb jerk--which I frequently
am. I'm okay sometimes, though.
George
Mayura
"Evelyn Ruut" <mama-l...@hvc.rr.com> wrote
<<Everything I have heard and read and understood, shows our neurotic
patterns and conflicting emotions to be an overlay. We already ARE
buddha-nature.>>
Evelyn, feel free to add the following (about neurosis) to your reading:
"Mayura" <grf...@lineone.net> wrote in message news:...
> There are three classic stages of depersonalisation (in order of
> seriousness) 1) depersonalisation - relating to one's body image and
'self'.
> 2) derealisation - relating to the environment/world and other
> people/entities. 3) emotional switch-off. All of the Buddha's alternative
> paths to nibbana (3) involve running through the three in the same order.
>
> For instance, with mindfulness, the first three foundations - body,
feelings
> and mind are concerned with (1) and the finished result is that one
> 'depersonalises' the five aggregates. They are 'alien', an emptiness, this
> is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am. They are
impersonal
> (de-personalised). With the fourth foundation there is the move to (2)
> derealisation since, from our point of view, other people and the
> environment are received only as 'objects of thought'. And the same
process
> is applied to them. This leads on to nibbana (3)
>
> Alternatively, the jhanas will acoomplish the same thing - progressive
> indifference to the same classes of items covered under mindfulness
leading
> to (3). Alternatively, the Buddha's account of his own awakening involves
> his using the four form jhanas (1) and then finding the middle way between
> 'sensual pleasure' and 'self-affliction and entering the three
knowledges -
> knowledge of his own past lives and knowledge of the passing away and
> reappearance of beings (2) followed by knowledge of the end of
fermentations
> (3).
>
> DN.2 lists 'fruits of the contemplative life' in ascending order of value
> and runs through all of these and more including all of the 'powers'
stuff.
> But it runs through them in exactly the same order i.e. a list of (1s)
> culminating in the jhanas and then insight knowledge followed by a list of
> (2s) including the powers and the two (2) knowledges above and ending in
(3)
> above.
Jonathan
Buddha Pest
in the state of being *unawakened*,
i.e., abiding as those thoughts and
feelings which mask the underlying
state of the unbecome, one's judgement
as to one's worthiness of self approval
can be colored by the influences of our
genetic heritage and our up-bringing
to the tune of relying on those
gut level energies of disapproval
since they do appear to form the
comfort zone structures by which negotiation
of the egocentric addiction agendas
can proliferate. however, the state
of being *unawakened*, as such, can
never really size up the specific out-going
path it has cornered itself with and
subsequent negotiation of a return path,
if you will, must indeed relinquish those
disapproval enegies at any and all
*costs*. approving of even those parts
of you that you tend to give disapproval
to may indeed make them disappear.
just try to accept who and what you
believe yourself to be unconditionally
and see what happens then.
George Cherry
"Hollywood Lee" <hollyw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1214mq4...@corp.supernews.com...
Good morning. Another day. I hope I don't fuck this
one up.
The problem with dog poop at Seapoint Beach in
Kittery Point is that there are members of the Kittery
Town Council who want to close the beach to dogs
from away (dogs who don't live in Kittery) or to all
dogs. We like the dogs "from away". They contribute
to the circus at Seapoint. Why discriminate?
Dog poop is one of the problems. Folks who don't
have dogs or like dogs complain about the poops.
So we put up a big sign saying that owners must
pick up after their dogs' poop, and we put up a bag
(doggie poop bag) dispenser for folks who don't
(as Patti does) bring their own bags. But some
folks are not rule utilitarians or consequentialists.
They don't bother to pick up--they don't even carry
poop bags with them. They could spoil it for all of
us--dog enjoyers and dogs.
(Is poop a count noun or mass noun?)
But--I repeat--railing at these non-consequentialists
doesn't do any good--it seemly demeans me and
makes the possibility of beach violence along with
its ramifications a distinct possibility.
But dog shit aside--I sure would have liked some
organic chocolate pudding this morning. I didn't
get any--and I made Patti cry. Patti means well,
but she's reading-directions challenged, I guess.
Evelyn has suggested I have her head examined.
: o )
George
George Cherry
Is this advice you would give to a serial murderer?
Maybe you should be a counselor to guys on
death row. I don't know. Your paragraph above
seems rather ... oh hell, I don't know how to say
it nicely. To me, you put too much emphasis on
conditions other than chosen goals and ideals--
things like genetics and nurture. That might be
a defense in a court of law. Look, I know that my
anger is part of my genome--it had some kind
survival value in my Paleolithic ancestors, but I
should be master of my domain. Sure, at one
time in our ancient ancestors' lives, anger give
them the energy to clear away obstacles to their
goals. But in contemporary life anger just fucks
things up.
Look, I'm not interested in my self-approval,
unless and until my behavior deserves it, which
to me means better consequences all-around.
Holy Shit, have you been counseling Bush?
George
Buddha Pest
are you a serial murderer?
> Maybe you should be a counselor to guys on
> death row.
no thanks
I don't know. Your paragraph above
> seems rather ... oh hell, I don't know how to say
> it nicely. To me, you put too much emphasis on
> conditions other than chosen goals and ideals--
and goals and ideals aren't conditions?
> things like genetics and nurture. That might be
> a defense in a court of law. Look, I know that my
> anger is part of my genome--it had some kind
> survival value in my Paleolithic ancestors, but I
> should be master of my domain. Sure, at one
> time in our ancient ancestors' lives, anger give
> them the energy to clear away obstacles to their
> goals. But in contemporary life anger just fucks
> things up.
anger might teach you how to be
less angry in the future if indeed
your goal is to be less angry. anger
implies loss. if you dig deep enough
you will find that the only loss you are
really incurring is by abidance in thoughts
and feelings as being *you*. finding
your unbecome nature as such will not
leave you in want of anything and thus
no anger could possibly arise.
> Look, I'm not interested in my self-approval,
> unless and until my behavior deserves it, which
> to me means better consequences all-around.
>
> Holy Shit, have you been counseling Bush?
>
> George
when disapproving of yourself you
are voluntarily giving in to self sabotage
which fools you into believing that if
you satisfy that list of egocentric desires
that gets nailed to your forehead every
morning upon awakening then things will
be hunky dory. drop the list first and see
which behavioural avenues still flourish.
Evelyn Ruut
Jonathan, you say it so well, and with such a thoroughness, that I cannot
really add to your comments at all. Of course, being myself with my own
style, I approach all these stages and steps intuitively, not dicing or
slicing or interpreting them at all, but simply letting them happen and be.
I don't think there is anything at all wrong with your approach, in fact for
many people this more detailed approach is the very best way.
I am reminded of a book my local dharma study group has been discussing each
week after meditation...."Glimpses of Abhidharma" which might be right up
your proverbial "alley" and you might want to try and pick up a copy, if you
have a chance.
Evelyn Ruut
> But dog shit aside--I sure would have liked some
> organic chocolate pudding this morning. I didn't
> get any--and I made Patti cry. Patti means well,
> but she's reading-directions challenged, I guess.
> Evelyn has suggested I have her head examined.
>
> : o )
Not quite, George. And I know that you know that isn't what I meant.
But I can tell you this; for some reason a man whose sugar levels are
dropped, who is in expectation of a sweet tasting chocolate treat, and whose
wishes are thwarted, for whatever reason, is a bear to deal with. I am
sure Patty knows this as well as I do.
In fact I think that there is some actual scientific basis for this low
sugar issue and bad temperedness in men, more so than women.
Mayura
"George Cherry wrote
> "Buddha Pest" <313...@gmail.com> wrote
> > in the state of being *unawakened*,
Indeed. But you probably didn't have to resort to (anxiety-driven)
depersonalized states [assuming the following was true, which I don't
necessarily] from the age of four:<<when i was 4 years old i would sit in
front of a tv and go into trance states. i would climb to a high limb on a
tree and begin repeating a word or phrase in my mind over and over...>> Any
competent psychiatrist would regard this as serious and would expect
*proportionate* precipitating factors.
So it would make sense for there to be the relentless return to different
versions of:<<...one's judgement as to one's worthiness of self approval can
be colored by... [our] up-bringing to the tune of relying on those gut level
energies of disapproval... must indeed relinquish those disapproval enegies
at any and all *costs*. approving of even those parts of [you] that you
tend to give disapproval to may indeed make them disappear. just try to
accept who and what [you] believe [yourself] to be...>>
Alternatively, I have this aunt who kept trying to bounce us into going to
watch her one-woman shows - My Dad Was An Asshole I, II, III & IV.
Unfortunately, she could never bring her alleged 'case' against her father
because, behaviour-wise, she had made herself even more of an asshole than
he ever was. He wouldn't buy it and no-one who knew them both would ever
'buy' it each time she edged towards stating it explicitly, hence this
withdrawal into the symbolic psychodrama and trying to bounce us into
watching that over and over again.
One time, when she came to visit and I was thinking, as usual, that I might
as well have left a cardboard cut-out of myself for her to peck at and gone
down the pub and come back when she'd exhausted herself (for the nth time).
But this time, as she was running through her routine with me and my father,
I interrupted her and said "But I am not your father". She went scarlet and
you've never seen anyone change the subject so fast. I've seen too many
people to count who couldn't bring their alleged 'case' against the relevant
parent because that parent was the whole justification for their assholery
and neither the parent nor anyone who knew both of them would ever buy it.
So they're doomed to run through the same routine indefinitely.
I mean, bless his cotton socks and all that, but, for example, who is
Bernie's "Jehovah"? (That Bernie and all the angels of light are locked in
some huge symbolic Cosmic Battle with). And who are the various Gods and
Goddesses (including oneself as a 'god') and Gurus (including oneself as a
'guru') really replacements for?
> ...That might be
> a defense in a court of law. Look, I know that my
> anger is part of my genome--it had some kind
> survival value in my Paleolithic ancestors, but I
> should be master of my domain. Sure, at one
> time in our ancient ancestors' lives, anger give
> them the energy to clear away obstacles to their
> goals. But in contemporary life anger just fucks
> things up.
>
> Look, I'm not interested in my self-approval,...
It's not all about *you* (or indeed...) I had been hoping, for her/his/its
sake, that Jen wasn't yet another of these innumerable items mentioned
heretofor but the whole conscience-wiping attempt makes it a near certainty
that she is.
> ...unless and until my behavior deserves it, which
> to me means better consequences all-around.
>
> Holy Shit, have you been counseling Bush?
:) Jonathan
jerry
>
>
when there are no expectations
there are no disappointments
: o)
jerry
Déjà Fu
<jenski snipski>
> Look, I'm not interested in my self-approval,
> unless and until my behavior deserves it, which
> to me means better consequences all-around.
Well, for your sake, you should be.
> Holy Shit, have you been counseling Bush?
>
> George
George,
Have you had that rusty old helmet newly lead-lined and
brass plated? After years of listening to Tang (and
sometimes me) talk about where/how it all begins (with
forgiving yourself), you still can't laugh at your own
'stuff'? I don't mean *after* you've made Patti cry,
I mean in (and before) the very moment you become angry
- you can't/don't find such mental outbursts totally silly
and laughable? The whole chain of attachment/desire
(and from) 'organic chocolate pudding'? Your dis-ease
(in a nutshell) is that you take yourself (and your
collection of various 36-volt powered attachments)
too seriously.
A piece of crap on the beach is going to contaminate
the ocean/beach? Give me a fukkin' break. It'll be gone in a day.
Do fish shit in plastic bags now, because we're tossing
enough of them in the seas for every fish to have one?
Consider - which would rather step in - a bit of ex-puppy-chow
excrement which could easily be wiped off 'neath your
shrubberies and help them grow, or a puddle of melted asphalt?
Concrete is also available, if you're considering a swim.
Is this all attributable to "fear of stepping in dog shit"
phobia (canisexcrementisingredioraphobia)?
It's one thing to explode in wrathful fury among peers
(say, for instructional porpoises) and another to
disrespect your devoted wife in public ("Patti means well,
but she's reading-directions challenged, I guess.
Evelyn has suggested I have her head examined") as though
she were an 'object' or some kind of servant that you own.
Haven't you been held back in buddhist kindergarten often
enough to have learned to see that?
Maybe you think Patti should bow to your MIT-ship superiority
and have read the "Pudding-maker's Employee Instruction Manual"
twice over. Has she become something other than an equal or
'beautifully different' person in your mind, lately? Let me
assure you that she still is.
(I actually wrote this before I read Jen's,
"when disapproving of yourself you are voluntarily
giving in to self sabotage which fools you into believing
that if you satisfy that list of egocentric desires that
gets nailed to your forehead every morning upon awakening
then things will be hunky dory. drop the list first and
see which behavioural avenues still flourish.",
which is precisely the same advice. Your posted guilt-trip is
only more of the same sooper-dooper-pooper-scooper-looper-ing.)
And over there ->, we have Jon saying that, "It's not all about
*you*...", but it actually *is*, no matter how you try to shift
the blame (sorry, Bush must be watching...).
Take Patti out to dinner, buy her some new magic shoes or a
diamond necklace and apologize to her for being a self-centered ass.
And remember - next time, *you* make the goddam 'organic
chocolate pudding'.
ps:
A few weeks ago, my Little Chinese Noodle filled out a SS
withholding form for me to sign. It was returned because
she'd put *her* ssn on it - a great laugh.
Déjà Fu
> when there are no expectations
> there are no disappointments
>
> : o)
> jerry
and one needn't care about emptying the spitoon
stumper
>
> George,
>
> Have you had that rusty old helmet newly lead-lined and
> brass plated? After years of listening to Tang (and
> sometimes me) talk about where/how it all begins (with
> forgiving yourself), you still can't laugh at your own
> 'stuff'? I don't mean *after* you've made Patti cry,
> I mean in (and before) the very moment you become angry
> - you can't/don't find such mental outbursts totally silly
> and laughable? The whole chain of attachment/desire
> (and from) 'organic chocolate pudding'? Your dis-ease
> (in a nutshell) is that you take yourself (and your
> collection of various 36-volt powered attachments)
> too seriously.
>
Admitting to your lack of teaching skill?
I guess at least you learned
to be afraid of your spouse.
On the other hand,
George seems to be doing great
in his anger management class
as a teacher.
--
~Stumper
Déjà Fu
> I guess at least you learned
> to be afraid of your spouse.
Be careful what you wish for.
stumper
Do you often capture your own fart?
--
~Stumper
stumper
You think you need to be punished.
I agree.
Now let's figure out how to do that.
--
~Stumper
stumper
Are you afraid of faith?
--
~Stumper
stumper
Nurturing Superego is not that bad.
It might keep shoplifting down.
--
~Stumper
stumper
>
> But dog shit aside--I sure would have liked some
> organic chocolate pudding this morning. I didn't
> get any--and I made Patti cry. Patti means well,
> but she's reading-directions challenged, I guess.
> Evelyn has suggested I have her head examined.
>
You do need some help.
It's not what you did;
it's how you describe it.
--
~Stumper
stumper
May I suggest you punish yourself
by contributing to the Bush Jr. library?
--
~Stumper
stumper
> "George Cherry" <GWCherryHatesG...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
> message news:brWdnRIG0JRfhI7Z...@comcast.com...
>
>>
>>
>
>
> are voluntarily giving in to self sabotage
> which fools you into believing that if
> you satisfy that list of egocentric desires
> that gets nailed to your forehead every
> morning upon awakening then things will
> be hunky dory. drop the list first and see
> which behavioural avenues still flourish.
>
Plausible reasoning.
But, will it help George?
--
~Stumper
Evelyn Ruut
Oh Stumper, that is too, too cruel!
:-)
Déjà Fu
> "stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
<xoff>
> Oh Stumper, that is too, too cruel!
Do you ever wonder why Stumper
doesn't reply to your ass-licking
herd responses? Why you enjoy
watching his MSN show and cheering
as though you were part of it?
Probably not.
But it could still make
an interesting question
for you.
He doesn't need another
mother. Is that a clue?
Here's another one: It's like
you not needing another father.
Everyone but me lets you get
away with it, Ev, ignoring or
slobbering. There must be
something wrong with me, eh?
Now, take a good look. Your initial
mental response was to my name, the
second was to the "you" pronoun, the third
was to the terms, "ass-licking" and "herd",
the fourth was to the apparent "challenge",
the fifth was to the separation (a set-up),
the sixth was about 'right and wrong',
linked all the fucking way up the whole
fucking food-chain, right up to God and
Righteousness. If it's any fucking different,
in the least fucking way, than talking to
George about dog shit on his precious beach,
then do let me know what you really understand
about dependent origination, which, rumor
has it, is the key to the cessation of
suffering.
And you still think I don't care about you?
stumper
Compassion -- noted
Analysis -- faulty
Attitude -- terrible
Lack of skill -- unbelievable
By now,
you should know she is not your mother
who appears to have abandoned you.
Why don't you punish your mother
by killfiling Evelyn?
--
~Stumper the ever guessing
Déjà Fu
<stuff>
You still think I don't care about you?
I'm coming to visit in June. Make sure the
room is ready, and don't forget the horse.
Déjà Fu
<oops>
> By now,
> you should know she is not your mother
> who appears to have abandoned you.
Oh, she's fine. 96 and still getting
speeding tickets. No one can stop her.
Is your mother an American or a Korean woman?
What do you eat for lunch?
stumper
And you let her drive?
Make sure Evelyn cannot get in touch with her.
Who knows what they will talk about you!
--
~Stumper
stumper
Send me pictures first.
--
~Stumper
Buddha Pest
i see that you're reinforcing your
cage. carry on.
Buddha Pest
"you may be a lover but you ain't no dancer."
>the beatles
Buddha Pest
so who was it that stole your awareness?
Buddha Pest
it's not rocket science
stumper
You are attached to words.
--
~Stumper
Buddha Pest
"Mayura" <grf...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:44134...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
i never tried to go into trance at
an early age. it would just happen
spontaneously, but thanks for your
considerations in your attempt to
go from psychotic to psychiatrist.
> > Look, I'm not interested in my self-approval,...
>
> It's not all about *you* (or indeed...) I had been hoping, for her/his/its
> sake, that Jen wasn't yet another of these innumerable items mentioned
> heretofor but the whole conscience-wiping attempt makes it a near
certainty
> that she is.
a conscience addiction is good
for survival addiction fertilization.
Buddha Pest
i can even do crosswords
stumper
The two of you
who can give approval to your self
and you who deserve it.
--
~Stumper
stumper
Then, spank him.
--
~Stumper
stumper
I love to pretend to be attached to emptiness.
Have you heard a golden Buddha fart?
--
~Stumper
stumper
Do you dance with yourself a lot?
--
~Stumper
Buddha Pest
are you saying that humans
are god's poop?
Buddha Pest
"we'll do a hundred miles an hour
spendin someone else's dough,
drive all the way to reno on the
wrong side of the road."
>tom waits
Mayura
"Déją Fu" <cha...@gmail.com> wrote
> Evelyn Ruut wrote:
> > "stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
>
> <xoff>
>
> > Oh Stumper, that is too, too cruel!
>
> Do you ever wonder why Stumper
> doesn't reply to your ass-licking
> herd responses? Why you enjoy
> watching his MSN show and cheering
> as though you were part of it?
>
> Probably not.
> But it could still make
> an interesting question
> for you.
>
> He doesn't need another
> mother. Is that a clue?
>
> Here's another one: It's like
> you not needing another father.
>
> Everyone but me lets you get
> away with it, Ev, ignoring or
> slobbering. There must be
> something wrong with me, eh?
Erm... Well... Anyway... Yesterday was the wrong day for me to be 'mean' to
Evelyn, because she was 'nice' to me. So the whole "Did he who made the Lamb
make [ ]?" Cosmic Symmetry might have been thrown out of whack. But this
being a whole 'nother blinking maninfestation...
I'm not averse to doing a bit of ass-licking, ignoring, slobbering and
herdishness myself from time to time as long as they're spontaneous and
genuine (or at least genuinely bogus) and as long as they don't leave the
recipients feeling manipulated or compromised or bent out of their 'natural'
shape... turning my problems into 'side-taking' and 'wars' and suchlike.
Theoretically and ideally, my dance goes where my dance goes whether missing
or hitting the coma-toes.
Clearly, I wouldn't want to turn her into a 'better Buddhist'(TM) so I hope
no non-relevant variant of: 'I've never pretended to be a saint' gets
inserted here > [ ] (otherwise I might have to 'frown from a great
height'). And I'm not overly bothered about the nature of the particular
'bits' of Evelyn's behaviour 'in themselves' so much as about the fact that
they seem like 'bits'. The particular wardrobe I'd like to see her push
through 'for her own good' (into the Magical Land of Narnia) is one which
reduces the amount of 'Compartmentalisation'.
To me, her 'internal ecosphere' looks a bit like a zoo full of somewhat
hungry animals each in seperate cages with their own kind. We get to meet
different species by turns but they don't seem to get to meet (or battle it
out with or eat) each other. I think there's a relationship between how I do
things and the putative fact that my internal ecosphere is more like a
jungle where far more of the animals get/got to 'meet and greet' in their
own special way. Evelyn occasionally writes that she can see something worth
having in my results, but then usually adds a rider to the effect that her
kind of animal prefers an 'intuitive' rather than an analytical, detailed,
wordy, thoughty etc. approach. (The two are not an either/or anyway though
the animals thing can play to that representation but...)... So...
(internally)... Unleash the Dogs of War... (or alternatively, try and
remember all of the lyrics to that song about the old lady who swallowed a
fly...)
Jonathan
Julian
Mayura wrote:
> "Déjà Fu" <cha...@gmail.com> wrote
Hollywood Lee
> To me, her 'internal ecosphere' looks a bit like a zoo full of somewhat
> hungry animals each in seperate cages with their own kind. We get to meet
> different species by turns but they don't seem to get to meet (or battle it
> out with or eat) each other. I think there's a relationship between how I do
> things and the putative fact that my internal ecosphere is more like a
> jungle where far more of the animals get/got to 'meet and greet' in their
> own special way. Evelyn occasionally writes that she can see something worth
> having in my results, but then usually adds a rider to the effect that her
> kind of animal prefers an 'intuitive' rather than an analytical, detailed,
> wordy, thoughty etc. approach. (The two are not an either/or anyway though
> the animals thing can play to that representation but...)... So...
> (internally)... Unleash the Dogs of War... (or alternatively, try and
> remember all of the lyrics to that song about the old lady who swallowed a
> fly...)
I have this vision of you being in therapy with this psychologist (and
her neat categories of this malady and that solution) and you just
boggling her mind with your jungle. She goes home, opens a bottle of
Chardonnay, and begins calculating whether she could retire on the coast
with what she has socked away.
small tortoiseshell
Déjà Fu wrote:
> Oh, she's fine. 96 and still getting
> speeding tickets. No one can stop her.
Welwitschia:
"The age of the plants is difficult to assess, but it is believed that
they are very long-lived, possibly living 1000 years or more. Some
individuals may be more than 2000 years old.
The plant is thought to absorb water through peculiar structures on its
leaves, harvesting moisture from the dew that comes into the desert
every night. Named after Dr. Friedrich Welwitsch, it is generally
considered to be one of the oddest plants in existence. Although
considered endangered due to its very slow growth and the fact that
older plants are desired by collectors, a fair number of plants exist
in the wild. The plants living in Angola are generally considered to be
better protected than the plants in Namibia, owing to the relatively
high concentration of landmines in Angola, which keep collectors away."
Julian
Evelyn Ruut
"Hollywood Lee" <hollyw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12186jm...@corp.supernews.com...
LOL!
Hi Lee,
It is interesting that Jonathan's description of my "internal ecosphere" has
nothing at all in common with my own assessment of the same. I recognize
Jonathan's brilliance, but I think he gets all tangled up in meanings and
details, and might be happier if he could just simply "be".... and this is
in no way meant as a criticism.
We all have our own way, our own path to follow, and our own 'doorway to
dharma.' I am often totally confused by Jonathans posts, and occasionally
have to read them twice over, and then even still I am often inclined to
want to go for Lee's proverbial bottle of chardonnay. I confess that many
times I have scratched my head, closed the post, marked it as "unread" to go
back to it again and try and follow his train of thought again, but most of
the time I never do.
I think that there are just different ways of relating to dharma, and mine
is totally different from Jonathans. I don't say my way is better or that
his is better, perhaps only better for me, or better for him. Whatever the
case may be for others, I know that I wish him well, I wish you all well.
I wish you all happiness and the causes of happiness, and freedom from
suffering and the causes of suffering.
And whatever pathway you choose, it should bring you inner peace, and most
of all an intuitive sense of knowing that transcends all the definitions and
hair splittings, which, if indulged in, can lead to the worst
misunderstandings and blind alleys, and hurt egos.
I think I stand on good ground here, since the following quotes are just
some of what has been said about that particular attitude, which I did not
particularly "choose" to have, but by whatever course I came to it, I do
have it. and I would rather not go back to the point where I did not.
******
Sutta Nipata IV.5
Paramatthaka Sutta
On Views
"A person who associates himself with certain views,
considering them as best and making them supreme in the world,
he says, because of that, that all other views are inferior;
therefore he is not free from contention (with others).
In what is seen, heard, cognized and in ritual observances performed,
he sees a profit for himself.
Just by laying hold of that view he regards every other view as worthless.
Those skilled (in judgment) say that (a view becomes) a bond if,
relying on it, one regards everything else as inferior.
Therefore a bhikkhu should not depend on what is seen,
heard
or cognized,
nor upon ritual observances.
He should not present himself as equal to,
nor imagine himself to be inferior,
nor better than, another.
Abandoning (the views) he had (previously) held
and not taking up (another),
he does not seek a support even in knowledge.
Among those who dispute he is certainly not one to take sides.
He does not [have] recourse to a view at all.
In whom there is no inclination to either extreme,
for becoming or non-becoming,
here or in another existence,
for him there does not exist a fixed viewpoint
on investigating the doctrines assumed (by others).
Concerning the seen,
the heard
and the cognized
he does not form the least notion.
That brahmana who does not grasp at a view,
with what could he be identified in the world?
"They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion);
doctrines are not accepted by them.
A (true) brahmana is beyond, does not fall back on views."
-- vv. 796-803
--------
Sutta Nipata IV.3
Dutthatthaka Sutta
Corrupted
There are some who dispute
corrupted at heart,
and those who dispute
their hearts set on truth,
but a sage doesn't enter
a dispute that's arisen,
which is why he is
nowhere constrained.
Now, how would one
led on by desire,
entrenched in his likes,
forming his own conclusions,
overcome his own views?
He'd dispute in line
with the way that he knows.
Whoever boasts to others, unasked,
of his practices, precepts,
is, say the skilled,
ignoble by nature --
he who speaks of himself
of his own accord.
But a monk at peace,
fully unbound in himself,
who doesn't boast of his precepts
-- "That's how I am" --
he, say the skilled,
is noble by nature --
he with no vanity
with regard to the world.
One whose doctrines aren't clean --
fabricated, formed, given preference
when he sees it to his own advantage --
relies on a peace
dependent
on what can be shaken.
Because entrenchments in views
aren't easily overcome
when considering what's grasped
among doctrines,
that's why
a person embraces or rejects a doctrine --
in light of these very
entrenchments.
Now, one who is cleansed
has no preconceived view
about states of becoming
or not-
anywhere in the world.
Having abandoned conceit & illusion,
by what means would he go?
He isn't involved.
For one who's involved
gets into disputes
over doctrines,
but how -- in connection with what --
would you argue
with one uninvolved?
He has nothing
embraced or rejected,
has sloughed off every view
right here -- every one.
-------------
Sutta Nipata IV.12
Cula-viyuha Sutta
The Lesser Array
"Dwelling on
their own views,
quarreling,
different skilled people say:
'Whoever knows this, understands Dhamma.
Whoever rejects this, is
imperfect.'
Thus quarreling, they dispute:
'My opponent's a fool & unskilled.'
Which of these statements is true
when all of them say they are skilled?"
"If, in not accepting
an opponent's doctrine,
one's a fool, a beast of inferior discernment,
then all are fools
of inferior discernment --
all of these
who dwell on their views.
But if, in siding with a view,
one's cleansed,
with discernment made pure,
intelligent, skilled,
then none of them
are of inferior discernment,
for all of them
have their own views.
I don't say, 'That's how it is,'
the way fools say to one another.
They each make out their views to be true
and so regard their opponents as fools."
"What some say is true
-- 'That's how it is' --
others say is 'falsehood, a lie.'
Thus quarreling, they dispute.
Why can't contemplatives
say one thing & the same?"
"The truth is one,
there is no second
about which a person who knows it
would argue with one who knows.
Contemplatives promote
their various personal truths,
that's why they don't say
one thing & the same."
"But why do they say
various truths,
those who say they are skilled?
Have they learned many various truths
or do they follow conjecture?"
"Apart from their perception
there are no
many
various
constant truths
in the world.
Preconceiving conjecture
with regard to views,
they speak of a pair: true
& false.
Dependent on what's seen,
heard,
& sensed,
dependent on precepts & practices,
one shows disdain [for others].
Taking a stance on his decisions,
praising himself, he says,
'My opponent's a fool & unskilled.'
That by which
he regards his opponents as fools
is that by which
he says he is skilled.
Calling himself skilled
he despises another
who speaks the same way.
Agreeing on a view gone out of bounds,
drunk with conceit, thinking himself perfect,
he has consecrated, with his own mind,
himself
as well as his view.
If, by an opponent's word,
one's inferior,
the opponent's
of inferior discernment as well.
But if, by one's own word
one's an attainer-of-wisdom, enlightened,
no one
among contemplative's
a fool.
'Those who teach a doctrine other than this
are lacking in purity,
imperfect.'
That's what the many sectarians say,
for they're smitten with passion
for their own views.
'Only here is there purity,'
that's what they say.
'In no other doctrine
is purity,' they say.
That's how the many sectarians
are entrenched,
speaking firmly there
concerning their own path.
Speaking firmly concerning your own path,
what opponent here would you take as a fool?
You'd simply bring quarrels on yourself
if you said your opponent's a fool
with an impure doctrine.
Taking a stance on your decisions,
& yourself as your measure,
you dispute further down
into the world.
But one who's abandoned
all decisions
creates in the world
quarrels no more."
------------------
Especially that last part..... I like.
But I'm not sure that there aren't people who would seek to quarrel all by
themselves for their own amusement, self-validation, or whatever.
You all have a great day!
Julian
snip.
You're absolutely right
but for your errors.
Evelyn Ruut
"Julian" <julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142170720.0...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> You're absolutely right
> but for your errors.
Whatever the
case may be for others, I know that I wish him well, I wish you all well.
I wish you all happiness and the causes of happiness, and freedom from
suffering and the causes of suffering.
And whatever pathway you choose, it should bring you inner peace, and most
of all an intuitive sense of knowing that transcends all the definitions and
hair splittings, which, if indulged in, can lead to the worst
misunderstandings and blind alleys, and hurt egos.
Julian
Evelyn Ruut wrote:
> "Julian" <julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1142170720.0...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > You're absolutely right
> > but for your errors.
>
>
> Whatever the
> case may be for others, I know that I wish him well, I wish you all well.
> I wish you all happiness and the causes of happiness, and freedom from
> suffering and the causes of suffering.
>
> And whatever pathway you choose, it should bring you inner peace, and most
> of all an intuitive sense of knowing that transcends all the definitions and
> hair splittings, which, if indulged in, can lead to the worst
> misunderstandings and blind alleys, and hurt egos.
Yes dear.
Evelyn Ruut
"Déją Fu" <cha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Q-OdnfI_4rvYBY7Z...@adelphia.com...
> Evelyn Ruut wrote:
>> "stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
>
> <xoff>
>
>> Oh Stumper, that is too, too cruel!
>
> Do you ever wonder why Stumper
> doesn't reply to your ass-licking
> herd responses? Why you enjoy
> watching his MSN show and cheering
> as though you were part of it?
>
> Probably not.
> But it could still make
> an interesting question
> for you.
>
> He doesn't need another
> mother. Is that a clue?
>
> Here's another one: It's like
> you not needing another father.
>
> Everyone but me lets you get
> away with it, Ev, ignoring or
> slobbering. There must be
> something wrong with me, eh?
>
>
>
>
>
> mental response was to my name, the
> second was to the "you" pronoun, the third
> was to the terms, "ass-licking" and "herd",
> the fourth was to the apparent "challenge",
> the fifth was to the separation (a set-up),
> the sixth was about 'right and wrong',
> linked all the fucking way up the whole
> fucking food-chain, right up to God and
> Righteousness. If it's any fucking different,
> in the least fucking way, than talking to
> George about dog shit on his precious beach,
> then do let me know what you really understand
> about dependent origination, which, rumor
> has it, is the key to the cessation of
> suffering.
>
>
> And you still think I don't care about you?
You have GOT to be kidding, right?
Hmmmm.... all those "fucking's" indicate rather a lot of powerful
conflicting emotions.
Maybe that is the problem.
You maybe should try to care a little less.... in fact a lot less.
You'd be a lot happier for it.
Could you deal with the void if you stopped concerning yourself?
jerry
hi flu
dharmic words fur sure
maybe a good paddling would bring her around
careful, w'ell get roberts libido aroused
: o)
jerry
Buddha Pest
the beauty of oblivious depravity
in a mason jar shelved just out
of reach to the need of finding
the footstool of sourcingness
on stand-alone feet of clay.
> I'm not averse to doing a bit of ass-licking, ignoring, slobbering and
> herdishness myself from time to time as long as they're spontaneous and
> genuine (or at least genuinely bogus) and as long as they don't leave the
> recipients feeling manipulated or compromised or bent out of their
'natural'
> shape... turning my problems into 'side-taking' and 'wars' and suchlike.
> Theoretically and ideally, my dance goes where my dance goes whether
missing
> or hitting the coma-toes.
to the moon and back on gossamer
wings or is your maidenform bra too
tight? those ass licking ignoring slobbering
and herdishness pill prescriptions might
need a co-pay of a large cup of should i
give a fuck or does the subconscious syn-droNe
dribble its drooling my way unintentionally
with you co-creating felicity after felicity in
no pre-fabricationally challenged mop-ups?
> Clearly, I wouldn't want to turn her into a 'better Buddhist'(TM) so I
hope
> no non-relevant variant of: 'I've never pretended to be a saint' gets
> inserted here > [ ] (otherwise I might have to 'frown from a great
> height'). And I'm not overly bothered about the nature of the particular
> 'bits' of Evelyn's behaviour 'in themselves' so much as about the fact
that
> they seem like 'bits'. The particular wardrobe I'd like to see her push
> through 'for her own good' (into the Magical Land of Narnia) is one which
> reduces the amount of 'Compartmentalisation'.
your need to control others whilst
letting yourself be completely out
of control perpetuates that restless
miasma of expectational avenues
from others without the courage to
tread those very negotiations yourself
sending others out to scout the territory
ahead of you displaying your grand
cowardice in a decidedly splendid
fashion.
> To me, her 'internal ecosphere' looks a bit like a zoo full of somewhat
> hungry animals each in seperate cages with their own kind. We get to meet
> different species by turns but they don't seem to get to meet (or battle
it
> out with or eat) each other. I think there's a relationship between how I
do
> things and the putative fact that my internal ecosphere is more like a
> jungle where far more of the animals get/got to 'meet and greet' in their
> own special way. Evelyn occasionally writes that she can see something
worth
> having in my results, but then usually adds a rider to the effect that her
> kind of animal prefers an 'intuitive' rather than an analytical, detailed,
> wordy, thoughty etc. approach. (The two are not an either/or anyway though
> the animals thing can play to that representation but...)... So...
> (internally)... Unleash the Dogs of War... (or alternatively, try and
> remember all of the lyrics to that song about the old lady who swallowed a
> fly...)
would that fly be more to your shadow
dog likings as to its efficacy in negotiating
what appears to be the caged reality of
animal spittings and regrets or are we all
simply mirrored in your growling image as
needing your psychosis to ameliorate
our own?
small tortoiseshell
small tortoiseshell
first time i make a blog, sorry.
'snomatter
Fuck all to do with anything important.
Go and have a beer and try and think of something that you
might just might be proud to post.
"Déją Fu" <cha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Q-OdnfI_4rvYBY7Z...@adelphia.com...
> Evelyn Ruut wrote:
>> "stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
>
> <xoff>
>
>> Oh Stumper, that is too, too cruel!
>
> Do you ever wonder why Stumper
> doesn't reply to your ass-licking
> herd responses? Why you enjoy
> watching his MSN show and cheering
> as though you were part of it?
>
> Probably not.
> But it could still make
> an interesting question
> for you.
>
> He doesn't need another
> mother. Is that a clue?
>
> Here's another one: It's like
> you not needing another father.
>
> Everyone but me lets you get
> away with it, Ev, ignoring or
> slobbering. There must be
> something wrong with me, eh?
>
>
>
>
>
small tortoiseshell
thanks for comment on page. i consider that a go for it. I deleted the
blog though. At least i know how to do it now. Gotte make a plan...
Mayura
"Julian" <julia...@gmail.com> wrote
http://www.poppyfields.net/poppy/songs/oldwoman.html
Thanks! I could remember the general shape but not how it ended. (It could
be telling me that I'm flogging a dead horse, but I expect the answer will
'emerge').
Jonathan
Mayura
"Julian" <julia...@gmail.com> wrote
:) (Bloomin' non-picking-up newsreader) Maybe that's what happened to
Janice. (Bring back Janice!)
Jonathan
Mayura
"Evelyn Ruut" <mama-l...@hvc.rr.com> wrote
> "Déją Fu" <cha...@gmail.com> wrote
I'm confused as to your answer to his, "And you still think I don't care
about you?"
Is it the implied "Yes, I still think that" of the initial "You have GOT to
be kidding, right?"?
Or is it the implied "No, I currently think you care about me" of "You maybe
should try to care a little less..."? (of the next but one sentence).
Or both or neither/something else. And how do you rate the chances of these
two 'animals' being uncaged and one of them predominating over the other?
> You'd be a lot happier for it.
Well, he's certainly some kind of Fly in some kind of Ointment. (I've had to
have words with him about this before). Maybe Mr.Patanjali with his eight
limbs of depersonalization could help.
> Could you deal with the void if you stopped concerning yourself?
(...And with the loss of my immense respect?)
Jonathan
Mayura
"Buddha Pest" <313...@gmail.com> wrote
> "Mayura" <grf...@lineone.net> wrote
> > ...a whole 'nother blinking maninfestation...
>
<<the beauty of oblivious depravity in a mason jar shelved just out of reach
to the need of finding the footstool of sourcingness on stand-alone feet of
clay.
to the moon and back on gossamer wings or is your maidenform bra too tight?
those ass licking ignoring slobbering and herdishness pill prescriptions
might
need a co-pay of a large cup of should i give a fuck or does the
subconscious syn-droNe dribble its drooling my way unintentionally with you
co-creating felicity after felicity in no pre-fabricationally challenged
mop-ups? your need to control others whilst letting yourself be completely
out of control perpetuates that restless miasma of expectational avenues
from others without the courage to tread those very negotiations yourself
sending others out to scout the territory ahead of you displaying your grand
cowardice in a decidedly splendid
fashion. would that fly be more to your shadow dog likings as to its
efficacy in negotiating what appears to be the caged reality of animal
spittings and regrets or are we all simply mirrored in your growling image
as needing your psychosis to ameliorate our own?>>
!!!
Jonathan
Buddha Pest
yep, just sit there and bleed stream the
more than shrinkingly obvious quotients
of exclamation addictions thrice compounded
with no concern whatsoever how this action
of yours plays out in eternal subsequent
consequence backed up by its long term
buddy infinte regressive causality until those
depressurized enharmonic line fieldings
chameleonize yet another morphogenetic
creation substrait so that everyone can once
again run about looking to end their
habitational sufferings....
stumper
What gods?
Aren't they all dead?
Any idea what is emptiness?
--
~Stumper
stumper
And remember nothing afterward.
Hence, we are told to be mindful.
--
~Stumper
small tortoiseshell
stumper
Ever wondered why
the Buddha does not talk like you?
--
~Stumper
Buddha Pest
thank you for this fine example of your
very own suffering. now the hard part,
put an end to it....
stumper
That's much better.
Now, tell me how
you stopped your suffering, please.
--
~Stumper
Hollywood Lee
stumper
Don't be a baby about it.
You are not funny, period.
Back to your mantra.
--
~Stumper
[From: http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/dhp/verseload.php?verse=253]
In one who constantly sees the faults of others and is always
disparaging them, moral intoxicants (asavas) increase; he is far
from extinction of moral intoxicants (i.e., he is far from
attainment of arahatship).
Hollywood Lee
For you, I recommend http://www.stopsufferingnow.com/
Déjà Fu
couldn't have done better
stumper
Sorry, time for your mantra again.
[From: http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/dhp/verseload.php?verse=253]
In one who constantly sees the faults of others and is always
disparaging them, moral intoxicants (asavas) increase; he is far
from extinction of moral intoxicants (i.e., he is far from
attainment of arahatship).
[end of quote]
BTW
you are so predictable.
Get some humorous attitude, please.
--
~Stumper
[From: "Faith, Humor and Paradox" by Ignacio L.Götz]
THE HUMOR ATTITUDE
The case has been made so far that incongruity is at the root of
humor. Humorous laughter, therefore, cannot deserve this
categorization except in the presence of paradox. 37 But the
question may be asked whether or not perceived incongruity,
though a necessary condition, is also a sufficient condition of
humor. The answer is No. Clearly, perceived incongruity may lead
to a number of outcomes that have nothing to do with humor.
Thus, for instance, paradox may lead to fear, despair,
bewilderment, or curiosity. 38
If paradox is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of
humor, we must search for the element that decisively
differentiates between the humorous and the nonhumorous
apprehension of paradox. This element is the humorous attitude.
One may say that while paradox is necessary a parte objecti, it
alone does not suffice. The humorous attitude must supervene a
parte subjecti in order for the perception to eventuate in
laughter. In what does the humor attitude, the sense of humor,
consist? The work of Kant may give us some idea of its nature.
For Kant, humor was a talent, “the talent for being able to put
oneself at will into a certain frame of mind in which everything
is estimated on lines that go quite off the beaten track (a
topsy-turvy view of things) and yet on lines that follow certain
principles.” 39 In other words, humor depends on the talent, the
capacity to transport oneself beyond self-repelling systems to a
new system where unheard of solutions are possible. What is this
talent? It is the imagination, which is “a powerful agent for
creating, as it were, a second nature out of the material
supplied to it by actual nature. It affords us entertainment
where experience proves too commonplace.” 40 The imagination,
therefore, is the root of the sense of humor.
[end of quote]
Hollywood Lee
> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>>>>> Now, tell me how you stopped your suffering, please.
>>>> http://www.mtax.com/
>>> Don't be a baby about it. You are not funny, period.
>>
>>
>> For you, I recommend http://www.stopsufferingnow.com/
>
> Sorry, time for your mantra again.
>
> [From: http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/dhp/verseload.php?verse=253] In
> one who constantly sees the faults of others and is always
> disparaging them, moral intoxicants (asavas) increase; he is far from
> extinction of moral intoxicants (i.e., he is far from attainment of
> arahatship). [end of quote]
Excellent passage for you to reflect on and apply inward. And I am sure
you took the time to understand the context of the sutta before citing
it here. Congratulations. Finally, an acknowledgment of the value of a
Buddhist practice. You may be on your way to a wonderful mango pie. Mmmmm
>
> BTW you are so predictable.
How many fingers am I holding up?
> Get some humorous attitude, please.
Wearing it now. Get your at
http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/jump.jsp?itemID=2278&itemType=PRODUCT
stumper
Such a low expectation of him will not help him.
You two can do a lot better than this.
--
~Stumper
Déjà Fu
answer the question
stumper
> stumper wrote:
>
>> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>
>
>>>>>> Now, tell me how you stopped your suffering, please.
>
>
>>>>> http://www.mtax.com/
>
>
>>>> Don't be a baby about it. You are not funny, period.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For you, I recommend http://www.stopsufferingnow.com/
>
>
>>
>> Sorry, time for your mantra again.
>>
>> [From: http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/dhp/verseload.php?verse=253] In
>> one who constantly sees the faults of others and is always disparaging
>> them, moral intoxicants (asavas) increase; he is far from
>> extinction of moral intoxicants (i.e., he is far from attainment of
>> arahatship). [end of quote]
>
>
>
> Excellent passage for you to reflect on and apply inward. And I am sure
> you took the time to understand the context of the sutta before citing
> it here. Congratulations. Finally, an acknowledgment of the value of a
> Buddhist practice. You may be on your way to a wonderful mango pie. Mmmmm
>
Finally, you bothered to visit the website cited.
Such humility will get you far.
But, you failed to realize that
if it is not applicable to you
if is not applicable to me either.
That's why I knowingly suggested it as your mantra.
--
~Stumper the imaginary parrot