•
this is a small section from “shambhala: the sacred path of the warrior”. i’ll comment on this in subsequent posts, so i consider this fair use to copy this small piece here. it’s interesting also in light of google’s recent claim that up to 20% of a book can be shown online as the result of a search. they’re calling that fair use for any printed material.
Acknowledging fear is not a cause for depression or discouragement. Because we possess such fear, we also are potentially entitled to experience fearlessness. True fearlessness is not the reduction of fear; but going beyond fear.
In order to experience fearlessness, it is necessary to experience fear. The essence of cowardice is not acknowledging the reality of fear. Fear can take many forms. Logically, we know we can’t live forever. We know that we are going to die, so we are afraid. We are petrified of our death. On another level, we are afraid that we can’t handle the demands of the world. This fear expresses itself as a feeling of inadequacy. We feel that our own lives are overwhelming, and confronting the rest of the world is more overwhelming. Then there is abrupt fear, or panic, that arises when new situations arise suddenly in our lives. When we feel we can’t handle them, we jump or twitch. Sometimes fear manifests in the form of restlessness: doodles on a note pad, playing with our fingers, or fidgeting in our chairs. We feel that we have to keep ourselves moving all the time, like an engine running in a motor car. The pistons go up and down, up and down. As long as the pistons keep moving, we feel safe. Otherwise, we feel we might die on the spot.
Read more »
If you're new here, thanks for visiting! Please subscribe to my RSS feed and consider visiting my design-related blog and my meditation-related blog.
•
in the travel section last week, ny times wrote Meditation Retreats Calm Those Jangled Nerves and mentioned karme choling, my fav place to sit and meditate.
•
my previous post about things existing is likely to be confusing. it’s a complicated topic, one of the most advanced in buddhist philosophic teachings.
the “exist” in this language does not mean “to appear”, but has a higher standard. to truly exist, something must be permanent, independent, and unitary. that means it must truly be a separate “thing” from its environment. otherwise, if it were interdependent and influenced by its environment then it wouldn’t really exist separate from that environment.
one of the classic examples in the west for this is the table example. does the leg of a table “exist”? well, it’s a leg because of it’s relationship with the entire table. without the rest of the table, it would just be a piece of wood or a stick. but in relationship to the table, it is a leg. therefore, it’s existence as a leg is interdependent with the rest of the table and it is not independently existent as a “leg” really.
but this already points to an interesting question, do “we” exist independent of our environment, our community, our situation? or are we interdependent with it? that’s where the buddhist questioning ends up. talking about tables is amusing, but what about our emotions? our thoughts? our sense of self? are those things truly separable and existing independently or are they completely interconnected with the causes and conditions of our environment? if our emotions are not completely independent of our environment, then they do not ‘exist’ separable from them. they are dependently arisen phenomena then. same with thoughts and a sense of ’self’.
this then causes one to question the nature of a ’soul’ or essence of our existence. are we really separate from our environment or is some small part of us truly persistent and unchanging? or are we the product of the causes and conditions in our life? if we are the product of the causes and conditions in our life, then how can we say we “exist” separable from them?
•
the buddhist scholar nagarjuna starts with this comment on whether things exist:
not from self, not from other, not from both, nor without cause;
things do not arise at any place, at any time.
but what does he mean by “things” and that they are not “arising”? there are various ways that we think that things exist (’bhava’ in sanskrit). in this context, we mean things exist if they are distinct, separable, and lasting as they are. but is anything really like that? if we look closely, it seems that everything is constantly changing. the appearance of things not changing is simply a matter of time scale and our lack of detail. the closer you look, the less solid things become. everything is changing and interacting with the environment, though some less quickly or with less drama.
Read more »
•
hi all, last week was the finish of a large and consuming project. then i went into a meditation retreat for the long weekend to regain my sanity. my apologies for being hard to reach over the last three weeks or so, i’ve been super busy with that project. looking forward to catching up with everyone soon.
•
I had a really interesting experience on the train today. I was riding down to my client site, to work on this TV project in their lab, and the train had a number of passed out, still drunk, or very tired looking people from last night’s revelry. After awhile, one of those passengers started yelling loudly. As if angry and fighting with a lover over a cell phone, but then it became clear that he wasn’t on the phone. He was just yelling profanity loudly.
Read more »
monkey see, monkey do serves as a personal blog and creative outlet for