“you do not solve problems with the same level of awareness that created them.”

So bombs don’t stop bombs, laws don’t stop crime. To fix the world you get to a higher separate state of awareness and fix the core of the issues in the human not try to reorder the mess they made.

/babble

I’m not arguing against anyone, just making points for discussion/development.

If I say “correct the self and the world will correct itself” am I babbling?

Depends who’s listening, but the troubles in the world are down to someone far from enlightened inflicting real suffering on others by their vain attempts to shape the world around them.

If they do not love them selves and look out to the world for justification, try to form the world to be what they are not, then they are going to form a fucked world. They do, we all see it happen.

Someone correct on the inside does not project a negative world around them as the compassion for themselves is granted to all as they see the world as an extension of them self.

So do you fix war and hatred by standing up against it? Sort of and no. Sort of because we have to stand up, but no because standing in opposition gives validity to the thing you stand against. Saying “hey israel stop killing kids with big weapons” does not make israel say “oh yeah if you hadn’t pointed that out I may have missed it” it makes them say “fuck you” and carry on.

The way to stand up is to “be the change” (more babble). It is so true, when enlightenment spreads we no longer look out for happiness and change we project it.

Yes a baby getting its leg blown off is awful for viewer and especially innocent baby! no denying that! However if most of the world acted as good as they “thought they should if things were better” then the justification for the bomb would dwindle.

To make a statement to an army you shoot at them. To make a statement to a real human you talk to them.

When people can love themselves then they love the world and the world is loved and more people love theme selves.

Babble! true though.

That being said, I think recognizing that the “stick” does not exist is one element of the path toward heightened awareness, toward my own “DIY enlightenment”. Of course the stick exists, but what I’m speaking of is less Buddhist in nature, and more philosophical, or more specifically anti-philosophical (traditional philosophy anyway), and it’s 100% NOT a withdrawal from “reality”. I understand that this all sounds like doublespeak, but it’s not, and it’s not Buddhist in nature, but the similarities are clear to me.

My original statement is based more on perception, language, and the limits of language. Breaking down the use of language is important for the person seeking heightened awareness (my opinion). Language has its limits, and we think in language, thus our thinking is limited by the words we use. For example, the “stick” is not a stick, it is a serious of particularly arranged matter that sits on the ground or hangs from a tree. It is a “stick” only in our mind. Note that I use the quotations, because I’m referencing the term “stick” and not the real object. A “stick” exists only in our minds. Further, a “stick” is not matter, as “matter” exists only in our minds. We can never reach its true meaning, because we use words to define words.

Ultimately, and I’m being so overly simplistic it’s not even funny, all is God, and language is merely attempts to reach God. Confused? It is confusing and complex. I can only suggest you read further on the subject if you’re interested. You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction. Then you can go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_language. You can also try here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein.

I’ll be more cautious in the future about just dropping statements like “things are neither fucked nor wonderful” because it’s very clear that it is exceptionally prone to misinterpretation. Which really isn’t that surprising given the complexity of it all.

I will say only that a true understanding of this SHOULD serve as a step toward heightened awareness, and heightened awareness SHOULD lead to social action. If neither of these holds true, something was missed in the process.

Take care.

Very much looking forward to the mix.

As to reality. The Buddha/Tao ‘twaddle’ presumes an ‘ideal’ world beyond the physical, that is somehow related to our thoughts and experience. Where it comes unstuck is specifying this somehow. If talking is not real why do they keep talking so effing much! What does it mean to say that someone dying from their wounds is not ‘really’ dying.

Which leads me to my deepest concern with this line: it undermines compassion. If suffering isn’t real why bother trying to alleviate it? My understanding – though I’m no Buddhist, so should maybe shut up – is that this is what Buddha was about.

Thank you for the mention. A proud moment in my history of psycho-babble to be sure!

I’m looking forward to Rebel Zen’s “ACTION not just IDEAS” in ’09, (in between my puffs of smoke).

My life has plenty of action on conditions I’d like to see improved. It’s the Confucius vs Lao Tzu path. You awaken to the Now. You can then either 1) recognize the world is nuts and go live in a cave as Lao Tzu did, or you can 2) become engaged and promote change as Confucius did. I prefer the latter.

The “Buddha-talk” is helpful in that it helps mend the suffering for the person experiencing it, and, as you stated, when the oppressors engage in it, their actions may change. Further, for the people that just go to work M-F and sit on the couch all weekend, oblivious to the world around them, that “Buddha-talk” and understanding should SPUR action (I believe).

I’d like to address the “whether the stick exists or not” concept further, but we’d need a few cold beers and a bar. In the meantime – cheers – cheers to your taking action.

I’ve been down the hippy-Tao path and it is only applicable in certain situations. For example, if you are feeling blue about something relatively minor (as compared to a life-threat) then realising that most suffering is a decision can be extremely liberating.

It’s not that there is no truth in all that Buddha-talk, but – call me a pragmatist – it’s (in my opinion) not very helpful when we talk about the major issues facing this planet right now.

On the other hand, if only those who inflict suffering on others would take on board some of this thinking, then they might think better of their actions and desist. In that case – very useful!