2009.01.17 19:00 - Enters the Idea of Ethics

I, Pema, was the guardian that evening. It was the first in our four weekly guardian meetings, centered around the weekend, at Sat 7 pm, Sun 1 pm, Mon 7 am, Tue 1 am. It would turn out to be quite a marathon session, more than two hours in total.

When I arrived, Adams, Pila, Scathach, Stevenaia were already there, as well as a new visitor, Ladykat.

Scathach Rhiadra: Hello Pila
Adams Dubrovna: Hello Scath, Steve, Ladykat, Pila and Pema :)
Pema Pera: Hi everybody!
Scathach Rhiadra: Hello Pema
Ladykat Tigerpaw: Hello all.
stevenaia Michinaga: Hello Pema, Pila
Pema Pera: Ladykat, have you been here before, in our group?
Ladykat Tigerpaw: NO, this is the first time. I hear to learn
Pema Pera: Glad to meet you! We get together a few times a day to chat about the nature of reality, and everything else, and we have a wiki http://playasbeing.wik.is/ -- we record our conversations there. Do you mind being included in our blogs?
Ladykat Tigerpaw: NOt at all.
Pema Pera: Thank you!
stevenaia Michinaga: .9low
Pema Pera: ?
stevenaia Michinaga: sorry. lowering the fountain
Pema Pera: !

Yes, the command is "/9low" -- but I wondered first whether it was a kind of pun on "glow" or who knows what :). Fefonz and Tarmel were about to arrive, so there were eight of us.

Pema Pera: Does anyone want to start off?
Pema Pera: with any idea, experience, or question?
Pila Mulligan: just a few days before an epochal political change in the US, hopefully
Pema Pera: Please, Ladykat, feel free to speak up, any time -- we are very informal here!
Adams Dubrovna: Hello Fefonz and Tarmel :)
Pila Mulligan: hi Fefonz
Pema Pera: Hi there Fefonz!
Fefonz Quan: heool everyone :)
Scathach Rhiadra: Hello Fefonz, Tarmel:)
Pila Mulligan: hi Tarmel
Adams Dubrovna: Yes Pila
Ladykat Tigerpaw: I thought I would wait and see how things go. Hello all.
Pema Pera: hi Tarmel!
Ladykat Tigerpaw: It is hard to keep me quiet for too long.
Scathach Rhiadra: :)
Pema Pera: haha, we'll see!
Tarmel Udimo: hi everyone
Scathach Rhiadra: I've got a question
Pema Pera: yes, Scathach?
Scathach Rhiadra: I've noticed in the pheno experiments, I talk about 'centring' and other people talk about de-centring
Scathach Rhiadra: I was just wondering if we are talking about the same thing
Pema Pera: interesting question!
Pila Mulligan: what does centering mean to you Scathach?
Scathach Rhiadra: hmm, I suppose it means shifting my perspective back from my outward looking conciousness, if that makes sense
Pila Mulligan: yes, it does
Ladykat Tigerpaw: yes
Scathach Rhiadra: more centred in awareness

I provided a pointer to the Kira phenomenology workshop.

Pema Pera: (for the phenomenology workshop, which Scathach refered to, see http://pheno.wik.is/)
Pila Mulligan: Jung wrote about people's attention tending to be internalized or externalized
stevenaia Michinaga: Interesting perspective, I work with someone who sees things much as I do, but from a completely different direction, so we talking about the things only to find out later we were actually talking about about the same thing, from 2 different places, like discussing the same door from differents rooms
Pila Mulligan: from that he developed his introversion extraversion analysis
Scathach Rhiadra: but is introversion/extroversion not concerned with personality?
Pila Mulligan: no, it is actually based on perspective, and applied to personality, a I understand it
Scathach Rhiadra: ah
Scathach Rhiadra: so what do people mean by de-centring?
Pila Mulligan: \good question :)
Fefonz Quan: but does this centring happens only when 'looking inward"?
Fefonz Quan: (i feel not)
Scathach Rhiadra: not necessarily,
Pema Pera: One of the purposes of the phenomenology experiments is to recover a wider horizon, a more balanced and open way of looking at what presents itself. In contrast, in daily life, we tend to be either too narrowly focused on our self, in which case a kind of decentering may help, or too much scattered all over the pace, in which case a kind of centering may help . . . :-)
Scathach Rhiadra: though in meditation it happens
Fefonz Quan: yes
Pema Pera: both try to counterbalance, but the new degree of freedom lies outside those two opposites
Fefonz Quan: but then it seems like centering is not only a function of where we put our attention, but HOW we put it
Scathach Rhiadra: ah, that makes sense:)
Scathach Rhiadra: how do you mean Fefonz?
Fefonz Quan: for me, this feeling of balance (if that's what you mean in centering)
Scathach Rhiadra nods
Fefonz Quan: comes when i watch, either inner sensations (like closed eyes meditation)
Fefonz Quan: or outer appearances, like PaB
Fefonz Quan: and watching as "being", without trying to change anytihng, sometimes brings this state of mind

I managed to get back, after having lost my connection.

Pila Mulligan: welcome back Pema
Adams Dubrovna: wb Pema :)
Ladykat Tigerpaw: wb
Pema Pera: :)
Tarmel Udimo: welcome back pema - like the cartwheel Being at play ;-)
Fefonz Quan: for me, this feeling of balance (if that's what you mena in centring)
Scathach Rhiadra nods
Fefonz Quan: comes when i watch, either inner sensations (like closed eyes meditation)
Fefonz Quan: or outer appearances, like PaB
Fefonz Quan: and watching as "being", without trying to change anytihng, sometimes brings this state of mind
Pila Mulligan: welcome back Pema
Adams Dubrovna: wb Pema :)
Ladykat Tigerpaw: eb
Ladykat Tigerpaw: wb
Pema Pera: :)
Tarmel Udimo: welcome back pema - like the cartwheel Being at play ;-)
Pema Pera: in the guise of a flaky hotel internet connection in Tokyo :-)

Tarmel gave a great practical testimony to the effects of the Play as Being exploration for her.

Tarmel Udimo: I often walk donw the street now going car as being being as car, tree as being being as tree, me as being being as me, perhaps i am taking things a little far :-) but i feel fine
Adams Dubrovna: :)
Pila Mulligan: :)
Scathach Rhiadra: :)
Tarmel Udimo: it does feel like a centerless state though just bringing us back to scath's question
Pila Mulligan: so de-centering could be an absence of subjectivity?
Pila Mulligan: as one definition, perhaps?
Pema Pera: yes, Tarmel, it sounds like the stopping and dropping that is so important, in making room for "seeing"
Ladykat Tigerpaw: How does centering differ from what some call being in the zone or flow?
Pema Pera: yes, that is another way to describe it, Ladykat
Ladykat Tigerpaw: There is dancing that is being with the music and dancing that is being conscious of the music.
Tarmel Udimo: depneds on what you mean by being in the zone and going with the flow
Pila Mulligan: ah, a James Taylor lyric: 'ride with the tide and go with the flow' :)
Ladykat Tigerpaw: I mean being with the music instead of being conscious of the music. It is being one.
Fefonz Quan: i'm not sure Tarmel "de-centering" description is different from Scathach "centering' experience, so we might have lsemantic issues here
Pema Pera: stopping, dropping, being in the flow, stepping aside, following one's inspiration, or centering, or decentering, we may well be talking about something very similar, but we'll have to compare notes in more detail to be sure
Tarmel Udimo: hummm not sure I already have trouble with the subjective /objective as a description
Tarmel Udimo: it always feels like what I look at is the subject and me looking is the objective
Pema Pera: taking on a more object-like role is a great way to stop/drop
Pema Pera: in what way, Tarmel?
Tarmel Udimo: not sure
Fefonz Quan: and how come it's getting brighter at 7pm SLT? or is it just my view?
Tarmel Udimo: its is something about sl time being shoter than Rl time
Fefonz Quan: yes, without all that mass that slows time in RL :)
Pema Pera: the subject/object reversal experiment that some of you have done in the phenomenology workshop is aimed at something similar to what we have been talkingabout so far: to drop the narrow identification with being a subject, an ego, a self that has to tightly keep the leadership role . . . .
Pema Pera: . . . taking more of a role of an object, letting ourselves be seen rather than trying to see all that is around us, is one way into this more "flow" kind of experience
Pema Pera: allowing ourselves to be seen
Pema Pera: or letting Being see, as we sometimes say here

Corvi joined us, and then there were nine of us.

Pema Pera: Hi Corvi!
Tarmel Udimo: hi corvi
Fefonz Quan: Hello corvi :)
stevenaia Michinaga: hello Corvi
Corvuscorva Nightfire: Hi all
Adams Dubrovna: Hi Corvi :)
Ladykat Tigerpaw: HI
Pila Mulligan: hi Corvi
Tarmel Udimo: there seems to be some link to creating closer ties to sustaining non attachment to outcomes
Pila Mulligan: an example of an excess of subjectivity, Tarmel, would be projecting an unrealistic expectation upon an object -- in that case, objectivity could help one gain a more balanced perspective
Pila Mulligan: and less attachment to outcomes
Scathach Rhiadra: so, I feel being centred in awareness as being slightly detached, or moved back from 'me', and can experience myself as an object similar to other objects, like expanded awareness
Fefonz Quan: detached, is it like looking at your self from outside, scath?
Scathach Rhiadra: no, just more aware of perceptions of my self as perceptions
Tarmel Udimo: this is great when this is happening because in reality i think we can live at the level of projecting or we can drop and just be and see
Fefonz Quan: yes,
Ladykat Tigerpaw: Being with the flow, however, as I have experienced it is a merging of self rather then a keener awarendess of self.
Tarmel Udimo: merging of self with?
Ladykat Tigerpaw: all.
Tarmel Udimo: all?
Ladykat Tigerpaw: Mergine with what is.
Tarmel Udimo: this what we refer to as being
Ladykat Tigerpaw: Merging that is.
Ladykat Tigerpaw: Got it.
Tarmel Udimo: howvere pema and stime did try to describe the diference between is and being
Tarmel Udimo: will have to read chat again to understand
Adams Dubrovna: Good night all. Thanks for the intersting discussion :)
Pema Pera: Bye Adams!
Pila Mulligan: bye Adams
Fefonz Quan: bye adams
Corvuscorva Nightfire: Bye!
Scathach Rhiadra: night Adams:)
Ladykat Tigerpaw: By Adams.
Tarmel Udimo: se yoiu adams
stevenaia Michinaga: night Adams

Adams left, and Tarmel didn't let me off the hook, re: Is and Being :)

Tarmel Udimo: pema? is and being?
Pema Pera: Well, I am not sure how important that difference is in this context
Pema Pera: Stim was talking about his way of teaching his students, in his classes on contemplation
Pema Pera: and he uses the term "Is"
Pema Pera: while we talk about "Being" as in Play as Being
Tarmel Udimo: that's pretty clear
Ladykat Tigerpaw: May I ask where Play comes in
Pema Pera: "Is" is more connected with a kind of entry, a waking up
Pema Pera: whereas Being is that which always already
Pema Pera: and which we can use as a resource
Pema Pera: playing as Being
Pema Pera: as if we have already passed the gate of "Is"
Pema Pera: which in fact we have
Pema Pera: but we are normally not aware of it :-)
Pema Pera: a subtle but important point . . . . .
Tarmel Udimo: yes I kind of didn't quite get it in the discussion thais has made it clearer for me ty
Ladykat Tigerpaw: I am still unclear about PLaying as being.
Pema Pera: the idea is that we can try to drop our identifications
Pema Pera: not to forget them, but to wear them lightly
Fefonz Quan: that was exactly my problem with the objective/subjective definitions
Pema Pera: without being glued or stuck to them
Pema Pera: so instead of playing our usual role of a limited needy worried human being (on our trajectory towards certain death)
Tarmel Udimo: can you say more fonz
Pema Pera: we can play a different role, as if Being is playing us -- and we do that by playing Being, Ladykat
Fefonz Quan: (yes, but don't want to develop two paralle talks )
Pema Pera: Being playing us playing Being
Pema Pera: so to wind up, sorry Fefonz
Fefonz Quan: np at all :)

I give a nutshell summary of PaB.

Pema Pera: the *idea* is that perhaps Being is playing everything, including us
Corvuscorva Nightfire: oh..
Corvuscorva Nightfire: I think I've misunderstood...
Ladykat Tigerpaw: Being as beyond us?
Pema Pera: and the *practice* is that in order to discover that idea in reality, we play as if we are already Being
Pema Pera: returning the compliment, so to speak
Pema Pera: does that make any sense Ladykat?
Pema Pera: Not beyond us
Ladykat Tigerpaw: "Act as if." To become.
Pema Pera: but Being as all that is
Pema Pera: it may look like "become" but more correctly "remembering"
Pema Pera: we are already Being
Pema Pera: not part of Being, but all of Being
Pila Mulligan: I appreciate Ladykat's earlier reference to a merging of self with all that is (as distinct from a keener awarendess of self) -- it may be that Pema's Being is close to the All of that comment
Ladykat Tigerpaw: I have to process for a bit.
Fefonz Quan: (as pema goes on i start to have issues with being too :-))
Pema Pera: yes, for us it looks like merging -- for Being nothing changes, we are *already* merged
Tarmel Udimo: and corvi you thought something else
Corvuscorva Nightfire: mm.
Fefonz Quan: mm too
Tarmel Udimo: hummm also thinking about pila's remark
Pila Mulligan: well, hmm here too then :)
Scathach Rhiadra: :)
Pila Mulligan: still humming James Taylor, actually
Corvuscorva Nightfire snickers.
Tarmel Udimo: smiles
Ladykat Tigerpaw: The "playing" is a tool to move or be closer to being.
Corvuscorva Nightfire: to not take our"selves" too seriously?
Fefonz Quan nods
Pema Pera: yes, it is a tool, or trick (^_^)
Tarmel Udimo: like the 9-sec stopping
Pema Pera: since for Being we are already as close as we can ever be, but for us, we have learned to play as if we are isolated, and in order to overcome that wrong perception, we play a play within a play . . . a play as (if we are already) Being
Ladykat Tigerpaw: please explain that. I was reading about 9 sec and didn't have a context.
Ladykat Tigerpaw: If I am asking too many questions forgive me.
Fefonz Quan: i feel like i misunderstood the PaB till now...

From James Taylor to Pink Floyd:

Pila Mulligan: now that sets me to humming Pink FLoyd's The Wall -- 'we don't need no education' as a revolt against working within the mold of expectations
Tarmel Udimo: part of PaB is to stop every 15 mins for 9-secs and celebrate, appreciate being being
Corvuscorva Nightfire: nono, Ladykat..the questions help us all.
Corvuscorva Nightfire likes listening to Pila hum.
Pema Pera: indeed, Ladykat, the more questions the better :)
Tarmel Udimo: yes
Fefonz Quan: Hey, Pila, leave those kids alone :)
Ladykat Tigerpaw: Or what I call a calming breath. Just stopping and being there. Thank you.
Tarmel Udimo: in fact questions are what is required for the ah ha moments
Pema Pera: Fefonz, what changed in your understanding of PaB?
Pila Mulligan: Ceasar, Fefonz
Pila Mulligan: or was it teacher?
Fefonz Quan: teacher, surely
Pila Mulligan: Ceasar came to mind somehow
Pema Pera: yes, Ladykat, we stop in order to look in a wider way, that's the start
Pema Pera: we stop, drop what we have, in order to see what we are -- Being
Fefonz Quan: what looks changed for me,
Ladykat Tigerpaw: I think of it as stopping to see what is and then think. So the 9 sec is more, it is just being there.
Pema Pera: yes
Fefonz Quan: is that i didn't try to play like the whole "Being", but
Pema Pera: dropping what you can drop; what you cannot drop is what you are
Pema Pera: what you can drop, or hold more lightly, is what you have
Fefonz Quan: only see "being" - in the moment, in the appearances, within

Perhaps Tarmel will write us a song?

Tarmel Udimo: gee there's a hit song right there pema ;-)
Pema Pera: but each phenomenon, each appearance, is all of Being, Fefonz
Pema Pera: "to see a world in a grain of sand"
Pema Pera: Being has no parts
Fefonz Quan: right, but that's a hypothesis too
Pema Pera: well, it starts as a hypothesis, but you can see it
Pema Pera: or better: It can see you :-)
Fefonz Quan: in my "Being", i can't see behind your back
Ladykat Tigerpaw: A part of me rebels a bit because the zone is being with not ligltly, but as if all were opening.
Pema Pera: Being is not "yours", Fefonz
Fefonz Quan: while Being, if you want, your back is not seen
Pema Pera: can you say more about that, Ladykat?
Pema Pera: we are talking about "seeing" in a metaphorical way, Fefonz, not physical seeing
Pema Pera: as in seeing the truth of a mathematical statement
Ladykat Tigerpaw: There are times I can only describe as being with the immensity of all that is. I think it gets described by some as Awe.
Pema Pera: of seeing how love in central in everything
Fefonz Quan: so i'm humbele enough not to include all Being within experience
Fefonz Quan: humble* in my spelling too :)
Pila Mulligan: :)
Pema Pera: yes, Ladykat, that sounds very much like what I am also trying to point at, with all the limitations of words
Scathach Rhiadra: :)
Ladykat Tigerpaw: IT is a oneness beyond words.
Pema Pera: Being is above quantity or parts or any distinctions we make, Fefonz, that is really important
Fefonz Quan: Yes, but that is theory to me, whlile PaB is experimental and real
Pema Pera: so "Playing as Being" starts out in very clumsy way, for all of us, but then we can ask Being to come to the fore, to take over the Play, and more and more that will happen, first as a vague intuition, then as a more and more clear way of seeing . . . . .
Pema Pera: yes, Ladykat, and yet we use words to try to compare notes . . . and it seems we're doing pretty well :-)
Fefonz Quan: yes, but i don't have to presume it beforehand
Pema Pera: indeed, but don't presume it is different either -- leave it open
Pema Pera: don't believe but don't disbelieve either

Ladykat summed it all up, first very briefly . . .

Ladykat Tigerpaw: Be
Pema Pera: we tend to disbelieve, because of our prior assumptions
Pema Pera: we assume Being is quantifiable, has parts, etc, automatically, we can't help it
Fefonz Quan: i'm not, i think, but i don't want to "imagine" something when i practice
Pema Pera: sure, and then you can drop that later :)
Fefonz Quan: i try to "be" as ladykat said, and then see what's next
Pema Pera: you can either imagine, or not, there are many ways to get into this exploration
Pema Pera: as many ways as there are individuals trying to do this
Fefonz Quan: i'm sure, i just have a little problem with too much imagination
Fefonz Quan: since i believe our brain is complex enough so we can convince ourselve in any imagion and delusion
Scathach Rhiadra: the Buddhist connation of adding another layer of illusion?
Fefonz Quan: and the believe it's real
Corvuscorva Nightfire: /em laughs with Fefonz on the too much imagination thingy..yeah.
Pila Mulligan: I liked Pema's comment about of seeing how love is central in everything, and the qualitative aspect that gives to the idea of Being
Pema Pera: well, if we can "just be" and just drop everything, fine, that would be great! If that is not so easy, we can use a playful trick, to help us drop and be -- and one way to do so is to play as if we have already found our way back home to Being, to live in that way -- and if we play well, we may quickly find that Hey! in fact we are indeed home already!
Fefonz Quan nods to scath - and corvi :)
Pema Pera: Being = Love
Pema Pera: (but non-possessive, non-this, non-that . . . )
stevenaia Michinaga: ..smiles
Pila Mulligan: love well, arrive home, play :)
Fefonz Quan: that's also easy to "understand" but hard to grasp, pema

. . . and then in a few more words.

Ladykat Tigerpaw: And the playing is being even when playing is not needed to be.
Ladykat Tigerpaw: IN other words, playing can be being.
Tarmel Udimo: oddly enough I prefer to think of being as being, adding the "love" gives too muc of a human reference point for me ;-)
Fefonz Quan nods
Pema Pera: in fact, we cannot grasp it, Fefonz, we can only learn to drop our resistance against it, and in that we allow ourselves to be grasped . . . .
Pema Pera: yes, Ladykat
Ladykat Tigerpaw: Right...to me love gives it dimension that might not always be when we are being.
Pema Pera: ah, a non-limited Love, Tarmel :-) but yeah, "love" is overused as a word, so hence Being
Ladykat Tigerpaw: How about openess to what is.
Pema Pera: yes
Fefonz Quan: openess i like, Ladykat
Pila Mulligan: but associating a quality with Being or All or Reality -- be it compasison, love, light, whatever -- is like a well-polished stone in the cave of human expereince
Pema Pera: when I used the word "love" I did not mean it as a quality, Pila, that would be wrong for sure
Pila Mulligan: why?
Pema Pera: more as a pointer, like the word Being
Pila Mulligan: why wrong?
Pema Pera: Being is All, cannot have qualities
Pila Mulligan: ha :)
Pema Pera: one quality would exclude other qualities
Pila Mulligan: dispute :0
Scathach Rhiadra nods
Corvuscorva Nightfire: or rather all qualities..
Pila Mulligan: Being is one word
Pema Pera: Being is beyond all oppositions, all dichotomies, all polarities, distinctions
Pila Mulligan: so is love
Pema Pera: well, we have to use words . . . .
Pila Mulligan: yep :) and play too
Pema Pera: but we have to practice to see what the words refer too
Pema Pera: hence the 9-sec
Pila Mulligan: one moment
Pema Pera: or whatever else we like to explore with

Tarmel brought up a very important point, that we would get back to a little late.

Tarmel Udimo: yes being feels like it is nothing, cold, lacking in reason and chaotic and therefore qualityless laking in human qualities
Fefonz Quan: infact this comes to one of my big questions aboutPaB
Pila Mulligan: .. the question, please
Pema Pera: yes, Tarmel, that is too limited a view of Being -- any "view" of Being is too limited . . .
Fefonz Quan: is we see the true nature of reality - why will it make us happy? why will it make us loving? or will it?
Fefonz Quan: IF* was the first word
Pila Mulligan: yes
Pema Pera: what kind of answer would satisfy you, Fefonz?
Pila Mulligan: sat chit ananda
Fefonz Quan: will it make us human?
Pema Pera: how would it help you if I would say "yes"? or "no"?
Fefonz Quan: it wouldn't help, Pema, surely
Fefonz Quan: (just will give some encouragement:))
Scathach Rhiadra: :)
Pema Pera: in science you first explore, in a lab or using a telescope or whatever, THEN you look at what you find and try to make sense of it -- asking why beforehand is not very helpful . . . . .
Fefonz Quan: but that's my point - since it won't help, defining "being=love"
Pema Pera: not defining, sorry, didn't mean to define
Fefonz Quan: doesn't help me as i see it
Pema Pera: because love came up, I wanted to give some "encouragement" as you said :-)
Pema Pera: mentioning that love was not different -- that Being is not "cold" or "impersonal"
Fefonz Quan: and i follow your example - explore, rather then imagine, or speculate
Pila Mulligan: yet the grandest cosmic awe must eventually resolve itself in the mundane, and for that some manner of ethics is essential
Tarmel Udimo: no i understand that being has no quality but from the human side it feels cold
Tarmel Udimo: a nothing ness
Ladykat Tigerpaw: To me the zone kind of being is very different. it is both an openess and a merging.
Pema Pera: we'll have to do something about that, Tarmel, any suggestions :-)
Fefonz Quan: somehow, tarmel, it does have some warmness in my(amsll) experience
Pema Pera: "zone kind", can you say more about that, Ladykat?
Tarmel Udimo: hahaha
Fefonz Quan: but i try to see farther before promising myself heaven at the end
Ladykat Tigerpaw: Words are feeble. L
Pema Pera: Being is beyond warm and cold, like beyond any distinctions . . . but includes both!
Scathach Rhiadra: surely it would include both the 'warm' and the 'cold' as it is all that is
Pema Pera: drop promises, Fefonz :)
Fefonz Quan: exactly my point
Pema Pera: yes, Scathach
Ladykat Tigerpaw: To me it combines a super awareness of all that is and has been and will be with a melting or merging with that wonder.
Pema Pera: but pointers may help
Pema Pera: yes, Ladykat, so Being is beyond time

Tarmel explained more about her point.

Tarmel Udimo: yes perhaps I tend to see the cold when i think about being play as war killing and hurting
Pema Pera: and beyond any identification
Tarmel Udimo: if its is all being then being is the gun and being is the child being killed
Ladykat Tigerpaw: Points might be music or centering or riding on the back of galloping horse.
Fefonz Quan: good point, tarmel,
Ladykat Tigerpaw: Pointers might be is what I meant.
Scathach Rhiadra: but also the greatest compassion and love Tarmel:)
Tarmel Udimo: and its all play for being which really gets me mad sometimes
Tarmel Udimo: yes that too...
Corvuscorva Nightfire: oooo..high five on that Tarmel.
Fefonz Quan joins tarmels question
Pila Mulligan: reality is
Ladykat Tigerpaw: Thich Nah Hahn yes it is seeing the garbage in the rose and the rose in the garbage.
Tarmel Udimo: but that's just the humanside:-)
Corvuscorva Nightfire nods.
Pila Mulligan: enters the idea of ethics, what we like and don't like
Corvuscorva Nightfire: mmhmm.
Fefonz Quan: and following tarmels's direction, it feels like a slippery slide to nihilism, which surely we want to avoid
Pila Mulligan: not with love as central
Tarmel Udimo: i don't think its a matter of like or dislike its a matter of see the world and how it is
Pila Mulligan: what made you mad?
Tarmel Udimo: we like to say god is love being is love but if this was really the case would there be evil, darkness and suffering
Pila Mulligan: there is, of course
Tarmel Udimo: yes the world of duality
Fefonz Quan: let's keep god out for now, it's too complicated anyway :)
Scathach Rhiadra: ah but being is beyond duality
Pila Mulligan: or duality merges there :)
Pema Pera: When we watch a movie, believing that everything really exists in front of us is absolutist and wrong; saying that it is all just a play of light and we can ignore it is wrong too, nihilist, since a good movie can show real human emotions and insight; insight and balance is somewhere in between, when seeing reality as a dream or movie . . .
Scathach Rhiadra: like the ultimate truth, or reality
Pema Pera: we can deeply appreciate without having to call it "existing" or "real" or "absolute"

Ladykat went for an even more radical summary.

Ladykat Tigerpaw: But not truth. Just being.
Pila Mulligan: what's wrong with calling it those, though?
Pema Pera: well, if you posit anything outside yourself as "true" as opposed to yourself, you shortchange yourself
Pema Pera: for one thing
Pila Mulligan: is Being true?
Pema Pera: and you hand over responsibility to something or someone "out there"
Ladykat Tigerpaw: Being is too many sided, multifaceted to be labeled true or not.
Pila Mulligan: who is repsonsible for Being?
Ladykat Tigerpaw: Nice point, Pema
Fefonz Quan: we can also be sad or angry about happening rather then appereciate
Pema Pera: Being Is
Pema Pera: Pila
Pila Mulligan: truth is also
Ladykat Tigerpaw: Whose truth, what truth?
stevenaia Michinaga: love is (too)
Pila Mulligan: truth's truth
Pila Mulligan: just like being's being
Pema Pera: yes, using it that way, Being = Truth = Love -- but most of the time we use those words in relative sense
Pema Pera: as part of something larger, and that is not Being
Pila Mulligan: a mountian has a peak and a base
Ladykat Tigerpaw: Larger or smaller perhaps.
Pema Pera: And Being is peak and base, yet has no parts :-)
Pila Mulligan: yes, and reality has war and love
Ladykat Tigerpaw: and garbage and roses.
Pema Pera: more precisely, Being is the presence of the appearance of what we label peak and base
Ladykat Tigerpaw: I need to leave now. I have enjoyed the conversation and will be back at one point or another. Peace and being all.
Tarmel Udimo: yes somehow using the word appearance does seem to help one seperate from the duality of it all

Ladycat left, and we were left with a group of seven.

Fefonz Quan: Bye Ladykat
Tarmel Udimo: bye ladykat
Scathach Rhiadra: bye
stevenaia Michinaga: bye Ladycat
Corvuscorva Nightfire: bye Ladycat
Fefonz Quan nods to tarmel
Pila Mulligan: humans seem bound to make distinctions, to like and dislike, so we distinguish this concept as better than that, or this philopshy as more accurate, or this politician as wiser, and I agree that all of those things -- wars and roses -- are part of Being, but the distinctions also have merit
Pema Pera: and in fact, the presence of appearance may be even more powerful, Tarmel -- that way you only acknowledge its presence; you don't have to worry about what it "means"
Pema Pera: oh, definitely, Pila!
Pema Pera: and we can play with the distinctions without being caught up in them
Pema Pera: without considering them to be absolute
Pila Mulligan: we need to :)
Pila Mulligan: we need top prefer love towar
Pila Mulligan: it's too nice a planet not to
Pema Pera: sure!
Fefonz Quan: So, in buddhism, the path of realization and of compassion are joined
Pila Mulligan: :)

Fefonz brought up the topic of ethics, to which Pila had already referred a few times earlier.

Fefonz Quan: in order to get both seeing and ethics
Fefonz Quan: (i simplify here greatly, )
Pema Pera: seeing implies ethics, I think, Fefonz
Fefonz Quan: but in Pab, we seem to try one ingredient
Fefonz Quan: to start with
Pila Mulligan: it is safer as a genberalized approach
Pema Pera: ethics that is based on rules, without seeing, is very shallow, and can easily go totally wrong . . . .
Fefonz Quan: i agree
Pema Pera: "the road to hell is paved by good intentions"
Fefonz Quan: but i wonder what ethics would emerge spontaniously from being
Pila Mulligan: bliss :)
Pema Pera: if you really SEE a situation, completely, you also see what is right and why it is right
Pila Mulligan: the road ot bliss is paved with good perceptions
Pema Pera: that is ethics as "the right thing to do in a given situation" not as a body of knowledge in an abstract way
Pema Pera: lol, Pila!
Pila Mulligan: yep, ethics in tht sense, indeed
Fefonz Quan: i can easily think of a situation that will imply hurting someone badly
Fefonz Quan: (like in order to save your child from a armful man)
Fefonz Quan: is it ethical? is the clear seeing prevented me from acting violently?
Scathach Rhiadra: well if your intention is to save rather than to hurt..

Pila struck a careful balance.

Pila Mulligan: I became a semi-pacifist while serving in the military -- violence is unavoidable sometimes, but usually violence is too easily chosen
Pema Pera: there is great wisdom in that, Pila, thank you!
Pema Pera: there is no absolute right or wrong, as a rule, but that is a good first aproximation
Pila Mulligan: it can be difficult to avoid the fight, but Gandhi got pretty good at it
Corvuscorva Nightfire: he in no way avoided those fights..not really.
Pila Mulligan: true Corvi, but he did them without violence
Fefonz Quan: getting back a little, the question was wether clear seeing will result in ethical behaviour
Pila Mulligan: it should
Corvuscorva Nightfire: yes
Pema Pera: If Gandhi had lived under Nazi German occupation rather than British occupation, he would not have lived very long . . . . .
Fefonz Quan: (surely great traditions say they do)
Pila Mulligan: if Jesus had been a hippy he would have driven a volkswagen
Fefonz Quan: right pema
Corvuscorva Nightfire: might've...he was a smart cookie.
Pila Mulligan: not to belittle the thought, but Gandhi was what he was
Pema Pera: what else can result in ethical behavior, Fefonz, if not clear seeing?
Pema Pera: What formula? what system? What rule?
Pema Pera: any of those are refusals of carrying real responsibility yourself . . .
Fefonz Quan: i'm not sure, perhaps there are two parallel realms
Fefonz Quan: like science gives us a lot of information about the world
Fefonz Quan: but doesn't tell us how to use our weapons wisely (or at all)
Corvuscorva Nightfire nods..but...
Fefonz Quan: so we might try to put the ethics in apriory
Pema Pera: as a guideline, sure, dotted lines . . . but connecting the dots requires seeing, to do it right, we can't leave that to a robot
Pema Pera: I mean whose ethical system, based on what, how many layers down, what historical view, etc etc
Fefonz Quan: Oh, i have a nice way to put the question:
Fefonz Quan: we might know the Force, but it won't prevent us from the dark side
Tarmel Udimo: so real seeing still requires us to take responsibility for our actions
Pila Mulligan: seeing reality as a precursor of ethics is comparable to seeing illusion as a precursor of confusion
Pema Pera: sure, Tarmel!
Pema Pera: we try, we learn, we see more, we can try better, we learn more from all our mistakes, we see more, etc . . .
Pema Pera: we do the best we can
Fefonz Quan: But in Being - Pema - is there a meaning for responsibility?
Fefonz Quan: who is left to be responsible?

Nobody is left . . . nobody has ever been . . . but to state that clearly, without being misleading in doing so, ain't easy . . .

Pema Pera: ultimately there isn't -- but as long as there is the sense of self there should also be a sense of responsibility
Pema Pera: can't drop responsibility before you truly drop the sense of self
Fefonz Quan: surely, but then, when being is all that's left
Pema Pera: Being is All
Fefonz Quan: thus resposinbility has no meaning
Pema Pera: we can't catch being in words and meanings Fefonz
Pila Mulligan: foo
Pema Pera: can't define it, cannot weave neat answers to "why" or "how" or "what" . . . just have to see!
Pema Pera: a mother loves her child, not as an answer to "why?"
Pema Pera: just loves her child
Fefonz Quan: I need to say here, that although i'm a little stubborn about those point, i so feel that being, practicing and walking the path
Pema Pera: good to be stubborn, Fefonz, we want to explore!!!!!
Fefonz Quan: gives me better ethical approach and many other benefits as a human being
Tarmel Udimo: well I am looking forward to seeing more clearly because it seems that this is the only solution
Pema Pera: YES!!!
Fefonz Quan: yet the principal issue we speak of bother me

Time for Steve to leave.

stevenaia Michinaga: I must go, thanks for tonight;s discussion
Pema Pera: the only real solution, the only shortcut . . . all else are detours
Fefonz Quan: bye steve
Pila Mulligan: bye Steve
Pema Pera: Bye Steve!
Scathach Rhiadra: bye Steve
Tarmel Udimo: bye steve
Tarmel Udimo: in response to pila's earlier question that's what makes me mad - that's my stubborness coming out
Fefonz Quan: longcut might work as well :)
Pema Pera: trying to be better human beings is nice, but strictly speaking, if that is the only thing you try to do, it is a detour -- not that you shouldn't try to be a good human being, but there is a short cut, of seeing "ah of course!!" and as a side effect of that seeing you can be a better human being than with all the best intentions in the whole wide world
Tarmel Udimo: longcut?
Fefonz Quan: (response to te only shortcut)...
Fefonz Quan: yes pema, i believe so, though it is so hard to grasp sometimes
Tarmel Udimo: well that's why i use words like cold from being's persepective it makes no difference
Fefonz Quan nods
Tarmel Udimo: good bad all the same

Yes, but . . . and also no, but . . .

Pema Pera: yes, Fefonz, it goes all that we have learned . . . so we have to drop, to subtract, not to add more knowledge . . . .
Pema Pera: that's not the case, Tarmel, "no difference" in that sense
Pema Pera: you can equally say that Being cares about every hair on your head
Pema Pera: both are true
Pema Pera: the real answer is that Being
Pema Pera: 's caring is way beyond our understanding of caring
Pema Pera: let's take the example of a mother and a child
Pema Pera: if the child has a worry,
Pema Pera: the mother cares
Pema Pera: but not in the way the child hopes for
Pema Pera: but in a far deeper way
Pema Pera: does that make sense?
Pema Pera: deeper, beyond the stories that bother the child
Tarmel Udimo: yes it makes sense
Fefonz Quan: (not that all mother are so good at caring and operating for te good of their childs)
Scathach Rhiadra: :)
Pema Pera: the child is caught up in a worry, inside a little story, but the really caring is way outside that story
Pema Pera: true, Fefonz . . . .
Pema Pera: but Being is pretty good at it :-)
Fefonz Quan: o, good :)
Pema Pera: but not in any dualistic way
Pema Pera: hahaha
Tarmel Udimo: yes comes back to the same thing everytime, just be abd see clearly
Pema Pera: Stim might say "Being doesn't care" but that he means "not in a dualistic way"
Pema Pera: yes
Pila Mulligan: to paraphrase Pema, earlier, "since a good movie can show real human emotions and insight, saying that it is all just a play of light and we can ignore it is nihilist"
Pema Pera: yes, that is so important, and so easy to forget
Fefonz Quan: it's such a fine line

About form and emptiness . . .

Pema Pera: we have had a few generations of Buddhist teachers in the west who often tend to go a bit too far into the "all is emptiness" bit . . . .
Fefonz Quan: between nihilism/being, equanimity/indifference
Pema Pera: a bit over-enthusiastic perhaps :)
Pila Mulligan: but, all IS emptiness :)
Pema Pera: yes, AND it is all form
Tarmel Udimo: laughs out loud
Pema Pera: since form = emptiness
Pila Mulligan: Being = Ethics
Scathach Rhiadra: or at least they don't qualify it, to all is empty of inherent, fixed existance:0
Pema Pera: Is = Is
Pila Mulligan: not the same, but as in yin and yang
Tarmel Udimo: you are a true buddhist teacher yourself pema you have learnt well ;-)
Pila Mulligan: wrong math symbol, I guess
Fefonz Quan: yes, i also thought the "emptiness is form" part tends to skip too often
Pema Pera: not only Buddhist, I hope, and certainly not a teacher as such -- we all teach each other
Pema Pera: but thank you Tarmel :)
Tarmel Udimo: yeah okay have it your way :-)
Fefonz Quan: Pila - it's supposed to be ==
Pema Pera: hahaha
Pila Mulligan: that is new to me Fefonz, what does == mean?
Pema Pera: ===
Pila Mulligan: or was it a joke?
Fefonz Quan: like three lines in math, equal as definition rather then substitution)
Pila Mulligan: thnaks
Pema Pera: well, I have to go now
Pema Pera: wow, more than two hours, what fun!
Corvuscorva Nightfire: bye, Pema.
Pila Mulligan: bye Pema
Scathach Rhiadra: bye Pema
Pema Pera: avatar legs were getting a bit stiff . . .
Tarmel Udimo: yes this has been a marathon - bye pema
Fefonz Quan: Bye Pema, have a great day
Pema Pera: can someone send me the remaining log?
Tarmel Udimo: bye all and thanks for sharing
Pema Pera: IM or piet@ias.edu whatever is easiest
Pema Pera: bye everybody, I enjoyed this a lot!
Fefonz Quan: bye tarmel
Pila Mulligan: bye Tarmel
Scathach Rhiadra: bye Tarmel:)