Posts by the gardener

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

    Last year and that was before giving up smoking, haven't run much for a long time, still seem to retain a degree of fitness from the time when I did, my blood pressure is consistently good and resting heartbeat about 58....I used to love running and ran everywhere.

    I enjoyed history and did it at GCSE, looking back now it could have been more interesting, it did seem to be focused in on providing lots of dates in exams! I noticed a comment about real history. I think history, certainly the important bits that we get taught are tailored toward propaganda. I read this week about Queen Victoria and her muslim teacher that she became very close when in her 60's, of course we get an historical film about a scots man!

    I've been wondering what people think of the use of this term, 'frape' or 'facebook rape'; when somebody posts a status on someone else's facebook account without the permission/knowledge of the account owner.


    I've known some people get very angry and upset over this term.
    What does anyone think?



    I don't like the act or the word, I agree with much that has been said about words, they sit like distorting glass in frames between experience out there and experience in here...that said I also know that words are just words, there is still an imposition in the act of pretending to be someone else, inserting words in action on their behalf, and then ridiculing them afterwards....

    Why do Hippies feel drawn to Buddhism and Paganism?

    Paganism isn't a religion , but many religions, and isn't always to define, but for take sake of simplicity , I will call Paganism a religion.

    What is it about these two religions that appeal to hippies? Do they take them very seriously?


    I find both stories and histories interesting and I feel inclined toward things I find interesting...I also write my own story as I read, my own history and experience providing meaning and colour and flavour, ancestors lie deep in the company I keep...not sure about paganism or buddhism as a religion...if it makes you happy though...

    Quote

    No man can post in the same thread twice


    Nice one!:)


    Quote

    But he seems to actually try to do both of these things; on one side he rails against unrealistic clinging but on the other he appears to propose this be done by rising above reality by not clinging at all. Which contradicts itself, doesnt it?


    I guess from my understanding that this was the middle way that is talked about, the minds inclination to judge and categorise experience and to use that to predict future experiences and decide courses of action, something that has proved in lots of ways to be very useful...and also been shown to have unforeseen dire consequences.


    Certainly there is an enquiry going on into what reality is and that inclination to separate myself from what's out there or even from my own body, emotions, feelings, thoughts, mind...there is a search for balance, as I see it, between this inclination to judge and name, with the opposite as a kind of going with the flow or rising above as you put it.


    To this end the focus seems to be, what is that of me that is able to notice, experience, judge and meditation is used as means of opening a door to a more spacious experiencing, allowing me to encompass the wholeness of this without being relentlessly engaged in the need to do something with or about it. This then opens up the possibility to choose wiser actions...


    Not sure that makes any sense even to me and I wrote it, again best I can do with words at the moment.


    I guess we can cling onto a stone for example and we can let the stone go, dropping it or throwing it away...we can also hold it in our hand and be fully aware of it moment by moment.

    I certainly know that I've read translations of texts written after the man died that say that, I also understand that he never wrote anything down and discouraged it, suggesting people experience the ideas for themselves. As I say, I am no expert, it is my understanding from my own experience of practising some of the meditation techniques that my mind takes experiences and labels them good/bad, pleasant/painful and that I then react or I am inclined to react, often in ways that are automatic...the longer I have been practising the more I've become aware of these patterns of mind and that they are always there at some level....he also said a lot of other things about living life in a healthy balanced way and talked about an end to suffering....I guess that doesn't mean an end to painful experiences as they inevitably happen to me, but to the extended suffering I tend to cause myself when I take things personally...We are drifting a long way from the TV here perhaps, or maybe not!

    I'm with you Coyote....


    Quote

    Yet you presume you will exist in the future, and who you are now is rooted in the past; making both of those where you are as well.


    On the level of what I have learnt to date yes my mind does that a lot!


    Quote

    I was under the impression that Buddhism specifically taught non-attachment on the grounds that "suffering" is bad....except that suffering can actually bring us useful lessons and is integral to life. Taking it out of the equation seems delusionary to me.


    Again my understanding is that buddhism does not necessarily call it at a fundamental level either way, good or bad, suggesting more that suffering or non-suffering, good or bad are creations of the judging mind and that there is a way of treating experience with equanimity....experiences contain learning about how my mind makes a story of everything....often based on patterns of history or the what if this or that of the future and it is my mind that creates my suffering...along side an insight into the transience of the causes of this suffering.

    You're very passionate it seems about certain subjects and there's no doubt that once something is labelled, defined etc. it has people that adhere rigidly to it and people who are half arsed about it...I still don't think of it as a religion, I also have to admit I am not as passionately black and white with words and concepts...I think this is true of buddhism in a way, as it may well have a disciplined approach to certain practices, what opens up slowly from that are realisations that the mind makes everything and that there is something more. This is so difficult to put in words, as words are really a huge part of the problem! I constantly get in the way...sorry if this doesn't make sense...it's the best I can do at the moment.

    My opinion is that Buddhism is a religion that has simply become somewhat defunct in our society. The fundementals of the religion are easily contradicted, and rules are bent to suit the disciple/follower.


    Buddhism is now a set of values that have been adapted by the user's interpretation. Straying from the original text (so-to-speak) may result in a buddhist inspired path, but it is arguably not what Buddha intended.


    I agree with most of what you say and think that is true for all religions, as each believer has their own interpretation and way of acting on that....and the only one who ever really understood what "Buddha" meant was "Buddha"...he did get quoted suggesting people go out and try it for themselves....as I said previously, I don't see it as a religion more as an early and rather excellent way of maintaining mental and to some degree physical well being.

    Cheers Triggerhippy, I've started to learn something new that I hadn't read about before, thanks Coyote, I understand better where you're coming from.



    Some do and some don't, depends how attached people are to them and to themselves, buddhism as I understand it, suggests that we observe ourselves closely, the direct experience, in the moment to moment present, in order to get a better understanding of the nature of our mind...both attachment and aversion, to become aware of habits of mind and in doing so move from reacting to responding. This opens up new possibilities in the way action or no action is taken.

    I guess I view buddhism as a means of understanding myself better and how my mind can cause problems for me, it is not a religion to me. As regards a "fundamental problem with Buddhism" I'm not clear on what Coyote or Minimummy mean, would be interested if you could explain a little bit for me

    Quote

    To me, its not about pure focus in the moment but just about rebalancing attention so that it doesnt focus too much in one direction; being mindful of past, present and future.


    And this is the kind of meditation I am speaking about, because whether the focus is tight or loose, past, present or future the only place it can be experienced is in this moment of awareness and the next and the next and the next...

    I'm sure I've seen you post that you meditate, also that you have a good experience of the practice, that you are aware when you practice of what comes up in your experience....it's an extension of that kind of awareness to daily life....

    They seem to get by...again I guess from a buddhist perspective, the way things are currently set up, means that to have the TV I need the licence, the electricity, etc...this does not necessarily mean that I am unaware moment by moment of what I am experiencing, or what actions I am taking, how I am responding in those moments and my intentions. Not saying here that this is the case for me...it's not that easy in my experience!

    I guess being present isn't about neglecting the minds ability to remember and plan, being present in the moment of remembering is being present with that experience in that moment, being present in the planning, being aware of that experience in that moment...back to TV, awareness of remembering I learnt some really interesting English words last week on the Jeremey Kyle show and about the culture, I will watch and learn some more next week...

    Ownership is a construct that probably sits outside of what I've tried to describe in my reply. I don't know the history of ownership only that I see it used to hold on to things that I'm told I need or should have, I buy the idea of ownership and then worry if what I have will be good enough or I will be good enough to hold onto it when threatened with its loss. So from a buddhist point of view I suppose the TV can be useful in the moment it is being used...it could help share ideas, educate, connect people...and like any experience, can be viewed with a discerning mind. Also from a buddhist perspective, if it got stolen or broken, this could be viewed with a discerning mind and the experience used in that moment as a means of practising being present with how things are...what thoughts come up, what feelings, what is physically there...it would be viewed as an opportunity to be aware of what comes up in the moment, without pushing away that experience or clinging on to it.


    I used to eat charcoal as a child and more recently I prefer the taste of cream!

    I guess therein lies a problem with the original post, I'm not sure which side of the debate you're on with your friend, my understanding is that we own nothing at all...my body, my house, my family, my TV...from a buddhist perspective, all beg the question, mine for how long? Or even mine how?


    Only mine from the perspective that I have been literally fed from birth, that I am. Again, from a buddhist point of view, where is I, where is my mind, where is my body? Part of the problem is in words, another part in the script that I have been fed and have accepted. So my understanding is that from a buddhist perspective I possess nothing, own nothing, nothing is mine and the problem is that I take everything personally.

    From a buddhist perspective the idea of owning, as per the original question, begs the question who owns...if I own, then there is a problem, if my mind owns and I buy that as a truth then I have a problem, if i have a telly, no matter how big...where is the problem?