bodhigirlsmiles

a lady once came into the library (i'm not sure her age...around 25 or so) wearing a very skimpy skirt (which he continually had to pull down) and a all but transparent top. what surprised and confused me was not the fact that she was wearing what she was (i wouldn't choose to dress in that way, but that is her choice), but the way she reacted to other people's reactions. as soon as she came in, many of the men started staring, whistling, making suggestive comments, etc. all of this she heard. and then, she got mad at them! why would you expect to be treated like a lady when you wear the clothes of a....well, a woman of questionable occupation?

enough with beating this dead horse, i know, i know, but i wanted to take a moment and share a few final thoughts about the last few terrible days. prisonchaplain kind of beat me to it, but i wanted to say a few words in elphaba's defense. it took courage for her, in my opinion, to speak her mind in treacherous waters. by trecherous, i mean that the climate of my thread in which i apologized had slanted in my favor. please do not mistake my intent, i am very grateful for all the kind words of support and forgiveness that people afforded to me, despite my grave error. thank you. i knew there was a danger (as i said) of having my apology thread turn into a pity party for myself, and yet, i felt that i truly needed to apologize. i am not sure how i could have done so without it turning into a thread of, "oh, look at bodhi, she is such the better person by apologizing and recognizing her faults!" while this is true - i did make a grave error and i am deeply remorseful about the lie that i created - i do not think anyone should be harsh on elphaba for her words. she spoke from the sincerity of her life's experiences. she was not the "bad guy"....i was. i was the one who mislead everyone with using another's words to describe what was a mirror of my life. please do not blame her. i know that there is another risk inherant in what i am saying right now. this could be viewed as me taking the higher road to be the "all accepting" one. while this is true....i really do have an enormous capacity for love and acceptance....i do not want anyone to think that i wrote all this in order to somehow wipe clean my past mistake. i respect elphaba greatly for her courage as well as for her willingness to use words that, without a doubt, have made certain that i will never plagiarize again. ever. my thoughts and words will spawn from my mind and no one else's. you have my word, for what it's worth. enough of this. i love everyone here and i am happy that i can walk this journey of life with you. i will try to close this thread once i am finished here (we really needn't belabor this incident any further, right?!), but if it won't allow me (i've never tried to close a thread before), will one of the mods please be so kind as to do it for me? thank you one and all (especially you, elphaba). i hope that we may be friends again. if any of you wish to correspond with me about any of this privately, please feel free to send me a private message. other than this, i will say no more on this matter publicly. let's keep moving ahead, shall we? :)

she is right. i don't deserve to be here. thank you for caring enough to point out the kind of person that i apparantly am. i shall bother everyone no further. please remove me from the site.

spelling is a great example of this. i believe it was samuel clemens who once said, "i never trust a man who only knows how to spell a word one way."

i LOVE biology! there isn't anything greater than learning about the beauty that surrounds us.

i think you found precisely the issue. perhaps the very fact that the nature of the information was so profoundly close to my emotional capacity, rendered it all but impossible for me to adequatly describe in my own words. it wasn't the words themselves....the diction....that proved problematic. it was the emotion attached to the words. it was a mistake. i should have taken the time to craft my words, no matter the outcome. in time, perhaps i will be able to do so.

i appreciate your words, although i was not forthcoming and was less than honest. the words were not my own, but the essentials were. i was certainly out of my head that day. it was unfortunate that i did not own up to it from the very beginning. i do not ever wish to find myself in that situation again. i have learned a hard lesson. it is very difficult indeed to recover from your own self-depreciation.

other than life itself, i am no longer in school. math was The Great Bane for me when i did attend. i would like to understand it more, but so far it has just baffled me. "higher" math....fractal geometry, chaos theory, and the like....is very fascinating. i do not understand it, but it is fascinating nevertheless.

now you are going to go and get all thoreau on me? and if you happen to spot x along the way, lurking under a magnolia bush....

i am going to try to put the pain and ugliness that i have created behind me, although it will not be easy and, i have no doubt, will take a considerable amount of time. having said that (and to lighten the mood slightly, if i may), what is the deal with math? especially algebra. algebra is my weakest link! i have had not a few conversations with teachers of mathematics regarding x. x, it seems, is missing. the problem with this is that they want (expect?) me to find it. why must this be? after all, i didn't loose x, so why should i be the one to find it? if they are so concerned, shouldn't they be out there looking as well?? and please don't get me started on imaginary numbers. i have far too much difficulty with the numbers that do exist.

pam, i am probably the last person right now in your life that should offer you a warm embrace, but i do so. if ever you need to talk to someone about about your mother, please let me know. if nothing else, i am a good listener. i am sorry that you are going through difficulty. life is, in fact, suffering. i do not believe that this is always a bad thing, although it is certainly difficult at the time. may the light of peace and comfort find you this day.

i don't think you could possible ever know how much i respect you. i do not blame you if the time never comes in which you find it in your heart to trust me again. i am so messed up. it is as if this error is the catalyst that has brought about my downfall. how could i have been so stupid? my hands are shaking so badly that i can barely type. i have hurt the one people that i look to in order to retain a bit of sanity in the merciless wilderness that is my mind. i think my desire to earn back everyone's respect may be the very thing that keeps me from cutting myself again. pam, may god (if there is, indeed, a god who loves and watches over us....and i believe that there is) bless you and everyone on this site. i am so very, very sorry.

because i wasn't smart. it was my life, just not my words. i feel such a deep sense of pain that, to use another's words seemed.....well, easier. this, too, is funny, because i have never been the one to want to take the easy road. i guess i have experienced so much that it was too painful to take the time to lash out the words in my own way. all i can say again is that i am sorry, and i will never use another's words again.

can something of beauty emerge from ashes without being stained?

i very much want to stay, but i feel awful. also, the last thing i want is to turn this thread into a pity party for me. your kind words make me feel even more sheepish. not that i do not appreciate them. i am so, so sorry.

i have no idea what words i could possibly weave together to express the sorrow i feel about my actions. with regard to my "story", i did not mean to deceive, and i most definately meant no harm. the irony inherent in all this is that her story is my story. that is to say, i have experienced those things with remarkable closeness. her words were so much more descriptive and eloquent than were mine. does that make my actions justifiable? without question, no. never. so....was your concern for me justified? yes. do i expect you to forgive me? i would never ask that of you. i do not doubt that there will never be a way for me to earn a restoration of your trust. i have always tried to be good and to seek the best in everyone. why did i do it? sickness? i cannot say. if you would like to ban me, i can and would not hold you at any fault. it is perhaps what i deserve. the only thing i can say really is that i am sorry. and i am. i have hurt all of you, and i am sick because of it. i suppose that this is what what i deserve. of course, to feel that i have hurt someone is to feel that they regarded my opinion enough to be hurt in the first place. if you are in this category, i am so very sorry to have driven a stake through the heart of your trust in me. i love all of you. i mean that with the deepest of sincerity. of course you may now question everything i say, so take that as you will. i love you and i am sorry. if it is the community desire that i should withdraw myself from the site, i shall do so and trouble you no further.

yes....and no. i am aware of his five new precepts that he proposed to the buddha (which he knew the buddha would ultimately reject). must buddhists be vegetarian? no. why the fuss then? though the buddha never made it a compulsory rule that all his followers have to be vegetarians, i believe he did strongly encourage us to be. in the bodhisattva practice of minimising harm to all beings (the first precept) and benefiting them as much as possible, the practice of vegetarianism as far as possible plays an essential role. this can be seen in many of the buddha's teachings. i firmly believe that all true practitioners of the bodhisattva path must eventually relinquish meat-eating. while nothing we eat makes us impure, our choice of diet is an action with implications. if our choice of diet arises from greed, sustaining the greed obviously makes us impure. so, if being vegetarian is so important on the Bodhisattva path, why was the buddha not one? as you mentioned earlier in this thread, the buddha and the sangha in his time were not total vegetarians as they consumed alms food offered by lay followers, whom they encountered “randomly” from place to place. though the buddha never requested specific food to be offered, he spoke against the intentional acquiring of meat for him and the sangha. in this way, the buddha neither directly nor indirectly cause the death of any being for his food. on the other hand, we have the freedom of the choice of our diet, since we do not eat alms food. why not make the kinder and wiser decision? can’t a person be a good buddhist who is not vegetarian? the short answer is, of course we can. one who eats meat can cultivate a pure heart just as one who is vegetarian might have an impure heart. but why not cultivate a pure heart while making the extra effort to further the practice of compassion by being vegetarian? isn’t killing vegetables taking life too? yes, of course. however, plant life is not sentient life- they are not beings with reason and emotion. of course, the form of buddhism with which i have the most familiarity is tibetan. vegetarianism is something not very new in tibetan society. generally, in the old tibetan society, most of the people try to avoid taking meat specifically killed to feed individual person. this is evident in very level of tibetan society (at least, my father tells me so :) ). may all beings be free from fear, harm and danger. may all beings be well and happy.

my journey has been an interesting one. i am a happier person. (that sounds funny coming from me, because i am ALWAYS a happy person.)

i am familiar with the sangha devadatta, but i am not sure i follow what you mean?

oh sure....give me a link only joking....i'll check it out! thank you.

i have been reading the bible, and so far i am greatly enjoying what i have been reading. i do have a question about prophets. what, exactly, are they? what determines if a person can be a prophet? is it simply a wise teacher? what must they teach to qualify? are there now (or have there ever been) female prophets?

oh those crazy hindus!! i thought we (buddhists) had escaped their influence long ago....and here we are, tied down to their definitions. (is that bad karma to say that?)

and then there's the one someone told me about a buddhist vacuum cleaner....it comes with no attachments.

one with everything other than the hotdog (meat), of course.

i would be happy to! this may take a while....how much time do you have? i have written on this in the past on more than one occasion, and i hope that it won't offend you too terribly if i borrow from the words that i have written before. i will change them up a bit, as well, so as to hopefully make it more meaningful to my present audience. in order to answer, please allow me to give a brief overview of karma.... karma, i think, is one of buddhism's most misunderstood concepts and teachings. first off, karma is neither good nor is it bad; it is not the result of action, and it isn't one's fate. such misconceptions are obstacles in understanding the dharma (or buddha's teaching) concerning the continuing of the individual creation process through intention, volition and action. science's law of cause and effect is a close parallel to the buddhist "law" of karma, but it isn't exactly the same either. the biblical, "whatsoever a man shall soweth so shall he also reap," isn't either, although it is in the same ballpark. in order to fully understand karma, it is necessary to first understand buddhism's response to the age old question, "who am i?" five khandhas, or aggregates, constitute a "human" or a "being", according to buddha's teaching. the first is our body or form, with its four elements of solidity, fluidity, heat and motion, including sense organs (eyes, ears, nose, etc.). the second is our sensations or feelings (about things). the third, our perceptions. the fourth, our mental formations or the mulling over in our mind, the choosing and intent of the action we take. the fifth is our consciousness or awareness. these five "parts" if you will of a being are constantly changing; none are permanent. there is no permanent "self' in buddhism, only this unbroken chain of aggregates, this evolutionary continuity of existence. when the body "dies," it is the first aggregate of organic matter that is dead. the other four cannot experience death, because they are not material in nature. they are the unseen and intangible essences, sometimes called energy or spirit. some religions might refer to them as the soul, but in buddhism the idea of a permanent, unchanging soul or spirit, is rejected. so what, then, causes us to change? it is our intention, volition and action. just as the seed we plant and nourish in the earth grows into its intended and resulting flower or fruit, so we grow into the result of the seeds "inside" us that receive our nourishment. we have many kinds of both positive and negative seeds in our "store consciousness." some are inherited from our ancestors or from previous existences. choosing which seeds to nourish creates who we are to become. because we control our decisions and actions, we also determine our destiny. by deciding what we do, we are deciding who we are to be. i know some of this is drastically different from lds views of "original sin," so to speak (at least from my understanding). this process of choosing and doing is called karma. karma is not something that someone has, because there is no someone. according to buddhist teachings, what is mistaken for a "someone" is this ever-changing process. in short, karma is who and what each of us is. it is the answer to the question, "who am i?" the answer: "i am karma." now for the concept of nirvana....(what??!!?? we've finially arrived at the original question?!) nirvana can be literally translated as "extinction", "blowing out", "freedom from desire", the absence of dukkha or to cease. but those words or phrases do not really explain nirvana. in fact, it is a concept that is almost unexplainable. frustrating, right?!?! trying to explain nirvana is a little like trying to explain the taste of salt to someone who has never tasted it, or trying to explain a color to someone who is and was born blind. i think you would agree that it is difficult, if not impossible! clever answers may be given to the question, "what is nirvana?" answers may be explained in glowing terms, but no words can really give us an answer. nirvana is beyond words, logic and reasoning. it is, perhaps, easier to speak of what nirvana is not. it isn't nothingness or annihilation of self, because the dharma teaches there is no self to be annihilated. in our attempt to explain it we use words which have limited meanings. it isn't heaven; it isn't purgatory or hell; it isn't pure land, and it isn't the end. nirvana is the absolute reality, which is realized through the highest mental training and wisdom. the buddha said: "it occurred to me....that this dhamma i have realized is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful and sublime, beyond mere reasoning, subtle and intelligible to the wise....hard, too, is it to see this calming of all conditioned things, the giving up of all substance of becoming, the extinction of craving, dispassion, cessation, nirvana." from this it is clear that even the buddha himself thought that the extinction of desire (nirvana) is difficult to see, difficult to understand. interestingly, one doesn't have to die to experience nirvana. most of us have already had momentary glimpses of it. i am partial to this quotation from the famous lebanese-american writer kahlil gibran: "yes, there is a nirvana: it is in leading your sheep to a green pasture, and in putting your child to sleep, and in writing the last line of your poem." this hearkens back to meditation that i briefly went into earlier in the thread. we must live in the present moment. so we go through life collecting both good and bad karma, reflective of our decisions. while it is true that the accumulation of any karma, both good as well as bad, will prevent us, ultimately, from achieving the state of nirvana, i do not believe that the good will hinder us along the path. good karma works to negate the bad, acting as a kind of counterbalance. there are buddhist scholars who may disagree with this. buddhists hold that the retributive process of karma can span more than one lifetime. rebirth, or reincarnation, has always been an important tenet in buddhism; and it is often referred to as walking the wheel of life (samsara). It is the process of being born over and over again in different times and different situations, possibly for many thousand times. as long as there is delusion, greed, and aversion, and as long as passions are not extinguished, we generate karma. Because we eventually accumulate unmaterialised karma in this or in a past lifetime, there is a next lifetime in which the accumulated karma will take form. only when all accumulated karma is realised and the generation of new karma is calmed, one can enter the stream that leads to nirvana. this process continues until nirvana is reached, which signifies the cessation of rebirth and, hence, suffering. it is notable that this also entails the avoidance of "good karma". once the stream that leads to nirvana is entered, creating wholesome karma is not an object anymore. although wholesome karma leads to entering the stream, it does not necessarily lead to nirvana, only the extinguishment of all karmic forces will lead to nirvana. how was that?? clear as mud, i'm sure!........but i hope that answers your question at least a little....