I like the scene of reviving the old book – simply by reading it. Just as books give us a richer inner life, we give life to books by reading them too. Indeed, a book and its reader make sense in themselves only when relating to each other. Reminds me of the teaching that sutras can ‘disappear’ – when neglected, ignored, which makes them as good as ‘dead to us. Amituofo

I came across a someone who is supposed to teach the Dharma via video clips online. I say ‘supposed’ because he also adds in unscientific doomsday information that has been scaring the masses for some time and continue to do so. Some of the stuff mentioned has been officially debunked too. In one episode, this person says something very grave, in a definite manner. It was so seriously put across that some students made copies of that episode for disseminating in the form of discs to share the message with more.

Recently, the teacher says that was a bad idea, that what said was taken out of context, that other teachings should be heard too. He claimed he didn’t give a guaranteed accurate message. I checked the problematic episode, and can perfectly understand why a fuss was made out of it – because the message was really put across in a very serious and self-contained manner, so much so that it is unfair to say it was taken out of context, or that he was only speaking about a possibility. Anyway, the episode was cut that way, with no warning that its contents are incomplete or subject to change. And the irony of it all, as that episode remains online.

What makes things worse is the teacher is flippant in speech, and squirms around inaccurate stuff said earlier, constantly changing what he is ‘supposed to have meant’ with incredible rationalisation. Systematic checks prove so for many issues raised. Does he expect every single person who watches any one of his videos to endlessly follow-up with all his past and future videos, because absolutely everything he says must be seen together? Who can anyone trust whatever he says at any point in time then? Is it not safer to ignore him altogether to avoid confusion? This reminded me of the importance of being as self-contained in speech and writing as possible.

Like a cloud that shapeshifts,
the object, issue or person we perceive changes too,
along with our angle of perception,
and our perceptions themselves,
from one moment to the next.

As such, what perceived,
just as the perceiver and perceiving are,
is never fixed and timelessly true,
just like how a cloud can appear to scowl or smile,
depending on various conditions.

I call this truth
the Cloudian Scowl…
or Smile…
of course. :-]

Q: How to overcome anger?

A:  Look deeply for the reason why you are angry.

If the reason is external, from others,
it doesn’t make sense to let them disturb your peace of mind.
Why let others’ mistakes punish yourself?
You just need to recognise them and ask them to make amends.

If the reason is internal, from yourself,
it also doesn’t make sense to disturb your peace of mind.
Why punish yourself with your mistakes?
You just need to recognise them and make amends personally.

I don’t know if there is already a term for the receiving end of Freudian slips, but I have been using the self-created term ‘Freudian (h)ear’ for a long time, to the extent that a friend thought there is ‘officially’ such a thing.

While Freudian slips are unmindful expressions of what is really on one’s mind, Freudian h/ear(s) refer to unmindful receiving of what one expects to hear, which, although are misperceptions of what was said, reflects what is really on the listener’s mind!

(If Freud didn’t propose something similar, maybe I should use his name. Alternative name: Shenian Hears?)

S: It’s funny when some claim that you don’t resemble your pseudonym, because the very point of using pseudonyms is to mess up perception of the writer in the eyes of the readers.

J: I have an ex-colleague who didn’t even like to have her photo being shown to readers, so as to maintain a sense of mystery. I think the main point should be to avoid being judged by readers merely based on looks.

S: Sound a little like me and my faceless facebook account :-] Indeed, both names and appearances are mostly deceiving, due to being misread by faulty perceptions. That’s why many writers prefer to just let their words do the talking. Pseudonyms are words too though. In fact, among the writers’ first!

A: I feel that I am very different from others.
B: Everyone feels they are different from others.
A: Er… I am different… I feel that I am exactly the same as others!

Us unenlightened beings
are similarly egoistic,
yet to different extents.

Related Article:
Tom, Dick & Harry
http://moonpointer.com/index.php?itemid=63

If one is constantly apologetic,
one has never been truly apologetic.

If one keeps saying sorry,
one is simply not sorry enough.

If one wishes to be respected,
one should first be respectful.

You cry when you are born.
Because returning painfully is suffering.
How much more tears?

You cry when you are here.
Because living unhappily is suffering.
How much more tears?

You cry when you are dying.
Because leaving fearfully is suffering.
How much more tears?

(The irony?
Your parents smile when you are born,
just as you do when your children are born.)

If you are more gracious to the more wealthy and powerful,
even if you are not also wealthy and powerful,
you are already caught up in wealth and power,
already lacking in equanimity
for both the rich and poor, the strong and weak.

‘Never mind, I’ll find someone like you…’
who I will fall in love with again,
who will break my heart like you again.
After which, I will sing this song again…

‘Never mind, I’ll find someone like you…’
who I will fall in love with again,
who will break my heart like you again.
After which, I will sing this song again…

The moral?
Don’t be so attached to the previous heartbreaker,
that you find someone just like him or her!

As the company
failed her stringent interview,
she sacked it,
boss and all,
to interview another.

She might not
be the boss,
but she’s the boss!

A good child-actor
‘acts maturely’
like a child.

While attending a Pure Land retreat, it struck me that there is a wide variety of differences in what participants bring along. Flanking the sides of the Buddha hall, they would put their bags, but usually first bringing one or more items from them, to put beside their meditation cushions for easier access.

Some bags are chunky and some less so. (I do wonder what’s in them.) Some are without any bags at akll. Some have big water bottles next to their cushions, with other ‘special equipment’, like an extra towel for warmth, chanting counters… (Are they really needed in every case?) Some have just a small water bottle, or even nothing.

It made me think… How many ‘things’ do we need to practise the Dharma well? What is the minimal? What is too much? Do we hoard too much physically, and thus mentally, even when in a retreat? Do these things complicate practice or faciliate it? If they are absolutely necessary, what if they are unavailable on the deathbed? You might not even be able to use a cushion then!

How ‘Elmo’s Song’ can be yours too. A simple song that epitomises being Elmo as the opposite of being ‘Emo’.

The nonsensical Mah Na Mah Na ‘Mantra’ of zany joy for no particular reason.

An actually sensible yet funny analysis of Yankee Doodle by Don Music.

Related Article:
Elmo Vs Emo
http://moonpointer.com/new/2011/12/elmo-vs-emo