Human, you are not necessary.

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Human, you are not necessary.

Post by Grigoris »

LoveFromColorado wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:17 pmIsn't "white, male stakeholders" the very definition of bourgeois?
^^^This^^^
Digressing slightly, I think it would be a good first step in our current environment to do away with categories of "liberal" and "conservative", "left" and "right".
Ummmmm... NO!

These categories define attitudes, political and economic positions, social ideals, etc...

Unfortunately we are not all one, even though we may be as a species.

How would you visualise a political union of Fascists and Anarchists (for example), which common denominator would you appeal to?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
LoveFromColorado
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:10 pm

Re: Human, you are not necessary.

Post by LoveFromColorado »

Grigoris wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:40 pm
LoveFromColorado wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:17 pmIsn't "white, male stakeholders" the very definition of bourgeois?
^^^This^^^
Digressing slightly, I think it would be a good first step in our current environment to do away with categories of "liberal" and "conservative", "left" and "right".
Ummmmm... NO!

These categories define attitudes, political and economic positions, social ideals, etc...

Unfortunately we are not all one, even though we may be as a species.

How would you visualise a political union of Fascists and Anarchists (for example), which common denominator would you appeal to?
Sorry, I was probably more clear in my head than on my keyboard.

I did not intend to mean that we should do away with having words to describe attitudes, positions, and other categories. Rather, I think these terms have been foisted on the general public when they don't really think about (or perhaps know) what they mean.

In other words, people often describe themselves as "conservative" or "liberal" because they were taught to via a mix of upbringing, news outlets, the education system, and so on, and so on. These words really do not have any historical connections in the Western context any longer and are instead now tools for people in power to perpetuate a divide that keeps them in office. If you actually sit down and talk to someone about their ideals and political views, more often than not they will express a moderate viewpoint. However, when they get on Facebook, listen to the news outlets, etc., they are fed a biased storyline or progressively polarizing echo chamber that tends to make them think they have to side with something inadvertently that they may not actually wholeheartedly agree with. I just had a conversation with a neighbor not too long ago who is traditionally a conservative (in the traditional sense) but supports Trump because "liberal" and "left" have taken on new false polarized meanings in our current context. This watering down of language has caused Trump supporters to become almost blind in their support. The more left-leaning political sphere has some similar issues.

For example, is Bernie Sanders truly a "liberal"? Perhaps to someone whose comparison is Trump but perhaps not to a gun control activist or a bonafide communist/socialist. In reality, Bernie Sanders is much more moderate than not but he is painted as "liberal" and "left" to ostracize his political beliefs.

In other words, these traditional categorizations have been commandeered by the powers that be to perpetuate their power and do the public harm.

That's my point... hopefully it makes sense. I'm not trying to insinuate that we can all just get along as-is without compromise or language to explain differences. I just object to the current usage of these terms in the general public context.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Human, you are not necessary.

Post by Queequeg »

LoveFromColorado wrote:Isn't "white, male stakeholders" the very definition of bourgeois?
There's a sense of the word bourgeois that implies urban middle class. I don't think rural land owners who derive their livelihood from agriculture generally meet the "bourgeois" label. They do meet the label of stakeholders, along with urbanites who have a stake.

Whatever. They're labels.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Human, you are not necessary.

Post by Grigoris »

The whole populat political spectrum is skewed so far right these days, that even Obama looks like a political liberal and the Bush's are now humanitarians...
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Human, you are not necessary.

Post by Grigoris »

Queequeg wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:18 pm
LoveFromColorado wrote:Isn't "white, male stakeholders" the very definition of bourgeois?
There's a sense of the word bourgeois that implies urban middle class. I don't think rural land owners who derive their livelihood from agriculture generally meet the "bourgeois" label. They do meet the label of stakeholders, along with urbanites who have a stake.

Whatever. They're labels.
What? No, not to a Marxist. To a Marxist it refers to the capital owning class. The petite-bourgeoisie (self-employed, small shop owners, etc...) are closer to the notion of the middle class.

The proletariat are the waged class. This term has been improperly translated to "working class", and even more improperly skwed to mean "industrial working class". As you can see the original term was more inclusive.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Human, you are not necessary.

Post by Queequeg »

Grigoris wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:39 pm
Queequeg wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:18 pm
LoveFromColorado wrote:Isn't "white, male stakeholders" the very definition of bourgeois?
There's a sense of the word bourgeois that implies urban middle class. I don't think rural land owners who derive their livelihood from agriculture generally meet the "bourgeois" label. They do meet the label of stakeholders, along with urbanites who have a stake.

Whatever. They're labels.
What? No, not to a Marxist. To a Marxist it refers to the capital owning class.
I take it you're a Marxist?

I'm not. But you've now clarified the definition you apply to that word. Pardon my interruption.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Human, you are not necessary.

Post by Malcolm »

Grigoris wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:50 am
Malcolm wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:38 amThis is as facile as it is untrue. For example, Burke, the father of political conservatism, was a supporter of the American Revolution.
The American Revolution was a bourgeois revolution.
Yes, but the American Revolution cannot be construed as condoning oppression.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Human, you are not necessary.

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:45 pm
I take it you're a Marxist?
Grigoris is an anarchist.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Human, you are not necessary.

Post by Queequeg »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:48 pm
Queequeg wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:45 pm
I take it you're a Marxist?
Grigoris is an anarchist.
Ah, that explains so much. :smile:
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Human, you are not necessary.

Post by Grigoris »

Autonomist, actually...
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Human, you are not necessary.

Post by Queequeg »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:47 pm
Grigoris wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:50 am
Malcolm wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:38 amThis is as facile as it is untrue. For example, Burke, the father of political conservatism, was a supporter of the American Revolution.
The American Revolution was a bourgeois revolution.
Yes, but the American Revolution cannot be construed as condoning oppression.
In theory or in practice? And how are we defining oppression?

Just to put this in practical terms - isn't chattel slavery a form of oppression? How was it not condoned in the Revolution?
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Human, you are not necessary.

Post by Queequeg »

Grigoris wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:52 pm Autonomist, actually...
I had to look that up. Sounds exhausting.

:smile:
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
LoveFromColorado
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:10 pm

Re: Human, you are not necessary.

Post by LoveFromColorado »

Queequeg wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:18 pm
LoveFromColorado wrote:Isn't "white, male stakeholders" the very definition of bourgeois?
There's a sense of the word bourgeois that implies urban middle class. I don't think rural land owners who derive their livelihood from agriculture generally meet the "bourgeois" label. They do meet the label of stakeholders, along with urbanites who have a stake.

Whatever. They're labels.
Agreed, a small rural farmer that owns their own property in today's day and age could be seen as somewhere in the middle - not exactly proletariat but not exactly bourgeois.

And these are indeed just labels.
LoveFromColorado
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:10 pm

Re: Human, you are not necessary.

Post by LoveFromColorado »

Queequeg wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:57 pm
Grigoris wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:52 pm Autonomist, actually...
I had to look that up
Likewise!

At heart, I am in favor of automating all facets of manual labor such that the need for currency becomes obsolete. I certainly think this is the case for anything that would be a base need (food, shelter, healthcare, etc.). As such, capitalism, communism, etc., really are obsolete terms in my mind that correspond with a (slowly) dying imperialist model. With technology there is no reason that there should not be free and widespread distribution of basic resources.

Work and labor should center around what one wants to accomplish out of this life instead of what one has to do simply to survive. In past centuries, this was not feasible. I don't really see why that has to be the case moving forward.

I don't think that is an Autonomist viewpoint, but I suspect it is some form of anarchy :)
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Human, you are not necessary.

Post by Queequeg »

LoveFromColorado wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:48 pm With technology there is no reason that there should not be free and widespread distribution of basic resources.

Work and labor should center around what one wants to accomplish out of this life instead of what one has to do simply to survive. In past centuries, this was not feasible. I don't really see why that has to be the case moving forward.
That's more or less what I meant at the top of this thread:
Queequeg wrote: Thu Dec 13, 2018 11:26 pm If only we could figure this out. We are on the verge of unlimited leisure time for humanity. Unfortunately, I don't think most of us are prepared for that scale of slack. This could be a wonderful thing but will likely be a nightmare.
Leisure meaning, freedom to do what we want instead of laboring under some necessity of survival.

Just to relate a little bit - there are studies that suggest once you make enough money to comfortably meet your basic needs, more money doesn't correspond to more happiness.

The question is, what do we do with this free time? We need to learn how to be free.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Human, you are not necessary.

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:55 pm Just to put this in practical terms - isn't chattel slavery a form of oppression? How was it not condoned in the Revolution?
Yes, it is a form of oppression.

The American Revolution did not take place in order to defend slavery as an institution. The vast majority of American soldiers who fought in the Revolution were from New England.

Attitudes towards slavery in Massachusetts, for example, where quite jaundiced and by 1790 there were no slaves in Massachusetts as a result of case law (Walker v. Jennison and Commonwealth v. Jennison). Slavery was abolished ouright in Vermont in 1777. Connecticut began an emancipation process in 1784. Rhode Island abolished slavery in the 17th century, however the legislation was ignored. However, in 1794, it passed a manumission act which led the eventual ending of slavery in that state.

The first and second Continental Armies were composed largely of troops from the New England states. It was only in the third Continental Army where each state was required to send one battalion. Ten percent of the Continental Army was freed slaves.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Human, you are not necessary.

Post by Queequeg »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:27 pm
Queequeg wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:55 pm Just to put this in practical terms - isn't chattel slavery a form of oppression? How was it not condoned in the Revolution?
Yes, it is a form of oppression.

The American Revolution did not take place in order to defend slavery as an institution. The vast majority of American soldiers who fought in the Revolution were from New England.

Attitudes towards slavery in Massachusetts, for example, where quite jaundiced and by 1790 there were no slaves in Massachusetts as a result of case law (Walker v. Jennison and Commonwealth v. Jennison). Slavery was abolished ouright in Vermont in 1777. Connecticut began an emancipation process in 1784. Rhode Island abolished slavery in the 17th century, however the legislation was ignored. However, in 1794, it passed a manumission act which led the eventual ending of slavery in that state.

The first and second Continental Armies were composed largely of troops from the New England states. It was only in the third Continental Army where each state was required to send one battalion. Ten percent of the Continental Army was freed slaves.
Right.

My impression was that there was more or less a sense in New England that slavery would be tolerated for the sake of getting all the colonies on board but that it would come to a head some day. Is that condoning? Maybe we're splitting hairs at this point.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Dan74
Former staff member
Posts: 3403
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:59 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Human, you are not necessary.

Post by Dan74 »

Queequeg wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:43 pm
Dan74 wrote: Sat Dec 15, 2018 5:16 pm Well, for starters the progressive identity in recent decades has become synonymous with PC, the so-called 'cultural Marxism' though the term is silly. This change has, IMO, shifted the attention from the urgent socio-economic issues to the hand-wringing and the identity crises of the urban elites.
On one hand, I sympathize with critiques of the PC/TriggerPhobic/SafeSpace approach to identity. On the other hand, you're dangerously close to dismissing identity issues by conflating them with "identity crisis of urban elites."

Urban elites are by and large, white and hetero. Whatever identity crisis they have has to do with their own issues, if anything. I recently read about a sociologist who has called it White Fragility". In progressives, it expresses as an exaggerated concern with "diversity" and "multiculturalism" (Consider - a few black and brown faces sprinkled into a predominantly white crowd is "diversity"; a few white faces in a predominantly black or brown crowd is, "WTF are they doing here?") For conservatives, it expresses as denials of racism and instead masquerades often as "law and order". Either way, the way I see it, most of the identity politics fight is about privileged white people disagreeing vehemently with each other.

If you are black, or brown, or yellow, don't fit conventional norms in terms of sexuality, or otherwise don't fit into the narrow scoped of appearance and behavior, you pretty much don't have a choice but to identify by those traits because you are not allowed, for a single moment, to forget who you are and "your place". BLM is not an urban elite identity crisis. Its a black protest against cops killing black men for no reason. LGBTQ agitation for marriage equality is about getting the law to recognize a broader scope of family structures.

By suggesting that advocacy that happens to concern identities as a diversion from urgent soci-economic issues (these are social and economic issues, by the way), you're more or less telling black people to stop being so uppity, and gay people to go back into the closet, in favor of the issues you privilege above others. (Letter from a Birmingham Jail, one of the greatest documents defining what it means to be American, IMO, has a lot to say about the suggestion that protesters should not be so aggressive). Ask a poor black person - does being black or poor matter more to you? You might get a variety of answers on that, but a lot of people are going to say, "Both - and they're related."

The PC/TriggerPhobic/SafeSpace is a problem, but be careful about taking critique of a particular faction of identity advocates too far.

This was the mistake of the so-called Bernie Bros and why BLM activists pushed back on Bernie.
I don't pretend to have all the answers, nor do I even know enough to draw even tentative conclusions. Here in Switzerland, there is certainly a social net, but many still fall through. Recent report indicates that at least 600000 people in a country of 8 million live below the poverty line. This is in one of the wealthiest places in the world. But the majority of the problems are due to the folks simply not coping due to personal and family issues and in many case consequent drug abuse, societal pressures and demands of the system, rather than the actual lack of support.
Maybe we need more love. Maybe modes of being where concern for fellows in a compassionate and supportive way are required to address the problems we face. Procedural protocols only go so far. The state can't mandate that we look at each other and be, for lack of a better word, human, to each other. A support center can only go so far with joyous color schemes; at some point, we just have to care for each other.
We need global action.
Svaha.
Really appreciate the care you put into the reply, QQ. :bow:

Just travelled back to Australia, hence the delay in replying.

To clarify, I didn't mean to dismiss the concerns of the oppressed minorities at all. Perhaps my wording was due to the following.

1. My perception (right or wrong) is that the way these concerns have been pursued by the so-called progressive left in recent decades, has produced a great deal of hot air but seems to have led more to backlash than any serious systemic change for the better. This was not always so. So it's not the issues so much, but the way they are dealt with that concerns me.

For instance take racism and prejudice of other kinds. The most vocal of the progressives in the Anglophone sphere have turned what should be a positive campaign of connecting and embracing human beings of all colour, sexual orientation and genders, into something of a witch-hunt, with heightened sensitivities, micro-aggressions, etc. We tread as if on eggs with each other, which is a stupid unproductive attitude. People are racist, homophobic, etc. We are wary of the different. This is normal, it is how we evolved. And we should face it as a normal thing, feel free to voice our anxieties and fears, rather than add more anxieties and fears to them. That's how we work through things. And in practice, what I think we need is an openness to meet people, exchange stories, get to know one another in an atmosphere of honesty, not a neo-Victorian PC police. Nor the "I am a privileged white male, I am so sorry for everything" attitude that usually goes nowhere. If you are sorry, go and volunteer, help with your hands to make a difference. That's cool and doesn't need the guilt but is more about compassion and wishing a fair go for others. But these cultural neuroses we've developed perhaps as a reaction to the horrors of the Holocaust, the lynchings, the hate crimes, as well as other horrors we've inflicted on others and the planet itself are not helpful in my view.


2. I tend to see that our current system is fundamentally broken and unjust and the specific forms of injustice doled out to the minorities are more of a bitter icing on top of a turd-cake of a bad deal that the majority gets. It makes more sense to me to address these systemic issues first and foremost rather than try to put the proverbial lipstick on a pig, by trying to fix the identity issues, as real as they are.

Hope this makes a little more sense. I've kinda been saying this for 20 years so I feel like I am just a silly old fart repeating himself.. :toilet:

Going back to the OP, Olaf Stapledon in his visionary Starmaker 80 years ago described a humanity devoting their leisure to developing a truly synergetic mind-linked creative communities, while the machines took care of the drudgery, but Aldous Huxley in the Brave New World saw a consumerist society abusing its prowess at manipulating nature to mould itself in increasingly grotesque ways. Between these two visions (and possibly others), we have to find our way. But the foundation of what is to come is laid today, so we can begin to glimpse the future now..
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Human, you are not necessary.

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:32 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:27 pm
Queequeg wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:55 pm Just to put this in practical terms - isn't chattel slavery a form of oppression? How was it not condoned in the Revolution?
Yes, it is a form of oppression.

The American Revolution did not take place in order to defend slavery as an institution. The vast majority of American soldiers who fought in the Revolution were from New England.

Attitudes towards slavery in Massachusetts, for example, where quite jaundiced and by 1790 there were no slaves in Massachusetts as a result of case law (Walker v. Jennison and Commonwealth v. Jennison). Slavery was abolished ouright in Vermont in 1777. Connecticut began an emancipation process in 1784. Rhode Island abolished slavery in the 17th century, however the legislation was ignored. However, in 1794, it passed a manumission act which led the eventual ending of slavery in that state.

The first and second Continental Armies were composed largely of troops from the New England states. It was only in the third Continental Army where each state was required to send one battalion. Ten percent of the Continental Army was freed slaves.
Right.

My impression was that there was more or less a sense in New England that slavery would be tolerated for the sake of getting all the colonies on board but that it would come to a head some day. Is that condoning? Maybe we're splitting hairs at this point.
The union nearly fell apart over slavery after the war. I think it is fairly safe to say that the Revolution was fought to eliminate oppression.
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Human, you are not necessary.

Post by Grigoris »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:33 amThe union nearly fell apart over slavery after the war. I think it is fairly safe to say that the Revolution was fought to eliminate oppression.
English oppression. Or English Royal oppression.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”