THE RONIN:
Bruno Loff:
I might be misinterpreting what you are saying, but it would seem to me that you believe that clear, non-imagetic speech does not have the power which you are now hoping that occult-like, image-based speech does. As if you are trying to "bypass certain filters" by writing the way you do.
Let's put aside the matter that this is kind of arrogant on your part. Perhaps you indeed understand something really far out that is really hard to express, and we don't. Perhaps we are really misguided and need you to give it to us straight. Heck, perhaps you are fuckin' Jesus incarnate Himself. So sorry, great sir, if we are way out of our depth, and can't grasp your noble message...

Practically speaking, even if this metaphorical-imagetic-intuitive-animalistic-speech strategy is sound in certain conditions, with certain people --- people with whom you have built a relationship of trust, people for whom you have had the opportunity to point to and break down or at least soften the rigidity of their worldview, etc --- I don't think that this approach works in a public internet forum.
By the very nature of the medium, by the diversity of people accessing this place and reading this stuff, language should, in my opinion and as much as possible, be clear and consensual.
Maybe you find that boring?
hi Bruno,
Fine, if no one in generation Proze can be so bold as to interact playfully online in an obscure forum or tolerate a statement with any poetic depth, then lets be entirely prosaic and mechanistic.
It all seems very classical to me, all just Major Motherfucking Dudes and never a Bitch in sight.
Do do do, dah dah dah. Excuse me while I feast on the mushrooms for a moment.
When I was last active here, DhO 1.0 - 2.0 was like "Fight Club" for the Dharma. It took a while to see it but I recognize now that it has become a
Mausoleum for the mighty who fell.
Well I'm the outlaw who shot them down. Now you... are all the fools who worship at their graves.
One of those ghosts bid me return to assist him with the haunting while all of you continue your charnel ground practices. It so happens that I am so good at being a monster that people are shitting themselves left, right and center.
In truth, I am a happy monster. One who is simply laughing his ass off most of the time.
So then. What are the rules? Now. In this cemetary?
As I am merely a novice while all of you are so well advanced?
As you can see, I am only eight days your senior as a member of the DhO. If this was a classically connected Sangha I would be a novice only a few days old. You would now have almost five years in the robes, have long been fully steeped in the Doctrine and Discipline, well trained, well practiced and soon be entirely free to wander alone.
I have been wandering fifty years now in this flesh and only recently returned as a ghost to this small and vacant chapel on the edge of nowhere.
As I recollect, the DhO 1.0 was the anarchic wild west of Dharma, just as you say.
Secular, liberal, unmoderated, liberated in name if not in form.
Yes. It was a lively and entirely unterritorialized wilderness of free speech.
As laymen, keen to comprehend the Dharma/Dhamma most of us had studied or practiced quite a bit, to one extent or another and we were all keen to ask questions and discuss aspects of the N8FP that were taboo to even speak of in any Classically Connected sense.
Everyone was fucking free to fucking say what the fuck ever they fucking bloody well felt like saying. I can clearly remember directly calling Kenneth Folk a fucking moron for being so obviously a fucking moron in one of his own threads. I may be personally to thank for Kenneth Folk Dharma Inc. thanks to my efforts to keep the DhO as dogma free as it then claimed to be.
However now, as I could see it was already then, be this because of the inherent authority of Daniel's authoring a book, or because it is his website, or because Universal and Conforming Truth simply imposes it's nature on all things, or simply due to the conforming incredulity of human beings, the Dogmatic Nature of the DhO and it's conformity to the mushroom nature of the human social sphere was and is built right into it.
I am entirely beholding to the Classically Universal Conforming Truth. I entirely reverence the Doctrine of the Mean.
Dhamma is solid and consistent ALL WAYS because it plays just as well regardless of any and all conditions.
But I am particularly hostile to new dogma that does not Universally Conform to the Classically Universal Truth, from any quarter.
Even quantum physics, in whatever form(s) it takes or may yet take, conforms elegantly to the Classically Universal BuddhaDhamma or to the Doctrine of the Mean.
This thread and no less this forum is not a Dharma cut into stone.
This is the internet, where speech, if you will, or text, to be precise, immediately goes forth into oblivion.
Personally, if it is a statement any more colloquial than a recurrence of a Conformative Universal Truth, I don't see how it matters how anyone attempts to say anything.
nathan