•June 17, 2009 • 1 Comment
this is an excerpt from a book that i’m reading
Clearly, it is not the highest action to deliberately destroy or abuse one another. Clearly, it is equally inappropriate to neglect the needs of those you have caused to be dependent on you.
Your job is to render them independent; to teach them as quickly and completely as possible how to get along without you. For you are no more blessing to them so long as they need you to survive, but bless them truly only in the moment they realize you are unnecessary.
•October 20, 2008 • Leave a Comment
Found this on TED, thought it was really good. In general thought it was aligned with the Dalai Lama’s book, “The Art of Happiness” pretty well. Pay attention to the section on Mind Training and then the section afterward where they applied mind training to scientific experiments.
•September 29, 2008 • 2 Comments
I was doing a typical 3 mile run today, when I approached one of the corners that I always turn at. As I approached the corner I saw 2 elderly people slow down their walking pace as they reached a stop at the corner. As I began my right turn around the corner, I saw a 2 year-old girl, and then within a split second she yelled out a enthusiastic “BOO” as she was chasing down her grandparents. My first reaction was a quick jump to the left and then felt my heart go into relief.
My first thought after that was why did I tense up? What about surprises makes me jump and go into alert mode. Then I thought about what some of my friends would do. And it seems a lot of guys would get ready to fight or punch someone or something. So then I started thinking, why are people so paranoid?
I wonder what life would be like if we didn’t train our bodies to respond to danger so much. If I saw something coming, I can move out of the way and react to it, but its funny how even the voice from a little girl got me all jumpy. I surely would not want to punch her.
•October 5, 2007 • Leave a Comment
At the age of 5 or 6 I saw a biblical cartoon on Noah’s Ark and assumed that was reality: there was a God and life after death is Heaven. Shortly after I told my mom the great news about what I had learned that day, she taught me some concepts in Buddhism: cause and effect, karma, reincarnation. For some reason, that made more sense to me and that became the defacto standard until I graduated from high school. I have always been pretty spiritual because life wouldn’t make sense if there wasn’t some sort of after life, but I never committed myself seriously. My reasoning at the time (and still is) was that if life ended after you die, then what would be the point of living? Why not blow up the earth and get it over with? Therefore based on that logic, there had to be some sort of reason as to why we exist.
In college, I began to rebel and question my original beliefs in search for my own meaning to life. During this time, I gave both Buddhism and Christianity some serious thought, weighing the positives of each teaching, but disliked the rigidity and structure in the way it was taught. I started to believe that religion was man’s way of creating power by instilling fear into people and gradually started to side with atheism. During this rebellious phase, I started challenging my mom’s spiritual ideas with what I had thought to be pretty sound arguments, only to get shot down on my own limited understanding of the spiritual concepts to begin with. It just didn’t make sense to me anymore (It’s kind of like the feeling when you learn calculus for the first time and realizing everything you had learned in math before was crap because it was the kiddie way of doing things). Sensing that I was a bit lost, my mom began recommending spiritual books for me to read after college. I was eager to relearn concepts from a different perspective, hoping that it would perhaps ease some of my frustrations.
Fast forward another year and 6 books later, I have concluded that although most of what I have read all give the same or similar message, there are definite minor differences in the teachings. Focusing on these differences would ultimately miss out on the more important and finer truths to life. My new definition for spirituality is now “Accelerate your self-understanding to move on towards unconditional acceptance of others”. I have came to this conclusion that it doesn’t really matter if there is a life after death because the most important thing while you’re here on this planet is your relationship with yourself and your relationship with others. If you treat yourself and others well, then there should be no reason for you not to have a better “after life” (define “after life” however you would like). If you had all of the wealth, power, and intelligence in this world, it would not matter the instance you lose all of your relationships. Thus true wealth lie in the abundance of you relationships. True power lies in the quality of your relationships. And true intelligence helps you maintain those relationships.
Those are my beliefs…for now.
•August 8, 2007 • 1 Comment
I’ll always remember the time you scolded me in 5th grade when I cried because homework in Chinese was too hard. I’ll always remember the time when you said you were going to take me to go see this computer convention, and then you ended up ditching me. But you always loved me and always spoiled me.
Back in college, I wanted a tattoo on my back consisting of the 4 Chinese characters that represented the family name from my generation to your father’s. Those characters meant success in life through each of our generations. I want you to know that you have nothing to worry about, my generation of kids will be fine, I will make sure of it.
I was glad to see you one last time back in April. I knew you were glad to see me too. Rest in peace.
•August 1, 2007 • 1 Comment
Got the following points from a book I just finished reading relating to psychology/spiritual stuff. I just listed things that I have experienced or could relate to.
+ Left alone, hate does not last. The hater is attracted to the object of his hatred by deep bonds. It is never a steady constant state, and will automatically change if not tampered with.
+ Hatred does not initiate strong violence. The outbreak of violence is often the result of a built-in sense of powerlessness.
+ Love and hate are based upon self-identification in your experience. You do not bother to love or hate persons you cannot identify with at all. They leave you relatively untouched. They do not elicit deep emotion.
+ Hatred always involves a painful sense of separation from love, which may be idealized. A person you feel strongly against at any given time upsets you because he or she does not live up to your expectations.
+ You “hate” something that separates you from a loved object. It is precisely because the object is loved that it is so disliked if expectations are not met. You may love a parent, and if the parent does not seem to return the love and denies your expectations, then you may “hate” the same parent because of the love that leads you to expect more. The hatred is meant to get you your love back. Hatred is the not the denial of love, then, but an attempt to regain it, and a painful recognition of circumstances that separate you from it.
+ Love and hate are not opposites. They are different aspects, and experienced differently. To some extent you want to identify with those you feel deeply about. You do not love someone simply because you associate portions of yourself with another. You often do love another individual because such a person evokes with you glimpses of your own “idealized” self.
+ The loved one draws your best from you. In his or her eyes you see what you can be. In the other’s love you sense your potential. This does not mean that in a beloved person you react only to your own idealized self. This is a peculiar kind of vision shared by those involved (husband and wife, parent and child). This vision is quite able to to perceive the difference between the practical and the ideal, so that in ascendant periods of love the discrepancies in, say actual behavior are overlooked and considered relatively unimportant.