auspicious coincidence

i smiled when i was reading this because is see the irony of it,.. i think.

ironic that your inconsistancy - lack of consistent action - hints at your impermanence, which is defined by its constant state of disintigration.

but then again, that's it isn't it... its ironic that dukkha is due in some part to the absence of a constant, characterized quiddity.

the labels that we put on ourselves are many and necessary; more importantly, they are useful, i think. they help us communicate, which aids harmony and understanding. i write: i am a buddhist; a gelug; a omnivore. from those words you and i come into the many forms of human understanding that make this precious human rebirth truly precious.

you are right, though, in observing that "none of these things make" you who you are..., but then again, no label can truly designate what you are... we are such dual creatures that we have to use labels to generate understanding of our sensuous existence, but the dharma gives us another ironic paradox:

the conventional world, our conventional existence in samsara, even the language that speaks our existence... all these are valid.

simultaneously, they are also illusory, ghostly phenomena, without identity.

the irony is that "the thing" that constitutes our insubstantial existence is also "the thing" that makes our strang, samsaric world so dynamic.

*blank stare*
sorry, it's been a long day.
I soooo want to participate in this...
{forehead hits keyboard}

In the words of Alan Watts, "The 'you' who you think you are does not exist." What a great realization. If only I could come to such terms with myself. Maybe tomorrow. ~Amadeus

i agree with Watts.... but that seems like an intuitive realization to me, in the sense that one thing seems clear: my concepts about 'me' and 'me' are not identical... never shall the twain be the same.

Yes, Pramena, that's what I was saying: That my inconsistency is just another mark of my impermanence, and that my frustration with that is simply an expression of my suffering, my dukka.

Amadeus, your comment so made me smile. ;) You, too, ZC! heheheh...hope you didn't end up with an outline of the keys pressed into your forehead.

I was about to write that 'inconsistency' is my middle name, but it's not. It's Geoffrey, but don't tell anyone.

I'll do my best to keep it a secret, Terry, but it may be a challenge at this point. ;)

"That my inconsistency is just another mark of my impermanence, and that my frustration with that is simply an expression of my suffering, my dukka."

yeah. that fact that frustration is such a disatisfying experience, makes it almost tangible, but the bitch about samsara is that all dualistic minds are dukkha. frustration with you inconsistancy is no more or less dukkha than my deepest most loving feelings for my partner...

my aversion to the experience of inconsistancy is aversion, which, like attachment and passion, thoroughly dukkha.

i could be completely wrong, i just thought i'd say it.

. . . I so feel this too in my living . . . how things ebb and flow . . and how much crud I give myself for not being More . . . but yeah - it's All Life and All Flow . . . even a riverbank and the seashore changes every moment, never to repeat the same exact path . . . okay . . now to push myself into studying More for exams :)

Pramena,

It is easy for me to recognize love as impermanent--even the greatest of partnerships are composed of people that are not going to live together--while other aspects of impermanence may be more difficult for me to recognize.

do you see the realization of love as impermanent and the realizatioon of love as dukkha with the same response?

speaking for myself, it is plain that love for another person is impermanent, but that romantic love is always dukkha - just as our frustration with inconsistancy is, that was the pt i was trying to infer.