#misconceive me perceive me

[jimmyeggreenwood]

On Prince Harry’s interview with Stephen Colbert. I stopped to vomit this poem out after 4m 44s

(and won’t be watching any more)

Ode to hypocrisy.

There’s no such thing as “British Press, the way you twats perceive it.

You have to listen to your gut so you don’t misconceive it.

You think you own the cocking world

Well let me tell you something.

You want that Ginga reprobate to lead your ivory King dom?

Of course he rocked and rolled the army on Middle Eastern front.

I’ll tell you summing for nothing dudes, you’re all a bunch of..

If you think that leading tribes into a war behind a cloud

Is something to be loud about, proud hidden in a crowd.

You think the cock crowed thrice for him when he revealed his soul?

You think that privacy (his right) was really his true end goal?

He could have just kept quiet and flown his chopper round the powder.

Instead he let his wife make him become celeb. Shout louder.

They both just ought keep their gobs shut and hide away and skulk.

Cos if David Banner were alive today, he’d green up all his bulk.

He’d say your gay, no way, not happy,..

No not bi nor sad.

Just really very very very shamefully - plain bad.

I really hope that Di is not alive in

t’other dimension

To watch your perfumed poncey highness serve the t’ird declension.

Should she arrive to guide your hand when felt time for ascension

imagine Meghan’s mum beside - oh my god, the tension.

Cos she knows what a bitch she raised and how good she is at acting.

But what you have to know is that she’s best at method hatching.

Now.. bitch is no good word to call a dude or turd or bird..

Please accept my sorry. Can we move on? You’ve all been “herd”.

Good god.. no princely wokeness please - I’m really not the quarry.

Allow me just to say you’re right I’m wrong, I’m sorry:-

The quarry (in the sense of target not the place to mine for stone)..

And please stop whinging, I’ve no desire to beseech, bemoan, atone.

I have not sinned in many years, of that I’m fairly certain. You’re welcome to dig under all my crap to find an iron beef curtain.

I used to do all manner of things but assigned it all to youth.

But when my kids are old enough to read all writ uncouth.

You know, they’ll know who then was right - not righteous, self reliant.

The Robin Hood of facts can be the one who was no tyrant.

To steal to lie to hear to fake to act upon one’s aim

Is really very very very VERY flipping lame.

Please stop this crap and learn to be.

Personification of empathy

(shrugs)

[perkwunos]

When Fichte says, ‘the ego is all’, this seems to harmonize perfectly with my thesis. But it is not that the ego is all, but the ego destroys all, and only the self-dissolving ego, the never-being ego, the – finite ego is really I. Fichte speaks of the ‘absolute’ ego, but I speak of me, the transitory ego.

… according to Feuerbach the individual can ‘only lift himself above the limits of his individuality, but not above the laws, the positive ordinances, of his species’. But the species is nothing, and, if the individual lifts himself above the limits of his individuality, this is rather the very self as an individual; he exists only in raising himself, he exists only in not remaining what he is; otherwise he would be done, dead. Man with a capital M is only an ideal, the species only something thought of. To be a man is not to realize the ideal of man, but to present oneself, the individual. It is not how I realize the generally human that needs to be my task, but how I satisfy myself. I am my species, am without norm, without law, without model, and the like. It is possible that I can make very little out of myself; but this little is everything, and is better than what I allow to be made out of me by the might of others, by the training of custom, religion, the laws, the state. … the prematurely knowing and compliant one is determined by the ‘species’, the general demands, the species is law to him. He is determined [bestimmt] by it; for what else is the species to him but his ‘destiny [Bestimmung]’, his ‘calling’? Whether I look to ‘humanity’, the species, in order to strive toward this ideal, or to God and Christ with like endeavor, where is the essential dissimilarity? At most the former is more washed-out than the latter. As the individual is the whole of nature, so he is the whole of the species too.

Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own

Feuerbach resolves the religious essence into the human essence. But the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual.

In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.

Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach

… we live in a world where other persons live too. Our acts affect them. They perceive these effects, and react upon us in consequence. Because they are living beings they make demands upon us for certain things from us. They approve and condemn—not in abstract theory but in what they do to us. The answer to the question “Why not put your hand  in the fire?” is the answer of fact. If you do your hand will be burnt. The answer to the question why acknowledge the right is of the same sort. For Right is only an abstract name for the multitude of concrete demands in action which others impress upon us, and of which we are obliged, if we would live, to take some account. Its authority is the exigency of their demands, the efficacy of their insistencies. …

… we live mentally as physically only in and because of our environment. Social pressure is but a name for the interactions which are always going on and in which we participate, living so far as we partake and dying so far as we do not. ...

… It is false that every person has a consciousness of the supreme authority of right and then misconceives it or ignores it in action. One has such a sense of the claims of social relationships as those relationships enforce in one’s desires and observations. The belief in a separate, ideal or transcendental, practically ineffectual Right is a reflex of the inadequacy with which existing institutions perform their educative office—their office in generating observation of social continuities. … A theoretical acknowledgment of the supreme authority of Right, of moral law, gets twisted into an ineffectual substitute for acts which would better the customs which now produce vague, dull, halting and evasive observation of actual social ties. … The relationships, the interactions are forever there as fact, but they acquire meaning only in the desires, judgments and purposes they awaken.

John Dewey, Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

…

In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

…

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Communist Manifesto

If we consider the process of production from the point of view of the simple labour-process, the worker is related to the means of production, not in their quality as capital, but as being the mere means and material of his own purposeful productive activity. … But it is different as soon as we view the production process as a process of valorization. The means of production are at once changed into means for the absorption of the labour of others. It is no longer the worker who employs the means of production, but the means of production which employ the worker. Instead of being consumed by him as material elements of his productive activity, they consume him as the ferment necessary to their own life-process, and the life-process of capital consists solely in its own motion as self-valorizing value. … this inversion, indeed this distortion, which is peculiar to and characteristic of capitalist production, of the relation between dead labour and living labour, between value and the force that creates value …

Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, Ch. 11

[georgekaunga]

We speak as though unique

When you need

Just like me

We perceive and mistreat inadvertently

Unfortunately

We may lead

Or misconceive

Unapologetically

We may speak but still freeze

Tip toeing around a verb no one else sees

[sowhenisnow]

Henri Bergson - Time and Freewill

Time and Freewill: An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness is Henri Bergson’s Doctoral thesis (1889), arguing that time is a psychological concept dependent on consciousness. Though I haven’t read it yet, there are some poignant quotes within that illustrate his idea of the nature of time. (side note: Bergson’s writings have had major influence on Olafur Eliasson’s work, who I made another post about previously!)

‘[…] when we speak of time, we generally think of a homogenous medium in which our conscious states are ranged alongside one another as in space, so as to form a discrete multiplicity. Would not time, thus understood, be to multiplicity of our psychic states which intensity is to certain of them – a sign, a symbol, absolutely distinct from true duration.’

Here Bergson states that because we view time upon such a linear, spatial model, it has become a symbol and a sign - disparate from ‘true duration’. 

‘[…] the idea of a homogenised measurable time is shown to be an artificial concept, formed by the intrusion of the idea of space into the realm of pure duration.’ 

This makes me wonder what ‘pure duration’ is defined as.

“[Duration is] the form which the succession of our conscious states assumes when our ego lets itself live, when it refrains from separating its present state from its former state.”

The general conflict arises when we impose clock time onto what Bergson calls duration. The question I pose is: For you, is time a system and a framework, or is it our perceived experience of the ‘true duration’?

Bergson’s ideas both highlights and challenges what I have been thinking. My initial idea that we must not think of time as a line, but rather as a sphere. But Bergson claims that we misconceive time as spatial. This means that we have been thinking of time as lines, curves, points, atoms, grains, but never have we thought of it as something non-spatial. 

Bergson’s concept of dureé (duration) snuffs out my proposal of thinking of time as a sphere. Why must it be a shape, anyway?

[garywonghc]

Method, Wisdom and the Three Paths

by Geshe Lhundub Sopa

SEARCHING FOR HAPPINESS

The great eleventh century Indian master Atisha said,

Human life is short, Objects of knowledge are many. Be like a swan, Which can separate milk from water.

Our lives will not last long and there are many directions in which we can channel them. Just as swans extract the essence from milk and spit out the water, so should we extract the essence from our lives by practicing discriminating wisdom and engaging in activities that benefit both ourselves and others in this and future lives.

Every sentient being aspires to the highest state of happiness and complete freedom from every kind of suffering, but human aims should be higher than those of animals, insects and so forth because we have much greater potential; with our special intellectual capacity we can accomplish many things. As spiritual practitioners, we should strive for happiness and freedom from misery not for ourselves alone but for all sentient beings. We have the intelligence and the ability to practice the methods for realising these goals. We can start from where we are and gradually attain higher levels of being until we attain final perfection. Some people can even attain the highest goal, enlightenment, in a single lifetime.

In the Bodhicaryavatara, the great yogi and bodhisattva Shantideva wrote,

Although we want all happiness, We ignorantly destroy it, like an enemy. Although we want no misery, We rush to create its cause.

What we want and what we do are totally contradictory. The things we do to bring happiness actually cause suffering, misery and trouble. Shantideva says that even though we desire happiness, out of ignorance we destroy its cause as if it were our worst enemy.

According to the Buddha’s teachings, first we must learn, or study. By asking if it’s possible to escape from suffering and find perfect happiness, we open the doors of spiritual inquiry and discover that by putting our effort and wisdom in the right direction, we can indeed experience such goals. This leads us to seek out the path to enlightenment. The Buddha set forth many different levels of teachings. As humans, we can learn these, not just for the sake of learning but in order to put the methods into practice.

THE REAL ENEMY

What is the cause of happiness? What is the cause of misery? These are important questions in Buddhism. The Buddha pointed out that the fundamental source of all our problems is the wrong conception of the self. We always hold on to some kind of “I,” some sort of egocentric thought, or attitude, and everything we do is based on this wrong conception of the nature of the self. This self-grasping gives rise to attachment to the “I” and self-centeredness, the cherishing of ourselves over all others, all worldly thoughts, and samsara itself. All sentient beings’ problems start here.

This ignorant self-grasping creates all of our attachment to the “I.” From “me” comes “mine” — my property, my body, my mind, my family, my friends, my house, my country, my work and so forth.

From attachment come aversion, anger and hatred for the things that threaten our objects of attachment. Buddhism calls these three — ignorance, attachment and aversion — the three poisons. These delusions are the cause of all our problems; they are our real enemies.

We usually look for enemies outside but Buddhist yogis realise that there are no external enemies; the real enemies are within. Once we have removed ignorance, attachment and aversion we have vanquished our inner enemies. Correct understanding replaces ignorance, pure mind remains, and we see the true nature of the self and all phenomena. The workings of the illusory world no longer occur.

When ignorance has gone, we no longer create mistaken actions. When we act without mistake, we no longer experience the various sufferings — the forces of karma are not engaged. Karma — the actions of the body, speech and mind of sentient beings, together with the seeds they leave on the mind — is brought under control. Since the causes of these actions — ignorance, attachment and aversion — have been destroyed, the actions to which they give rise therefore cease.

Ignorance, attachment and aversion, together with their branches of conceit, jealousy, envy and so forth, are very strong forces. Once they arise, they immediately dominate our mind; we quickly fall under the power of these inner enemies and no longer have any freedom or control. Our inner enemies even cause us to fight with and harm the people we love; they can even cause us to kill our own parents, children and so forth. All conflicts — from those between individual members of a family to international wars between countries — arise from these negative thoughts.

Shantideva said, “There is one cause of all problems.” This is the ignorance that mistakes the actual nature of the self. All sentient beings are similar in that they are all overpowered by this ego-grasping ignorance; however, each of us is also capable of engaging in the yogic practices that refine the mind to the point where it is able to see directly the way things exist.

HOW THE BUDDHA PRACTISED AND TAUGHT DHARMA

Buddha himself first studied, then practiced, and finally realised Dharma, achieving enlightenment. He saw the principles of the causes and effects of thought and action and then taught people how to work with these laws in such a way as to gain freedom.

His first teaching was on the four truths as seen by a liberated being: suffering, its cause, liberation and the path to liberation. First we must learn to recognise the sufferings and frustrations that pervade our lives. Then we must know their cause. Thirdly we should know that it is possible to get rid of them, to be completely free. Lastly we must know the truth of the path — the means by which we can gain freedom, the methods of practice that destroy the seeds of suffering from their very root.

There are many elaborate ways of presenting the path, which has led to the development of many schools of Buddhism, such as the Hinayana and Mahayana, but the teachings of the four truths are fundamental to all Buddhist schools; each has its own special methods, but all are based on the four truths. Without the four truths there is neither Hinayana nor Mahayana. All Buddhist schools see suffering as the main problem of existence and ignorance as the main cause of suffering. Without removing ignorance there is no way of achieving liberation from samsara and no way of attaining the perfect enlightenment of buddhahood.

UTILISING THE FOUR TRUTHS

Buddhism talks a lot about non-self or the empty nature of all things. This is a key teaching. The realisation of emptiness was first taught by the Buddha and then widely disseminated by the great teacher Nagarjuna and his successors, who explained the philosophy of the Middle Way—a system of thought free from all extremes. Madhyamikas, as the followers of this system are called, hold that the way things actually exist is free from the extremes of absolute being and non-being; the things we see do not exist in the way that we perceive them.

As for the “I,” our understanding of its nature is also mistaken. This doesn’t mean that there is neither person nor desire. When the Buddha rejected the existence of a self he meant that the self we normally conceive does not exist. Yogis who, through meditation, have developed higher insight have realised the true nature of the self and seen that the “I” exists totally in another way. They have realised the emptiness of the self, which is the key teaching of the Buddha; they have developed the sharp weapon of wisdom that cuts down the poisonous tree of delusion and mental distortion.

To do the same, we must study the teachings, contemplate them carefully and finally investigate our conclusions through meditation. In that way we can realise the true nature of the self. The wisdom realising emptiness cuts the very root of all delusion and puts an end to all suffering; it directly opposes the ignorance that misconceives reality.

Sometimes we can apply more specific antidotes — for example, when anger arises we meditate on compassion; when lust arises we meditate on the impurity of the human body; when attachment to situations arises we meditate on impermanence; and so forth. But even though these antidotes counteract particular delusions they cannot cut their root — for that, we need to realise emptiness.

COMBINING WISDOM AND METHOD

However, wisdom alone is not enough. No matter how sharp an axe is, it requires a handle and a person to swing it. In the same way, while meditation on emptiness is the key practice, it must be supported and given direction by method. Many Indian masters, including Dharmakirti and Shantideva, have asserted this to be so. For example, meditation upon the four noble truths includes contemplation of sixteen aspects of these truths, such as impermanence, suffering, and so forth. Then, because we must share our world with others there are the meditations on love, compassion and the bodhicitta, the enlightened attitude of wishing for enlightenment in order to be of greatest benefit to others. This introduces the six perfections, or the means of accomplishing enlightenment — generosity, discipline, patience, energy, meditation and wisdom. The first five of these must act as supportive methods in order for the sixth, wisdom, to become stable.

REMOVING THE OBSTACLES TO LIBERATION AND OMNISCIENCE

To attain buddhahood the obstacles to the goal have to be completely removed. These obstacles are of two main types: obstacles to liberation, which include the delusions such as attachment, and obstacles to omniscience. When the various delusions have been removed, one becomes an arhat. In Tibetan, arhat [dra-chom-pa] means one who has destroyed [chom] the inner enemy [dra] and has thus gained liberation from all delusions. However, such liberation is not buddhahood.

An arhat is free from samsara, from all misery and suffering, and no longer forced to take a rebirth conditioned by karma and delusion. At present we are strongly under the power of these two forces, being reborn again and again, sometimes higher, sometimes lower. We have little choice or independence in our birth, life, death and rebirth. Negative karma and delusion combine and overpower us again and again. Our freedom is thus greatly limited. It is a circle: occasionally rebirth in a high realm, then in a low world; sometimes an animal, sometimes a human or a god. This is what samsara means. Arhats have achieved complete liberation from this circle; they have broken the circle and gone beyond it. Their lives have become totally pure, totally free. The forces that controlled them have gone and they dwell in a state of emancipation from compulsive experience. Their realisation of shunyata is complete.

On the method side, the arhat has cultivated a path combining meditation on emptiness with meditation on the impermanence of life, karma and its results, the suffering nature of the whole circle of samsara and so forth, but arhatship does not have the perfection of buddhahood.

Compared to our ordinary samsaric life, arhatship is a great attainment, but arhats still have subtle obstacles. Gross mental obstacles such as desire, hatred, ignorance and so forth may have gone but, because they have been active forces within the mind for so long, they leave behind subtle hindrances — subtle habits, or predispositions.

For example, although arhats will not have anger, old habits, such as using harsh words, may persist. They also have a very subtle self-centeredness. Similarly, although arhats will not have ignorance or wrong views, they will not see certain aspects of cause and effect as clearly as a buddha does. Such subtle limitations are called the obstacles to omniscience. In buddhahood, these have been completely removed; not a single obstacle remains. There is both perfect freedom and perfect knowledge.

THE WISDOM AND FORM BODIES OF A BUDDHA

A buddha has a cause. The cause is a bodhisattva. The bodhisattva trainings are vast: generosity, where we try to help others in various ways; patience, which keeps our mind in a state of calm; diligent perseverance, with which, in order to help other sentient beings, we joyfully undergo the many hardships without hesitation; and many others.

Before attaining buddhahood we have to train as a bodhisattva and cultivate a path uniting method with wisdom. The function of wisdom is to eliminate ignorance; the function of method is to produce the physical and environmental perfections of being.

Buddhahood is endowed with many qualities — perfect body and mind, omniscient knowledge, power and so forth — and from the perfection of the inner qualities a buddha manifests a perfect environment, a “pure land.”

With the ripening of wisdom and method comes the fruit: the wisdom and form bodies of a buddha. The form body, or rupakaya, has two dimensions — sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya — which, with the wisdom body of dharmakaya, constitute the three kayas. The form bodies are not ordinary form; they are purely mental, a reflection or manifestation of the dharmakaya wisdom. From perfect wisdom emerges perfect form.

CHERISHING OTHERS

As we can see from the above examples, the bodhisattva’s activities are based on a motivation very unlike our ordinary attitudes, which are usually selfish and self-centered. In order to attain buddhahood we have to change our mundane thoughts into thoughts of love and compassion for other sentient beings. We have to learn to care, all of the time, on a universal level. Our normal self-centered attitude should be seen as an enemy and a loving and compassionate attitude as the cause of the highest happiness, a real friend of both ourselves and others.

The Mahayana contains a very special practice called “exchanging self for others.” Of course, I can’t change into you or you can’t change into me; that’s not what it means. What we have to change is the attitude of “me first” into the thought of cherishing of others: “Whatever bad things have to happen let them happen to me.” Through meditation we learn to regard self-centeredness as our worst enemy and to transform self-cherishing into love and compassion, until eventually our entire life is dominated by these positive forces. Then everything we do will become beneficial to others; all our actions will naturally become meritorious. This is the influence and power of the bodhisattva’s thought — the bodhi mind, the ultimate flowering of love and compassion into the inspiration to attain enlightenment for the benefit of all other sentient beings.

LOVE AND COMPASSION

Love and compassion have the same basic nature but a different reference or application. Compassion is mainly in reference to the problems of beings, the wish to free sentient beings from suffering, whereas love refers to the positive side, the aspiration that all sentient beings have happiness and its cause. Our love and compassion should be equal towards all beings and have the intensity that a loving mother feels towards her only child, taking upon ourselves full responsibility for the well-being of others. That’s how bodhisattvas regard all sentient beings.

However, the bodhi mind is not merely love and compassion. Bodhisattvas see that in order to free sentient beings from misery and give them the highest happiness, they themselves will have to be fully equipped, fully qualified — first they will have to attain perfect buddhahood, total freedom from all obstacles and limitations and complete possession of all power and knowledge. Right now we can’t do much to benefit others. Therefore, for the benefit of other sentient beings, we have to attain enlightenment as quickly as possible. Day and night, everything we do should be done in order to reach perfect enlightenment as soon as we can for the benefit of others.

BODHICITTA

The thought characterised by this aspiration is called bodhicitta, bodhi mind, the bodhisattva spirit. Unlike our usual self-centered, egotistical thoughts, which lead only to desire, hatred, jealousy, pride and so forth, the bodhisattva way is dominated by love, compassion and the bodhi mind, and if we practice the appropriate meditative techniques, we ourselves will become bodhisattvas. Then, as Shantideva has said, all our ordinary activities — sleeping, walking, eating or whatever — will naturally produce limitless goodness and fulfill the purposes of many sentient beings.

THE LIFE OF A BODHISATTVA

A bodhisattva’s life is very precious and therefore, in order to sustain it, we sleep, eat and do whatever else is necessary to stay alive. Because this is our motivation for eating, every mouthful of food we take gives rise to great merit, equal to the number of the sentient beings in the universe.

In order to ascend the ten bodhisattva stages leading to buddhahood we engage in both method and wisdom: on the basis of bodhicitta we cultivate the realisation of emptiness. Seeing the emptiness of the self, our self-grasping ignorance and attachment cease. We also see all phenomena as empty and, as a result, everything that appears to our mind is seen as illusory, like a magician’s creations.

When a magician conjures up something up, the audience believes that what they see exists. The magician, however, although sees what the audience sees, understands it differently. When he creates a beautiful woman, the men in the audience experience lust; when he creates a frightening animal, the audience gets scared. The magician sees the beautiful woman and the scary animals just as the audience does but he knows that they’re not real, he knows that they’re empty of existing in the way that they appear — their reality is not like the mode of their appearance.

Similarly, bodhisattvas who have seen emptiness see everything as illusory and things that might have caused attachment or aversion to arise in them before can no longer do so.

As Nagarjuna said,

By combining the twofold cause of method and wisdom, bodhisattvas gain the twofold effect of the mental and physical bodies [rupakaya and dharmakaya] of a buddha.

Their accumulation of meritorious energy and wisdom bring them to the first bodhisattva stage, where they directly realise emptiness and overcome the obstacles to liberation. They then use this realisation to progress through the ten bodhisattva levels, eventually eradicating all obstacles to omniscience. They first eliminate the coarse level of ignorance and then, through gradual meditation on method combined with wisdom, attain the perfection of enlightenment.

THE KEYS TO THE MAHAYANA PATH

The main subjects of this discourse — renunciation, emptiness and the bodhi mind — were taught by the Buddha, Nagarjuna and Tsongkhapa and provide the basic texture of the Mahayana path. These three principal aspects of the path are like keys for those who want to attain enlightenment. In terms of method and wisdom, renunciation and the bodhi mind constitute method and meditation on emptiness is wisdom. Method and wisdom are like the two wings of a bird and enable us to fly high in the sky of Dharma. Just as a bird with one wing cannot fly; in order to reach the heights of buddhahood we need the two wings of method and wisdom.

RENUNCIATION

The principal Mahayana method is the bodhi mind. To generate the bodhi mind we must first generate compassion — the aspiration to free sentient beings from suffering, which becomes the basis of our motivation to attain enlightenment. However, as Shantideva pointed out, we must begin with compassion for ourselves. We must want to be free of suffering ourselves before being truly able to want it for others. The spontaneous wish to free ourselves from suffering is renunciation.

But most of us don’t have it. We don’t see the faults of samsara. However, there’s no way to really work for the benefit of others while continuing to be entranced by the pleasures and activities of samsara. Therefore, first we have to generate personal renunciation of samsara — the constant wish to gain freedom from all misery. At the beginning, this is most important. Then we can extend this quality to others as love, compassion and the bodhi mind, which combine as method. When united with the wisdom realising emptiness, we possess the main causes of buddhahood.

MAKING THIS LIFE MEANINGFUL

Of course, to develop the three principal aspects of the path, we have to proceed step by step. Therefore it’s necessary to study, contemplate and meditate. We should all try to develop a daily meditation practice. Young or old, male or female, regardless of race, we all have the ability to meditate. Anybody can progress through the stages of understanding. The human life is very meaningful and precious but it can be lost to seeking temporary goals such as sensual indulgence, fame, reputation and so forth, which benefit this life alone. Then we’re like animals; we have the goals of the animal world. Even if we don’t make heroic spiritual efforts, we should at least try to get started in the practices that make human life meaningful.

[misspeak]

Johnson’s English Dictionary, 1830

Page 607: MISRULE, … Tumult, confusion, revel; unjust domination. [Stubbes.] MISRULY, Unruly; turbulent. [Bp. Hall.] MISS, … [contracted from mistress.] The term of honor to a young girl.—[Miss, at the beginning of the last century, was appropriated to the daughters of gentlemen under the age of ten. ‘Mistress’ was then the style of grown up unmarried ladies, though the mother was living; and for a considerable part of the century, maintained its ground against the infantine term of ‘Miss Todd.’]—A strumpet; a concubine. [Dryden.] To MISS, … Not to hit by the mind; to mistake. [Milton.] Not to hit by manual aim. [Pope.] To fail of obtaining. [Sidney.] To discover something to be unexpectedly wanting. [1 Sam. 25.] To be without. [Shakespeare.] To omit. [The Whole Duty of Man.] To perceive want of. To MISS, … To fly wide; not to hit. [Waller.] Not to succeed. [Bacon.] To fail; to mistake. [Spenser.] To be lost; to be wanting. [Shakespeare.] To miscarry; to fail, as by accident. [Milton.] To fail to obtain, learn, or find. [Atterbury.] MISS, …. Loss; want. [Shakespeare.] Mistake; error. [‘Missa’, Goth.; mir, Sax.] [Chaucer.] Hurt; harm [Spenser.] MISSAL, … The mass book, [Stillingfleet.] To MISSAY, … To speak ill of; to censure. [Spenser.] To say wrong. [Spenser.] To MISSAY, … To censure; to slander; to speak ill off. [Chaucer.] To utter amiss. [Donne.] MISSAYING, … Improper expression; bad words. [Milton.] To MISSEEM, … To make false appearance. [Spenser.] To misbecome. [Spenser. Ob. J.] MISSEL BIRD, … A kind of thrush. MISSELDINE, … The mistletoe. [Barret.] MISSELTO, … See mistletoe. To MISSERVE, … To serve unfaithfully. [Bacon.] To MISSHAPE, … To shape ill; to form ill; to deform. [Spenser.] MISSILE, … Thrown by the hand; striking at a distance. [Pope.] MISSION, … Commission; the state of being sent by supreme authority. [Milton.] Persons sent on any account, usually to propagate religion. [Bacon.] Dismission, discharge. [Bacon.] Faction; party. [Shakespeare.] MISSIONARY, MISSIONER, … One sent to propagate religion. [W. Montague.] MISSIVE, … Such as is sent. [Auliffe.] Used at distance. [Dryden.] MISSIVE, … A letter sent. [Bacon.] A messenger. [Shakespeare. Ob.J.] Page 608: To MISSPEAK, … To speak wrong. [Donne.] To MISSPEAK, … To blunder in speaking. [Shakespeare.] MIST, … A low, thin cloud; a small, thin rain, not perceived in single drops. [Denham.] Anything that dims or darkens. [Dryden.] To MIST, … To cloud; to cover with a vapor or steam. [Shakespeare.] To MISTAKE, … To conceive wrong, to take something for that which it is not.  [Stalling fleet.] To MISTAKE, … To err; not to judge right. [Raleigh.] MISTAKEN, … prêt. And part. pass. of mistake, for mistaken. [Shakespeare.] To be MISTAKEN, … To err. [Sidney.] [To mistake has a kind of reciprocal sense. ‘I mistake’ is like the French ‘Je me trompe’: ‘I am mistaken’ means ‘I misconceive.’ ‘I am in an error,’ more frequently than ‘I am ill understood;’ but, ‘my opinion is mistaken’ means ‘my opinion is not rightly understood.’] MISTAKE, …. Misconception; error. [Milton.] MISTAKEABLE, …. Liable to be conceived wrong. [Brown.] MISTAKENLY, … In a mistaken sense. [Goldsmith.] MISTAKER, … One who conceives wrong. [Bp. Hall.] MISTAKING, … Error. [Bp. Hall.] MISTAKINGLY, … Erroneously; falsely. [Roule.] To MISTATE, … To state wrong. [Bp. Sanderson.] MISTATEMENT, … A wrong statement. [Burgess.] To MISTEACH, … To teach wrong. [Bp. Sanderson.] To MISTELL, … To tell unfaithfully, or inaccurately. To MISTEMPER, … To temper ill; to disorder. [Shakespeare.]