The emotion Buddhists call samvega

March 6, 2002 1:14 PM

The emotion Buddhists call samvega is hard to translate because it covers three clusters of feelings at once: "the oppressive sense of shock, dismay, and alienation that come with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of life as it's normally lived; a chastening sense of our own complacency and foolishness in having let ourselves live so blindly; and an anxious sense of urgency in trying to find a way out of the meaningless cycle." Not being a Buddhist, I can't say I have any more faith in pasada than in prozac. But I and many people I've known have experienced a complex emotion like this one, so it's interesting to know that this concept has been around for so long.
posted by homunculus (66 comments total)

I've often felt the "Shock, dismay, and alienation that come with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of life as it's normally lived." This is not something to worry about. You have to get over it on your own. If you take up Buddhism, you'll eventually find yourself facing the shock, dismay and alienation that come with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of Buddhism.
posted by Faze at 1:35 PM on March 6, 2002

I thought samvega was the grown-up technical term for dong resin.

Homunculus, I get the experience you're describing in your surprise that complex ideas have been coined so long ago whenever I read Shakespeare. You tend to think of human culture as moving forward, and then you see complex emotional ideas so cleanly articulated, as you rarely do in modern stuff, and you (well, I) get the uneasy suspicion that we're, at best, treading water as a species.
posted by dong_resin at 1:40 PM on March 6, 2002

It's called disillusionment.
posted by mattpfeff at 1:42 PM on March 6, 2002

except for the "anxious sense of urgency"
posted by rhyax at 1:44 PM on March 6, 2002

Samvega, it's the the new schadenfreude.
posted by joemaller at 1:45 PM on March 6, 2002

Samvega, it's the the new schadenfreude.

Perhaps you mean weltschmerz or angst. Schadenfreude is taking joy at the pain of others.
posted by anapestic at 1:48 PM on March 6, 2002

I think it's kind of like this:

It's just a ride and we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings and money, a choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your door, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one. - Bill Hicks

How much of our time do we spend doing that which we enjoy ? We seem to sleepwalk a lot through life.
posted by Mondo at 1:49 PM on March 6, 2002

Sounds a lot like koyaanisqatsi to me, with or without Philip Glass.
posted by NortonDC at 2:18 PM on March 6, 2002

If you take up Buddhism, you'll eventually find yourself facing the shock, dismay and alienation that come with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of Buddhism.

Heh. Faze, most Buddhist masters would probably agree with you.
posted by lbergstr at 2:24 PM on March 6, 2002

yeah, you can watch it! like on video :)
posted by kliuless at 2:25 PM on March 6, 2002

Samvega = Grad School
posted by plaino at 2:25 PM on March 6, 2002

Dismay, alienation and realization of futility and meaninglessness aren't really feelings, they just trigger feelings. I think it is less a complex emotion than a complex set of circumstances leading to restlessness and self-awareness combined with and changed by the facility to recognize them and recognize their strangeness.

The poster didn't include a question, so why am I responding.
/me doesn't like anyone who has anything to do with truth wisdom or any grand concept whatsoever.
posted by Settle at 2:34 PM on March 6, 2002

Samvega = Grad School

Pasada = dropping out of grad school

You have found the path out of suffering, grasshopper. ;-)
posted by ilsa at 2:35 PM on March 6, 2002

There once was a man named Sam Vega...
posted by SilentSalamander at 2:41 PM on March 6, 2002

Smegma? Had to say it. Carry on.
posted by donkeyschlong at 2:46 PM on March 6, 2002

"Shock, dismay, and alienation that come with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of life as it's normally lived." --
what that Buddhist guy needs is to get laid regularly.
posted by Postroad at 2:53 PM on March 6, 2002

Perhaps you mean weltschmerz or angst. Schadenfreude is taking joy at the pain of others.

Actually I meant foriegn words destined to be overused. Meaning quickly becomes secondary.
posted by joemaller at 3:03 PM on March 6, 2002

happy buddha
sitting buddha
weeping buddha
masturbating buddha (#2)
posted by kliuless at 3:07 PM on March 6, 2002

I think of samvega as a "crisis of faith". Most of us go through many of those starting in teenage-hood. Buddha was one of the few back then who had the cultural and financial means to support trying to solve his crisis. Pasada is an epiphany or enlightment (as a more permanent kind of epiphany). A lot of Buddhism sounds obtuse and out-of-the-norm just because the terms are so foreign, but it's just that Buddhism hasn't had a King James.
posted by dness2 at 3:22 PM on March 6, 2002

If you take up Buddhism, you'll eventually find yourself facing the shock, dismay and alienation that come with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of Buddhism.

Is it certainly true that none of us is perfect. However, a person who finds Buddhism 'futile' and 'meaningless' is not a Buddhist. The path to enlightenment is fragile, but not futile.
posted by wackybrit at 3:22 PM on March 6, 2002

Dismay, alienation and realization of futility and meaninglessness aren't really feelings, they just trigger feelings.

I think I'd have to disagree with you there. I know that I've felt all of those things personally, and there's no better definition of a feeling than 'something that is felt'.

On the other hand, if you're just saying that the complex set of descriptors he gave for the specific emotion of samvega aren't themselvesa all feelings so much as situations, then I see your point, but to be fair, he's just using them to try to give a sense of the word, which is untranslatable, not saying that that's precisely what it is.

Another example would be the infamous l'esprit de l'escalier.
posted by Hildago at 3:24 PM on March 6, 2002

However, a person who finds Buddhism 'futile' and 'meaningless' is not a Buddhist.

Well said. It's not for me but more power to those for whom it works.

The poster didn't include a question, so why am I responding.

Well, I'm glad you did respond because you make a good point, even though I agree with Hildago. I'll be pondering this one for awhile.
posted by homunculus at 4:16 PM on March 6, 2002

It's just a ride and we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings and money, a choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your door, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one. - Bill Hicks


It's not "fear" and "love" at odds here... it's good sense and foolishness. We ARE NOT all one, because EVEN if everyone else were, I would make a conscious decision NOT to be... simply because it's assinine. We're all better off being many, thank you very much. And sometimes one of the many has to kick another of the many's butt.

If we're one, give me all your money, sign over your house to me, and get out of my sight. After all, I'm you, so it's all cool. Now go. It's you telling you to do this, so listen.

Enough of this jibba-jabba, Fool. (<---- best Mr. T voice)
posted by dissent at 4:41 PM on March 6, 2002

It's not "fear" and "love" at odds here... it's good sense and foolishness. We ARE NOT all one, because EVEN if everyone else were, I would make a conscious decision NOT to be...

This makes no sense. It's like saying that even if gravity is a law, I would make a conscious decision not to fall down. Incidentally, I'm not sure how far into your cheek your tongue is here.

My memory of Hicks' act is sketchy, but this quote may elucidate what he was saying. In the most specific sense of our component particles, we are all one. In the largest sense, taking the universe as a whole, we are also all one. At medium distance, you could argue either way, I guess. But it's not entirely hogwash.
posted by Hildago at 5:33 PM on March 6, 2002

It's not "fear" and "love" at odds here... it's good sense and foolishness. We ARE NOT all one, because EVEN if everyone else were, I would make a conscious decision NOT to be... simply because it's assinine. We're all better off being many, thank you very much. And sometimes one of the many has to kick another of the many's butt.

Let us examine the efficacy of your conscious decision NOT to be part of all, in, oh, say a century from this day. Or how about a century prior to this day?
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 6:18 PM on March 6, 2002

I hear the greeks called it "akrasia"...
posted by dorian at 6:50 PM on March 6, 2002

Let us examine the efficacy of your conscious decision NOT to be part of all, in, oh, say a century from this day. Or how about a century prior to this day?

I wasn't a part of all a century ago. I won't be a part of anything (most likely) in this reality in a century. Anyone's decision to do anything will most likely mean nothing to them in a century.

All the more reason to think for, and be, an individual, now.
All anyone has is the now... I'll be me in mine, thank you.

And I don't think anyone here will be taking pleasure in having been or being part of the all in a century, so your point, if it was such, is gloriouly obtuse.
posted by dissent at 7:07 PM on March 6, 2002

I love the end..."...so that in our drive to find a Buddhism that sells, we dont end up selling ourselves short."
Though that was just the last two sentences, it reminds me of business, and the bright side of selling short...that would be ridding your inventory, and generally stockpiling materials and recieving a bulk rate on your next purchase...but one negates the savings from the loss of selling short...but you gain time...
posted by clavdivs at 7:13 PM on March 6, 2002

sounds like existential angst to me.
posted by centrs at 8:14 PM on March 6, 2002

I experienced a weird emotion when I read this post. I had just got back from my drawing class, and I was very very tired. I was wearing a full-ear-covering pair of wonderful headphones, listening to some waltz by Johann Strauss. I was trying to open a packet of haribo fruit salad candy, but I couldn't, the plastic was too thick.

*gong noise*
posted by Settle at 8:21 PM on March 6, 2002

I wasn't a part of all a century ago. I won't be a part of anything (most likely) in this reality in a century. Anyone's decision to do anything will most likely mean nothing to them in a century.

Well, that's one way to look at it. Another way is to acknowledge that you formed and will fall away like a wave, leaving the sea behind.

Surfs up. Hang loose.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 8:51 PM on March 6, 2002

fold_and_mutilate, your name itself implies "samvega", that pervasive feeling of unsatisfactoriness about life which leads us some of us to renunciation, and others to driving right past the toll plaza on the turnpike, punch card in hand. Like Ram Dass said, you never quite get Devo's big ice cream cone in the sky, you just get to "Be Here Now."

The Tibetan Stages of the Path are: renunciation of worldly existence, bodhicitta-- the thought of attaining enlightenment for the sake of all beings, and correct view-- an understanding of emptiness / wisdom. There are many different versions. I like the Dalai Lama's kindly, modern Path to Bliss, and the shorter, historical "Preparing for Tantra". (Vivisimo's automatic clustering function reveals that the dark night of the soul may not be something religious at all, and files away at least 6 of those black moments as "Depression, life.")

Hang loose? You have to be kidding, this is serious stuff, fold_and_mutilate! The cries of the ExistentialAngst.com blogger appear to have ceased as of June!! are they still with us? And what about this devout Buddhist in Columbus, who begins with the cheerful observation that the sun is going to burn out, what's the point?
posted by sheauga at 9:42 PM on March 6, 2002

If we're one, give me all your money, sign over your house to me, and get out of my sight. After all, I'm you, so it's all cool. Now go. It's you telling you to do this, so listen.

Why do you hold such contempt for Buddhists? Do you believe that people who follow a spiritual path are 'lesser' than you?
posted by wackybrit at 11:00 PM on March 6, 2002

Sheauga...sage...

Took the words right outta my grinning mouth.

A red strawberry, from no-hand to you.

Hang tight.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:11 PM on March 6, 2002

So the prince would probably find no alternative but to join the drifters and dropouts, the radicals and revolutionaries, the subsistence hunters and survivalists consigned to the social fringe. Yes.
posted by Mack Twain at 12:50 AM on March 7, 2002

sage or agent? sagent!? sagency :)
posted by kliuless at 6:47 AM on March 7, 2002

I am Sam! Sam I am!
posted by StOne at 7:19 AM on March 7, 2002

No, wackybrit.

I just see it as the logical consequence of the acceptance of the "all are one" view to be that people holding it would not see self as more important than non-self. If such people value me equally as themselves, they should have no preference whether they have their property, and they prosper, or whether I have their property, and I prosper.

I find such a view ridiculous.

I've no real problem with Buddhists, but I'll use their logic against them as rapidly as I would use it against anyone else. I don't view them as lesser... I do view their views as potentially counterproductive to the way I would have the world, so if I can poke holes in their canopy of serenity, I'm happy to do it - same as I would for anyone else.

Actually... I've far more problems with pseudo-Buddhists, those who mouth their words without thought or understanding, than I do with Buddhists.

After all- thought:
No one who's Zen would ever call themselves Zen.
posted by dissent at 7:36 AM on March 7, 2002

And how would you have the world?
posted by Grangousier at 7:48 AM on March 7, 2002

For one thing, he'd have it a lot more inhospitable for folks who are trying to make a living, if I read his posting history right.
posted by Fenriss at 8:22 AM on March 7, 2002

Heh. And for me along with 'em, Fenriss.
But the idea's not "inhospitable", it's "free". With freedom comes responsibility. Ironic, eh?

I want a world of individuals, not of groups. The irony is, for that world to occur in a useful fashion for individuals, sometimes certain groups have to be allowed. And the word is allowed.

Sometimes power has to be concentrated, for the purpose of destroying other power.

[One interesting study is the difference between the words "power" and "authority".]

Any group with more people in it than you can immediately rattle off the names of, is ultimately at best a necessity... as far an an individual is concerned.

And I will own there are necessities, even dire necessities, in this world... which I would have such that I deal with individuals, never groups. (That's the ideal state, one which I know, essentially is unreachable. But hey, we've all got dreams, eh?)
posted by dissent at 8:47 AM on March 7, 2002

OK, I am honestly and respectfully trying to understand your position, Dissent. Can you frame for me your reasons for seeing groups as undesirable? I think I have a vague idea of what you mean, but I'd rather hear what you have to say, instead of putting words in your mouth.

Ultimately, my convictions (mildly pinko ones, by most standards) are based on a wish to help individuals (which is one definition of compassion, so there's your link to Buddhism), so I think I might benefit from your thoughts here.

Oh. And, btw, aren't corporations groups? Wouldn't your preferred policies serve to perpetuate groups?
posted by Fenriss at 9:16 AM on March 7, 2002

If such people value me equally as themselves, they should have no preference whether they have their property, and they prosper, or whether I have their property, and I prosper.
Don't the founding documents of the US state effectively the same thing?--That all men (people) are create equal. That they are "endowed by their Creator" with an equal value at their creation. The US seems to have created a working situation where property is protected at high cost.

Dissent, you were born of an individual (your mother) and then you automatically became part of a group, learning the behaviors appropriate to that group. I don't see how you could have developed into an individual without the input of that group, without the love/hate of that group.

I don't really know how a Buddhist would react to your attempting to take their property from them, but I think this Hindu(a religion from which Buddhism began) would slap you upside the head and remind you that your soul (self) is equal to mine, but the body and mind causing you to try and take my stuff from me isn't.
posted by ajayb at 9:46 AM on March 7, 2002

If such people value me equally as themselves, they should have no preference whether they have their property, and they prosper, or whether I have their property, and I prosper.

Zen story: The thief and the master

One evening, Zen master Shichiri Kojun was reciting sutras when a thief entered his house with a sharp sword, demanding "money or life". Without any fear, Shichiri said, "Don't disturb me! Help yourself with the money, it's in that drawer". And he resumed his recitation.

The thief was startled by this unexpected reaction, but he proceeded with his business anyway. While he was helping himself with the money, the master stopped and called, "Don't take all of it. Leave some for me to pay my taxes tomorrow". The thief left some money behind and prepared to leave. Just before he left, the master suddenly shouted at him, "You took my money and you didn't even thank me?! That's not polite!". This time, the thief was really shocked at such fearlessness. He thanked the master and ran away. The thief later told his friends that he had never been so frightened in his life.

A few days later, the thief was caught and confessed, among many others, his thieft at Shichiri's house. When the master was called as a witness, he said, "No, this man did not steal anything from me. I gave him the money. He even thanked me for it."

The thief was so touched that he decided to repent. Upon his release from prison, he became a disciple of the master and many years later, he attained Enlightenment.
posted by dness2 at 10:06 AM on March 7, 2002

Oh. And, btw, aren't corporations groups? Wouldn't your preferred policies serve to perpetuate groups?

For the moment, they *would* benefit corporations, for I believe that the forces behind egalitarianism- forced egalitarianism- are in the ascendant- a larger, more powerful group than that of corporations, if less organized. Once these forces wane, I would probably find myself on the other side.

Ajayb- that's why I respect the Hindi much more. I'm not about taking by force- from Buddhists or anyone else- I'm about saying, "Hey! I Am NOT one with you, get out of my face and leave me alone!"- and leaving the other alone to do his own thing. I don't like "alls" because they have a nasty habit of trying to either assimilate you, or stomp you to a bloody pulp... or alter the world so it's just too creepy for living in.

The Hindi (<---sp ?) would assert their individual rights against my aggression by slapping me upside my head. I respect and understand that, because it would be MY reaction. The Buddhist... would tell the Hindu that he and I are one... and we aren't, and wouldn't be. That creeps me out.
posted by dissent at 10:33 AM on March 7, 2002

Right before the assorted midwinter holidays I saw, in a gift basket, a bar of soap incribed with the single word, "ZEN." I found it to be both absurd and a fitting metaphor. I doubt the manufacturer planned to sell koans.
posted by ilsa at 10:40 AM on March 7, 2002

dness2: If one is not Zen, is it not Zen not to be Zen? A false, forced Zen-ness is very un-Zen. Would a Zen master ever tell another they should become Zen?

I respect the Zen... I do not respect those who advocate Zen. The Zen preach without preaching. They convert without proselytizing. This can not be resisted.

Those who preach Zen, lie. Those who live Zen, do not.
posted by dissent at 10:43 AM on March 7, 2002

The Buddhist... would tell the Hindu that he and I are one.

Some Buddhists will most definitely defend themselves. Make sure you're not dealing with one who can kick your ass.
posted by homunculus at 11:18 AM on March 7, 2002

dissent, I am not sure where you have encountered these missionary Zen. Most Hindus & Buddhists that I have encountered don't prosthelesize, they teach to those who have come to them to learn.
The Hindi would assert their individual rights against my aggression by slapping me upside my head. I not sure that I am saying that. I wouldn't be asserting my "individual rights" in the western sense. I guess I would be asserting that I won't let you(your body, not your "self") do wrong not only to me, but to the community that we are in. I don't know if that makes any sense.
I'm not really sure if you care,but a "Hindu" is someone who practices a set of beliefs that originated in India, that are sometimes referred to as Santana Dharma. "Hindi" is a language spoken by many, but not all, Indians and is one of the official languages of India.
posted by ajayb at 11:21 AM on March 7, 2002

ok, so those funky little symbols do do something /> and <
doh!
posted by ajayb at 11:22 AM on March 7, 2002

Would a Zen master ever tell another they should become Zen?

Keeping in mind that there are a lot of forms of Buddhism, of which Zen is only one category, and within Zen there are a lot of lineages, some of which are decidedly cultish, I am very sure of only one thing as far as this goes. Buddha himself said not to follow his path just because he did, or do what he said just because he said it. To my knowledge, Buddhism is the only religion (path, way, whatever) that specifically says to only do it if it feels right -- to think for yourself about its merits:

"I am not teaching you to have you as my pupil. I am not interested to make you my pupil. I am not interested in breaking you from your old teacher. I am not interested even to change your goal, because everyone wants to come out of sufferings. Try something that I have discovered, and then judge for it yourself. If it is good for you, accept it. Otherwise, dont accept it."

This makes it very powerful I think. So I agree with you dissent, if someone says to someone else that you must be Buddhist, I would be skeptical about their understanding of the Dharma.

Lord Buddha never said, "Join my group. Following my path is good; following other religions is bad." He never said that. Even one of the vows he gave to bodhisattvas was not to criticize any other religious doctrine.

But if one accepts the teachings of Buddha, then one is expected to follow the eightfold path.

A man's mind may make him a Buddha, or it may make him a beast. Misled by error, one becomes a demon; enlightened, one becomes a Buddha. Therefore, control your mind and do not let it deviate from the right path.

In my understanding, it's not a matter of rightness or wrongness, but about doing what you have set out to do. The eightfold path is a way to enlightment, but it is not the only way. The Dalai Lama has said that it's all about the heart, and I think that's absolutely correct. If your heart is good, the path you took to get there is good, whatever it is.

Whew, I'm getting linked out. Where's that gong?...
posted by dness2 at 12:20 PM on March 7, 2002

I hope this simplifies things for you. Tao Te Ching.
posted by Fat Buddha at 12:37 PM on March 7, 2002

ah yes, buddhists can beat the shit out of you, I know. I went to boarding school in darjeeling and we had a lot of Bhutanese students, and I must say they are a very tough lot, very tough lot indeed. Not discounting the nepalese any, they are tough too. And they are not all pacifists mind you.
posted by bittennails at 12:45 PM on March 7, 2002

dness2, thanks for the links. I hadn't ever known much about Buddhism outside of the fact that the Buddha broke away from Hinduism
posted by ajayb at 12:54 PM on March 7, 2002

"The sage understands the truly poor person lacks goodwill unto others." -kliuless
* spreads manure on the field of bodhi *
posted by sheauga at 1:16 PM on March 7, 2002

ajayb- Thank you for the correction on spelling and pluralization. I always care, and apologize for being hasty rather than researching the correct usage myself. That's why I added the "(<---sp)". But this is a fun conversation, and I wanted to continue it despite the fact I lack time to break away and look up spellings at this moment. *sigh* I have enough to feel guilty about just spending the time to reply.

As to missionary Zen... no, there are none. That wouldn't be Zen. But those who tell Zen stories and praise Zen to further their own agenda when they are not Zen... abound.
Or would you disagree?
posted by dissent at 1:25 PM on March 7, 2002

Dness- thank you. No disagreement.
posted by dissent at 1:31 PM on March 7, 2002

dissent, no disagreement to your last statement about Zen, (which is why I'm glad that God dropped me into a Hindu household and not the household of people who evangelize) but I do disagree with your "it's good sense and foolishness" statement from above.
posted by ajayb at 1:42 PM on March 7, 2002

Thanks for the links dness2. In the same spirit is this quote from the Kalama Sutra. Sound advice for anyone, Buddhist or otherwise.
posted by homunculus at 1:47 PM on March 7, 2002

There we'll just have to disagree, ajayb. I believe the beginning of wisdom is controlled fear, that guides one in protecting the people, concepts, and things that matter to one. When love gets a free hand, often there is a failure to protect things which need protecting...

I am not willing to pay the price for another's eventual enlightenment in the current blood of myself, or of those I consider to be worthwhile. Thus, I believe in guns and sturdy door locks. {Or at least softball bats and strong door locks.} And, to a certain but not extreme extent, closing myself off from those outside the number of people about whom I give a rat's ass. The person I never meet is one with whom I will never have conflict, after all... or, for that matter, one whom I will never bother... except perhaps with my writing. (>;->)!
posted by dissent at 2:05 PM on March 7, 2002

i thought you were talking to me for a sec sheauga, i don't think i've ever been quoted before!

i deny everything :)
posted by kliuless at 2:05 PM on March 7, 2002

homunculus, thank you for that link, I'll be thinking about the meaning behind those words for the rest of my life...

you know dissent, its funny. I don't disagree with your belief that "the beginning of wisdom is controlled fear" but I do disagree with your response to that wisdom. It seems to me that part of controlling fear is being willing to protect yourself from the actual risks of bodily harm and allowing yourself to risk meeting strange people and not assuming that they will have a conflict with you or that you will bother them. (I'm not telling you what to think, or trying to give you advice, I'm just talking, trying to understand a few things, as I've gone through a lot of situations recently where people have told me they want me to speak up more and the only thing that bothers them about our interaction is the fact that I worry that I am bothering them)
posted by ajayb at 2:47 PM on March 7, 2002

Eh, ajayb, I'm willing to meet strange people... I just don't generally seek the experience out. Enough strangeness filters into one's life without a conscious effort to go looking for it.
posted by dissent at 3:24 PM on March 7, 2002

if the people you meet at Metafilter aren't strange enough for you, I don't know what is :)
posted by ajayb at 3:31 PM on March 7, 2002

I've no real problem with Buddhists, but I'll use their logic against them as rapidly as I would use it against anyone else.

Whoa. Easy there, big fella.

Buddy, the last Buddhist I know of who used logic was Kurt Godel, and look at the fierce amber cesspool mathematics has become since then...I heard that someone eventually encountered him on a road somewhere and had to kill him with a pointed assertion. Sad.

Wait, Godel a Buddhist? Wasn't...he a Mumon...er, I mean a Mormon...well, you get the point.

So see? You missed the point about "logic" and Buddhism. And so I congratulate you. Welcome to the sanga.

Now. Gassho.

~a-wink-and-a-smile~
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:16 PM on March 7, 2002

"Is it certainly true that none of us is perfect"
It is certainly is.
posted by semmi at 7:19 PM on March 7, 2002