Taoist Texts

i do feel pity on the cult victims, but every time i try to help the victim he tells me that he wants to be a victim. it is their choice, more power to them. you go boys and girls.

here you are. they are voluptuous all right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Buddhism However, in 1990, the notion of aniconism in Buddhism was challenged by Susan Huntington, initiating a vigorous debate among specialists that still continues.[5] She sees many early scenes claimed to be aniconic as in fact not depicting scenes from the life of the Buddha, but worship of cetiya (relics) or re-enactments by devotees at the places where these scenes occurred. Thus the image of the empty throne shows an actual relic-throne at Bodh Gaya or elsewhere. She points out that there is only one indirect reference for a specific aniconic doctrine in Buddhism to be found, and that pertaining to only one sect.[6] so the notion of early Buddhist aniconism is outdated

yes many are, all over the web. please understand that all miracle-makers and miracle-teachers are disgusting frauds. This one takes the cake though. https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-10512-eric-the-enlightened.html https://www.oregonlive.com/hillsboroargus/2008/03/socalled_psychic_files_suit_ag.html https://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?5,33575,92547 you need to calm down otherwise you will hurt yourself.

oh so there are at least two different reality tests, hope they do not clash or anything. hey if i never ever have a chance to try walking through that tree for myself - is it real for me? hell yeah! i blame not enough padding in my kindergarten. on the positive side naked in public dreams stopped. almost. from the river to the sea...

you guys are so funny with this 'walk through the tree a reality test' business.;) i can walk through air - is air unreal? a radio-wave goes right through the tree - is the tree unreal? i cannot walk through a wall in my dream - is the wall real? hehe;)

skandha does not refer to physical objects. it is a concept defined as: a part of a human mind ( a collection of thoughts) plus the object which causes them . skandha is like a reflection in a mirror plus the reflected object. but the object on its own is not a skandha. the tree is not a skandha. the thoughts about the tree is not a skandha thats why skandha is impermanent. when the object is gone or thoughts change the skandha disintegrates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha real is an undefined meaningless bad word. it does not compute. until it is defined, i assume that by 'real' it is meant material. and the tree is material because it is a part of the material world. the world is material meaning the world is 'existing'. immaterial things do not exist. so again to answer the question: for no reason at all our material world exists forever, and the tree is a part thereof. thats why the tree is 'real'. these are just my modest musings aloud not directed at anyone in particular;)

well its close but not really, in reality (hehe) it is being-non-being or substantial-not substantial https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/28342/what-exactly-is-sat-asat which makes sense. if something is not real then how come we even talk about it? yeah the guy is marketing himself to the western audience, hence the translation into english. apart from his lame arrogance and apart from calumniating the author of the Heart Sutra it is not even clear what does he try to say

interestingly in buddhism there is no 'reality', not even a word for such. there are several dichotomies which are close like 'rupa-arupa' but 'real-unreal' is not a buddhist or indian ph. nomenclature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism in our regular state of mind yes. However if we are progressing in jhana then at some point objects will appear to us as arupa, formless and sunya, empty. Its just an aberration of our perception brought about by long sitting. It is a sign of a progress but does not mean much otherwise. per the above, now we can answer this: our world is material, 'real' if you will. Real to a normal mind, empty to a partially trained mind. But otherwise, objectively there is no real-unreal distinction. Note the bolded: in a typical western fashion the western commenter sees 'empty' but does not see 'form' here. This western selective blindness is perennially amusing.

yes me too my guess is that he was always represented both in human form and in a symbolic form. It was the modern scholars who, under a false theory of progress, ascribed the symbolic form to the early stage and the human form to the later stage. Also, quite naturally, the early human likenesses of a budding religion were much fewer in number and few are preserved due to older age.

whats the significance of this?

well of course. And both of Arhat and Buddha are basically the same thing which both mean the attainment of nirvana: and nirvana is of course the buddhist paradise alchemy is inherent in all the other schools. once we define what the alchemy is then we will see that it was there the whole time;)

Yes it is absolutely. What else could be the goal? Of course there are gradations like a better rebirth on earth, a rebirth on a heaven, a final rebirth in the pure land paradise (which is the final nirvana). But they all hinge on constructing a soul, which is like a boat, can fish by the shore, can cross the Atlantic. All and every type. We (the buddhists hehe) are really closing ranks on that point;). Do you know a specific type of buddhist which has something else for an end goal? cool. if so let me bask in satisfaction of having answered it above and repeating it here: yes the goal is the same.

i see you are not a big fan of certain words like 'how exactly" and 'because of this happens that'. great then;)

how-to explanations are hard because they involve magic words like 'because' and logical cause-effect statements and defined terminology. E. g. "Walls are built by putting a brick on a brick" or "Two atoms of H plus one atom of O = H2O". Thats why most people dont have time for explanations....i think at least thats the reason...time...

yes, myself and the OP, tell us how that works, we beseech you

Sorry for an answer we really need the nitty gritty nuts and bolts of that. "It just does"sounds reassuring but doesn't explain much

i heard the end goal of buddhism is to escape suffering of birth, aging, illness, dying; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duḥkha#Early_Buddhism how a concentration or insight on anything prevents any of that? It does not. Which means that you are mistaken or do not know what is the end goal of Daoism and Buddhism. In reality, both of them have the same goal: creation of an immortal soul which is impervious to suffering.

oh it is par for the course. This is a simple cosmological myth whereas Horus is the god of light, sun, moon, yang and Seth is the god of storms, deserts, yin. All the mutual exchange of semen and body parts are just an interplay of energy between the yin and yang. Eventually they reconcile to rule together over Egypt. The end. The two gods are often represented in the construct known as the sma-ta-wy - in which the sedge and papyrus, symbols of the reconciled gods, are entwined and knotted about the windpipe and lungs that symbolize the united Egypt.

whew, finally some good news!

exactly. same as yoga totally flattered because gnosticism is the most elitist and the only feminist one of all the christianities out there sorry to bear even more disturbing tidings. but... in that day and age all women were impregnated without their consent given that the marriage was decided by the parents

Gnosticism;)

there is no other guy, it is the same guy, and IT is not even a guy. poor mortals are killing each other over the verbiage. does not matter if they would, does not matter what it means. they are mere mortals unaware of the complete reality (quanzhen), but still hearkening to the distant warble of their souls. lets not mistake what they say with what prompts them to say it. very well said there Bob! excellent. now the next step is ask yourself: who engineered the engineers?

i am both, no conflict there;) i subscribe to a theory that Christianity is European in origin since all its tenets (as opposed to the verbiage) are European-pagan ones, nothing from Torah. the Jews just provided the technical documentation and a dealership support for that product, so to speak. of course, but a doctrine is not a reality, there are many schizo doctrines oh those congregations are essentially for joyfully getting in touch with the inner knowledge (same as religious liturgies), the actual verbiage they recite is unimportant nah, gender is just a social construct hehe;)

no no, i totally got your point. i just disagree with it, what a surprise huh you are absolutely correct in a sense that the modern euhemerized western simulacra of those religions are exactly like that. i see what you did there. you substituted religion with "dharma". i am not sure what dharma is. but for a religious believer in buddhism=daoism the historicity and miracles are all-important. (i know because i am one of them). For us, what is the point of a religion without a savior (who by definition is a miracle-maker)? None, thats why there is no such religion.