Aetherous
-
Content count
11,471 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
52
Everything posted by Aetherous
-
It is every human being's experience, whether they know it or not... The body is not dependent on the 5 senses...our perception of it is. You only believe the universe exists when you are aware of it? It doesn't exist when you're not paying attention? I asked you about the truths you realized while in what you consider to be "bodiless" states...not experiences you had. Yes, they are a limitation, assumed by most to be the end all be all of reality detection. Thus, most are bound by these 5 senses and not liberated in and through there higher self transcending potential available to meditators and spiritual contemplatives. What other reality would a person care to detect? I'm honestly asking this, not just being snarky.
-
Vajra, BTDT. It's generally the essence of my direct experience, as well. To only be aware of things when they appear. No mind. But that doesn't mean these things (body, earth, sun, etc) don't exist! You aren't in a higher or more true state of existence when not aware of anything. It doesn't have any implications regarding the "relative" world. And it doesn't mean you are EVER "beyond the body" since you're the body that's meditating and having the experience (or lack of one). What are those truths? Because your perception of a body is relative to the 5 senses detecting a body and you assume that these 5 senses are the sole definer of ultimate reality based upon your experience, while I do not based upon experience beyond the body. I don't assume that the 5 senses are the sole definer of ultimate reality at all. This is a problem I have with lingo arising from those with 5 sense bondage and those that limit their consciousness by this very popular assumption. 5 sense bondage? Buddhists are so strange sometimes...
-
Hey Aaron, Well, I am asking questions hoping a knowledgeable Buddhist can answer me. I'm very open to actually understanding what the heart sutra was saying. I'm not talking about "heartmind"...I agree with the way you describe that. I apologize, my diatribe about Buddhist lingo is a bit off topic. Might make a new thread just for that.
-
I had to look up Buddhist definitions of the words 'ultimate' and 'relative', in order to begin to understand what you were trying to say... It's still my opinion that this way of speaking is way too confusing. These terms aren't used this way in the English language.
-
What is your experience of being free of the body in meditation like? In that case, there ultimately WAS a body. You're talking about it directly...how can it possibly be said "ultimately there is no body"? This is a major problem I have with Buddhist lingo, and seeing as how you can't reconcile it, I suppose the problem is legitimate! I'm very capable. I'm open to any perspective, but can easily recognize false statements. Bull.
-
Vajra, Everyone experiences "being free from the body" each night while dreaming...but we require a body for dreaming, anyway...it's an experience occurring within the body+mind. But there ultimately IS a body. You'll need to communicate this for me in another way if I'm going to understand it, and accept it. That's looking at the body from one perspective. It still exists, of course, and you're viewing a part of it. If it didn't exist, you wouldn't be seeing that particular mass of quantum particles and dark matter. If I don't understand it, and you wish that I could, then you'd have to explain it in a way that makes sense. In my view, if a Buddhist thinks it makes sense, it's solely because of the fact that it's a Buddhist sutra and they are supposed to accept it as truth. I'm hoping to find a Buddhist who actually understands it, finds it to be true regardless of personal belief, and can explain it to someone else who isn't a Buddhist.
-
I always have problems with Buddhist lingo, which is why I find it so challenging to want to get into it. Especially when the end result is simply: this. The way we already are: awake and open. Here's an example: Why use the word "emptiness" which implies something is missing or lacking? That is very confusing. Then to apply "not permanent, not independent" to the heart sutra itself... So the body, feeling, thought, will and consciousness are all "not permanent, not independent". That's cool with me... Wait now. Just because everything is "not permanent, not independent" doesn't mean that there is no birth or death, etc. Those things still exist as they are regardless of the horrible term "empty". Bullshit! There is obviously a body, and it's easy to say that it's "not permanent, not independent". All of the other things listed also too exist, and are prone to the condition of "not permanent, not independent". So that's an example of Buddhist lingo making no sense.
-
Still the sickest music, in any decade
Aetherous replied to Immortal4life's topic in The Rabbit Hole
-
I think the true Christian spirit would side with those opinions...and be in direct opposition to any sort of human brutality or control, and personal dishonesty. But that is not the topic of this thread, so...
-
Still the sickest music, in any decade
Aetherous replied to Immortal4life's topic in The Rabbit Hole
Heard this guy speaking in an interview today, and thought what he had to say to was pertinent... Anyway, here's a random video to torture Marblehead! -
Yes, I'm saying that she is right in some cases, X in general = the majority of X. But because it's not true in all cases, you can't say it's a valid logical conclusion. It has to be absolutely true (in all cases) in order to be valid. "X in general does NOT = the majority of X" isn't valid either. Because in some cases, it does. So the only way to make a legitimate logical conclusion (one which is always true) is to say something like: "X in general can sometimes = the majority of X".
-
Sleep paralysis or something? In my experience of (what I think) Lucky experienced: I could breathe if I wanted to. It was a deep state of mental rest (so no monkey mind), yet at the same time, a sudden burst of brightness and clarity of awareness. I could feel the respiration surging throughout my entire body...the energy of the body functioning in a different way from ordinary breathing. After some time, thoughts would begin to arise (whoa I really don't have to breathe?!?) and then shortly after breathing would resume, and once again it'd be challenging to hold my breath for a length of time. In this state, it was effortless and lasted a minute or two.
-
I understand, and thank all mods (especially you, Mal) for their patience with my antics, as well as understanding my point of view. That means a lot to me. I'll keep "Scotty". Totally understandable, and it will not happen again from me. In that case, I still question whether harassing, and hateful/defamatory messages should still be allowed in "the pit", since threatening isn't. Personal insults are one thing, but those actions are another entirely. Those actions will lead a mentally unstable/violent person towards acting out, and they don't serve anything useful in any discussion. The rule "in extremis" could be a bit more clear in that section of the forum. Anyway, thanks again and peace.
-
I like those posts, Vmarco. You seem to have many years of experience in a variety of traditions. Well, things could have turned out a little differently. When Moses left Egypt, he could have taken all of the "negative confessions of the heart", but he only gave a few, as the 10 commandments. So the tradition was already missing a great part that considered "hope" to be essentially a "sin". Anyway, Christians are supposed to be fearless. "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." (1 John 4:18 NIV) A lot of practitioners are following deluded ministers, giving the religion a bad name, rather than following the actual teachings. As you can tell, I am partial to the religion. ... Nice. I believe that the embryonic breathing state, which Lucky7Strikes experienced, is heart-mind's full expression through the physiology of human beings.
-
Not in every case. That's your opinion of what it means, which is actually wrong. You can look up a few dictionary definitions, and you'll find that it can mean "many". In my opinion there is nothing more to say on the issue, when we have clear definitions, and quite a large percentage in this poll (although not the majority) agreeing with those definitions. I argue that probably anytime a person uses the term "in general" they have no idea what the exact percentage of the target group is. At least that's the way it's always been used in my life. I think looking into it in such detail (if you're going to blatantly ignore the very clear dictionary definitions) makes the term seem to represent something that it doesn't, necessarily. ... I agree that "in general" can be referring to either a "majority" or "many". But if you're making a logical conclusion, it's invalid when you say "X in general = the majority of X" because it doesn't necessarily equal the majority. In fact, my side of the argument is more true, because the word "many" can also mean a majority. So "X in general = many" or "X in general can sometimes = the majority of X" are both more true than "X in general = the majority of X".
-
Totally true. So I guess what we've all learned from this experience is to recognize those who are simply looking to object (or those who unconsciously knee jerk upon hearing a generalization), and just ignore them.
-
Hmmm...well, I'm pretty much the opposite of a Buddhist, so I guess I'll duck out of here. WAY too many false beliefs being assumed to be true. Thanks for answering, though. I do agree with this, and it's the reason why I disagree with most of what's been said.
-
Fair enough.
-
Mal, So then how shall it be cleared up? I'd like to make it easier on you, and quicker for you. I don't think spending time on this is fruitful for anyone...it's not making the relationship between us, or between myself and the other mods, any better. It's making things worse. So here is clarity: 1) I agreed to follow the rules. 2) I've made up with the person, and taken back my statements. 3) I offered in PM to go back and edit those other posts. So what isn't clear? I really don't get it. What reasons do you have, really? Please spell them out for me here, because I am not getting it whatsoever. In my view there isn't a SINGLE legitimate reason to keep me suspended. Not one...for the reasons I've stated multiple times over in this thread. Okay, if you want to be my friend and help, then just lift the suspension and say it was a warning. If I break the rules again (because it will be knowingly..since no one had a clue that the pit was moderated), then you'll have a good reason to suspend me. If the mods can't see my point of view, then I can't agree with their ability to make decisions, and will show no respect whatsoever towards them. It takes 5 minutes to get a new IP address and make a fresh account. See how much power you have here? About the same as myself. Remember that we are all just taobums...the playing field is level despite what some may think....so try to see things from the perspective of someone being shunned from a place they love for an extremely poor reason.
-
Will someone explain more on this? How do you see knowledge? Were you able to learn something from the energy alone...if so, care to share an example?
-
Mal, Mal, I sent you a PM and waited for a few hours for a response. I saw that you read it, and had ignored it. That's when I came on as Scotty, and stated my case publicly. I made one non-specific threat, in an area of the forum which no one thought was moderated. Upon learning, I immediately agreed to follow the rules. So what's the issue? I truly don't get it. I don't get why the decision is so challenging, or why you're making yourself into an opponent against me. It really seems like it's because I made "the nature of men" thread. In my view, that's what all of this boils down to. Mal. I agreed to the rules, which no one previously knew were applicable in the pit. That is not me carrying on however I please. Yup. But 'whatever I like' doesn't include breaking forum rules and wreaking havoc here. I simply said I'd come back regardless of being suspended for some bullshit reason. Why should I honor such a personally biased decision against me? Why would I show any respect to a moderation team who made such a decision? Put yourself in my shoes for a second. Well it makes me feel great to know how forgiving these cultivators are. I do ONE thing wrong, ONE non-specific "threat" (which I took back, made up with strawdog for, and agreed not to ever say again), and everyone jumps all over my case? I could give a FUCK about the opinions of such people! Thankfully, I know there are others here who aren't so ridiculous, and who are capable of realizing it was just a mistake. Who are capable of seeing how things went down, without bias, and just let it go (unless it happened again). If you aren't such a reasonable person then what more do I have to say? If that's the case, then just go ahead and decide to keep me suspended, and burn that bridge between us. That's on you.
-
-
I cannot see how that's real compassion, in any way, whatsoever. Trungpa's definition to me is completely false.
-
So if a person is taking a conversation personally...holding a grudge about it...and has been in the military at some point...that makes them prone to murdering!?!? It's ridiculous, but I know that's how the minds of many actually work here. Oh well.
-
I do take it personally when you're having a discussion and someone plays cheap, and doesn't care for the truth. It's a complete waste of time and is only enjoyable to them. Which is why at some point it's enough to stop trying to prove your point, and simply say: "Never argue with an idiot. They will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." It's like a sacred mantra, soothing the mind and enlightening us at the same time; teaching us the correct course of action. It is the most precious practice for the lover of truth.
