old3bob

I get it now, E=Mc2, or Empty=Meaning times Cobb salads doubled up...namely one for relatively real bodies and one for the Golden Buddha body.

I ate an abstraction the other day with salad dressing on the side but it left me feeling empty...

I'd say everything from a grain of sand or a neutrino is a level of of reality...

Buddhism and Hinduism have a lot of common ground but do not correlate on key points, trying to make that so is a disservice to both.

no comprende

an all seeing eye...., best to have one's shit together before that eye falls upon us.

the historic Buddha (saw) pointed out the assembly of subtle beings (normally invisible to most) before his passing so he apparently was not stuck on denying relative realities, which it seems some people are?

From the Mundaka-Upanishad: Third Mundaka, Second Khanda 3. That Self cannot be gained by the Veda, nor by understanding, nor by much learning. He whom the Self chooses, by him the Self can be gained. The Self chooses him (his body) as his own.

thus the Self knows that the self is a passing thing but also a tool for use.

talk about missing the implied for the literal...

the Upanishads do not entertain the idea of being "accident prone" to enlightenment although imo the idea has certain validity if in the sense of of preparation, but still one can prepare until the cows come home but it is The Self that chooses the Self, and not by any culmination of "accidents".

btw, there is that saying, "he is a good egg" , but woe unto the "bad egg".

concerning the thread title, those three have some important common ground (as all of us human beings also do) but after that are they are very different. (even radically so)

that reminds me of a song: "I'd rather be a hammer than a nail..."

not really, but apparently for you... since pounding on nails is apparently your bag

from an ultimate perspective some would say yes, although covered over by very, very dark adharmic karmas! (and also tuned into or acting from the chakras below the root as described in Hinduism)

being a fan is one thing but taking certain teachings and declaring that they mean what you happen to espouse about them in an all knowing like way is heavy handed. (imo) Again there are four major branches in Hinduism and a great many sects and they don't all agree on all major points, (for instance duality and non-duality) yet having respect for each other (including many non-Vedic ways) thus not stepping on each other is a core teaching or tenent for most.

Btw, that sounds kind of like some patronizing towards "Brahman" teachings? (and its related teachings which the 4 main branches Hinduism and its great many sects don't all agree on, much less there being agreement about same among most Buddhists.

there is evolution and that which is not evolving....a seed holds the promise of a tree but is not yet a tree. (making more seeds)

so what is the name of your school, anything goes?

experiences in territory are also different, thus its not kosher to lump everything into a wana-be transcendental melting pot as you constantly push for...

the fact for a very long list of various masters (& lineage holders) is that they don't declare their school/doctrine equal to various other unrelated schools/doctrine, which btw includes the founder of Buddhism. (and such also applies to many sects under a main religion, yet they also do not declare they are the same as other sects on different points )

Not bad, but... soul as "I" is still unique and of consciousness, while Brahman is not a particular and unique soul but the soul of all souls... Smoley is apparently getting some things crossed over, for instance the major aspects like the absoulute non-manifest and manifest which are connected thus not one separate from the apparent other.

and I'd add a Sat Guru helping and their Grace, otherwise methods have limited results.

oh, what happened to the funny guy?