old3bob

Nope, just found that clip at you tube...I have been to a few Zen meetings and studied some of their material.

You mean like many Scotts with kilts? (that way hardly no pause during battles?)

It's not all dead serious.... Lama Yeshe's power to touch our hearts transcends time and space. This 36 year old film is from the final session of extensive teachings on the six yogas of the glorious Naropa given to the fortunate students in 1983 in Boulder Creek, California. BIG LOVE Follow Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive Facebook:

mankind has a degree of will, will which can be used for good or evil as in with universal dharma or against it, animals and most creatures of mother nature as far as I know can not go against such dharma or ways.

I'd say not only humans but all beings exist in existence, (aka manifestation) whereas in Supreme Being-ness there is only on of those.

Steve, that sounds like putting it on the shelf pending further review, thus of some potential.

Well, another take is that if all "bodies" are under the mastery and alignment of Pure Self then there can be no limiting "contact" with bodies, for then a permeated or existing purity is connected and working through and in all bodies. An analogy: in an endless ocean permeated with light or of light there is no real or separate darkness somewhere that is possible, thus any darkness or limitation perceived is only a veil or appearance identified with. So what does Satguru first see in another being, I'd say it is not veils of limitations but the same Brahman (or Self) that they have realized within. (and "within" is just a term for in an ocean there is no separate within or without)

(reason has its place and use) But the Lifetime of Lord Brahma (the creator ) is explained below and is not truly immortal as in beginning less and endless. This is Taken from Wikipedia: 30 days of Brahma = 1 month of Brahma (259.2 billion human years) 12 months of Brahma = 1 year of Brahma (3.1104 trillion human years) 50 years of Brahma = 1 Parārdha 2 para rdhas = 100 years of Brahma = 1 Para = 1 Mahā-Kalpa (the lifespan of Brahma) (311.04 trillion human years) Thus only Brahman (not Lord Brahma) is truly immortal, so granted there are an unknown number ancient immortal like beings existing in the universe itself that have incredibly long lifespans but even they return to Brahman when time is done. I'd also say that Elder Brother Jesus, a Being of Divine Golden Light (and those like him) who have evolved very far beyond our normal human states will also return to that which does not evolve, as we all will. (btw the historic Buddha hinted to Ananda that he could remain (in light form I take it) for the rest of the cosmic cycle but the Buddha also apparently saw and reached the conclusion that his duty and time in manifest and even the most subtle worlds had come to an end, so for Ananda the possible option of his teacher remaining for the rest of the cosmic cycle was something he did not ask about or catch on to per Buddhist scripture)

Dylan's take from the 60's (who can catch the wind in their hands and it still be the wind ? My tangent)

as the saying goes ...."chop wood and carry water"

Warning graphic images: One should be flexible for Hatha Yoga but not give into the temptation of chewing their toenails:

found some Buddhist/Chinese commentary/history: Griffith Foulk SuMMER 1999 "When a scholar of Zen Buddhism has a dog called Mu, as I do, people think they know why. But things are not always what they seem, and my black lab’s name does not come from the famous koan “Mu.” It derives, rather, from Mustafa—the name given him at the humane society when he was picked up as a stray puppy. Mustafa soon became Musty and then just Mu. . . his Buddha-nature was never in question. The koan “Mu,” a.k.a. “Chao-chou’s Dog,” also has a pedigree that is rather different from what one might imagine. Today this koan is regarded as an ideal device for cutting off discursive, conceptual thought and for leading Zen trainees to an initial experience of enlightenment; yet it actually derived from a highly intellectual, scholastic debate over the presence of Buddha-nature in sentient and insentient beings that continued for centuries during medieval Chinese Buddhism. Readers who want a taste of the arcane details of that debate, and a lucid interpretation of the koan in its original philosophical context, are advised to check out an article by Robert Sharf entitled “On the Buddha-nature of Insentient Things.” As Sharf points out (the following translations are all his), the discourse records of the Ch’an master Chao-chou Ts’ung-shen (778-897) contain three dialogues in which the master responds to questions about Buddha-nature. The first such exchange reads as follows: [A student] asked: “Does a dog also have buddha-nature or not?” The master said: “It does not” [in Chinese, “wu”; pronounced “mu” in Japanese]. [The student] said: “Everything has buddha-nature, from the buddhas above to the ants below. Why does a dog not have it?” The master said: “Because it has the nature of karmically conditioned consciousness.” Here the student expressed what all Chinese Buddhists from about the seventh century on took for granted: that all sentient beings are innately possessed of Buddha-nature (or Buddha-mind). Chao-chou’s “wu” was thus unexpected and perhaps intended to shock, but it was not necessarily enigmatic. He may simply have wished to stress the point that although living beings have Buddha-nature, unless they realize that fact by “seeing the nature” they remain caught up in delusion and continue to suffer in the karmically conditioned round of rebirth. The second relevant exchange in Chao-chou’s record reads: [A student] asked: “Does an oak tree also have buddha-nature or not?” The master said: “It has.” [The student] said: “Then when will it become a buddha?” The master said: “When the sky falls to the earth.” [The student] said: “When will the sky fall to the earth?” The master said: “When the oak tree becomes a buddha.” Here the question concerns the presence of Buddha-nature in an insentient thing, a tree. Chao-chou is willing to concede that, in a certain sense, all of existence is coextensive with Buddha-nature or Buddha-mind (for nothing could exist “outside” of it). He wants to argue, however, that only sentient beings can “become” buddhas by waking up to or seeing the Buddha-nature within them; such an epistemological transformation is impossible for insentient beings, at least until the end of the world. The third exchange reads: [A student] asked: “Does a dog also have buddha-nature or not?” The master said: “The [road] in front of every house leads to Ch’ang-an [the capital].” Here Chao-chou affirms that all sentient beings do in fact have Buddha-nature, dogs included, but again he implies that they need to wake up to that fact if it is to do them any good. The “road that leads to Ch’ang-an” may run in front of every house, but unless one actually travels it, the sights and smells of the capital can only be imagined. Some of the dog lovers who have contributed to this issue suggest that their own pooches have not only gone for walks around their neighborhood streets, but actually have made the trip to Ch’ang-an. It is unlikely, however, that Chao-chou had such a fond view of the species: Dogs in medieval China were more likely viewed as filthy curs, or as sources of protein, than as “man’s best friend.” They were, on occasion, identified in Buddhist morality tales as bodhisattvas in disguise, as were beggars and pregnant women, but such stories gained their edifying force precisely from the ordinarily low, polluted state of the beings in question. My Mu is a beloved pet, but he surely has not glimpsed his own Buddha-nature. Nor does he recognize that of squirrels: The mere sight of one, and all of his bad karma, born of beginningless greed, hatred, and delusion, comes rushing out in an eye-popping, hackle-raising snarl. And when it comes to oak trees, lamp posts, and other insentient things, not even their Buddha-nature can save them from the indignity of being his territorial markers. Chao-chou’s dog eventually strayed from the master’s discourse record and was adopted by Wu-men Hui-k’ai (1183-1260) as the first case of his koan collection entitled Gateless Barrier (Wu-men-kuan). According to that text: A monk asked master Chao-chou: “Does a dog also have buddha-nature or not?” The master said: “It does not.” The exchange was shortened in this context, eliminating the follow-up question about buddhas and ants, and Wu-men added a comment that instructs us not to think about the meaning of Chao-chou’s “wu,” but simply to break the bonds of intellect and directly penetrate its deep meaning. The way of philosophy being thus cut off, people ever since have been without a clue as to what the master meant. I, for one, can do little more than leave my mark on the oak tree and hope that some of you may sniff it out."

and one of a Buddha pointing: (no offense meant but somewhere in Buddhist teachings the question arises about whether or not dogs have Buddha nature?) (and lets not leave out cats)

another form of pointing:

if it wasn't for silence could music take place? Or something like that since Om is in all the gigantic cascading waterfall like sounds of the universe yet there is also the silence of Om... so I'd say it's true that words can or do echo "true nature" although such an echo is a dualistic derivative. (that could be followed back to non-duality)

is it true Wal-Mart is giving out free reading glasses to anyone that has diligently read every post in this string? Good for you folks, although directed Prana that could restore our eyes would supersede that...(btw I could use some of that to restore my very poor hearing which tends to happen when in my earlier days dumb teenage 'friends' blew up a cherry bomb next my head while I was sleeping during a camping trip together!)

"Advaita Vedānta is one version of Vedānta." Can knowledge contain Brahman, or mind contain no thing?

I'd say the "true nature" of Brahman includes the first Prana springing forth from It, as found in the Chandogya Upanishad and elsewhere, and also return. The "true nature" of Siva (the Lord of Yoga) includes Shakti aka as Parvati...per Saivite schools (and whatever others?) with thousands of years of Self Realized lineage holders; thus neither first Prana or Shakti (different words for the same eternally connected and unbreakable force) can be divorced from Brahman as not being inherent to It even if Brahman is also transcendent beyond categories. Ardhanarishvara

those little people reminded me of far smaller ones that were shrank along with being in a shrunk submarine that was then injected into a regular size persons bloodstream so they could do medical work on him from the inside, the trick was getting out of that persons body before they and the sub returned to normal size!

I'd say shrinking other people (and non-dual and dual concepts) or putting them in a cast iron boxes is not going to solve the ages old quandaries that many of us find our selves in, so it comes down to each their own, for trying to do otherwise with our dharma whatever it may be burns energy that is better spent on, "Know thy self" by any and all means possible that help us. Btw Spirit uses any and all means possible to help beings, including the incredible power of unconditional Love which is impossible to box in!

“blob picked a peck of pickled bloopers; a peck of pickled bloopers blob picked. If blob picked a peck of pickled bloopers, where’s the peck of pickled bloopers blob picked?”

the mind and our mind is a lot like a computer, and the programs that run on it are not the user or essence! How could Plato's cave dwellers live without their caves? (well those who dare to journey (via proven yoga's, etc.) into an unknown world outside their cave do find that they can live without it. The price is very high and the sun is clear and bright for Grace has shown me them yet I have pending debts to pay for my part)

what did I predict about rationalizations.... it's telling that a god had to get after the Buddha for his recorded doubts

A tangent about your question above Bindi: In well recognized Buddhist scripture there is a recounting of how the historic Buddha had serious doubts about continuing in this world with a teaching not long after his enlightenment, but then what would seem to be the highly unexpected took place (per the drift of his previous downplaying of) namely that a god level being came to him and implored and more or less convinced him to teach! So there is grounds for your question along the lines mentioned above, although it is probable that some of our Buddhist folks will rationalize away the point that the historic Buddha needed advice and spiritual reminders from anyone.