bradley

granted it is an inaccessible part of the world, I dont think they were as isolated culturally as you might think, particularly in the 600-1000 CE timeframe when buddhism took over. at that time, tibet was a massive empire, which included the trade arteries through the tarim basin, an important juncture in the silk road and abutting the abbisids, as well as into india. they would have had access to a lot of cultural interchange at that time (otherwise, they'd still be practicing bön...) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Empire

interesting. nyingma was "founded" (if that is such a thing) at the height of the abbasid caliphate. the persian world at that time was highly academic and more liberal that most would think. as I understand, most of western scientific knowledge--medicine, astronomy, mathematics, etc.--has its roots in the ancient persian world, although our history books have overwritten much of their discoveries with western names. imagine trying to do multiplication tables with roman numerals, instead of the arabic, base-ten ones we use today. al-khwarizmi, who wrote the treatise al-jabr (i.e. "algebra"), was an interesting character. the extent that the buhddist knowledge was brought in from persian texts (rather than sanskrit) does not mean that they were not buddhist texts, since the abbasid academics would have translated and studied those texts. buhddism was widespread in the califate, and promoted in certain castes at different times. perhaps the abbisid-buhddists had their own treatises and understandings, although I suspect the parchment they were written on has long decayed, or was destroyed by the mogols. you have to wonder how much ancient knowledge was lost in the destruction of the baghdad library. one thing is for sure, the ancient world was highly interconnected, much more than most would think. so it should not be surprising that people were sharing ideas, methods and techniques across cultures, and that for a particular school of thought, that there is usually no one, single dogmatic source for the knowledge. the extent that vajrayana borrowed knowledge and techniques from cultures other than ancient india, does not mean that it is not buhddism, nor impinge on its validity as a course of study.

How about The Diamond Sutra and The Sutra of Hui-neng? https://www.shambhala.com/the-diamond-sutra-and-the-sutra-of-hui-neng-496.html?srsltid=AfmBOopZRp8ESekI32yRr1kpdLx9ojL8L8DTKUGsgw06VNVfpNkr1jB2 The Diamond Sutra was the first thing Buddhist I ever read (maybe six or seven years ago), and it instantly changed my perspective on everything. Also, I think I have read that Hui neng was, and continues to be, somewhat controversial. Interested if people have thoughts on that. I also learned a lot reading through the prajñā­pāramitā sutras. Here is a translation of the 10,000 line one that I liked: https://84000.co/translation/toh11 Finally, one sutra that I continually go back to, and think about a lot, is a short Heap of Jewels sutra: https://84000.co/translation/toh118 The following interchange has stuck in my mind: The 84000 site is real interesting to browse through, interested what others think of that site. Also, I am no expert on any of this, so use at your own risk : )

okay. thanks.

you know whats right and wrong. its primordial. no ethical code, ideal, or analysis is required. righteous action needs no justification or explanation. a truely authentic person only does what is right, there is no other action

Thanks for keeping this thread going. I very much like it. It was interesting he equates the dualistic mind to attention. I have heard things about dropping your attention (actually your intention of attention) in meditation, but not stated in such a way that the dualistic mind IS attention. If anyone has thoughts on this would love to hear.

Vive la Résistance!

What if people could be enslaved but convinced them that they were not. Make them work 14 hour days for the benefit of some feudal lord, but give them the illusion that they were actually free. As I see it, the world today is basically one of feudalism, although veiled behind a complex system of debits and credits. When I think about AI, I am constantly reminded of the book Anthem by Ayn Rand. Surveillance historically has been limited by the fact that there must be someone watching it, and a small group of people, can't closely watch everybody at the same time. With AI, that changes. The systems could theoretically be nearly omnipotent, tracking individuals every movements, facial expressions, conversations, ect. What sort of feudalism does that lead to?

No, its Zappa!

well what are we supposed to argue about? how about this: there is no god, no dao, no buhdda. life is just as it appears, no more, no less. truth is only that which can be coherently uttered, and that there is no ultimate truth, only utterances. experiences are only memories, and also carry zero truth. noone has magical abilities, and people who think they do are derranged.

can I change my name to "bradley". I think mr krebbs has over stayed his welcome, notwithstanding his noble, but somewhat lack luster, quest against nihilism. Thanks.

Defining experiential things in words is impossible. For example, define what the color blue looks like. Not just "it is the color of the sky," or " its a certain wave length of electromagnetic energy, but try to define in words what it looks like in the abstract. The best you can do to convey a definition of an experience is by someone experiencing the thing and then giving it name. Metaphors can also convey some meaning of experiential things--blue is calm, serene, ethereal, peaceful, cold--but then again those are only useful if the other person has experienced it. most of the irrational argument on this site is from narcissists (they are easy to spot), claiming that an something someone experienced was turquoise, and not the cerulean blue that only they have the ability to see.

thanks for the insight. your words have given me much to contemplate, and then again not to contemplate.

I dont quite grasp this. so ego is an object of the mind. perhaps any such object is false, but not necessarily unusefull. but, how does the changing and limited nature of it impact its falseness. maybe another question is whether the concept of self or ego is unusefull? i have concepts of walls around me. i can understand that my conception of walls is just phenomenonal, but i dont disregard those conceptions completely, and start running into things. just like i should not walk into walls, i need to take care of my self, to make sure i have food, etc. and to try to live a fulfilling life. in this regard, is the ego maybe something to be observed and understood, and not necessarily outright disregarded, just like any other phenomenon? maybe the distinction is its changing and limited nature, as you say?

So did you find any fresh water? I am on the edge of my seat.