ralis

I have been reading this thread for the first time. Sanskrit was most likely spoken by the Brahmans and Pali was the common language. What is your point? Seems like there was no choice as to how the teachings were transmitted. Forget all this nuanced hyperbole!

To say that the Buddha understood the workings of the cosmos is perhaps a false argument. Given the possibility that he was a believer in a flat earth. http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Doesn't confuse me. I am saying it doesn't express it well. That is all. I want nothing from you. Exactly what makes your Buddhist discussion more important than any other on this forum? Is this your own private secret club? Who invited you on here and in case you didn't notice, this is a Taoist forum. You expect everyone here to just sit back and read what you write without challenging you?

Trying? Exactly what does that mean? This thread is about fanatical Buddhist's and you have proven it. More pseudo scholarly prose that does nothing but confuse most readers here. Most don't even know what the terms are. I see this is an attempt at paradox. Seriously, it misses the point.

Vajrasattva (KAP) posted it on his Facebook page. It is bizarre!

Your response is one of not being able to defend your own limited logic. If you are going to use limited Aristotelean based logic then you must follow it to a logical conclusion. In this case you have limited the alleged sayings of the Buddha by claiming Buddhism offers an unlimited view while writing in strict logical parameters that are defined by yes/no, right/wrong etc. which is contradictory to an unlimited view. I submit there may be unlimited possibilities in the cosmos. To prescribe limitations based on primitive language constructs will never produce real freedom.

What is not common knowledge outside the study of 'General Semantics' are the limitations placed in arguments such as what is written above. Aristotelian logic works only in a limited universe of two distinct possibilities. In the above case, the Buddha was either right or wrong. No other possibilities exist according to your logic. Clearly defined statements such as the above can only be categorized as absolutes and restricts all Buddhist teachings to a very narrow view of the phenomenal world.

Damn this is a very weird video. :lol:

I didn't ask your opinion as to whether I understand it or not.

Just doing what any good Buddha would do.

His post never said anything about monism. It was clear to me what it meant.

Then say it is a joke with an emoticon or other emphasis. You make a crude remark and then blame someone else for not reading your mind correctly. As far as I am concerned your statement still stands.

I disagree with how the teachings are presented here. The pseudo scholarly writings by Vajraji, do nothing but mask the real essence of the essential nature of the teachings. That has been reinforced by many over hundreds of years by creating hierarchies or distinct levels of teachings, which has made the real essence unavailable to most. According to Vajrajis view, non believers are mental patients.

What I object to is your attempt at some pseudo scholarly prose that can confuse many reading here. I have been studying Buddhism for 30 yrs. and all the Buddhist buzz words mean very little when it comes to the actual experience of heart mind. Heart mind is not your exclusive property or the property of Buddhists. You accuse your audience as being mostly composed of mental patients? I am certain all reading this will object to being called a mental patient!

Heart mind is not the exclusive property of Buddhists. Say whatever you want but the fact remains that heart mind can be pointed out. The actual so called heart mind is beyond words. Why don't you and Vajraji take your legalistic arguments somewhere else.

I am not making it some self existing ultimate. The heart mind can only be pointed out as in the Rigpa given by Norbu et al.

Why do you insist on preaching DO&E ad infinitum? What are you trying to prove? Are you trying to win friends and influence people?

This is getting very old! Your persistent posting as if you know it all. The heart mind can never be described with words.

Thanks for posting this. Especially, the heart mind being the core of our being. That is the bottom line.

The l-arginine ethyl ester is superior to the l-arginine. The l-arginine ethyl ester is a superior form, is more stable, more absorbable and only 3 grams are required. Also it is much smoother on my system. This company is excellent and all their products are clean. Besides the pharmaceutical grade aminos, I use their whey protein isolate which is undenatured, which is a minimal process. If anyone is into body building, then the aminos that are in the AAKG form are even better. http://www.nutrabio.com/index.html

The so called meaningful dialog would only be engaged with the concepts that the Buddhist club members hold here. Very one sided if you ask me. This thread is about Buddhist fanatics and IMO you fit that category. Your judgment of me leads to no meaningful dialog.

That is your opinion only! Your attempts at mind reading fail! Have you realized what you so fervently write on here? I render an opinion based on my own experience, then you and Vajraji make judgments of me. Hypocrisy at it's finest expression. I see no difference between the Buddhist club here and the religious fundamentalists here in the U.S. All are extreme fanatics!

Real compassion stands up to and is not tolerant of injustice, wars, fear and abuse in any form. Real compassion is proactive and not passive.

The problem I had with all this 23 yrs. ago is that these teachings are very mental, not unlike the rest of the Tibetan trip. When I read and was taught about Bodhicitta I put it all aside and looked for the real experience and knowledge of what is being talked about and taught. I am not interested in extensive commentary describing in precise detail about what the heart mind is. The heart mind can't be described or verbalized. It is non verbal. The direct experience is what matters and where to focus.

Listening to Roy Buchanan.