ralis

This ritual was for both men and women. Said ritual was to prove a point about non discrimination of experienced phenomena.

I am looking forward as to what Vajraji says about this perverse ritual!

If we do nothing, then who fixes this mess? Exactly, what do you base your assumption on?

I think this is the text where this ritual recorded. http://www.amazon.com/Dakini-Teachings-Padmasambhava/dp/9627341363/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_2

My point is there is no difference between the internal and external environments. Both are not separate experiences. It is a well known fact that certain Buddhist practitioners consume "the five meats" i.e, feces, urine, flesh, menstrual blood and semen. An example of that ritual is in the Padmasambhava text when he gave Yeshe Tsogyel the five meats which was done as proof that she had no discriminatory preferences. That is both internal and external. The problem I have with the Buddhist narrative here is one of generalized, vague explanations. Never are experiences of a personal nature expounded upon. The Buddhist narrative is a repeat of texts and teachings from various Lamas. Just the same DO and "it is so subtle subtle and even more subtle."

That much of a variable will wreak havoc on food production. Potentially shorter growing seasons and cooler nighttime temperatures in some regions, will create massive food shortages.

I do know what I am talking about. Is your Buddhist life one of creativity? If there are no preferences, then eating dirt would be no different than steak. Should taste the same.

That path is one of no creativity and leads to a life of numb passivity! In terms of that world view, nothing matters; if there are wars or not, if children go hungry or not, etc. etc. That view is not compassionate.

What other DVD did you try before this one?

Have you used this particular form?

Who made this theory?

I thought this thread was human anatomy from the spiritual perspective. How does the above relate?

I really appreciate what you have posted in this thread!

What field are you working in?

That is the difference between established scientific theories and spiritual mythological work. The former denotes repeatable research which is reliable to a very accurate approximation. Whereas, the latter is subjective and defies measurement.

So far your narrative contains nothing more than sweeping generalizations, and no substantive evidence to back up your claims. Claiming a sort of research bias as if all pure research is based on emotion is incorrect.

I guess after Saturday, none of us will have any more worries! :lol:

Yes. By this process, random data that appears to fit the model will be discarded.

That is a very weak argument and fails to consider how scientific methodology works. By the above statement, almost any body of evidence could be randomly selected and included, if said evidence did not falsify a specific theory. That is really stretching it! Before you attempt to argue what you don't understand, why not do a little reading.

:lol:

I have repeatedly pointed out this very fact to our resident Buddhists, only to be met with vigorous impetuosity as to why there is "no self".

Harold Camping made a grave miscalculation on the actual date of departure. :lol:

This is well worth reading. http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

I believe it is a 3 vol. set and is well worth reading.

I believe Joseph Campbell discusses this in 'Masks of God' vol 1.