ralis

This is where you are wrong! Read a definition before you write. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience

I guess you don't work since you have all the time in the world to preach. ralis

Each system, as far as I know, seems to have some nebulous idea of enlightenment. In my reading of the extensive literature, enlightenment is never clearly defined. The Pali canon and the extensive Buddhist literature are the best examples for wordiness and never getting to the point. Just indicates that whatever it is or is not, it can never be defined. Vajraji posted yesterday somewhere that the Buddha is omniscient. That is really stretching it. Actually, enlightenment may be a term that is used to manipulate psychologically. Enlightenment seems to lend some light ungrounded feeling to the mind. Just let all you cares float away. ralis

You fail miserably in the word department. ralis

Seems as if BP is only interested in recovering the oil. I see no plans other than relief wells for plugging this well. ralis

Tibetan tantric Vajrayana practitioners highest rites are usually not discussed. Some rites are very ancient and if one is able to pass through this initiation, then one is considered enlightened. I first heard about this rite back in 1987 from a Western Lama by the name of Ken McLeod, who had completed 2-3 year Tibetan style retreats. The famous Yeshe Tsogyal and many other so called enlightened ones have gone through this rite. The male practitioner is given a female consort and through certain sexual rites, the 5 meats are collected and consumed. One must consume these meats without any discriminating taste or judgment of any kind. If one is able to transcend judgment, then one is considered enlightened. The meats are: Urine, feces, human flesh, sperm and menstrual blood. I bring this up to show that Buddhism has another side. This is considered the real Tantra and not the play stuff Westerners are given. BTW, I am not making this up!

Yet you still argue for a higher world view with Buddhism i.e, when you reference Buddhism as higher than Hinduism. How can there exist a more liberating view? Liberated is free from. Either you are free or not. ralis

Actually I have transcended all levels without the help of you or any Buddha. ralis

Vajraji, The problem with a dogmatist such as yourself, is that you are only interested in your own world view and only wish to proselytize to others that you have designated to a lower level than your self appointed higher level. ralis

Well said! ralis

Honestly, this is rhetorical nonsense! I have read most of the extremely gifted brilliant philosophers, including Buddhist scholars and mathematicians. All of their writings are easier to understand than what you claim is a clear comprehensible rhetoric. ralis

What is that supposed to mean? Right brain = incoherency. I happen to use both sides very well and use what is appropriate. ralis

I suppose you are the chosen one to lead us out of darkness into the elite Buddhist light. BTW, why not use correct words and make your grammar more coherent. ralis

In response, Vajraji immediately sets up his own little world view of hierarchies, from Hinduism at the bottom to an elite Buddhist view on the top. ralis

:lol:

The problem with defining what enlightenment is (is-ness) through a semantic framework creates problems of interpretation. Apologists for their particular belief system (BS) use the old Aristotelian framework of a black or white, yes or no framework to defend and promote a belief system. Herein lies the problem. By using this framework, the purveyor, dogmatist etc. of so called truth, will posit his or her view as absolute truth i.e, not arbitrary. This black and white framework does not leave room for any continuum of experience, discussion or interpretation, but leaves one with only two choices. Here is a well written piece on is-ness. http://www.transpersonal.com.au/about/is-ness.htm ralis

Another thread is taken over by the Buddhists! I thought this thread was about free will. Not, Daddy Buddha says so. ralis

Quantum mechanics only presents a theoretical view of the universe. Exactly which scientists need an infusion of quantum mechanics? Please explain. Why does quantum mechanics seem to enter into spiritual discussions, as if quantum mechanics has anything to do with it. Perhaps quantum mechanics is a more spiritual way of seeing the universe? I doubt any theoretical physicist would agree. I happen to know a few. At least scientists are honest when using theoretical approximations in their work, rather than using absolute terms. I have provided a link to a basic quantum physics text. Very difficult for most! ralis http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/~dmiller/lectures/RQM_2008.pdf

Yes! You are talking to yourself here! Your sweeping generalizations only apply to you and not to others. If you understand what a sweeping generalization is. Your statement about being "conditioned by factors of liberation" contradicts every premise you have made here. You have the idea that whatever you say applies to all. I disagree on this point. ralis

Part of free will is to think freely i.e, out of the box. It also encompasses deep creative imagination. I have grown weary of the small herd of Buddhists posting on here that show no imagination or a willingness to explore outside of their own world view! ralis

It is refreshing to see a free thinker posting here! Thanks ralis

Great speech by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse on corporate power and why it needs to be limited! ralis http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8595114

If you care to read this, luminosity has qualities! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity

Vajraji, Why do you insist on framing your arguments in elitist absolute terms? I have concluded that you don't understand what defines an absolute. Why? For the simple fact of your use of the is-ness of your beliefs i.e, using the term (is) which you attempt to define a quality of a phenomenon or in general all phenomena. For example, you define the Buddhist cosmos as empty of inherent existence, while at the same time you define an inherent quality of is-ness i.e, luminescence, emptiness,dependent origination and your latest masterpiece "the world only works one way." These terms you use are qualities of existence and yet you insist the universe has no inherent quality of existence. Read this for a more extensive explanation. http://www.transpersonal.com.au/about/is-ness.htm ralis

I was on there for a short time and failed to keep my ratio up. I was banned. ralis