ralis

Here is what Rush Limbaugh has to say about the recent volcanic eruption. :wacko: ralis http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/17/limbaugh-volcano/

Your posts aren't ego based? ralis

This world is a dynamic system which is always changing. All the variables in this world system have effects on every other variable. "Non Linear Dynamics" is a good place to start in learning about dynamic systems. Not an easy subject. ralis

It went down in Lake Superior. ralis

I agree that humans have a need to categorize others that are different, generally from a racial point of view. Science is trapped in a reductionist paradigm with few exceptions. However, the point you raise is the age old argument of "environmental vs. genetics. Actually both criterion are necessary for evaluating variation among all species. ralis

Why is it that it is always some blond babe that publishes this stuff? Seems like something out of Hollywood. ralis

That is why it is called propaganda. ralis

How many wars have been waged over petty religious disagreements? No religion is better than any other! Buddhism included. Religion is a crutch that prevents one from direct experience of the universe. Seems to me that what is pawned off as religion is something from the dark ages. Even the Papacy is losing it's foothold. Millions have been sacrificed over the past 2 millenia by Rome's lust for power. They made certain that their view was bigger and better. ralis

Exactly what is the assemblage point? Location? ralis

Toledo refers to himself as master. ralis

A little Shakti!

I never implied that modern science was a fragment of a more ancient tradition. The ancients founded the root of science and it has evolved to present day methodology. ralis

You always talk about deeper realizations as if there is a continuum of realization. It seems to me that one is either realized non dually or not. There can be no partial realization if one were using your worldview. Partial realizations are when there is still identity i.e, separateness. In terms of what you stated about science, I beg to differ. The natural sciences were developed by the Greeks through observation, math and logic. That root has been built upon by centuries of empirical observation. Without that foundation, quantum mechanics would not have been discovered. Actually shamanism is deeply integrated in Tibetan Buddhism. I know from direct experience and 20 yrs. of study. Ngak-pa Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche as well as Namhkai Norbu have repeatedly discussed the problems and use of spirits for their work. Both teachers emphasized the primordial awareness (non duality) in their work. They apparently have no problem with this view. ralis

There are valid points made here. However, a number of scholars have researched the ancient practices that are anterior to what is being discussed here. What we see are most likely fragments of spiritual systems that are possibly lost in time. Most likely Vedanta, Buddhism etc. are only fragments of a greater spiritual system that is lost. A number of researchers would argue that primitive shamanism (Asian) is the root of all spiritually in this world. The priesthood and cultist fervor are obstacles that prevent one from seeing what the universe is really about. Both of the following books are excellent resources. http://www.amazon.com/Shamanism-Archaic-Techniques-Ecstasy-Bollingen/dp/0691119422/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271092568&sr=8-3 http://www.amazon.com/Masks-God-Occidental-Mythology-v/dp/0285636073/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271094269&sr=8-7 ralis

Why not debate instead of adding snide uncivilized remarks. ralis

I have tried to insert the element of human suffering into my exchanges with some of the Buddhists here and what I get in return are neg. remarks. It is as if Buddhists are not really interested in the plight of others and instead argue ad infinitum points that are moot. I agree that the Buddhist apologists take a reductionist and mechanistic approach which denies reality. The best example from a recent post is that Hitler did not exist but was a process resulting from dependent origination i.e, a collection of processes. Thanks for your astute observations and comments. ralis

I am tired of your patronizing and condescending attitude towards me. Furthermore, the previous ad hominem attacks on my intelligence are not appreciated. I do understand the conversation and I can read. Also I do appreciate intellectual debate. I posted the thoughts on determinism because you brought it up. ralis

:lol: ralis

The link was provided to show that someone else does not have the same access to other points of view or choices as you. Why the difference? Is she less than you are because of her circumstances. Did she have a chance to study the same dharma as you and realize "no self"? You are fortunate that you live in a culture in which you can still freely express your views and realize what you call "no self". I actually prefer the term "no separation". That has been my experience. I had that experience when I was very young. I guess you looked into your being and judged me as a moron with rigid views. I am neither. Comparing me to a "teabagger". You are way off the track. I have alienated my entire family of Republicans because of my open mindedness, questioning everything, and having dreaded progressive ideas. Furthermore, my exploration of eastern religion and philosophy. Of course I know what determinism is. Of which there are many types. From genetic, environmental to philosophical etc. Tough subject to arrive at any absolute answer. The reason being is something called "dynamic systems" in which the main characteristic is change. Order and chaos. Multiple variables that interact with each other in ways that are sometimes extremely difficult to predict. I have a very difficult time with anything deterministic especially when I see how all things change and what causes change. That is why I challenge the ideology of an absolute deterministic karma. ralis

It is daylight here, all the vampires must be sleeping. Maybe they will post tonight. ralis

Namkhai Norbu's explanation is appropriate ie., Dzogchen. That is, to let the content liberate into it's own nature (energy). That produces clarity. ralis

I know exactly what you mean by "no self". The problem I have with your arguments is that you always posit from a philosophical point of view as opposed to an experiential one. You reduce suffering to some choice less or karmic process rather than have feelings for the tremendous pain that beings go through. That allows you to keep your distance. You view life through your philosophical constructs rather than face it directly. Your philosophical view is just another mask. When you seem to be trying to possibly state an experience, it is always framed in the same way as how you originally read it. In other words through the same semantic constructs as a Taoist or Buddhist book that you have obviously read. In my opinion, you have not integrated the teaching, but merely parrot what you have read. I posted some links and comments to determine if you are able to see past yourself. Do you feel with your heart the pain of another or are you just viewing the plight of another through your head. Before you use terms such as ego that you obviously don't understand. Do a little research. You are using that term in a patronizing way. Freud would disagree with the implication and your use of the term. ralis

Of course there is a difference. Rotting trees don't kill millions of people. ralis

Your problem is that your thinking is skewed toward one aspect and if I try to make a valid point, your narrow world view rejects it. Your use of the term "man" is sexist and outdated. What generation are you from? ralis