ralis

I have repeatedly asked for simple clear explanations and what I receive are complex postulates. Not even a 1st. person account of experience. In general, Buddhists are just mental parrots. Therefor, that is why Buddhism is just another belief system i.e, tribal. ralis

I guess you just can't answer simple questions. Angry? Exactly how am I showing anger? Displaying anger in writing? That is a stretch for me to put that kind of emotion in writing. I don't engage in ad hominem attacks and only ask for clear explanations. Am I being unreasonable in that regard? Explanations from your experiences in Buddhism are what I would like to hear. 1st. person would be great. You and VH come into this Taoist forum and rant ad infinitum about untenable postulates of Buddhism. If you can't explain clearly your belief system to your audience, then intelligent readers will question the validity of what you posit as so called truth. In regards to your thoughts on depression, I have yet to understand where you obtained that idea. Buddhism or any other ism are just belief systems. ralis

De? ralis

If I go to a teacher to take teachings, I certainly am not interested in mimicking that teachers personality. That is missing the point. ralis

If you want to be an apologist for Buddhism, why not change your rhetoric? If you use 1st. person examples from your own experience, then you may not come across as being so preachy! In general, most are not interested in preachy, redundant discourse. Obviously, you have failed to define exactly what the experience of Buddhism really means to you. ralis

Your conclusions about me are erroneous. In fact, I never discuss my experiences. Exactly where did I say I was depressed? Quote it! Quote where I said I was relying completely on myself! Your arguments are fallacious and redundant (argumentum ad nauseam). If depression leads to awakening, then why are there not millions of awakened people in the U.S.? After all, depression is a very serious problem that affects millions in the U.S. alone. Again, you proceed from an incorrect conclusion in trying to establish an absolute tenet, where none exist. A non sequitur at best. Does your philosophy professor allow you to argue in such a manner? ralis

Thanks for the explanation. ralis

All I wanted to know was why SQ was not Kunlun. The Kunlun book is arriving next and maybe that will give me some answers? ralis

I still want to know the difference between SQ and Kunlun. ralis

Mikaelz et al. deny appealing to external authority, yet quote from external authority. I never see a first person account, rather their style is to use the ideas of others. You are so right in that nothingness leads to an apathetic state of being. That kind of apathy is what I experienced while studying Buddhism. Apathy leads to depression. Depression leads to..... ralis

Which is the real Kunlun apart from the SQ? ralis

Yoda, Would you elaborate in some detail? Thanks ralis

Like you, I used to be very serious! Thought I had it all figured out! ralis

I have been doing a lot of spontaneous head and neck movement in the hopes of helping a problem with C2. That vertebrae has caused me a lot of problems. After 5 days, I have noticed improvement. ralis

Actually you do defer to external authorities i.e, Nietzsche and the Buddha. How can you state that you don't defer to external authorities and then claim there is no external! Who are the external others you learn from? I guess they really aren't external? I think there are a few logical fallacies in your arguments. If there is no external, where did the others that have escaped go to? ralis

Your arguments remind me of the "blind men and the elephant". I studied science and philosophy before you were born. The absolute value you attach to your arguments only applies to your point of view and not a general or cosmic point of view. It is you who make assumptions and proceed to argue from incorrect assumptions. For example, your use of the pronoun "we" incorrectly assumes a collective agreement with your point of view. Furthermore, you incorrectly assume that only humans objectify reality. Animals don't? It is a proven fact that chimps use very basic tools for rudimentary tasks. As long as you defer to an external authority to form your world view, you will never experience the cosmos as it truly is. ralis

When you have your system fixed, download Avast anti-virus. It is free and the best! www.avast.com ralis

You, like all other Buddhists merely posit a belief system that you have been told is true. Therefor, you accept it. BTW, I have done the whole Buddhist trip from the so called lowest to the so called highest. 20 yrs. to be exact. It is just another exotic belief system. ralis

Are you able to transform emotions? If so, to what end? ralis

Why do you have a problem with so called neg. emotions that you find distasteful? Why not find a way to use all emotions for constructive purposes! Just because the Buddha postulated a point of view regarding emotions, does not make it so. If you think that getting rid of these emotions will save you, then that is just more BS! ralis

My point is, anyone can accept any given set of postulates and be absolutely convinced as to the validity of. The use of language in a certain way, can have a very powerful effect in creating belief systems that seem to be the absolute truth. A general reading of history will prove my point. Escapist belief systems are probably the easiest to simulate. Why? In general, humans usually want a way out of hard core reality. Religion and drugs are the most obvious escapist tools. ralis

I thought this was discussed ad infinitum this summer. ralis

Since you parrot the same Buddhist talking points, I assume you have no realization and only book knowledge. My point is, you don't or can't think out of the box. Put your experience or realization in your own words. ralis

It seems to me from reading these posts and participating in the rather lengthy Vajraji posts, the Buddhist ideology misses the point. Why? Buddhist ideology only focuses on the relative processes that are obvious to anyone that obverses life. The realization of these processes is not some unexcelled realization. Dogmatic use of the term unexcelled, will psychologically prevent anyone from experiencing that so called level of realization. Furthermore, the concept of emptiness being used as a way to describe impermanence is a misuse of the term. These concepts i.e, talking points, are just parroted about in an attempt to convince the reader of a Buddhist transcendent experience, posited by the writer. What is missing from Buddhist ideology is the wizard behind the curtain. Or, what I would call the unmanifest i.e, life force. Buddhists only focus on the effects and not the cause and are convinced the effects are all in their minds. Maybe their heads are empty. ralis