Pero

So did she come to your seminar?

Like I said before, DO is not just a concept, not just something you learn, it's also something you have to realize, it's a realization. There is not only one destination, it's silly to think that.

Nah, it was Bruce Lee.

Dwai, what is supermimposition?

LOL yes stabbing yourself in the back with surgical precision is a great way of killing yourself.

What?

The sad thing is is that you really believe what you actually meant with this statement.

I think proper tulku education is quite heavy. And not every "tulku" actually is one.

Your practice does show itself in your life, but if you're in retreat and can stay that way as long as you want, it's not necessary to go into "regular life" (unless you want to or feel like you need to).

I think it's more commonly known as shamatha, perhaps you know it under this name? Shine is in Tibetan.

Actually the best one did/do a lot of retreat in seclusion, if not spend most of their time that way.

Dwai, DO isn't just a concept. I think it's a concept just as much sunyata is.

I don't think emptiness is "empty of phenomena". Emptiness is what makes phenomena possible, phenomena is why there is emptiness. They are inseparable.

Vajrahridaya=Hari (Hi dude, nice to see you haha) and not Mikaelz. Of course, every tradition refutes another. Of course for liberation too. Without words you can't learn anything. Perhaps you've forgotten that you have to log on with your email and not your username? That happened to me.

Hahah, me too. Thanks. Well, actually I see your post on a computer screen instead of a cute girl, so no I'm not seeing what I want to see. Why are you posting as SilliconValley1? Forgot your password or what?

But emptiness is not consciousness of any kind.

You haven't read the thread have you? Or perhaps you just see what you want to see.

Letting go of ego (whatever that might mean exactly) doesn't mean becomind stupid. Of course if you already are stupid, then you probably will rot.

This kind of thing should be forbidden.

While that is often said by Buddhists too, it's not quite right, it's more of an example. Empty doesn't equal not real. It seems to me this is one important and perhaps subtle difference between Hinduism and Buddhism, which Xabir already mentioned. Hindus say phenomena are an illusion, while Buddhists say phenomena are like an illusion. Real is one extreme, not real another.

You are phenomenon and if you are Brahman, then brahman is a phenomenon. Or if Brahman is everything, that doesn't compute with the distinction between phenomenon and non-phenonomenon.

But you said that Brahman is not a phenomenon.

Where is the citation? I think empty=no characteristics for Buddhists. You keep making a distinction between phenomena and non-phenomena but it seems to me that doesn't fly in Buddhism.

How can this be inferred? Cool. Though my attention span (and knowledge haha) is too short for this discussion (and the long posts...). But it could be that spending 11+ hours at work yesterday had something to do with that.

Dwai said he wants to test himself.