Apech

A warning from history ... The drug cyproterone acetate has been commonly used for chemical castration throughout Europe. It resembles the drug MPA used in America.[5] In the United Kingdom, computer scientist Alan Turing, famous for his contributions to mathematics and computer science, was a homosexual who chose to undergo chemical castration in order to avoid imprisonment in 1952.[23] At the time, homosexual acts between males were still illegal and homosexuality was widely considered to be a mental illness that could be treated with chemical castration.[23] Turing experienced side effects such as breast enlargement[24] and bloating of the physique.[23]He died two years later, with the inquest returning a verdict of suicide,[25] although recent research has cast doubt on this result.[26] In 2009, the then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued a public apology for the "appalling" treatment of Turing after an online petition seeking the same gained 30,000 signatures and international recognition.[27] He was given a posthumous Royal Pardon in December 2013.

Is it possible for you to explain a bit more why you would want to do this? It sounds on the face of it to be a very bad if not impossible thing to do. If you are thinking like this I worry about your state of being/mind. I could say some things but without understanding the issue for you it would probably not be helpful.

This is what you said and what I was responding to. I think as a statement it is misleading and incorrect and since you are now quoting 'two truths' and so on presumably you would like to withdraw what you said.

You're thinking of the Hotel California surely.

I don't want to hijack this thread into this debate. I don't think you have understood what non-dualism is because your examples miss the point. The author of that paper you quoted is a Theravedan monk and he will teach as his system does that the Buddha did not teach non-dualism. But there are other forms of Buddhism which are non-dualist. So it is not correct to say that there is no non-dualism in Buddhism. Whether such ideas are right wrong or whatever is another matter entirely.

Of course the philosophical views are preliminary to actual awakening, I think that is understood. The 'view' is a perspective in that it informs the way you look at things. The Mahayana view is classed as non-dualist. So it is not correct to say there is no non-dualism in Buddhism (as a general statement).

"For the Mahayana, the enlightenment which the Buddhist path is designed to awaken consists precisely in the realization of this non-dualistic perspective." ... from your quote.

This is only true if you refute Nagarjuna as a buddhist which that article does ... so you should say that there is no non-dualism in Theravedan Buddhism but in Mahayana Buddhism there is a teaching of non-duality. You may not agree with it or uphold it but it would confuse the reader to say it is not there.

Thanks very nice. I used to live near Ruislip where this Lama is living now.

There are two approaches to sunya (emptiness). One is through thinking about how everything is inter-related and that the things you perceive (including yourself) only arise in dependence on other things as causes. Anything you can think of is made of parts, ephemeral and does not exist independently and autonomously. try to think of something that might exist out side of this and you can't really. So the conclusion is that every thing lacks a 'self' ... that is lacks a separate, individual, eternal, autonomous core or essence. From this you can get the idea that reality comprises a chain of causality where things appear to arise and cease in a state of mutual interdependence. Beyond this is the realisation of emptiness. This is the non-dual realisation sometimes called ultimate bodhicitta (awakened mind). Reality here is compared to a dream or a magical display, your perceptions on examination are found to lack solidity and the true nature of mind (as being empty) is revealed. This is beyond words really so it is hard to say more than this. But thinking about interdependence of things helps give you the right view to support access to this realisation.

The Buddha was born into (though possibly on the fringes of) the Vedic Culture. A householder in the vedic culture was obligated to an onerous round of ritual and social duties which pretty much consumed his life 24/7. The term householder means the head of a household ... which would be an extended family going through probably three generations plus servants and attached workers (so a lot of people) whom the householder essentially managed. The Sakya clan of which the Buddha was a member contrary to popular myth did not have a king but was ruled by a council of elders (gana-sangha), so the Buddha was not actually a prince but it is likely he was the son of the leader of the elders ... its a moot point really because he would have been a member of the super rich of his day. The modern idea of someone with a job and family also having the time and luxury to practice dharma did not exist. Though there have in later history been many notable masters who were not monks (like Marpa for example) in the Buddhas day those who wished to escape the worldly duties took to the forests as sramanas. Which is what the Buddha did. The Buddha realised that it was impossible for him to achieve enlightenment while locked into the daily duties and responsibilities of being a householder. And he later created the role of monk to give people a way to do this as well. This becomes a kind of meme for the whole first turning of the wheel that is renouncing the eight worldly dharmas of fame and so on. The moral question of leaving a wife a child is a difficult one. But I think it has to be seen in the context of the social order of his day and also that coming from a very wealthy family they would be well cared for ... he was not leaving them to starve for instance. Renunciation of the world is not so much a matter of walking away as letting go attachment so I don't think it is in any way necessary to follow the Buddha in the sense of replicating his life. In fact the details of the buddha's life are not as important as the dharma ... to think they are is a kind of interference from Christianity where the life of Jesus is paramount. As long a dharma is effective it doesn't even matter if the Buddha turned out to be a myth (in some sense).

Watched this film and there was not much to it really. So it'll probably get Oscars. It left me feeling desperately sorry for anyone who was killed or maimed in that conflict. Disgusting waste. But that was not the film's purpose as it seemed just to want to celebrate the strong silent type (Mr. Eastwood himself probably).

Stars in my pocket like grains of sand.

... if so we need guns

Look more closely the word dukkha translated as suffering. While it does include pain and discomfort it also means 'unsatisfactory' in the sense that samsara is not the answer. Perceptions tend to emphasise duality as in the perceiver and the perceived. Formations are a bit like habitual thought patterns which are dependent on ignorance, so they reinforce basic ignorance which is essentially not seeing things as they really are. The cause of suffering is grasping/thirst (trsna) which is one of the 12 steps of dependent arising which are ultimately produced by ignorance. The other way of looking at it is that suffering (dukkha) arises when a sense of self, or selfhood is attributed to what are ephemeral and empty phenomena. The idea of self adheres to the experience of the five skandhas and it is this mistaken attribution of selfhood which causes us to grasp at things, become attached and generate states of being, births and olde age and death = dukkha.

Icelanders will soon be able to publicly worship at a shrine to Thor, Odin and Frigg with construction starting this month on the island’s first major temple to the Norse gods since the Viking age. Worship of the gods in Scandinavia gave way to Christianity around 1,000 years ago but a modern version of Norse paganism has been gaining popularity in Iceland. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/02/iceland-temple-norse-gods-1000-years .... amazing!!!

I'm glad to see a serious discussion of Norse Mythology taking place.

Congrats!

The very fact that you are asking the question 'should I go Buddhist' suggests that you shouldn't. You should follow your heart and wait until a sincere wish arises within you, a definite pull which you will recognise. Until then study whatever interests you. Adopting an outer form of something is a waste of time. But even if you do decide to practice Buddhism there is nothing to stop you having an interest in other systems provided you don't confuse yourself by attempting to amalgamate them all in your own mind.

Thanks I've ordered that book.

The Vedas and the language Sanskrit as cultural artifacts must have a definable age and thus date ... they can't be eternal. You could argue the truths embedded are eternal buts that's a different thing.

Ok well can you tell me more about them?

I was not intending to open up old sores about the Out of India vs. AMT ... I am interested in who knows about Vedic religion in the period immediately pre-Buddha.

Ive hownd my interlecked, Ime 'king brilyant.

You're a banana !?!