Apech

@cueball Thanks for your contribution. syzygy is a great word indeed I have little to add to what you and jeff have said except that clearly it echoes the Emerald Tablet 'as above so below' and so on.

Someone's dropped the 'Mens' toilets sign in the gutter and is looking for it with a torch? ... sorry ... really I like the pic.

The ultimate nature of the mind which is the inseparability of emptiness and luminosity can be understood as having certain aspects which are embodied in yidams. For instance compassion in Chenrezig, purity in Vajra-Sattva and so on. By practicing with a sadhana on the chosen 'deity' it is possible to promote these aspects of mind in yourself. Essentially you are working with the non-dual nature of your mind and the yidam. From a personal perspective I would say that working with a yidam can boost you (if that's the right way to put it) beyond where you would get to without it ... because there is (in other practice) a tendency to think you are doing something in meditation and thus a kind of sub-conscious limitation to what you feel is possible, available and does not conflict with your preconception about what you think you are doing. By relying on a yidam you can go beyond that provided you can build confidence in the sadhana. The main part in building confidence is having confidence in the teacher you gives you the initiation to do the practice ... which goes back to the previous 'discussion' about Lamas. The reason this is stressed is not about hero worshiping a Lama or indeed concentrating on their personality but, I feel, more about creating the right conditions for transmission to work effectively. Confidence in a teacher should be built over years and can include respectful challenge. This leads if successful to a genuine openness between teacher and student which allows effective vajrayana to happen in that space. Of course it is ridiculous to ask people to falsely adopt this position and it would be both ineffective and damaging to all concerned. If you come across a situation where you feel forced into this kind of thing - walk away immediately - or at least have a look at those who spin this kind of thing - very often it is their own poor practice or attitude which makes them want to persuade others into a contrived way of being. My thoughts only of course.

*** Steward message *** Hi, we started off quite well with this but it seems to have turned into a dialogue between me and Jeff. Do people want to carry on? It would be good if those who are interested could reflect on the current verse and then post their thoughts - doesn't matter if they are a bit random as long as they are about the chosen verse. Please feel free to contribute along those lines if you want to carry on with this thread. Thanks, Apech. **** Steward out ****

Thanks to everyone who modded. Mal !!!!!!!! you crazy fool ... you escaped the dungeon once only to rush back in!!!!!! Seriously kudos for doing this and good luck.

I agree ... it also reminded me of something from yoga (I think) about being infinitely small and big at the same time.

Thank you Decibelle ... interesting read. I think there may be a problem generally when people say 'all in the mind' because they don't know what they mean by mind or 'Mind'. In Sanskrit there are several candidates like manas and citta ... but in the west by mind I think we mean the rational, thinking bit of us ... so 'all in the mind' means subjective, imaginary, unreal ... not sure what the answer is ...

Can I place an order for a thread pitting in say 2.5 pages time ...???

Good point ... care to join in ...

Please read my posts before answering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

the doctrine of the immaculate conception is that the parents of Mary conceived her without lust or sin. It was a perfect act of love making .. which is why she was a fitting vehicle for the virgin birth. But it was still 'normal' sexual reproduction.

Is there any chance that we can have an objective, rational and respectful debate? Otherwise the Pit looms.

That is a total mischaracterisation of what I or anyone has said. It is a very difficult and probably almost impossible decision to make ... the question is who is entitled to make it, that's all.

Not sure I follow your argument about rape there to be honest. You might be right that decisions to abort are selfish. But so are decisions that you make everyday of your life - so I don't see why this is significant. The point for me is this ... we can all have our own beliefs and perspectives but at what point odes it become ok to impose those on others - to tell a woman for instance who has become pregnant through rape that if she wants to abort a) she is being selfish and b ) that she can't do it because she has to follow the social, religious and legal edicts of others.? Is that really better than having her decide for her own reasons and circumstances?

Sure its a difficult topic. For what its worth my thoughts are that as with any issue you cannot make a moral absolute out of it. However what you do have accept is that (or so I believe) the person starts at conception so abortion is killing a sentient being. But sentient beings are killed every moment of the day in order that life goes on ... so 'thou shalt not kill' is a ridiculous formulation. I prefer the idea of striving to do no harm which implies not killing needlessly. In any case I don't suppose anyone considers abortion to be good or necessary. And I would be against a kind of negligent and careless attitude towards it ... but I don't think the pro-choice is this at all. I think that most pro-choice people would say avoid abortion if you possibly can. So the argument cannot be framed as anti or pro abortion. It can only be about who is to decide. The potential mother, society, religious authority ... who? And in the end I think that the choice must be with the potential mother. Since we are urged to be moral beings then we have to make moral choices. If there were a legal prohibition then the mother would have no such ability (save maybe going to a back street clinic). I am against anything which forces us to give up our moral responsibilities ... so I am pro-choice.

Coward.

Did you mean to post this in Hermetic & Occult ... it seems more like General Discussion? And I would like to move it there. NB. There is no spirit-soul in Buddhism.

We all are but we just forgot

Could you provide a reference/citation for this quote?

I think an article has to be a piece of original writing ... I think that's what it says on the index page. Links to videos or websites and long quotes would not cut it and would be moved to general dis or where ever ...

To me its the alpha and omega thing. If I can put it that way. An origin is only an origin when it has produced something (like a person is not a father till they have a child ... and a child is not a child without parents). So if you see God as Father then it is like this ... before creation God is not Father but just what 'is'. So He is Alpha and omega ... the beginning and the end (and the in between as well though this does not often get mentioned). So from our perspective as created entities we look forward to the 'end' which is some kind of conclusion or summing up maybe, and backward to the beginning to the source or origin. But this is only our perspective as 'time bound' beings. In eternity it is kind of all-together ... the beginning middle and end ... so if you see the end you also see the beginning.