Apech

shepherds have been there with their new state policy "Leave no sheep's behind." (sorry)

Ok maybe I was wrapping the two things together ... but I still hold the same view about the Lords Prayer ... and it is how (we are told) he taught them to pray.

I think that would be fair enough and you would not be the first to elucidate Gnostic Christianity ... but you specifically said he was a Dzogchen master and I don't see any evidence for this so far. One reason that I am reluctant to agree with you is because it is unnecessary to introduce Tibetan Buddhism into what was already a rich culture of mystical thought (the first decades and centuries AD). There were Judaic traditions, classical traditions, ancient pagan traditions and various expressions of Greek philosophy. If Jesus was part of all that then the framework for Christian mystical lineage exists without the need to import from the east.

The word 'logos' also implies creative formalising power.

I have a strong inclination to credit the idea of a Buddhist influence on Jesus, either from travellers on the silk route or by him travelling in the 'missing years'. Mainly because his ethics are very like mahayana ethics (even though I don't think the mahayana existed then in the way it does today). What is different of course is the belief in a supreme deity and so on ... which is why I quoted the Lords Prayer in a previous thread ... because it is full of things that a buddhist could not subscribe to. I also am having trouble with specifically why Jesus would teach Dzogchen as such ... I don't see why or how that could be. I am not by the way against mystical Christianity and one of my teachers years ago (now dead) was a Christian Hermeticist ... but agin I don't see what this has to do with Dzogchen.

Not really. There is Buddhist Dzogchen and Bon Dzogchen ... and is a lineage going back to India. I am not a Dzogchen practitioner or expert so maybe others on here could answer this more fully.

I have nothing against you or anything you are saying. Good luck and best wishes. A.

I have no idea what caused this reaction. And I have no idea why you think I am drowning in discrimination as you put it. I do investigate everything which is why I think about such things as whether ego is a Taoist concept or not. I am not a Taoist (although I have read a lot about it) and am interested in what practicing Taoists say about these things because I have an open mind. If I post something please do not make assumptions about my motivation for doing so.

Padmasambhava brought Buddhism to Tibet in the 8th century ... however there are earlier Indian practitioners.

Do LZ or Chuang Tzu ever mention the ego.

Good point. The path of the dharma, or its history through 2500 years shows that the simple and precise truths that it encapsulates are widely applicable through all cultures and environments. This is why I think the tendency of fundamentalism ... of trying to pare everything back to what is in the Pali Canon for instance is a mistake.

There's an old thread somewhere where we discussed the fact that the 'ego-mind' is not a Taoist concept. I think TM was involved in that discussion.

BTW I posted the above for information only.

Which also helps to illustrate that secular/atheist Buddhism is a modern confection ... I'm not saying it is without merit in the field of cognitive therapy and so on and you could say it demonstrates how flexible the dharma is that it can be adapted in so many ways to help people.

If you google around you'll probably find better versions of that book cover ... that was the first one I found as an example. Do you owe me anything? Hmmm yes your immortal soul ha ah ah aha *wicked laughter rings out*

in my underwear there lives a little pink shrew tucked beneath a bush.

really? are you sure? is this a good thing? I think your reasons are little odd to be honest.

That's very interesting ... thank you. Are you going to explain your Jesus = Dzogchen master idea?

Buddhism is full of many long and complicated (or perhaps very precise) Pali, Sanskrit and Tibetan terms. I agree that if you have understood the teaching properly you should be able to explain it in terms which people can understand easily ... and hiding behind complexity is not a good thing ... but I think that when we try to get very precise about what we are saying we do develop a specific language of terms. Its inevitable. Most philosophers begin by defining terms and quite often they use words in very specific ways which are not ordinary ways.

I agree about more effort. Simply quoting obscure sayings without commentary or explanation is not helpful.

Depends what kind of Buddhist you are ... and if you are a monk. I know plenty of Buddhist who drink ... on the condition they don't get drunk which would harm their mind.

Some of the more developed philosophies use technical terms because they are being very precise. To try to use those terms in an everyday way would be very confusing ... which is probably why people are confused. For instance saying everything is empty is using common words but the meaning is far from common but profound.

The terms are useful and point to a view of how things are which supports your practice. Out of context and not elaborated they do tend to confuse though. But its not the terms which do harm but their unintelligent application.

white, so yesterday but its the new black they say whatever it means.