Apech

You could also just intellectually decide that nothing really exists and therefore it doesn't matter what you do and so on ... that would be nihilism too.

I haven't read that maybe I'll look it up, so thanks for the referemce. I suppose you could say that the way the ego dies is by realising that it doesn't exist in the first place.

The idea 'I have no self' could be said to be nihilist (or annihilist) as in 'nothing exists so nothing matters I think I'll just get drunk everyday and think about how crap it is that nothing is real' ... or some such ... if people hate life, hate themselves and so on and get depressed about the whole thing then they are actually attached to this view. Buddhism (usually Madhyamika although the quote is from a Theravaden so ...) keep a 'middle way' between nihilism on the one hand and eternalism on the other. So it doesn't fall into the trap of that negative view but on the other hand logic of its analysis says that nothing, not just us, but no-thing has a self. God! I feel like Vaj! Ask me about dependent origination ... go on please!

Nope.

Sometimes my jaw drops but ... never mind.

Everyone has limited mod privs on their ppfs ... you do viator I just checked. You need to look around ... you can delete posts by others for example.

Oi! Shut up down there!!!!! *deep voice echoes slightly resulting in earth tremor*

I recently watched on youtube a BBC programme which included the idea that Jesus went to Kashmir during the lost years when he was 14 - 29 (about which nothing is written) ... I found it quite convincing because the ethical stance and approach of Mahayana Buddhism and Christianity are almost identical (I think). So I have no problem at all with relating the two paths in many ways. Where I get a bit stuck is when you look at the Buddhist view of emptiness and having no God=Supreme Being ... while Jesus taught God= Father=Love ... so quite a big difference there. BUT I think the difference mainly affects the path and not the result. Also I feel that the distinction is Christianity vs. Buddhism and not so much Buddha vs. Christ. I suspect that if you tried to mix the two paths then you might get confused ... but I have no real leaning towards Christianity (although some feeling for Jesus the man). In the end I am a pragmatist ... does it work? is the only test I would apply. Each to his own.

I've always stayed clear of the New Kadampa ... not because of Dorje Shugden but because I was told they had quotas for new recruits ... which makes them kind fo evangelical. Anyway your interest in nuns of all kinds does you credit ... especially those that need 'something hot inside them' ... maybe I've watched too many Ken Russel films

@Marblehead So tempting to get into the 'when is a tree not a tree' discussion ... but I am holding myself back. .... no I am ...

The test of whether any teaching is dharma or not is the Four Seals i.e. 1. Composite phenomena temporary 2. Phenomena contaminated by self are the cause of suffering 3. Unelaborated phenomena are empty 4. Nirvana is peace if it teaches these its Dharma if it doesn't it isn't. I don't recognise any of this in the 'sermon on the mount'.

It remains the case that even if you practice Guru Yoga as a Buddhist or follow Christ then any appeal to give up your individuality is a distortion. To put it in Buddhist terms your individuality is at its core your Buddha-nature and any prostrating before a guru is simply on the basis that this other being will help you reveal to yourself the true nature of your being. So if you find yourself on a path which seems to make you into a clone or makes you feel even more bad about yourself than when you started out you should question what you are doing and what you are being taught. In fact this is not an option you have to do this if you want to make progress on any path (IMO!),

At the risk of becoming the new Vaj ... Buddhism is based on finding out how to be happy ... or as they would say happiness and the causes of happiness ... it is totally life affirming ... just thought I'd make that point ... i.e. don't listen to dodgy western buddhist teachers cos they ain't got it. The self exists in a conventional sense ... it is just that from an ultimate point of view the self and everything else has no independent existence. So ...

A majority can never replace the individual. ... Just as a hundred fools do not make one wise man, a heroic decision is not likely to come from a hundred cowards. [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf," 1933] ... er .... well a wise word can come from a genocidal maniac ... ok?

That of course is a misrepresentation of Buddhist teaching on karma and goes against the attitude which can be engendered by thinking about karma ....

Were we discussing what silly meant. Oh yes ... well ... *** Moderator Message *** All winiepooh_ank posts are subject to moderator approval for the time being. ***Mod message ends*** ZZZZzzzz

I'm sure there's a few in Brum ... sorry East Midlands ....

Yes he wasn't really giving a reasoned analysis but just stating his point of view in a typical take it or leave style. Blake was an interesting man ... a great engraver and artist no doubt ... a poet who has stood the test of time over and above his contemporaries ... a natural mystic who saw angels in trees and creation in sunrises ... but he was somewhat flawed as a person and fell out with people on a regular basis and had a bad temper. But he had some gems ... e.g. one of my favourites:

Ah lucky you!

Hi, This is not a thread I would normally read but I am duty bound as a moderator to do so. So having trawled through the last few pages of pure drek (is that how you spell it?) here I am. The question as to whether you feel offended by someone else's posts is NOT a moderation issue. The test is did the other person attack you (i.e. you the person and not the ideas you expressed) with insulting language. Cat and SB do what they do as part of the mod team and we are one on this. So drop it. You have been advised to use the ignore function ... that is up to you of course. Hijacking/trolling a thread is a mod issue. If you divert a thread away from the main or subsidiary topics into personalised issues we will take action. Keep this in mind. A.

I used my powers to make you start this topic. Aha ... see ... aha ... !!!

I agree ... good topic. I think the idea of no-self or that the self is just a composite formed from different causes and conditions confuses a lot of people into thinking that its about suppressing individuality. For instance if you look at a lot of western Buddhists they seem to go for this kind of wimpy mysticism ... but if you look at the history of Buddhism you see a lot of enormously strong characters with larger than life personalities ... so how does that work? The truth is that the no-self/self thing is a paradox in that you do have a self and yet you don't both at the same time ... and if you work with eastern ideas properly although you loosen the ties of ego you actually free up your ability to dynamically expres yourself as a person. Not as a self obsessed introspecting egotist but as a powerfully expressive individual. As to the bowing ... this is just the process of loosening up ... not as an act in public but with yourself to yourself ... Just my thoughts of course

Ah but to quote a philosopher ... the unexamined life is not worth living. You must admit that its great fun to talk about what it all means (life that is) even if we have little hope of really understanding. Food for the body and food for the mind ... makes a Taobum healthy, wealthy and wise ....