Apech

this is what it is eh? so what is this that is? this you fool, just this!

below tons of earth the hard rocks are trembling their strength is nothing.

O! Shining Big-Sea Waters! Odd people speaking in tongues What does it all mean?

Hi Karen, Thanks for that video link. I think what it is demonstrating is that improvements in public health measures, sanitation, good water and food and other aspects like housing - and especially education improve general health irrespective of vaccination. I think you see this same kind of approach in Africa for instance where drug companies prefer to say, dose rivers with copper sulphate to prevent schistosomiasis (sp?) rather than improve sanitation, water supplies and sewage - because that would mean building infrastructure and educating people - rather than just injecting them. I am not against vaccination per se - I just want to be told the truth. I understand fears about polio and so on because I come from a generation when there were kids in school who were disabled through that disease and it is especially frightening for parents. I think it is one thing to make a decision for yourself but another to make a decision for your children - but everyone has to make the best call they can. A.

for enlightenment hit your head repeatedly until you see stars

Just read "The Guardian" (supposedly serious UK newspaper) on swine flu and it is completely descriptive - in other words there is no analysis - except when they come to the statistics about predicted number of cases and death rates (these are based on previous flu epidemics) and project on assumptions which could vary easily by a factor of three or more. When swine flu first came to light we were told it was something to do with Mexicans and pig farms. We were shown pits with pig carcasses in on TV and people walking around with masks on. Then it spread to US and Europe at high speed. The first people were hospitalized but now they don't bother. They are handing out Tamiflu to anyone with flu like symptoms and also finding that people with underlying health conditions can die (or rather they die of 'something' and are then found to be carrying H1N1). I have never known anti-virals used like this before. The way in which it has spread doesn't make any sense and I would suggest that H1N1 has been present in the population for a long time and that the publicity from Mexico caused anyone with a bad cold or flu to report in (rather than just rest up for a few days as they normally would have). This looks on the surface like a rapid global spread. I doubt for instance that it started in Mexico anyway - but I have no confidence that those who should be looking at this actually are doing so. I would like to see a proper study of the actual disease that people are reporting, how does it start? how long does it last? what are the actual symptoms that distinguish it from seasonal flu, why is it hitting young people more - and so on - this would be quite interesting ... instead we get this vagueness coupled with 'public health' messages. I quite accept that it may be too early for the scientists and recall the early AIDS documentaries which concentrated on gay people and Haitians (wrongly) - but there isn't even that kind of questioning going on.

If he is not clean, then offer him a shower?

Hi Scotty, For me its not about trust - I don't know what its like in the US but here in the UK the government and the media like to promote public health issues in a particular way. Same for terrorism, climate change and even the economy. We are given a certain line and then its pushed until we are made to feel nervous enough to comply with whatever regulations they might want to bring in. What I like about David Icke (although I think he's a bit crazy on the lizard thing to be honest) is that he is prepared to give a strong alternate view in the face of huge pressure to conform to the official view. I find this helpful because it gives me a chance to balance up my own view. My basic position is though, to make up my own mind - with a leaning to the maverick view!

Hi Karen, Swine flu hysteria seems to be well set in in the UK. At an organisation I am involved with three people have phoned in with (undiagnosed) swine flu already (out of about 200). Every day in the media there is a new story of people dieing (followed by someone on authority telling us not to panic - after they have made us panic first of course). Although David Icke has some strange ideas I like the way he speaks out on contracersial issues. Thanks for the link - hope all is well with you. A.

What do you think? Would you take the vaccine?

magical faces and supernatural backsides we are strange people.

i am immortal! screamed the vampire in his box he forgot the stake.

as if i'm a god you're too divine, already! or so people say.

Samsara is the cyclical world of suffering produced by the mind which clings to the objects of perception in a constant round of desire, ignorance and anger. As such it is a distorted, confused view which ends with the realization of nirvana - so it does end with Buddhahood. In saying it never ends you are making it sound as if it is a valid reality while it is actually a mistaken view. Time and samsara are called beginningless because there is no creation in the sense of origin. If they are not created they cannot be said to have an origin or causal connection to anything. There cannot be said to be a time when they first arose, because they only seem to exist while the mind is confused. Buddhas may deal with beings who still have samsaric minds in a way which seems to acknowledge that samsara and suffering is real, but as they are actually free from these conditions this is only an expression of compassion to help them.

to eat my mentos my serpent brain tells my tongue lick, lick, lick, lick, lick.

According to Buddhism in as much as the earth is here anyway, it was always here. Samsara is 'beginingless' but has an end in nirvana. The mind having fallen into identification with Samsaric existence has forgotten its origin and so looses connection with pre-birth experience.

strong, shrewd, serpentine - try this apple it is sweet irresistible.

Josh, Thank you for this reply. I will think about what you have said. A.

Hi Josh, Thanks for the answer with quotes above - your ideas are very interesting. I still have a problem though with matching up the idea of 'the immortal place' and the mind approaching the eternal - without this meaning that death (as with birth) being a temporal and illusory event which the mind can go beyond. Given especially that 'immortal' means not subject to death and eternal means beyond time. Perhaps if you have time you could explain what you believe happens when you die. BTW when I said that this did not seem to be any form of Buddhism that I knew of, I simply meant that I am not aware of anyone teaching Buddhism without rebirth. I realise that there are Western Soto Zen practitioners who say this - but I have been unable to locate a full explanation of their position. Many schools of Buddhism while accepting rebirth do not dwell on it as important - save as a spur to dharma - I think the Tibetan Tulku tradition has made this confusing for some as it seems to offer a way for the personality to persist (even though technically this is not the case). Cheers. A.

If death is the cessation of activity of the body - and then at this point there is no 'afterlife' - no continuation of consciousness in any sense, then the consciousness is dependent on the body and this is nihilistic materialism. Equally if one were enlightened and this was the same, in other words one's enlightenment is extinguished because the physical body ceases to function then also that enlightenment is dependent on a functioning body. As such it is some kind of body state. This may be what you believe (and obviously that is your right) but it is not any form of Buddhism as far as I can see. If I have misunderstood forgive me - but that's how I see it.

I am struggling to understand how a Buddhist could not believe in rebirth. It goes hand in hand with karma and the begininglessness of samsara and more importantly the continuity of consciousness. I think some of the arguments against are about reincarnation which is the Hindu concept. If you practice Soto Zen that makes you citta-matra (yes/no) and so on death there is a continuity of consciousness (?). Could someone explain the alternate view. Thnks. A.

"The word "heresy" comes from the Greek αἵρεσις, hairesis (from αἱρέομαι, haireomai, "choose"), which means either a choice of beliefs or a faction of believers, or a school of thought. It was given wide currency by Irenaeus in his tract Contra Haereses (Against Heresies) to describe and discredit his opponents in the early Christian Church. He described his own position as orthodox (from ortho- "straight" + doxa "belief") and his position eventually evolved into the position of the early Christian Church. Used in this way, the term "heresy" has no purely objective meaning: the category exists only from the point of view of speakers within a group that has previously agreed about what counts as "orthodox"." (from Wikipedia) It is the business of orthodox churches be they Roman, Eastern or Protestant to identify certain ideas as heresy in order to outlaw them. This is part of the argument of exclusivity. It captures certain ideas and brands them as acceptable and others as not. Ideas then may be used to control the 'flock' in order to maintain power and to direct activity. For instance the Crusades were based on an 'us and them' view which tried to eliminate all alternative views be they Muslim, Jewish or even other Christians. Christian Mysticism on the other hand is inclusive (borrowed heavily from Classical and Arabic thought) and a genuine attempt to understand and to work spiritually towards transcendent understanding and enlightenment. Mysticism is generally persecuted by orthodox churches and suppressed.

A lot of the issues which people are pointing out here and debating are about the exclusivity or otherwise of teachings. Buddhism can appear quite laid back and easy going from the outside, which I suppose it is in a way as it is a very well meaning path, but once one is initiated into practices like vajrayana you begin to see that it is as exclusive as any religion, as it believes that it is the one way to enlightenment. People practising a particular path or school or tradition also feel protective when it comes under assault from our world, which is one of the reasons to keep certain practises secret. It is a general pattern to allow free discussion of things like rebirth and karma in beginner groups but to close down on debate once people move on to more advanced practise. Buddhist do believe in the existence of gods but that they are not beings worthy of refuge. They are seen as earthly powers or part of the cycle of samsara and suffer from the fault of pride. This is the reason that vajrayana yidams may be seen attacking hindu gods such as vishnu or indra because the yidam is destroying the attachment of pride. The problem is that historically this has been understood as meaning that one should hate the Hindu gods and presumably Hindus themselves. This being yet another example of how misunderstood symbolism may confuse people into harmful acts. The same can be seen when Jews, Christians and Muslims set about one another each in the name of the one true God, conveniently forgetting that for the religions of the Book it is the same God! When Jesus says that only through him can one come to the Kingdom of Heaven, the priest manipulators like to take this as a statement of exclusivity. While actually if you understand this statement to be about the Christ's nature as the Word made flesh i.e. the Logos and you understand the Logos to be the formal aspect or structure of reality (of which the Father is the power and the Holy Spirit the flow of energy between them) then what Jesus means is that through knowing the Logos you will know God... you will achieve union with the absolute. Is this any different to saying that the Lord Buddha's mind, the dharma-kaya is identical to ultimate reality? No not really. However if you tried to mix Christian Mysticism and Buddhism you would get very confused because there are specific and important differences in the view adopted at all stages except the highest. At the highest view all teachings are one. They have to be because reality is real. So I think the people at e-sangha are right to try to protect their teachings from descending into a kind of New Age mish mash which ends up benefiting no one, but on the other hand we should avoid the historical mistakes and confusions between religions which have produced suffering and war through the ages.

multidimensions looks like a black hole to me lets go back in time (just seen Star Trek movie )

up new molecules atoms in covalent bonds cohabitation.