Josh Young

Taking things out of context as you do, I can see how you would think that this is what they are saying. It is easy to take a single passage and try to say it stands alone and then create a conceptual conflict. However in the context of their entirety what you say is there, simply is not there. The problem is in the concept of causation, in the Hindu works there is no real cause, just cause in relation to things. In this manner cause and effect and dependent upon each other and not actually separate. This is also the same as the action=reaction paradigm where action and reaction are inseparable. My studies indicate the teachings of Buddha are a refined version of the truth of Veda, it is as if Buddha saw the truth and saw how people get caught up on symbols and so presented the veda in a manner less likely to result in idolatrous understandings. I suggest reading the Brihadaranyaka upanishad. There you can find what appears to the layperson as conflicting statements of paradox. In it you can find the same concepts as found in many teachings of Buddha, mixed with some teachings that are not in the teachings of Buddha. The structure and concepts are however very close to the Diamond Sutra and the Dhammapada. Where we err the most is when we presume to speak for words that speak for themselves. Letting the teachings speak for themselves and offering comment is far more productive than claiming to know what the teachings are without using the actual teachings. Lots of religions use this approach, it is the "if you don't understand that I am right then there is something wrong with you" approach, it really reflects upon the level of understanding of those who utter it. You see, when people do not have the truth, they look to peers to justify their beliefs. So because they have no test of truth, they justify their belief with consensus, if they can get others to agree then they must be right eh? Well, not really but this is still how it works with most religions. Since they do not know the spirit they seek justification in peer form and assume that those who do not share the view must be flawed. This is vanity in action, the concept being that those who share the same belief are better than those who do not, or are more accomplished or have better Karma. For those who see this as it is, it is one of the most disgusting facets of human behavior for it is mob mentality and little else. Basically you are saying that you are right and if we don't say you are right then we have bad karma or must have some poor level of understanding. However that you would use such words and arguments clearly demonstrates a lack of spiritual understanding. You insult and berate those who do not agree with you and tell other people to lighten up. You however have underestimated the ability of people to see through this facade. I am sorry this is how you think people share belief with each other, it harms your cause more than anything. If you truly had the understanding you claim then you would not write what you do. But you are not the only person to do this here in this thread. Lots of people want to claim that if someone does not agree then there is some flaw present or that the other person needs more study. However for some people this type of behavior is transparent. They see right through it. There are those, who know the limitations of terms, and thus when a term is presented in context, they will not argue term verses term because they are aware of how distinctions break down. In this thread many argue terms verses terms, when Tao, Buddhism and Veda all teach that terms are merely limited symbols that cannot be absolute. Since I am perhaps the most foolish person here I cannot say I know the truth. I have only my delusion. Still I can see that these arguments of " if you do not agree with me then you are flawed" are a lot like" if you cannot see the emperors new clothes then you are flawed".

Environment and intention are key though, both internally and externally I feel. I am very much in agreement with you here. I know it is possible to have intention and environment negatively influence what would have otherwise been highly productive. It is the government propaganda that tells us that pot and crack and peyote and heroin and meth are all in the same group. Yet if you consider the impact of things, if you take any one of these aforementioned illegal drugs and spend a night intoxicated on them, you will not end up as harmed as if you did the same thing for a single night with alcohol. That is to say that the legal drug of alcohol is more harmful than most of the illegal drugs. Clearly the laws are not concerned with harm reduction. And I know of benefits from peyote and ay'huasca that lead me to believe that some illegal drugs are capable of enriching peoples lives with lasting effects from a single experience. For example both of these substances have been shown to be effective at treating alcoholism in at least some cases and contexts. That is not to say I think drugs are something people should do in general. Still I am using drugs right now; I am drinking yerba mate, a caffeine and theobromine containing beverage from South America. I am also on an antibiotic for treating a tooth infection. If there is one drug ethic I oppose it is the one where people seek to get "*&%@ed up" Impairing judgment and coordination rarely if ever yields personal benefits. For me this is the definition of intoxication and it can be had even without drugs. Many things can intoxicate, music and television, power,conviction to belief, the unrestrained ramblings of an untrained mind, etc.

Them not being equivalent is merely your opinion. I have the opposite one. Can you explain why they are not equivalent?

I already have. just as a picture is drawn by an artist, surroundings are created by the activities of the mind.... there is nothing in the world that is not mind-created... if we learn that there is no world of delusion outside the mind, the bewildered mind becomes clear; and because we cease to create impure surroundings, we attain enlightenment... Mikaelz, why are you so bitter and hateful?

Now this is more like it! Ok that is from your quote and here is the Buddha: or if that translation does not suit you: Or from another book: And more from your quote Well, you asked me the following: Yep. so please tell me, how does this at all resemble the Dharma of the Buddha? Yep. so please tell me, how does this at all not resemble the Dharma of the Buddha? Insult what you will, you do not know me or how open or closed my mind is. We can play your childish game of "my religion can beat up yor religion" or actually consider things and have a real discussion.

It simply did not apply. Nor did I care to attack it as is the normal method people use in this forum. You are not interested in my thoughts on it, so why share them? Please forgive me, but I will let the works speak for themselves. Your exegeses means little to me. Think of the example set here. People disagree and insult each others understandings. The spiritual level of the participants of the thread is all too apparent.

Why are people conflating drugs with intoxicants? For those who say drugs are bad, look into the long term studies of Ayahuasca and peyote. I would classify neither of these as intoxicants. They have been shown to be safe and health promoting in specific studies. People who used them regularly in a spiritual setting (NAC and UDV) scored happier, healthier and smarter than average. Many of them reported being free of mental illness that they used to have. The idea drugs are bad is as ignorant as the idea that drugs are good. Cannabis is not considered an intoxicant by many. There is a tradition that buddha ate the plant, not hash, but a single leaf or seed a day, depending on the version. I doubt very much a form of intoxication was involved. Even in vedic traditions where intoxication is considered vile, there is a tradition of use of psychoactives among some groups. Having an experience is not the same as being "messed up" Depending upon a drug for your spirituality... ok that is a bankrupt method for sure. However drug like states can be had without drugs, meditation is a common way to achieve many of the same experiences that can be had with drugs, only with meditation it is better, but even that can be abused and can harm a person when and if they start to delude themselves.

I practice mudras. They are good. there are many sides to them. You can use a vajra with many of them. Why hide behind a fake name at all? I think the pot likes to call the kettle black.

Practice every day. Train the mind, the body and the spirit. Nobody can learn a good martial science from video or book, they will be missing the vital elements of transmission and feeling.

I own a few translations of the Upanishads I've read them sure. I find that people make up things about them to be able to argue that they are wearing the right funny hat. It is a sort of "my religion can beat up your religion" game that a few here are playing. Like they are 7 again and on the playground. Let the works speak for themselves.

Shankara is not the veda. There can be no go between for truth, no person can lead another to it. There is in effect no spokesperson. Many people in hindu religions cannot see past the symbolism of the deities and do not arrive. However this does not mean that the truth is not there. It is for those who can see it, as it has always been and shall ever be in now. Much in the same way that Shankara is not veda, Buddhism is not the teaching of Buddha, but is instead a dogmatic system that evolved over time from his teachings and various interpretations of them. The same can be said for Tao, for Tao is not Taoism.

according to you. The Veda speaks for itself much better than you speak for it. Perhaps it is you who does not understand the question? It is an oversimplification. If it( the cosmos) exists and is without property, then dual to it existing is it not existing. This is as the veda says. So according to veda if it does exist inherently then it does not, and the reverse is also true This is why it is called Maya, the illusion.

There is no real difference between food, drugs and medicine. Drugs are neither good nor bad, but are a tool. It is easy to depend on them, to abuse them, or to use them in a constructive manner. However with any drug, medicine or food the active ingredient is the person. Nobody can guarantee a drug will or will not work, much less benefit or fail to benefit a person. I see that pot was in the title description of the thread. I can say that smoking cannabis was not known to Buddha, though there was a hashish eating tradition. Smoking was virtually unknown in the old world. Too many pot smokers try to justify their habits by claiming they are participating in an age old tradition. I am in favor of legalization of all drugs, but think we need much higher educational standards at the same time.

Fire, you are correct endless people forsake what is right there now, out of desire for something that isn't. They do this over and over, and then they die. Their concepts and goal vary, but they all look to attain, achieve, gain or reach, thus they cannot grasp what they have. Booze, information/knowledge, appearances, ease of suffering, enlightenment, money, women, salvation, immortality, blood lust, pleasure... in the end they are all the same. But what is futility?

From my own point of view the question has 2 primary flaws. First is linear time, something I don't believe exists. The second is independent particles, again they don't exist. This difference is not one I can find. The so called vast and so called infinite consciousness is neither vast, infinite or conscious, like the veda says, it is without property or aspect. This lack of origin and aspect is the same as can be found in Tao. It can also be realized independently of any system or teaching by insight and examination. It cannot, Darwins theory states only the following: Organisms live and die and reproduce. Traits are passed on from one generation to the next, those traits that are no passed on cannot end up in the next generation. That is it, if you believe in the above you believe Darwin. Evolution can only take place over generations, no organism or entity is capable of Darwinian evolution, nor does evolution postulate the origin of life or make any claims about it. It is not a theory of the origin of life itself, just a theory of the origin of species, where in the terms of the time the book was written pertains to the inclusive definition of a specie in general, thus a difference or uniqueness, be it of a trait or of an organism is a specie or type. Darwin postulated that this origination was to be accounted for by heredity and the accountability of an organism to nature itself, ergo traits relate to function in a non-goal oriented manner.