3bob

What the hell is all this complex stuff (?) considering Truth is so simple, simple beyond any power of mind to know or imagine.

...and paying all your bills, expected and unexpected during retirement.

all of it...

one drinks a real beer now while the illusion of a beer in the future will never reach the mouth. (edit: besides the emptiness of holes in Swiss cheese make it useful)

up to a point we're all "materialists" until such spelling changes to "mystery"

I'd agree up to a point but then I'd go further in saying that the "Tao" is not the abyss like "vanity of vanities" of not seeing or knowing its own essence. (thus there is more to seeing and knowing which is beyond only the ways and processes of its own manifestations or aspects) "How do I know the ways of all things at Beginning? By what is within me." T.C.C.,Chapter 21. From the John Wu translation - a translation which like all the others is of secondary importance if one has the first hand experience of what such words point to. ...thus by discovery of the Tao-essence "by what is within me", which is more than just the super-mental and also important seeing and knowing of ways and aspects that are BORN and can be named starting with the One, the deeper seer's and or fortunate nobody's sees and knows essence beyond only mental seeing and knowing. The great discovery or eureka is right under our big noses, it is the inscrutable and indestructibly free, "Wonder of Wonders" that various well studied and famous Sages have been alluding to and also the unrecognized and unsung hero's have been singing of for thousands of years... Om Tat Sat

...along with the meaning that madness of various forms (some well hidden, some pretty or ugly, some smart or not so smart, some religious or nihilistic, etc..) is not our or the truest reality that is alluded to in Chapter 21 of the T.T.C..

, A strong point MH, I'd say relative heaven and hell exist in the mind (so to speak) and we can find both somewhere in it, thus being dualistic mind will never be able to give us complete unity, joy and rest in Truth beyond opposites, and if one tries to extract or force such from the mind it may or can give tormented madness.

Dribbling terms around : mind is the thing or all things, and if an apparent individual part of that thing or tool is not being used and thus resting or set down then that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Further, without there being a connection between no-thing and thing, thing wouldn't exist but since such a connection is unbreakable, inherent and part of the transformation - as in the T.T.C., chapter one - it then becomes clear that there really is no dichotomy between the Mystery that Tao may seem to be and the "Ten thousand" things that may seem so concrete... not unlike using an analogy of the seeming mystery of a magnetic field that is coupled to and transformed through an electrical transformer resulting in amperage and voltage coming out the other side via wired connections. Also the individual electrons (or beings) on this side of such a transformer have a hard time knowing how they got from a unified magnetic field on the other side, especially since they can't really remain as only an individual and and seemingly independent electron if they RETURN to such a field which they never really left and yet can't exist without at the same time.

No to the question

Holy cow thelerner, you just pooped all over my party

I've quoted part of what I hear as an insightful text that I came across below; I think it relates to some of the problems in interpreting and understanding Buddhism; btw I'm not a Buddhist but I can appreciate parts of its teachings. (highlight and underline below by me) ------------------ "....The First Noble Truth is not a dismal metaphysical statement saying that everything is suffering. Notice that there is a difference between a metaphysical doctrine in which you are making a statement about The Absolute and a Noble Truth which is a reflection. A Noble Truth is a truth to reflect upon; it is not an absolute; it is not The Absolute. This is where Western people get very confused because they interpret this Noble Truth as a kind of metaphysical truth of Buddhism - but it was never meant to be that. You can see that the First Noble Truth is not an absolute statement because of the Fourth Noble Truth, which is the way of non-suffering. You cannot have absolute suffering and then have a way out of it, can you? That doesn’t make sense. Yet some people will pick up on the First Noble Truth and say that the Buddha taught that everything is suffering..." ----------------- Thus my pov about the Tibetan wheel of life where it shows a Buddha (or Buddha nature) in each of the realms - is that the Buddha (or Buddha nature) is not suffering there-in because of non-attachment through wisdom and compassion to such realms. Further then, escape 'so to speak' is really to Buddha nature and thus not necessarily or only outside the Wheel per-se, although outside of it's various states of conditioning.

I don't know but would it cause a flat-belly, I could use one.

lighten up man, this is not court or a cross-examination

sounds cool !

sounds like cough medicine with a little alcohol in it could do your friend in?

Which brands of beer are closest to organic thus and also not using gmo ingredients, along with no unhealthy or artificial additives or preservatives? (btw, me thinks quality root beer is great)

never mind guy, your projections are (still) your own.

If a horse will drink beer I imagine a bear would to although I'm not going to hold up a glass for a grizzly to find out.

What that means for near beer I'm not sure?

I don't know jack about Dzogchen (as in its school particulars) and unless there is some compelling reason to make further comparative speculations that amount to more than a hill of beans I don't have much interest.

Quoted from Vamadeva's website: (link below) "...Ramana, though he emphasized Self-inquiry, never rejected the value of other yogic practices. He commonly extolled such practices as chanting the name of God, chanting Om and doing pranayama. He had regular Vedic chanting and pujas done at the ashram which continue today. This traditional Advaitic view of different levels practice should not be confused with an approach that rejects all practices as useless. In this regard we can contrast traditional Advaita Vedanta, which Ramana followed, and the teachings of J. Krishnamurti, which is often the source of neo-Advaita’s rejection of support practices..." http://vedanet.com/2012/06/13/misconceptions-about-advaita/

never mind guy, your projections are your own.

no big biggy, but why you even came up with idea of "if" I don't know?