3bob

to personally circumscribe or say that teachings can circumscribe that which can not be circumscribed amounts to nothing more than ego mind.

Hey Guy since you are bringing it up imo VJ has not proved a single thing about that which is beyond concepts, doctrines, sutras, etc... And not only has he not proved a single thing but neither have I nor has any one else here done so through the use of such worded methods. That's the catch, thus I have nothing to be pissed off about in relation to the projection of yours about me. Further, ime no beliefs are safe per-se, including Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc.. and why you would pin me as being belief bound and having the need to feel safe about same I have no idea? Btw, at one time or another I have touched on or shared quotes from many various beliefs so I don't think you can pin me based on those materials either; heck I haven't even been able to pin myself down very well. (besides beliefs don't make it to "Mystery" or whatever pointer for same you prefer) I can appreciate you trying to defend someone you apparently admire... Then again I suggest caution, more so on public internet sites like this one that are often a melting pot and or mixing bowl of everything and everyone from a-z. Om

"it's robotic, boring, repetitive and suffocating the forums" Well not in all cases nor does it have to be that way or only get stuck with that assesment imo. For instance I love to hear of the stories of various students, masters and saints related to Buddhism, especially Zen.

The first paragraph is about conflict of pov's and the "world", the last sentence stands regardless of conflict in pov's or the world.

Just to be clear I'm in no way against any Buddhist sects, Buddhists or related vehicles so to speak that follow the very noble "noble eight fold path" which the Buddha taught. Also to be clear I'm in no way for the destruction or discounting of such vehicles. What is "long' or "short" is just more stuff or material for humans to argue about. The Spirit works regardless... throwing the baby out with the bath water does not. Btw, there happen to be some "fourth way groups" that are seriously sick cults. Yep, Mr. G. you left a hell of a mess.

I don't care what a "Buddhism" of your version or the version of any other cultish sect "accepts" you crazy, robotically talking head. Your repeated discounting of other paths in making comparisons to a "holier than thou" account of Buddhism is deplorable and sickening... Btw big numbskull, I suggest you quit bragging about all of your holier than thou experiences going all way back to when you were just a little numbskull. go in peace

endless, repetitive, presumptive, hypnotically automatic and predictable conclusions related to mental concepts from VJ, what else is new?

"Buddhism" is very unwise to make any conclusions concerning "Hinduism" (and vice versa) Go in Peace. "...VII Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The (or this) essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, (It) is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized..." Om

Dude, I'm not that complex. But I will speak up for a fair playing field and also yield to those of a Taoist bias at what is supposed to be mainly a Taoist site. We could keep loading this place up with all sorts of non-Taoist stuff every day which btw often happens (and at times I've done such myself) but I think and feel that instances of doing so tend to be heavy handed... Anyway, that's my ideal of having a "side" while I'm here and I'll try to stick to it, if I can't then I'm outa here. (in the meantime its nice to share a few feathers with a few birds) Om

I read several places where you stated your bias and that is no biggy, the problem as I see it is trying to present and self-justify such bias under a half-baked no bias format ?!? -- All of which isn't fair to who?

How broad minded of you, Sounds like gentler and kinder self-justifications and spin doctoring for various kinds of put downs, and obviously more insidious and hypnotically persuasive than the in your face non-ego, ego trips of some the "Buddhists" who post here. Om

- borrowing from a Buddhist story which I believe illustrates that teachings and practice of universal spiritual principles are more important than beating our heads or the heads of others against a wall. "...In the ninth year after the enlightenment the Buddha was at Kaushambi, and the monk Malunkyaputra complained that the Buddha never explained whether the world is eternal or temporary, finite or infinite, or whether life and the body are the same or different, or whether arhats are beyond death or not. He even threatened to leave the community if the Buddha would not answer his questions. First the Buddha asked him if he had ever promised to explain these things; he had not. Then he told the parable of a man who was pierced by a poisoned arrow, and his relatives summoned a doctor. Suppose, he said, the physician had said that he would not remove the arrow nor treat the patient until his questions had been answered, such as who made the bow, what kind it was, all about the arrow, and so on. The man would die, and still the information would not be known. Then the Buddha told Malunkyaputra that a person would come to the end of one's life before those metaphysical questions he had asked could be answered by the Tathagata. Those questions do not tend toward edification nor lead to supreme wisdom..." Do you have stories along these lines to add?

Xabir, I'd like to second all of the above for or as related to important and essential principles! (which btw I feel could also be applied in most types of spiritual paths besides only Buddhism)

yea it's hard to get much productive work done or to learn much when (however it comes about) you are being crushed beyond anything you've ever known , smothered, tormented, raped, etc... or worse yet when you see same happening to your loved ones. (thus and again hard for learning anything except about such horrific states)

I don't belong to a Buddhist sect but from even my partial studies of the Buddha's teachings you are rudely wrong on many points!

That's a good teaching! Imagine how fast many of the problems in this world could be turned around if more of us used it.

Very interesting information Taomeow but I don't feel it is in the same context as the Buddhist analogy. For instance and in correlation if we take the first chapter of the TTC we find the sentence, "Names can be named but not the Eternal Name", one way I interpret that is that a shaman who can only work with named things both in this world and in 'astral' worlds is still limited to those names and worlds; along that line and in the "inner chapters" there is the story of the shaman who after using all his knowledge and names could still not fathom or understand the spiritual master or adept that he met. (I don't have that quote handy right now nor do I mean to belittle the powers that shamans use in goodness to help people) Anyway to me the Buddhist analogy is saying that to pursue and even to know all such names could take untold lifetimes and efforts yet one would still not haved attained the complete fulfillment beyond where such names first arise.

"HOW MANY ANGELS CAN DANCE ON THE HEAD OF A PIN? This question turns out to contain an infinite number of secondary questions. It seems to be a mathematical question, since it begins with an inquiry with regard to number. Then, it opens up the question: what is an angel? Is an angel a figure with form, but no substance, as Aquinas apparently claimed? Can two angels occupy the same point in space? Do angels take up space, or are they immaterial? Can something be infinitesimally tiny, and yet still exist? At what point is something so small that it doesn't actually exist? As if these questions are not enough, it segues into an aesthetic question: what constitutes dancing? The question appears to ask us to evaluate the dancing of angels. How many angels can dance? In other words, some angels might just stand there. Other angels might do something rhythmic, such as callisthenics, but fail to actually achieve something that Simon (on American Idol) (for instance) would consider dancing. This raises yet further questions: is dancing in some sense angelic? Isn't it also devilish? Many denominations banned dancing, and for good reason, as it tends toward the lewd. Some might call this "divine" in the same sense that some people call what's good bad, and what's bad good. Is bad dancing good dancing? It would seem that every person would evaluate the dancing of any given angel differently. Then the two questions have to be considered together. Can you dance and still be an angel? If so, how many angels can achieve this state? ..." lol:

Zen

Some Buddhists here are not fanatics, (thankfully) the rest do Buddhism a dis-service with their know it all pretenses and deluges of blabbering one-up-man-ship in threads they seemingly feel the need to set everyone straight on. (such is sick regardless of who or what sect they quote, including co-opting words of the historic Buddha) Om

"WTF" we have a mountain of work to do, and even those that have gone before can only point the way and maybe give a hand here and there, all the rest is on us. "uncover" is on track.

Sruti points to moksha as key, and not the sojourn or attainment of a god. Btw, it was not enough for Indra to be a god. One can get mixed up in the a-z conundrums of various schools of Hinduism just as they can mixed up in the a-z conundrums of various schools of Buddhism and other traditions, but moksha is still key. Om

False understandings gives false representations, false projections gives false extrapolations and minor assumptions proceed to major presumptions. I'm not along for your ride and you don't know anything my tradition or lack of. Btw, your line and related ramblings of "is an authority for becoming a living "god"" is hogwash. Om

Hey MH, "and the beat goes on" regardless

I'm not the one here who persists in telling the many how 'lost' they are and how 'found' I am, although I'm here to tell you how unfound you are to be doing such. Btw, your lack of understanding of Hinduism regardless of a lot of past involvement in it does not make your final type conclusions regarding it universal truisms or valid in any way except to your self. (so I suggest that you quit pissing on it while extolling your present trip into Buddhism) Om