3bob

... read Alan Watts on his cross analogy if you will?

another photo, hell this guy doesn't look to "bad". (in the picture)

VJ, I'm not interested in squabbles regarding all of your dubious labelings, judgings, and sometimes fantastic presumptions about various stuff. (more so considering things you haven't yet learned about same regardless of all your bragged up exposure to such) Btw, imo you are not - protecting - Buddhism that much, it's more like you often give it a black eye. But don't take my word for it... (which I know you won't) Later

There are hundreds of related posts at this site... (reader beware) Raja Yoga under a fully realized master is the safest course. Curious about kundalini can be kinda like being curious about the electricity in the wall outlet, in other words would you work on live wires without an electrician?

VJ, "who knows, maybe someday you'll get it!?" "Monks, do not wage wordy warfare, saying: 'You don't understand this Dhamma and discipline, I understand this Dhamma and discipline'; 'How could you understand it? You have fallen into wrong practices: I have the right practice'; 'You have said afterwards what you should have said first, and you have said first what you should have said afterwards'; 'What I say is consistent, what you say isn't'; 'What you have thought out for so long is entirely reversed'; 'Your statement is refuted'; 'You are talking rubbish!'; 'You are in the wrong'; 'Get out of that if you can!..." from the Buddha

Thanks Susan, very nice

masks.bmp difference is only apparent (or of relative states), see the same in all and all will be seen. Om

some handles that may be helpful to some, and not to others. http://myanalyses.com/aziz.html Om

edit: You are not a Lama or a shrink (and I'm not looking for such either )

That isn't your ex is it?

We "normal people" already have enough power to blow the planet, and are barely keeping a lid on it. You think we need more?

If one recognizes and also defines "unspoiled nature" within man (and all beings for that matter) as the 'life force' directly connected to or with the Tao then one would be pointing towards the essentially unspoilable; but and granted permutations there-after could be relatively spoiled, thus the line: "...If kings and marquises can keep their unspoiled nature..." or keep it foremost and not lost in identity with the "ten thousand" permutations.

Many speak of proofs or disproofs verified by various means that come down to the use of the tools of the mind, thus in many cases the mind of intellect is often made the "God" of authority. but one may also find that all proofs or disproofs of mind that may be relatively valid somewhere in mind can not stand before the proof of Spirit, and thankfully no one can prove or disprove such with any amount of science, data or thoughts related to or in using those various tools of the mind. Mind is the tool, not really the master ime. Om

"Again, you are stuck on a misinterpretation of Buddhanature. Buddhanature does not inherently exist" By VJ By the historic Buddha: "I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata is after dying." I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata is not after dying." I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata both is and is not after dying." I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata neither is nor is not after dying." Again, VJ you misinterpret the four-fold negation and its import as pointing towards Buddhanature. Om

Man's unspoiled nature can not be spoiled, although it can be covered over with spoilage. Regular knowing does not know, but there is knowing that does not fall under regular. Thus without the knowing of Tao the knowing (and connection) of Te would fail.

and to me even the word "higher" with some of its various connotations is not really as helpful as the word "ineffable" as along the lines of indescribable!

For me what the Buddha is pointing towards is that which can not be caught by mental means, (even the purest of mental means or powers) which so many try to circumscribe with interpretations derived via mental means. As for cessation (of suffering), well doctrine also alludes to the "highest bliss" in other suttas. (and not as a construct or aggregate)

"...then I got humble..." VJ People could bet money on the predictability of your fixated responses based on your interpretation of Buddhism. Are you speaking for some particular Lama or authority that has directly empowered and given you permission to do so? (here or anywhere else?) I highly doubt it and if so you are amiss in not preferencing your posts with that particular name... thus get a Lama and empowerment along with your own website - don't waste your time making presumptions (as you so very often do) about various guru's or someone else's guru. Also I suggest that you try quitting being such a know it all... You are just another guy here - like it or not (except of course for our dear female members) that is going overboard with proclamations as if they were of such an such authority, at least I try not to act as if I'm speaking for a particular master as you pretend to be (in your mind) with the historic Buddha. Further, this is not a VJ's version of Buddhism website that is empowered by and under such an such a Lama or school, this is not 3Bob's cross-correlation attempts forum, this is a Taoist website; thus consider giving up your often heavy-handed, beating to death Buddhism related posts. Btw, and obviously Buddism (both today and throughout parts of history) is not one, totally united school thus other Buddhists may use doctrine and experience to refute your interpretations just as you may try to refute them with yours. Let people make of Buddism what they will and how they will starting with basics via a school or way of their choice; (which any Buddhist is welcome to point towards) if you want to start your own school go for it, but don't try to set it up here. Om

Holding one's breath for several minutes is how about how much time one can exist related to the use of the element of air, thus a very high importance should be given to that element. Now for a moment imagine the 'life force' being ten-thousand times more refined than air and also ten-thousand times more important than air... thus without it one's body would instantly topple over dead, would such be useful to one's life and also in helping others after coming into knowing the validity and connection of such beyond conceptual ideas? Om (and why does a Sage even bother with coming into such subtle knowing,if we accept the possibility that they even do?)

Hi MH, Some basics I'm sure you and others are very well aware of: No problemo with relative proofs that are used in the task of defining related things. Then again various existences are easily dissolved by the passage of time and also more or less instaneously... thus to me the meaning of the term "existence" is highly conditional upon definitions that can use many different frameworks or parameters. Take a chair for example, it only exists as such to something near its same density or collection of molecules, while and for instance electrons are not impacted by a chairs existence since they pass right through it and around in it, thus does the chair exist (on the same level as electrons) as far as the electrons are concerned? Further, and in the past the effects of electrons were not known until finer ideas and accompanying tools were created that could detect them since the human eye is blind to same and could not know or see of their existence. Lastly, only another electron or something close to it could sit on an electron without falling on the floor, ouch. Om

Bound by the powers of the wheel relative evolutions take place... for such are from a change-able state and pov. "Buddha nature" is unchanging, thus not bound by the powers of the wheel nor a something or a non-something idea or being/nonbeing that relatively evolves. Btw 1. Imo this is alluded to in Udana 8.3: "There is, monks an Unborn, Unbecome, Unmade, Uncompounded (ajatam abhutam akatam asankhatam). . If there were not this Unborn. . . , then there would be no deliverance here visible from that which is born, become, made, compounded. But since this is this Unborn, Unbecome, Unmade, Uncompounded, therefore deliverance is visible from that which is born, become, made, compounded" Btw 2, below is part of a commentary that some may find useful and others may not. "...Very oddly, in the Pali-English Dictionary, it is said that Nibbana is 'purely and simply an ethical state. . . It is therefore not transcendental'. In fact it is precisely the one and only transcendental element in Buddhism, for which this very reason no attempt is made to define it in terms of a personal god, a higher self, or the like. It is ineffable. It can, however, be realised, and its realisation is the aim of the Buddhist practice. While no description is possible, positive references to Nibbana are not lacking: thus at dhammapada 204 and elsewhere it is called 'the highest bliss' (paramam sukham)..." Btw 3, make of this information what you will. no one else really can for you, that's the catch. (although there are reams of arguments from people or schools that will make it their mission to try to do so for you) I do not represent any particular school or religion of any form, but I can relate to much of what they say. Om

I'm satisfied that someone else (or I should say several) have done so, but they never-ever do so as a public demonstration. Om

Hello SloppyZ, "rational" is in the eye of the beholder. Btw, I have no problemo's with various medical or electronic type tools giving some proofs beyond what has been accepted in the past... but such will still often be dismissed or explained away for such in many cases is the nature of the so-called rational mind. Om P.S. Btw, don't forget all of the "rational" minds that have helped give mankind war, murder and mayhem for who really knows for how many thousands of years? (or over and over)

From strawdog65, Ok ... I'm here to witness the proof of spirit. Or did I get that wrong and it's supposed to be the spirit's proof? Belief in anything immaterial can never be proved. But I guess that the point, there is safety in taking the stance that you have to believe for it be proven to you. Let's prove something that is unprovable by being obstinate and using unrelenting insistence to support it's existence. I'm so convinced! From Bob, Sorry, but thankfully there is a catch - for only Spirit can prove Spirit; thus even the rather unexplainable examples given by sloppyZ could be explained away or dismissed by an obstinate intellect that maintains its position as "God" at all costs. (for being just another average skeptic is not a powerful enough stance) Om