3bob

absolute pain can also bring absolute resolution about it, for example: "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do"

an earlier- post: "Take away all manifested differences then there are no problems with any of it, but that will never happen in the manifested worlds. (with manifested worlds including worlds of any subtle form beyond just earthly worlds. " a post-post which I hope is clearer: Take away all attachment from manifested differences then there are no problems with any of it, but again that will never happen in the manifested worlds as long as there are particular attachments. (with manifested worlds also including worlds of any subtle form beyond earthly worlds. there are points in Buddhism that I don't agree with but I gotta give credit where credit is due to Nagarjuna and others along the lines of the wisdom of non-attachment Edited 3 hours ago by 3bob Edited 3 hours ago by 3bob

As I said or meant before there are a multitude of serious problems if one is trying to integrate/correlate across Christian or Abrahamic precepts and most "eastern" ones...I'd say it can not be done on the level of written teachings/texts and not really on most any level. Take away all manifested differences then there are no problems with any of it, but that will never happen in the manifested worlds. (with manifested worlds including worlds of any subtle form beyond just earthly worlds.

Have you read "Autobiography of a Yogi"? there is all sorts of stuff in it about Jesus and immortals doing what immortals may do. whatever turns one's crank I'd say Jesus said no to that, "for ye shall do what I have done and greater" , I'm very rusty on my Bible quotes but that was the drift I remember... another major and very important difference between various systems is that some founders of same never have a succession while some do. (passing on the full lineage authority to a new lineage holder) Thus some systems are left with students or maybe advanced devotees but not a new and fully empowered lineage holder to carry on as before, at least in this world! And to me that is also very problematic or making problems more possible compared to systems that do have a fully empowered lineage holder in this world where the buck stops, so to speak.

hmm, no need for that, roll the dice or marbles as you feel prompted to do so.

who has verified Jesus as immortal other than certain individuals for themselves and which btw. they can not prove to anybody in this world per this worlds methods? (thus to some Jesus is nothing more than a rumor or a fairy tale although not to me) Christianity is basically a dualistic teaching, including most of New Testament although there is some alluding to of oneness, for instance and along the lines of my Father and I are One. (to paraphrase) Also in Christianity per its Bible many of the "eastern" teachings are spelled out as being blasphemy so how one integrates and correlates across such chasms is at least problematic to me! In comparison the ultimate goal of the teachings of the Upanishads (and most Vedic interpretations) is not heaven but the Self or Brahman, although there is a lot of mention of Brahma-loka. So Bindi I'd say there are no hard and fast rules about the major ways or religions pointing to the same thing like you mentioned even though such would make related matters for mankind simpler.

trying to definitively correlate systems, teachings and terms is bound to be problematic...and often not kosher if or when one steps on another system and its people. Many of us (myself included) still do the correlation trips and do not mean any harm; anyway imagine what it might be like in just sticking to one system (for however long it works out) and its terms and teachings without getting all crossed up at the same time with others. There is a very logical and to whatever degree cryptic saying in Taoism which I think one could use as part of an answer to your question: From Chapter 43, "...Only Nothing can enter into no-space..." (for myself I'd change the term Nothing into no-thing)

ok man .

what a lot of folks are talking about is becoming an eternal/immortal in the future; anyone see a problem with that?

who assumed on top of other assumptions, the assumption to say, "of our fantasies",

the Self (capitol S) is not a thing thus that whole argument is off if one is also open to deeper meanings, meanings btw. which the historic Buddha often stressed. Also if one sticks to that summation then there is no end to rounds of suffering. Which brings up a saying from the historic Buddha himself: "There is the unborn, uncreated, unformed, unoriginated, and therefore there is an escape from the born, created, formed, originated. If it were not for the unborn, uncreated, unformed, unoriginated, there would be no escape from the born, created, formed, originated, but because there is the unborn, uncreated, unformed, unoriginated, there is an escape, there is liberation from the born, created, formed, originated (Udana VIII.3)." and if that "unborn" etc. is changing and is not an eternal fact and or factor if you will, due to also being of aggregates then all is the, "vanity of vanities"...(with eternal seeming to be a four letter word to many Buddhist even though the historic Buddha could have used it in the context of this saying, btw I would not equate this Buddhist saying with Vedic summations although there are some undeniable overlaps in terms and meanings)

and so? btw, this is not a Buddhist string in the Buddhist sub-forum

my sentence structure could have been better...but it still reads "to some" which also does not mean to all...

I suggest study of the Isa upanishad, "14. He who understands both the manifest and the unmanifested together, crosses death through the unmanifested and attains immortality through the manifest."

I'd say an assumption either way would not be enough and we would and will never be satisfied until we know for sure, one way or another. various forms live and die so to speak or a better way to put would be change...as for soul there are multiple definitions for it depending on the school...in Taoism's T.T.C. there is chapter 21 which is apparently false and meaningless to some - so why are those some here unless they to hope to find out one way or another for sure?

another spin could be, it goes far, it returns, yet it never left (to paraphrase)

ok, btw. sometimes we hear the term super-conscious mind - which is not the plodding mind of reasoning although it is not against right reasoning...

for the quote I think Spirit would be a more universal term than mind, with mind having a lot more and or different meanings, although that is the way Buddhists use it per their school.

what dies? (and what lives while we are at it?)

Mr. G. - no thanks to that mess, (except for some ripped off fragments) and revealing of the often grandiose babble form Mr. R.

saying the mental ego (or "self" if one will) is an illusion is problematic in a similar sense to if one said that forms of energy are an illusion, why - because the mental ego is a formation (and or a working collection) of certain energies biased in certain ways depending on the person. The True Self can see the mental ego for what it is and then to whatever degree change and use that mental ego as servant to the True Self. Granted we do hear teachings about the dissolution of bindings of energy in form with just pure energy remaining yet if that pure energy is going to interact with manifestation there still needs to be some kind of aligned matrix or form for it to do so.

That is all very cool voidisyinyang, maybe it should be in a document or study form?

householder dharma and responsibilities are not taken on by a monk or renunciate and vice-versa...how many people here are householders I don't know but a lot of the discussions here are about a what a renunciate would be directed to do (dharma wise) and is who suited to be practicing in important ways...

karma will prove itself real enough for the evolving soul, so now we can tinker around with evolving soul...

one should always have some steelies to go with the marbles