Sunya

True [Marxian] Communism was never fully implemented, Soviet and Maoist versions are a bit different. Anyway how's Communism evil? Because people (Stalin, Mao) made bad choices? This says nothing about the ideology of communism. It is an idealistic utopian format which ultimately will fail until people are more evolved by becoming less prone to corruption, greed, and selfishness. Capitalism works because it feeds off of greed, which humans have plenty of. The problem is that this greed is a remnant of the human's animalistic nature and having a whole system that runs off greed prevents the human from evolving further and embracing a system with a more socialistic framework. I believe people generally have many wrong ideas about communism. It is an ideology that can foster much progress but unfortunately the majority of people become lazy and unmotivated, because they only work for themselves. If people become enlightened and see that we are all interconnected, then working would be positive and we would each find jobs that are fulfilling and allow us to contribute to the greater community we are part of. Currency then wouldn't be required and greed would be a thing of the past. Maybe I've watched too much Star Trek but I think it's definitely possible.

Thanks for posting that Dwai. Very much worth the read, very interesting. Tibet has valuable resources, period. That says it all for me. It all comes down to resources.

I drove past it recently when I was in CO, and yeah its really ugly! The eyes glow red too, LOL. Well they had a rocket expert on there explaining what happened, it does make sense. I do admit it could very well be a cover-up. I have a degree in philosophy, if I can question that this whole world is an illusion that I can easily question whether or not such a conspiracy is possible, and it is. But the question is, why would these people go through all this trouble to cover up an impending doom? Why continue to fight wars? Why not just make peace and live a good life? Why not put all the money that was spent on wars during the past 20 years and use them for research into how we can possibly stop all this from happening? It just doesn't add up. I can't accept that our leaders are that stupid. I was there recently and didn't feel anything, but I'm not sensitive. I rather enjoyed the murals I saw and took pictures. There was one where there was a large group of people, of different ethnicities, all crowded together looking at a beautiful flower. And there are animals all over those murals. I found them beautifully expressive of a progressive ideal toward respecting nature and each other. Quite apt for Colorado since its a very progressive state. All this business about feeling. Not that I doubt, but how do you know what you feel is accurate? Many people have wrong intuitions, are yours 100% accurate? Is anyones? I do think its entirely possible to feel incoming possibilities but at the same time, there has to be some skepticism involved.

What a colossal waste of time spent on that website... bunch of data thrown together and viewed through a paranoid lens. This is the problem with the information age. Non-experts claim expertise and go crazy when they think they've uncovered something *huge* when it was just misinterpretation/misunderstanding. I'll trust the experts on this one. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2009/1210/norway-spiral-a-rocket-scientist-explains-the-mystery As for the drawings, if you want to see something you will.

Thanks man same to you. Cheers.

There's no evidence that the brain evolved due to cooking foods, though you may be right about how far back the tradition went. http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/when-did-humans-begin-to-cook/ Cooking was more of a cultural thing and allowed humanity to develop socially. "Also the enzymes in food have very little to do with human digestion" I'm talking about the specific enzymes and vitamins present in vegetables that lose potency and bioavailability when cooked too much. Sure the protein, carbs, and fats don't get destroyed.. but what about the essential fatty acids (which the brain needs desperately for fuel) and antioxidants (which serve as fuel for the immune system)? I'm not a raw food expert, nor do I even follow the diet. I just think its ridiculous to call those who follow such a diet 'new-agey' when they are just eating consciously, and in good health, with their fellow non-human beings in mind. It's egotistical to have awareness of other's pain response and right to live? I'm saying animals are more evolved than plants. They feel, they perceive, much more so than plants do. Go touch a plant and see what happens; then go touch an animal. That is empirical evidence, not theory. They are more worthy of compassion than plants because of this; their subjective experience possesses consciousness of perception, consciousness of feeling, even consciousness of rudimentary thought through desire impulses. Some, if not most, animals actually dream. If you had to save a human or a dog who would you save? If you had to save a dog or a plant who would you save? C'mon man, you're digging yourself a hole. Humans surely weren't created by God 6,000 years ago with a cooking pan in their hands. I'm not sure what sort of rebuttal you can make. You're saying humans always cooked? About brain size, the current brain is actually shrinking dramatically. Not saying its connected to cooking, who knows, but its an interesting scientific find by a recent Harvard study. Too lazy to find it right now. There is a connection apparently between eating meat and evolution of the brain. That I cannot deny. There's also a connection between religious institutions and the development of civilizations and science. Should we always keep these mythological religious institutions around then? Is the effect dependent upon the cause? Like I said, there is considerable research being done about supplementation of the necessary vitamins which we get through eating meat. I know plenty of vegans, vegetarians, and those that eat raw which are all extremely smart, creative, healthy, and active. All happen to be spiritual too. They all supplement and do just okay. If you reduce who you are to 'just an animal' then of course that gives you no need to change. If you are just an animal, why not live in the woods and lick your mother's ass for breakfast? Ah, but you're not just an animal.. you're a little bit more than that.

Alwayson has had insight into nondual, I believe. I wouldn't be so quick to judge. He's just a bit eager. Nothing wrong with that. I completely agree with him about the importance of refining concepts so that view accurately represents experience. Language plays a critical role in how we perceive reality so there is an interdependent qualia between conceptual view and actual experience. As for the historical stuff... yeahhh probably a waste of time, but whatever For me it's like teramisu; totally awful but can't help but indulge once in a while.

Oh you are most welcome! I found it really incredible that Nietzsche, prior to World War 1, predicted that the future of humanity will be increasingly nihilistic. He predicted the decline of Christianity. He saw what effect industrialization will have on the human psyche. Many philosophers credit him as the first existentialist. He really wanted to make others see existence as an opportunity for positive change, inquiry, and action. His whole philosophy is about questioning you beliefs by throwing away the shackles brought on by religious institutions. Today many live in such a decadent state, though I don't blame them. If you water your plants motor oil, they will grow to be pretty messed up. Obsessed with sensual pleasures, no desire for questioning or making something meaningful out of life, just living a sad existence these people are. The classical 'couch potato' who is simply here temporarily to watch American Idol and slave his life away. Nietzsche foresaw all this... too bad he couldn't have done more to stop it.

Her view is new-agey? haahha.. dude.. more like ancient-agey. Humans used to eat raw prior to cooking, actually there's one guy who I forgot his name has a theory that the brain has been deteriorating due to humans eating too many cooked foods. Cooking vegetables kills the good stuff inside. Lightly cooking is alright i'd say but raw food is not bad for you if you have good digestion already, not weakened from fungus infection (dampness or candida) like me! and btw, what's good for you won't necessarily be good for someone else. We are all, afterall, somewhat different. you're 20 and married? daaaamn. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that plants feel while animals on the other hand do. Animals are sentient, they perceive and feel. Bacteria don't, plants don't. Maybe some bugs do, but i'm not a taxologist. Anyway there's no way that you can say that vegetables are more worthy of "living" than an animal; you're positing some philosophical proposition here that cannot be proven. There isn't even a good argument for it. In reality, there is empirical evidence that animals feel pain and even some animals are smart enough to have self-awareness. Plants lack all the conditions necessary for sentience. As for killing animals, I think that's up to each person. Personally I do eat meat but I'm cutting back. I think in today's world there are enough supplements out there, and enough protein through other means, that make the killing of other sentient creatures totally unnecessary.

Nietzsche was an anti-nihilist. Read more more closely. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/

haahahahh I don't think he did

Interesting. Have you had a spinal sweep yet? I've had a couple spinal sweeps but I'm not sure if they were Kundalini, rather just energy going up the central channel and causing lots of bliss. Last night I had an experience where my whole body was shaking and I heard a noise that kept increasing in pitch/vibration and volume. I kept hearing the ego shouting "oh my god, oh my god" because it was rather frightful. Felt like ridiculous vibrations encompassing me. I then felt at the base of my spine a large amount of something. It didn't feel warm or cold, sort of neutral but sort of liquidy. I'm not sure if that's kundalini. Anyway it was moving around at the base of the spine/pelvic area and I noticed my perception got a little bit lighter, as if I lost weight or something, and then I woke up. BTW most of my experiences happen during the sleep when I'm half awake but body is paralized. I usually have some fear accompanied with such experiences; the ego always resists. I'm working on that.

Waiting for a good time to really sit down and read this. Looking forward to it.

As stated many times before, you clearly don't understand Buddhism. Now it is clear you have a deeply seated resentment toward the Buddha and the whole tradition of Buddhism. That's your choice, but projecting it onto others and creating an air of hostility isn't very Taoist of you. You're completely tarnishing your self-created pretension of a wise sage. Perhaps you should stick to threads that don't affect you so much emotionally. Krishnamurti taught that the self was an illusion, a mere thought. He had clear realization of anatta; he also mentioned having memories of being a disciple of the Buddha in a past life. Jiddu Krishnamurti was a wonderful teacher; maybe if you read him more carefully you'll understand that Buddhism isn't a nihilistic religion at all. The teachings of no-self are not a denial of life but rather an affirmation. Life is everything, not simply limited to what is experienced here by the limited self. There is no separation between this and that. How is that denial? How is that nihilistic? It leads to openness and embracing of what is; this clarity you speak of so often is the goal. So why such hostility to a tradition which you clearly don't understand?

:lol: :lol: Love those Taoist thoughts.. keep em coming! Btw, just to remind you here's the info for this forum: Taoist Discussion: Transcendent, mundane, talking through the middle. Taoist, Buddhist, Non-sectarian cultivation discussion

Yes, there is a cure. Stop being judgmental, arrogant, and pretending that you speak for everyone. If you dislike a thread don't read it, or especially post in it. Anyway I thought everything is your reality? Why are you being such a prick to yourself?

Dwai, you say Buddha was influenced by Vedanta, and actually got everything from Vedanta, but its been pointed out to you that Buddha never mentioned Vedanta or Upanisadic thought [and that there's no evidence of him ever even having contact with the Upanishads] but rather he argued against worshiping Brahma. Now you say Brahma was a later development and Buddha was influenced by Vedanta again? It's not a belief that the Buddha's teachings were completely unique at the time, radically different then past and present Vedic philosophy. Perhaps you should study Buddhism more extensively rather than through a tainted Hindu lens. The Buddha was not an absolutist and completely rejected the whole ideological framework present in the Upanisads. 'Anatta' and 'dependent origination' are not simply tools to achieve the eternal Self. There is no such goal period and to think so is to be centric in your view of other traditions. The Buddha denied self and Self, there is no objectless consciousness.. that is a jhana of absorption and not the goal of any Buddhist path whether its Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. This is a good expository on how Buddhism differs completely from Vedanta http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Acharya%20Mahayogi%20Shridhar%20Rana%20Rinpoche

There is no such thing as Hinduism, its a modern invention. There was no national identity at the time, nor a common belief. Different schools had different opinions. All schools of Buddhism have the view of impermanence, dependent origination [emptiness] and no-self. There is no disagreement about these 3 which are the foundation of Buddha's teachings.

correct! There's actually no such genetic distinction for race. Scientists view 'race' as a myth, there are cultural groups but perceived differences stem from slight disparities in appearance which arose through environmental adaptation. The belief in race is when you hold a cultural group to have a genetic origin separate from another cultural group.

alwayson, Perhaps you'll find this interesting as well UPANISADIC TRADITION AND THE EARLY SCHOOL OF VEDANTA AS NOTICED IN BUDDHIST SCRIPTURE NAKAMURA HAJIME TOKYO UNIVERSITY Vedanta Early buddhism.pdf

alwayson, check out this article. http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/66/3/684 It's only an excerpt.. can't find the full version for free anywhere, but interesting. Seems like the kind of research we need. btw, I can't reply directly to Dwai since he probably has me on ignore, but what he says about modern research into Hinduism using dates stemming from a fundamentalist Christian POV is just dead wrong. There is no way any modern academic would do that. This isn't the 1800s. Modern historical analysis is extremely precise, secular, and world-centric. Attached an interesting article. ORIENTALISM AND THE MODERN MYTH OF "HINDUISM" RICHARD KING Summary Is there really a single ancient religion designated by the catch-all term 'Hinduism' or is the term merely a fairly recent social construction of Western origin? This paper examines the role played by Orientalist scholars in the construction of Western notions of Indian religion by an examination of the origins of the concept of 'Hinduism'. It is argued that the notion of 'Hinduism' as a single world religion is a nineteenth century construction, largely dependent upon the Christian presuppositions of the early Western Orientalists. However, exclusive emphasis upon the role of Western Orientalists constitutes a failure to acknowledge the role played by key indigenous informants (mostly from the brahmana castes) in the construction of modern notions of 'the Hindu religion'. To ignore the indigenous dimension of the invention of 'Hinduism' is to erase the colonial subject from history and perpetuate the myth of the passive Oriental. The paper concludes with a discussion of the accuracy and continual usefulness of the term 'Hinduism'. Myth of Hinduism.pdf

Good luck! What's a gong sheet?

Don't care about arguing with you, but couple points. First of all you assume that what I say is dogmatic i.e. what I read in a text written long ago rather than my own understanding. Secondly you assume that your own realization is the end-all be-all simply because it is your own experience. You assume all belief systems are bad; that they are the opinions of others rather than methods to bring you somewhere. Your belief is that Buddhism and other paths are interpretations rather than methods in and of themselves that were created by beings with extremely high realizations, people who knew exactly what they were doing. Furthermore, in your belief that 'belief systems' are simply interpretations, or opinions, you assume that there is just one experience which you call 'truth' and that you since you have probably already experienced it, you're done and have all the answers. Having such an erroneous belief is what prevents you from seeing that your realization is not final; it's not the culmination. It seems to me that this is why you're so critical of Buddhism. You believe that since your experience differs, Buddhists must be less realized than you. Clarity, authenticity, stilled mind, all those things are goals for me as well, but as a Buddhist I understand that a unitive experience is not the end goal and you won't convince me otherwise.