Sunya

the inability to respond without attachment and communicate good discussion turns into anger and hatred

oh and anything by Namkhai Norbu of course, like Crystal Way.

i've heard quite a few good things about Adyashanti.. and really enjoyed Tolle as well. Anything Dzogchen or Mahamudra would fit you nicely, it's not as light and fluffy as the above authors... more serious and practical, but at the same time extremely profound. I recommend As It Is, written by one of the foremost Dzogchen masters of our time http://www.amazon.com/As-Vol-Tulku-Urgyen-...4694&sr=8-1

so...when I'm hungry, can you eat for me?

I get that too sometimes. you can try to focus on the lower dantien when you feel the tingles.... to bring it up. that's what I do. or don't bother, its all good either way as long as you meditaters

Smart, real smart. I really hope that when I get as old as you I don't become as petrified. That's actually my vow. Signed, Mikael

ok and the point of such attacks is?

good questons Fruit. I myself can't answer them. but I think that conceptual philosophy can be very limiting when talking about such things. because concepts are limited by our 3rd dimensional experiences and so its very hard to explain other dimensional happenings in that language. I think that naturally there would have to appear a mind-body split but only through a materialistic viewpoint. material/immaterial are empty concepts that based on our current scientific understanding. so anything that can't be measured scientifically is thus immaterial. so of course mind has to be immaterial because it survives material decay and moves on. the proof of this is Tibetan masters having conscious rebirth and the many people who remember past lives in great detail. the scientific proof cannot be there until science can measure deeper happenings that are so called 'immaterial'. I do not think such a distinction exists, because both material and immaterial are empty concepts. the difference is in the density of energies, or how the New Agers say, vibrational frequency. i'm not too clear on this subject though and look forward to others replying. this might be relevant http://buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha205.htm

in Buddhist philosophy the I is a karmic habit, a thought, a mental pattern that is repeated. nothing more. this is what I mean by people getting too defensive, taking everything too seriously, because of attachments to a specific tradition. all Vajra is doing is pointing out your own insecurities and attachments with how you react. he's only posting words and ideas, you're the one thats reacting so. creating a whole thread about kicking the mad Buddhists out. this is just a discussion board, we are all just people who are talking and trying to figure out a thing or two. I think we are forgetting that when our identity is threatened and we instantly run for cover and label ourselves Taoist or Buddhist. seeing the other side as an enemy who is invading our territory, or something to that effect.

relax peoples, you take all this too personally! its just a discussion board.

maybe you should read that quote again... slower this time...and without jumping to conclusions. the self he is referring to only exists on the relative level, which he says himself. the I cannot be denied. it just doesn't exist ultimately. of course you exist but when it comes to consciousness there is nothing there to call I or Self. it's all there man, do you read the quotes you post? lol

^ I updated my post above "Aryasatvan The author of the texts and most of the articles on this website is a Pali translator (oldest and original scriptures of Buddhism) and author of books and articles on Buddhism, he is a former Buddhist monk now dedicated to the research of earliest Buddhism before either Theravada (Sarvastivada) or Mahayana (Mahasanghika) existed. He is available for lectures on Buddhist philosophy and its original methodology (assimilation/samadhi) of finding the ontological Light of genuine Being which exists prior to the empirical self as taught by the historical Buddha in the nikayas. He is also a strong advocate of, and self-proclaimed Neoplatonic Platonist." he is full of shit. I argued with him on Amazon Buddhist forums. he doesn't lecture anywhere and his books are all self published. he doesn't even use his real name... he's affiliated with the Dark Zen school which misintrepret Buddhism, go on forums and yell at people. its a cult here are some books of his http://www.amazon.com/Authentic-Dhammapada...a/dp/0971254109 http://www.amazon.com/Buddhisms-Highest-Re...6080&sr=1-2 look at the lovely reviews, they are quite funny lol. he wrote all the positive reviews

yes thats all written by someone who doesn't understand Buddhism. he makes up his own translations and posts on every forum and eventually gets banned because he calls people "demons" and "ignorant fools", lol look at the top of the blog "Earliest Aryan Buddhism explained with scriptural evidences by the most learned Buddhologist alive; a self-proclaimed Metaphysician and Neoplatonist, Aryasatvan" this guy sort of does what you do Dwai, he looks at Buddhism through the lens of Neo Platonism and the Vedas. whatever he says can be easily refuted by studying the translations of acknowledged translators like Rahula. and also understanding the context of some of the Buddhas teachings. he taught differently to people of different capacities.. .. the earliest Nikayas were teachings that were sometimes taught to people of very eternalistic tendencies, most people very very deluded, and the Buddha had to alter his approach much of the time. just like Jesus who taught to illiterate fishermen. who knows what he really wanted to teach? we do know though by studying the suttas where Buddha taught to his closest disciples what he truly wanted to teach, and the teachings that were passed on as the 4 noble truths and 8 fold path are considered the essential teachings. the Buddha never taught anything about a permanent eternal Self that is independent. he never taught that all beings were one with this Self. it is just too easy to have the view that there exists an Ultimate Self and then when you have a grand experience of a subtle state of mind, you grasp onto that and identify with it, calling it Self. so of course anatta is similar to neti neti except that neti neti concludes in the experience of a Self while anatta doesn't, since there is nothing, nostate, nowhere that can be identified with and called a Self. why? like I said before, look up Self in the dictionary and see what it means. it's grasping for identity. if you take the Vedanta view to its limits, it concludes at non-duality but then the totality is grasped to as an ultimate subject. an ultimate It that is the Self! this is not the same as the realization of emptiness which also takes into account the parts, which lack self-nature, still exist relatively. there is no grasping at the Whole and giving it some name, the Whole isn't really even talked about. whats talked about is the condition (emptiness) of the parts. the parts of what? well, the parts of more parts, and these parts make up more parts. to infinity and beyond! the All isn't ever talked about as an It and identified with.

Oh thank you for responding to me. i feel so special I know more than you think. Doesn't matter if the Upanishads existed, some of which did. but most didn't or else the Buddha would have used them as teaching tools or would have refuted them, but instead he refuted the common Hindu teachings of Brahma as Creator. Also, Vedanta is different than the Upanishads. Vedanta is much more non-dualistic and uses teachings found in Buddhism alone, not in the Upanishads. Though Vedanta is still monism. let me rephrase that for you: I hope you guys don't read the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Lankavatara Sutra, Brahmajala Sutra, etc with a Vedanta viewing lens and ignore the rest of the Buddhist teachings and take the quotes out of context. Because then they will seem to be talking about an Eternal Self. what are you on about? what schools of Buddhism are we eliminating? all schools of Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana have the same core. But anyway my point was that Buddhism is an independent tradition with a completely different core than Hinduism. saying that its the son of Hinduism and needs to prove itself is completely silly. This is just an idealistic way of grasping to your tradition and reaffirming your identity with it. The only way for you to truly understand the core of Buddhism, if you ever truly want to, is to let go of your previous conceptions, let go of seeing Buddha as the 11th incarnation of Vishnu or whatever, and see Buddhism as standing alone. Let the teachings speak for themselves.

it's not a personal attack because theres no self, remember? all i'm pointing out is the stubborn pattern of energy that keeps repeating itself in your posts. people have explained to you 10 times over that nobody is positing non-existence. from nowhere. the desire to point somewhere previous causes and conditions i've been on this forum for 2 years and its never been exclusively Taoists

LOL you picked a very apt name for yourself Marblehead how do you go from "if no one is posting" to "the post does not exist" ? no one is posting because no concrete self can be found, that doesn't mean that thoughts aren't arising, fingers aren't typing words, and ideas aren't being expressed.

I think you forget the Buddhism was formulated way before Vedanta and much of Vedanta is Buddhist re-interpretation of the Vedas. so it's more like the other way around Buddhism doesn't need to individuate. There are way more Buddhists than Hindus in this world. what Buddhism tries to do is to give clarity to those holding on to fantastical beliefs. Since there is no God or Source or Prime Mover, there can be no One Destination for All, the destination is dependent upon the road taken, and the ultimate destination for Buddhists is the wisdom of seeing all destinations as empty (no ultimate destination)

a doer isn't necessary to post. a mover somewhere inside the head pulling levers and pushing buttons. Xabir is a continuum of mental energy with no 'self' nature. this means that Xabir doesn't exist independent of his parts. Xabir is compounded, made up of mental patterns stemming from experiences intermingling with environment and other beings. "Self" or "I" is just an idea that we have made up that isn't based on facts. its a fantasy. this doesn't mean that Xabir doesn't exist. he just posted a really wonderful response! but the "he" isn't a self-entity but rather a bunch of energies coming together and acting. no separation does not mean oneness. As if the whole universe is actually one color, one mind, one sound, one being. etc. no separation means interdependence. like the Yin Yang symbol, you can't have Yin without the Yang, and can't have Yang without the Yin. These two energies aren't one, and they aren't two. they are interdependent, and yet still exist. in Buddhism though, there is no mysterious source of energies, they simply are. they arise based on conditions and causes. not everyone has non-dual insight or insight into the true nature of the self.... so of course there will be disagreement. not everyone has wisdom. i'm not saying I do... i'm still learning and figuring things out. this just shows how little you know about Buddhist traditions. sorry of that sounds like hubris to you. sorry about your mother. but your comments came off really ignorant, you made it seem like the world has no suffering.. and now you tell me you know about suffering but view it as opportunity for change? what does that mean? of course i'm not saying that suffering is inherent to all beings and theres nothing that can be done about it. and the whole point of becoming a Buddha isn't to escape into a meditative cocoon its about realizing the true nature of reality and helping other beings. We become Buddhas to help all beings, not to escape the world. there is no world to escape, there is nowhere to escape to, and there is nobody that is escaping. it seems you would agree with a lot of Dharma if you opened your mind to it. I'm not insulting you, i'm just saying you are insulting a tradition that you don't know much about. reading a few Sutras doesn't cut it.

Buddhism is about insight, not escaping. the true nature of the self is to be realized. and accepting the way things are is part of the process. Fear is to be transcended and so is loathing. and the 10,000 things are embraced for what they are, empty with no source. The cosmos is the intermingling of energies, a dance. As I told you before, you really don't know much about Buddhism. you even use Hindu terms like Maya which Buddhists don't use. I pointed you before to websites where you can learn and expand your awareness, but obviously you didn't do that. There is no suffering in this world? man are you crazy? go to India or Africa or areas of China or South America. Just because theres no suffering for you in your mother's basement doesn't mean that other beings aren't suffering. Buddhism is about waking up to how the world truly is, and part of that is realizing how everyone is suffering. If you havent' realized that, that doesn't mean that suffering doesn't exist. It's really you that holds a childish view. You're projecting your own fears and insecurities onto a tradition which you know nothing about.

I I I I I I until the existence of that I is questioned, the I will think that Buddhism is a chilidish stupid philosophy. infact the I will make up very incredible theories to keep itself alive and ideas on how life should be lived in order to find meaning and wonder and satisfaction, but the illusion never questioned, the I continues to subtly suffer without even realizing it. a very sad tale.

JK your replies aren't very useful. is English not your first language? I think there is miscommunication here... your response about Chan didn't address anything I said. I was saying that Buddhism isn't just about meditation and used Chan as an example, and you respond with a lesson on Chinese language, and tell me about Buddhists nuns stopping their period and how Chan is Chinese. ????... then you post a link to a Taoist temple in Hong Kong. I get the feeling we're on different planets. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- for those that don't mind reading small text on a screen (you can always copy the text to Word and change font, and print it out) here's a very good site that covers a lot http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~dsantina/tree/

hi Chen, you said "1)It's kung-fu practise and has nothing to do with "enlightment"." so what is the goal then? why do it?