tyler zambori

Can you please explain that a little more?

Good points, adept. I like "Wanting Enlightenment Is a Big Mistake: Teachings of Zen Master Seung San." Even though it's Buddhist. What is Unborn Buddha Mind, and how is it different than the Tao? Sounds like Tao to me.

yes, I get that. It's the crown chakra.

Of course he's allowed to say he's enlightened, I didn't say anything against that. And I agree with everything else you said. I just don't think that somebody who just started to get enlightened doesn't need to learn anything any more. There's a real precedent for my way of thinking in the literature, I must say.

My personal take on it is that if he really was enlightened he would have said something else, other than: I don't need information anymore, bye! Seriously, there's a long road even after the first glimpse of enlightenment, and the work doesn't stop there right at the beginning of it. SO yeah I expect he's still going to experience "impermanence" as someone suggested. I still want to buy his book though.

Congratulations! Can I buy your copy of Xing Yi Health Maintenance?

I read somewhere recently that with Taoism, how shall I put it, the breath is what joins the body and mind (to achieve stillness) so that is what I want to go with. I like it. Just watching the mind either puts me to sleep. or lets the monkey mind jump all over the place even more. I was reading in that qigong mediation book that one should first get a good grounding from that technique before trying the MCO. being able to get a good grounding first is something I really look forward to.

Don't worry I'm not worried about ranks. So it's kind of a beginner thing. Thank you. Ok then, hope I can achieve it.

And if you do have metabolic syndrome, you'd do well to eat low carb same as if you have whole hog diabetes. If you catch it that early you're actually lucky, a lot of people don't figure it out until they need to be on meds. The whole inuslin regime is kind of a nightmare I understand, and the other meds have nasty side effects. No lizard spit for me, no thank you.

ok, thanks, but all you need to do is get a glucose meter and test strips, and check what your blood glucose is 1/2 hour and one hour after eating. That's where the spike tends to occur. You want to see how high the spike goes. Then take a look at table 2.2 on pages 10 and 11 of this document: http://www.aace.com/pub/pdf/guidelines/DMGuidelines2007.pdf Those are the right numbers to go by, not what the ADA says. Seriously, getting a glucose meter and testing yourself is an important part of empowering yourself - many doctors will just go by the fasting blood glucose first thing in the morning, and many people with diabetes are not diagnosed soon enough that way. It can be misleading. An OGTT performed at a lab will certainly do the trick, but it isn't fun. Just my 2 cents, glad the vinegar helps, HTH and all that. Tyler

As I understand it, the blood does have to have a constant Ph, and the body will do a lot to keep it at about 7.4, BUT the issue is , how much stress does it put on the body, to keep it that way with excessively acidic input? The body will take minerals out of bone and tissue to achieve this, it will store excess acid waste in fat, and more. It's impossible to know just how much acidic waste is stored in your tissues; so the only way you can tell is to try it and observe the result. The people who come up with this objection have not done the reading on this subject, including science teachers. Why do they think the body will magically maintain a perfect Ph no matter what the input is, and an acidic diet will have no effect whatsoever on the health? Eventually, it does have a really noticeable effect. Wow, that's a very expensive supplement. I never overpay for this stuff - I'm using NOW brand chlorophyll from iherb: http://www.iherb.com/Now-Foods-Liquid-Chlorophyll-Triple-Strength-16-fl-oz-473-ml/5028?at=0 But a supplement won't be enough, by itself. A change in diet is what will really help.

Do you have a link to this?

I've been finding out in a very personal way just how much "eating acidic" affects my mood - I am more cranky and more obsessive. I didn't believe this for a long time, and there isn't much in the way of real research on this, yet there is something to it, imo. I have enough health problems at 51 that the difference shows up quickly in small ways, when I eat acidic. And going back towards alkaline clears the small things up quickly too, things like knee pain going away. I don't think just taking a supplement does the job - you have to change the diet too. I take lots of supplements, and recently added chlorophyl too as an aid in going alkaline, but I don't expect it to do the whole job. I already eat really low carb, but this takes it just a step farther, because there is a more specific focus - like taking more calcium, magnesium and potassium, and green smoothies. Most people will not go low carb unless they really have to, but that is a big part of eating this way. Low carb plus specific focus on "alkaline" low carb. Perhaps the best book I've seen so far on the subject is "Warning, an undetected acid-alkaline imbalance is slowly killing you and severely hurting your children" by John Ossipinsky, The books Ive read are mostly pretty fluffy, but this one does actually quote a few peer-reviewed research articles. Whether or not they are relevant is another question, and yet it's working for me. As for metabolism determining whether or not to eat alkaline - well: this is actually the "paleo diet" which is what our species developed on. So we all have some basic things in common physically. Maybe natural predators who only eat meat can handle a more acidic diet. We are omnivores, and developed on a diet of mostly vegetables.

Then I don't know why you said you had problems with "awful" blood sugar. A vegetarian diet can also certainly be acidifying, with too much grains and legumes. The key is to have an 80/20 ratio going on. That's what they say anyway.

I take P-5-P as part of my whole supplement regimen, and it helps. Now I really got the aging thing slowed down, which is good, because various health problems were causing a speedup of that situation. (I'm 51, and diabetic, and hypothyroid). Benfotiamine is also really good for the kidneys and nerves too. I don't ask an M.D. what vitamins and supplements to take because most of them neither know nor care about that. However, I do research all of them, and look up stuff on pubmed.

Stating that Buddha nature is simply the potential to become a buddha is simply chasing your tail without thinking. Nobody is getting my point. Ok, look, even in the article the OP posted, there is a reference to self and buddha nature: omigosh, Loy uses the term "self" and "buddha nature" as two terms that potentially mean the same thing, imagine that ! And I have seen this in many other places. And you are not the first buddhists I've discussed it with either. So please don't ( ya'll) give me this "oh the wikipedia entry is just a crappy English translation" bit. The Buddhists are kidding themselves that they don't believe in a self, and cling to it so much that they even name it after the founder of their religion. Anyhow, getting on to something that really does interest me, I would like to know the Daoist approach to this: What I want to know is: do the Taoists take in both points of view, rather than choose one or the other? I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to do that.

This answer is simple avoidance.

It's funny how you need to cling to your own preconceptions, and then try to teach others not to cling. AS I said, Buddha nature is the same idea with different words, and why would I want to deny what there is, unless I name it after the founder of the religion? That doesn't seem very liberated to me. Nobody can answer: What IS IT, so you resort to insults. Doesn't seem very sound to me. Ah mikaelz, this is not a buddhist forum, so how could I be trolling? If you don't like it, maybe a nice buddhist forum would be a good place for you.

My point is that the Buddhists DO grasp at a real self. Just read the words *I* quoted carefully. You aren't doing that. So I will try to really spell it out for you. You say there is no True Self. I will quote for the second time: What does this say? It says that humans have something that is: truly real pure hidden an immortal potency (whatever that is) an element for awakening What IS IT? THINK about it, don't just try to slap the Buddhist party line back at me. Conclusion: Buddhists do believe in a soul or *true self* because we need to, at the very least. The evidence that humans need to, is seen in all religions. *

Well, as I said, Different term, same idea. same idea, same thing, the Buddhists just want to create what is known as "product differentiation." So I'm going to quote this bit again: Hmm..it remains a widespread and important doctrine, in much of far east buddhism today. East Asian *and* Tibetan seems to cover a big chunk of the religion even if there is one sect that doesn't go for it. PS: please let's not get into "oh but the Theravadans are the only REAL ones" K? If a great many of the adherents of a religion believe it, then that is what the religion is, and I am quite justified in pointing out that they are just kidding themselves that they don't believe in a Self.

And here's some more interesting info about apple cider vinegar: http://altmedicine.about.com/od/applecidervinegardiet/a/applecidervineg.htm http://www.naturodoc.com/library/lifestyle/umeboshi_vinegar.htm Some think that vinegar actually has an alkalizing effect on the body. I'm currently trying this alkaline diet thing, will see how it goes. So far there have already been a few minor improvements. I mus0t get back into doing vinegar too..I buy the fancy health food kind because it tastes way better.

Vinegar is well known for helping blood sugar issues. http://tinyurl.com/28wph6m http://tinyurl.com/cwn4jr But if your blood sugar is usually out of control, First make sure you eat a low carb diet, and then add in exercise.

Maybe "Religionism" would be a better word for it.

I'm not the one taking his insights on faith. In fact, I think that is exactly what he said *not* to do. He or whoever actually wrote that bit.

How do you know he even actually existed?