squib

Yes, it's quite a silly point of view and refuses to inspect it's own limits, which is part of good science, there is only the ordinary dude, with his or her hard wiring, (brain and body)and anything other that that must be fraud, deceit or self-deceit. It becomes increasingly fundamentalist, un-cultured (in other words completely ignorant and even contemptuous of anything other than blunt logical arguments for Any human activity) and evangelical, even more than that, taken to it's own conclusion any activity that would move beyond secular attainments would be taboo and ultimately illegal. As has already happened in some countries

Appeals to the adolescent anti-authoritarian, anti-guru lobby, quite a big niche market now, must say this gentleman shows no balance in his reports what so ever, he has a particular vehemence for Ken Wilber for instance, he is a cultural buffoon in many ways. Collects only negative reports which is his niche and serves them up tabloid style, quite effective for his purpose which is a mockery of anything Guru ( with the large G) or anyone who claims to stand above or represent anything other than the usual boring, limited, secular, egalitarian, safe vantage point.

Hi, yes you may as well say this about anyone who claims paranormal skills, including many of the Taoist practitioners here, or associated with this forum. Which is fine if you apply this across the board. Perhaps it's true they are all frauds con-men or self deceivers. Years of attempts at scientific testing of yogi's for instance, never leads to anything conclusive, there is a youtube doc where a sadhu is locked up in a controlled environment and does not eat or drink or urinate ( for several weeks? I think) still they think he may be smuggling food in, or the control is not good enough, bottom line it's never conclusive to the scientific mind or attitude that is already "prejudicial"

What is that supposed to mean Drew? I'm not with you? You will find the demonizing lobby just as ignorant, compassion less and obsessed as the proponents, it's like a war with idols, caricatures, not real people.

Hard to say what is going on with Sathya Sai Baba, he may well be up to something in the Tantric area, never take what the "victims" say 100% true, the lack of discrimination expressed and let's sign petitions is knee jerk, herd mentality, maybe he has not gone passed the need for orgasm and has played out homo-erotic tendencies, mostly harmless stuff in the long run. The first report I read about his tantric practice, was so thick with judeo christian sex as evil, Sai Baba as devil, supposedly fellating a young man and removing the semen to rub on one of the "pagan" idols out the back of his complex. (the book was called something like " Lord of all the air " circa 1976/7) Whats up with the anti Indian anti Hindu prejudice, is that a Buddhist Taoist thing or just personal opinion, or more like a catholic / protestant -karma rooted perception.

No, the man I mentioned was just speaking at a public event, it caught my attention, I am sure someone here would know more about than me. Here is a quote from the internet, it seems quite common

will pay that! For sure, I see the pure Buddhist method as a compassionate one. Not long ago a Tibetan Lama visiting said in public, he was unsure if reincarnation was true or not, and was not concerned about it, he said belief was not necessary, I thought that was already the case in Buddhism? One thing I like about Taoism, at least how it is often presented, is it is life positive and sex positive, these are not seen as problems It takes real account of the bodily condition, as does some of the yoga schools. It is a love of the incarnate life force.

Hi Ryan, you may find aomeone who knows their Buddhist logic to address your point, though my view of pure Buddhist logic is that it is desire itself, that is seen as the root problem. Which is the search for pleasure (that's any desire including the desire for more subtle or expanded pleasures) As I pointed out earlier most of the (genuine) Wise gave the search for pleasure and attainments a good kicking, and found that all conditional effects (even those attained by meditation and spiritual practice) were at best temporary (or all that is less than enlightenment) It is not really a moral issue ( right or wrong) it's whether it is true or not. Is it true ? Is there any real utopia, gross or subtle, an endless unbroken pleasured state ? -- *Or even a reasonable state of more or less -ok conditions+ -- [ note yes there is it's called middle class ( or higher) living] "Winters cold always follows summers heat" is a famed quote (or it may be the other way around) none the less, it is evident to any realist that it will never be utopia here, no matter how evolved the planet gets with pleasurable technology and so forth- there will always be something lacking, because that is the nature of that which is "conditonal" --it changes-- or as a teacher (jokingly) once put it, "we search for what is eternal, in what is temporal".

No I tend to allow people to make this choice with no problem or superiority about it, people make these choices because they (we) feel it is necessary. If a person has a greater sensitivity or urge to move beyond this they may be able to do so. No I find very little that moves me in conventional Buddhism, the cessation of desire, seems to be the fire-hose method. Put-it-out ! put-it-out!-- before it becomes action. I understand why this compassionate means and way is taught and respect those who practice. I guess this is what you are pointing to, the possibility is more in line with Taoism with its concept of an "immortal body" of bliss, you may be interested to know (or already do know) that some aspirants of Kundalini Yoga, one sect in particular aspire to this also, very similar, except they use different concepts but definitely transmutation of sex energy. This is more about descending into bodily life, or bodily immortalization rather than the absolute absence of body found in pure Buddhism and Advaita. In those schools the body is almost ignored or at least given little attention, whereas in the yoga's and Taoist practice it is very much taken into account. In many ways my heart belongs there as well However, there are 2 things here, evolutionary and esoteric growth (via yoga's and Taoist practice, among others) and the absolute Transcendental principal. Or you could say spiritual (esoteric) and Transcendental, oddly the greatest of the Sages say one does not necessarily lead to the other but I believe both are necessary ( so if you ask what I believe, I say both are absolutely necessary but the Absolute Transcendental principal is senior, always.)

---We also agree that most people get the hedonism thing down wrong. Granted, it does take experience to learn. True long term hedonism requires a lot of wisdom--- Ryan, can you expand on this point, what exactly are you pointing to with the term "long term hedonism". Do you mean an "esoteric" or internal bodily pleasure mechanism, or state, rather than external stimulants ?

Thanks Ryan, I should have qualified that point a little, most people I know who are westerners are mostly agnostic or otherwise what you may call "exoteric" believers in a "religion" mostly Christianity or a touch-of-Buddhism, maybe accepting Karma or The Dalai Lama as a role model etc And yes they are short term hedonists, because correct me if you think otherwise, most long term hedonists end up in the gutter, jail or wheel chairs, so most people learn a little moderation perhaps is wiser than out right debauchery after giving it something of kick in their youth perhaps on your 3rd point, I disagree, the root of what is profound and useful in religious wisdom (and totally agree much is useless and less than even wise- nonsense and mythology)and what did move the wise was the observable fleeting nature of happiness, right here, some may be doing just fine but for the majority of humans and non humans, its brief and unsatisfactory. That has been an observation made by many. --Mostly, religions convert people because of our fear and uncertainty over death-- That is correct

Hi friend, can you clarify this statement --that confuse existential crises with the pleasure/addiction cycle-- --I think the most useful stance one can take is to achieve long-term hedonism on the earthly plane and assume nirvana/union with the Tao comes automatically after death. Ethics/morality exist only to to make our earthly lives better/more pleasurable-- What you say above, is what most modern westerners are already doing and thinking, mostly agnostic or "maybe, maybe not". (change nirvana to "heaven or salvation" or even "something better") Your point of view as expressed here is entirely conventional, even reasonable. Do you want to be talked out of it? it wont happen. Unless you are playing at "devils advocate" you are stuck with this viewpoint like most of our fellow men. I hope the after life works out that way, but most sages think The Tibetan Book of The Dead vision is most accurate ( or similar- bardo-sleep-re birth) into the same or similar rather shitty (for most people) state.

Friend, most people will die after several days without any fluid, very dangerous, best not to recommend this. There was a young acetic who was watched (by skeptics) for 60 plus hours and took no fluid, it is somewhere around that point that organ failure can occur, so at least it has been recorded.

Very interesting and useful experience, no doubt, I am not a Buddhist, so my reply is that of one looking from the outside, I have only a shallow knowledge of Theravada and Dzogchen, but "dilemmas" in general, I know more about. What would an(apparent) Arahant say about a (apparent)Dzogchen Master? Would he/she say their Realization is the same? Would they even know ? Would a Thai Buddhist know what Dzogchen teaches, or Realizes (real question)? You would hope the ultimate Realization of all Buddhist practice is the same, right? Otherwise Buddhism would be a patchwork of different realizations and levels of Realisation (which it may well be, in common with other religions, perhaps)held together by Tradition and culture. My personal opinion is that this is more correct. Some things are held in common, to make it "Buddhism" but the difference between say the Mahayana Way, Zen and Theravada and there various Realizations, do not "seem" to amount to any cohesion in actual Realization. Some may argue the true difference is in the description, language, local culture, local emphasis or emphasis taught by a specific sect or culture. One thing I do think is correct is that Theravada is closest to the original teaching, and debate over Bodhisattva v present Realisation is no concern.

Hi Scotty, thanks for the welcome, I may talk about my background a little later, down the track, the reason being, when I mention my roots it tends to create a polarization which makes it hard to be seen as just one of the "lads", if you know what I mean