JustARandomPanda
-
Content count
2,161 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Everything posted by JustARandomPanda
-
This is such a wrong analysis of what I posted I don't even know where to begin. I am not a Chess Master and can not anticipate every single conceivable way people will read my posts. If I start trying to do so I will begin second guessing practically every post I make...and ultimately end up not posting at all for fear somebody somewhere will read my post incorrectly (and get pissed)...as you did.
-
Whatever dude. You REALLY are showing your ignorance of me and my post history since this is the conclusion you've come to. Accepting differences of POVs is something I strive for. I just got finished trying to mod fairly and impartially several threads which got into the equivalent of a shouting match and ended up getting someone suspended (not by me). I'd say that's putting my money where my mouth is. No I don't. I guess that means you have a bigger Spiritually-Realized-Penis than me. Sorry I posted my erronous POV. Liking/not liking had and has nothing to do with my posts. I was speaking about how I currently view things at this point in time. This can and will change. Comments on THIS post are not welcomed.
-
It was none of the above. Um...ok.
-
Oh I hear what you're saying. I do think Science has a great deal to offer and has been a huge help overall. I think mainly what I was (somewhat bumblingly) referring to is the unspoken biases of certain proponents of Materialism. For example, Michael Shermer seems to me like a very sharp man. He takes the Scientific Method to be his personal method of inquiry and critque for all sorts of phenomena. And I agree in MANY MANY cases it's a damn good method to make use of. The thing is - sometimes I get frustrated with such people despite trying not to be. They do not see that by adhering to the Scientific Method as a personal philosophy of "self-inquiry" and "other-inquiry" they are leaving out (to me) an equally legitimate time-tested method of self-inquiry/other-inquiry - namely the ones Buddhism, Taoism, Mysticism, etc advocate. I totally agreed with a post GiH once made. He made the (to me) compelling point that proponents of Materialism have a certain certitude of mindset about their materialistic beliefs. Inplicit in this assumption is that SCIENCE is backing up their Materialism - thus their mindset trumps the mindset/experiences/beliefs of say...a Mystic. People who come from this perspective are unused to having serious, deep and sustained CREDIBLE critiques of their worldview. In short, Michael Shermer has never had to tangle with a Seth or GoldisHeavy. Imagine if there were thousands or even hundreds of thousands of Seth's or GiH's out there making credible, sustained, logical counter arguments to Materialist/Scientistic beliefs? Shucks...maybe new avenues of scientific research might be spawned if such took place.
-
This is why I've slowly begun to abandon the Materialist worldview. Interestingly, I've caught myself slipping back into a materialist view depending on which subject I'm turning over in my mind or read on Taobums. It's harder to give up those ideas than at first it seems. For many decades I self-identified as both a Materialist and a Skeptic. Especially a Materialist/Skeptic ala Michael Shermer and Skeptic Magazine. I still think the skeptic stance is good in many cases (god knows a lot of New Agers - some of whom I've known personally - sure could use it). However I now find it self-limiting. That is, Skeptics of the Michael Shermer kind are skeptical of everything except their own (usually Materialist) beliefs. A true Skeptic imo would retain the skeptical attitude but include their own belief system as a legitimate field of skeptical inquiry too. This is now the approach I'm trying to take. It's harder than at first I thought but it seems like a decent enough approach to life and it works for me. YMMV. For the moment, if someone were to tell me to make a forced choice I would have to say I'm not a Materialist anymore. Some of the things I've experienced are just too freaking weird and defy what I came to understand about the Materialist worldview and I'm left utterly baffled as to how to explain them. I still don't know how to explain them.
-
I don't know enough about Taoism yet to decide one way or the other. I did notice (going off what little I know) there seem to be a lot of similiarities between Taoism and Stoicism. Unfortunately I don't live near any Taoist temples or whatnot to learn directly from a Taoist priest so if anyone can recommend some Taoist texts other than the Tao te Ching or works of Chang Tzu I'd appreciate it.
-
You're not the only one. I read this whole thread before my first post and I'm still puzzled too.
-
I'm quickly discovering all the answers in this thread and others don't help me figure that out.
-
I'm still unclear about this. What exactly is the function of the Triple Burner? Is it to move Qi around?
-
There are words for that. It's called being a Keyboard Jockey.
-
Thanks for the links
-
Fascinating. These Buddha-Debates are going to prove quite interesting...
-
Just wondering.... If Buddhist teachings are impure since the 13th century onward...wouldn't that mean we are already into the beginning of the prophecied Dharma-Ending-Age? Or is Vmarco stating this impurity is restricted only to Vajrayana?
-
Am I understanding you correctly in that your main objection to GiH's statement is that the Heartmind has a "memory" or "beliefs" after death? What causes the rebirth that brings about manifestation as a human and not - say - as a dog or a bug? p.s. thanks for the references.
-
You lost me on this one. Can you please clarify? Really? That statement is contrary to sutras? Which sutras if I may ask? Also what is Mahamudras? It was my understanding that as one continues meditation over the years one will see through the skandas or see their "falseness". I confess even though I've read this statement - about the falsity of the skandas I do not in truth know what that actually means. I take it this Clear Light is the Clear Light I've read the Dalai Lama reference? I thought whatever it was you discover (awaken to) was beyond even formlessness? Is this a Wrong View? How then is it proposed to awaken the Masses each to his/her own Clear Light? I thought Nhat Hanh's Living Buddha, Living Christ would at the very least create merit which would then create better conditions that arise in the world- like say fewer people in a population who support going to war. Is merit making unnecessary for Buddhahood? Does the Wikipedia page on Vajrayana give an accurate exposition of Vajrayana? If what he pointed to is beyond all concepts yet concepts are one of the products of one of the skandhas then it seems logical to me one will not get a glimpse of understanding what Buddhism points to until one sees the falseness of each of them. Yet from scanning my own copy of Shurangama I was struck over and over how the Buddha was saying even ridiculously highly attained masters who had seen through the skandas often cannot see things rightly - and thus eventually fall from their high realization. I got the impression this could still be the case even of someone who has attained all the jhanas and the samadhis. I don't know if this includes the dhyanas. Are the dhyanas higher than the jhanas or samadhis? How interesting. This almost sounds to me like you agree with Ralis and against Vajrahidaya and CowTao. That whatever it is the Buddha pointed to is ultimately inexpressible in words, texts, etc. Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying here?
-
No. It was not sleep paralysis. I've experienced sleep paralysis many times. This other incident was utterly unique, never happened before nor since.
-
What does "In General" mean to you?
JustARandomPanda replied to Stigweard's topic in General Discussion
Any of you going to make the "Reboot" thread? -
I've experienced this only once in my lifetime. At night. My breathing shut down completely and I mean completely. Unfortunately instead of simply watching quietly it made me very scared that I was dying.
-
What does "In General" mean to you?
JustARandomPanda replied to Stigweard's topic in General Discussion
Sigh.... Why do I get the impression nobody understood what I was trying to state? Damn I suck at making understandable posts. -
What does "In General" mean to you?
JustARandomPanda replied to Stigweard's topic in General Discussion
Um...Sloppy despite the cited sources used in that thread Center actually disagrees that my equation of "X in general = the majority of X" is as equally valid as his. This despite him admitting one of the many possible definitions of generality is "majority". He claims he proved my equation to be invalid. Just sayin. -
Would you then be opposed to creating a new thread discussing this? I simply do not know HOW to get rid of all beliefs! The moment I get rid of one set of beliefs there are others that take their place.
-
Damn. So many fingers pointing at someone else. It never ends.... K, First rule of posting on Internet Forums: Anything you say can and will be used against you - guaranteed.
-
From what little I've studied of it Sufis teach about Heartmind too. Honestly I'm really clueless about what this "Heartmind that is beyond words" is all about. GiH says to forget texts cause I've already got it. If I've already got it what is there to investigate? Doesn't that mean we are expressing Heartmind every moment that we draw breath - especially if it's the Core of our Being as GiH maintains? This is WHY when I read on these boards about Heartmind I get the sense it is something "other". As in - other than my ordinary, run-of-the-mill, everyday me. And it's confusing to hear we have it but it can not be talked about. OTH talking about it reinforces the idea in me that it is something "other" too - like maybe some sort of highly specialized state. So EITHER way I turn - whether I go with the dudes saying it can not be expressed by words or the dudes who say it can - I still get this sense from both camps that Heartmind is "other" than ordinary, non-meditating me. Apparently one has to do assorted meditation practices in order to uncover it?! WTF?
-
I have wondered about this too. As there are long passages in the Shurangama Sutra where the Buddha talks about this or that extremely highly realized master hitting a certain insight, concluding something about it and then the Buddha goes on to say that it is a wrong view. Example:
-
The problem with this for me is that it just sounds so BORING. I mean I supposedly already AM whatever I'm trying to uncover. Meaning it sounds like my plain old ordinary monkey mind is also a manifestation of this Buddha Nature or whatever it is. If it's already manifested why am I bothering to uncover it? I could just go play my PSP instead comfortable in the knowledge that no matter what state manifests Buddha Nature is doing it's 'thang". BTW I sometimes get confused as to whether Primeordial Mind is the same thing as Buddha Nature. GiH likes to talk about Mind a lot. I read somewhere - if I recall correctly - that he equated Mind with Rigpa. In fact I seem to recall him fussing with VH about this. Why, he said, talk about distinguishing the fancy word Rigpa and Sems when it's easier and more easily understood to use the words to distinguish Mind from Mindset? I confess I'm not particularly clear on what each is. I have no idea where this idea came from but Primordial Mind is like the Original...Hmm...something...self? Well VH would just say self is not the same as Mindstream. But to me in practical terms they sound like they end up being the same thing. Synonyms. Is it even possible to reify "Mindstream"? I'm unclear as to why VH objects to the word self but accepts the word mindstream. GiH do you agree with VH's distinction between the two?
