Cheshire Cat

I totally agree with His Holiness. Also, there are those who have in mind the kalachakra prophecies.

He's saying that we exist as supercharged waveforms. As you meditate, you will enter into infinite coherence that transcends understanding and you will soon be guided by a power deep within yourself — a power that is pranic, higher. Through meditation, our souls are opened by serenity.

You should be guided by a power deep within yourself — a power that is perennial, self-aware. It can be difficult to know where it begins. If you have never experienced this vector undefined, it can be difficult to vibrate. Enlightenment is calling to you via pulses. Then, the future will be an unified flowering of hope. Dogma is the antithesis of balance. You may be ruled by selfishness without realizing it. Do not let it eliminate the nature of your story. Where there is turbulence, rebirth cannot thrive. Consciousness consists of bio-feedback of quantum energy. “Quantum” means an evolving of the ever-present.

There are a self-identity and a perceived-identity. If my self-identity is that of a chinese panda, this doesn't mean that people should treat me as a member of an endangered specie, imho.

There are saints whose bodies become incorruptibles after death. Philosophy--> God preserves their body from mortal corruption to resurrect them at the end of days. There are saints whose bodies rapidly disappear after death. Philosophy--> Their Mind has realized enlightenment and it managed to dissolve the aggregates. There are saints whose bodies suddenly release a bunch of shit after death. Philosophy--> Their Higher Selves is ONE with the universe. No longer in this body. In my opinion, if only you could stand in front of reality without besmirching its purity with your unfounded explanations and philosophies, you'll get a taste of what Zen really is.

@Shad282 there's no shame in following your desires for a partner: you don't need to justify it with philosophical ideas. Sometimes the compromise works best.

Assuming that you're missing something is often the first step of the journey, but chasing for it outside yourself is just a worthless effort, in my opinion. The common men engage in relationships to get something that is missing in their lives, but the sages of the past relied on relationship to increase what they already got by themselves. Once a Christian monk said "If only the laymen knew the delicious happiness and supreme joy that God bestows on his monks, humanity would come to an end"

I don't think so. What the individual really wants is to experience a state of profound love. Relationships are just the mean of the common man to get it... or -most the time- to get a shadow of the real thing. I don't mean to dispel delusions since this is the job of the Buddhas, but consider that if your spiritual practice doesn't give you the ability to experience states of profound love without a partner, maybe it could be a good idea to establish a foundation for your path. If you can't fly, then walk. No need to kill yourself for that. To be alone, satisfied and content is a skill that comes trough a real spiritual training of the mind. People aren't born with it.

If you can't manage to stay alone and experience happiness, what's the use of your spirituality?

Who can read spanish? Here's An interesting article about Mj from the point of view of the shamanic healer http://www.takiwasi.com/esp/pub21.php

It's not the barking up the tree nor the barking up the flag. It's the barking up the Mind. (Ch'an Master Foyan -more or less-, 1107 - Song Dynasty)

Exactly. And unless science demonstrates that tea leaves contain human DNA, we can't be sure that Damo ever meditated at all.

I'm not sure that this article reports an accurate hagiography of Bodhidharma because It comes from a daoist sect. There are many legends around the man And each school reports the ones that supports their teachings

No doubts that jesus mythology has a tremendous impact on our civilization, but I'm compelled to ask: "Do we really need that old myth that talks about the promise of a future resurrection from the dead?" Maybe this could give a sort of significance to our lives -as it did for our ancestors-, but today we can't really accept the complete picture of this story, we focus on the tiny bits that can be compared with the oriental philosophies that we've already integrated in our souls. We discard the core elements of the myth and we open threads and discussions to say that Jesus didn't conveyed completely with his words the true message. Sure, we know the true message and therefore Jesus also knew it... because... well... he's Jesus! We can't even imagine that Jesus had no idea of the meanings that we create today. What's the point of clinging to Jesus story? To find certainty. To give power to our new philosophies because they don't have power in themselves. For me, it's the same

Isn't it an hypothetical text? What about the Liber magisterii Christi ? It's a book written by the secret son of Pilate who shows evidences that Jesus never existed and everything was made up. Unfortunately, it was destroyed by the church and it is an hypothetical text It couldn't be so because Jesus said: No man hath seen God at any time; (John 1:18) ... but Moses saw God face-to-face and talked to him. Many times. They had different gods. I know what you're thinking: Jesus is negating the experience of duality stressing the true reality which is One. Or maybe that the experience of God is "outside" the time-concept. Or that Moses was spiritually evolved to be much more than a man.

Where are all the buddhist-newagey comparisons when it comes to Mohammed and Moses? Was Mohammed a Buddha? Did he teach about the vajra body, the luminous fancy mind and all the paraphernalia ?

Do you think that he left a legacy?

What about Muhammad And Moses?

Once, I had your perspective thinking of Jesus as a sort of Buddha, but now I think that it's just a romantic view

Here's something interesting to watch. You can see what the bible and the gospels were supposed to support.

I don't think that the old testament is about punishment: it's about a pact between God and a specific group of people. As for the real Jesus... Let's read about the night in which he was arrested: Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him, (John 18:12) That's your english translation which is supposed to show that a few soldiers were there to arrest a pacific man who teaches peace&love. But if you read the original greek, you have a different version of the story. The band is "σπεῖρα" and the captain is "χιλίαρχος" The band is a Cohort (600 men) and the captain is a "tribune". That was a serious affair: I can't really imagine 600 men sent to arrest a dozen whose leader teaches that "if they hurt you, show the other cheek". Love and forgiveness is a later invention. What other concepts of Messiah were around at the time of jesus? Isn't Messiah a jewish thing? Wasn't Jesus a jew? Paul preached asceticism because he was a fervent ascetic: in those passages, he condemns worldly desires of the flesh to purify his soul. Purify for what? To inherit the kingdom of God. BTW, Paul never met Jesus in person. Jesus loved women and his disciples never fast

The gospel of John -and especially the prologue- has an enigmatic affinity with the Poimandres (Corpus Hermeticum). Probably both texts were written in the same cultural context and in a specific background of ellenistic philosophies that are largely used by Church's father like Saint Augustine, Eusebius and Cyrill to defend the christian theories. Hermeticism is a philosophy that responds to the precise needs of the people in that period. Today, it's possible to read a text written by Celsus that escaped the persecution of the church because it was quoted in the work of one the Church's Father. This text shows "what" is early christianity: a cult for illiterate people, full of superstitions and ideas taken from various gnostic sects, oriental religions and so forth. No wonder that you may find something that could be interpreted as high spiritual teaching, but I believe that it wasn't in the intentions of the authors to introduce the concepts that you explain today. Hermeticism precedes Jesus and it's present only in John's gospel, not in the others... and not even in Paul's letters which are the earliest christian documents available (yes, Paul's letter were written before the gospels). Paul was in contact with the first days Christians who received teachings from Jesus himself and if you compare Celsus and Paul, you can draw an accurate depiction of what the original christian doctrine really was. No Higher selves, no rainbow bodies, no gurus, nothing. They spent their lives waiting for the second coming of Christ to punish the sinners and establish the kingdom of God. Meanwhile, they established special communities with beautiful standards of communal living.

It seems that you're building a new theology based on vedanta-buddhist philosophies: that's quite interesting from a sociological point of view. Veritably, a term which obviously has the sole literal meaning of a tangible kingdom (and it's the only meaning that can be supported in every contexts -in the gospels-) can be various things instead, in order to suit a particular philosophy. In Mat 21:43 it's the teaching, in Mar 14:25 it's the afterlife... and in Lu 7:28 it's so abstruse that I cannot even distinguish what it is. Ok, let's just say that the gospels have different layers of meaning: I keep the literal one.

I've read it: it's quite abstruse. I think that Jesus had no idea on what is a diamond body. It's clear to you because you assume that the Kingdom of God is something spiritually situated, within. The gospels never explain plainly what it is. But probably, for Jesus it was something quite different from your philosophical ideas. (Mat 21:43) Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.. People can be parted from it (Mar 14:25) Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. It's a place where people can drink wine (Lu 7:28) For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. It's a place where people have ranks. etc..

I don't mean to stress this point since this is not my native language and this theme is quite intricate... ... but I suggest that maybe it's your spiritual understanding that hunts for meanings and profundity where the original writers were just talking about a killed man that -in their belief- was destined to come back in a few years to physically resurrect the dead and establish a kingdom of immortals. In other words, you read in jesus' words what's already in your mind. Hundreds of people did this and dozens of different christianities are still around today...