Cheshire Cat

I've never seen a man who was unable to betray his own mother for the sake of good sex... a so-called spiritual man may abandon his goals for the sacred yoni... Women are generally more stable

In the past -before the new age movement and all the magical revivals (Golden Dawn, etc..)- we could say that to have a mate "on the path" would be the best idea... ...but now, -and at least in my country- a woman on the spiritual path is psychologically, emotionally and often physically sick in the 89% of cases (I never never never met the good 11% ... face to face). Therefore, i think it's much better if the lady is an ordinary person. I share the view of MPG

From the link that you provided: "You say that if a layman attains arahantship he must either enter the Order that very day or die and attainparinibbàna. Yet if he is unable to find a robe and bowl and preceptor then that exalted condition of arahantship is a waste, for destruction of life is involved in it." Can you feel how ridiculous and sectarian is this statement? I have no faith in such a discourse... but apparently, the "work" of the buddha was to establish a monastic community and give it a "role" in society. . I'm not aware of any "lay path" described in the Sutta.

To explain is the "job" of the Masters In theravada tradition, they teach to avoid dead people as objects for this kind of meditation... but I'm not sure if this is also in the sutta.

... for the sake of recruiting monks There was no enlightenment for lay people before mahayana ...

No, keep in mind that the Hinayana teachings were given to MONKS, people who practiced celibacy and renunciation because compassion and loving-kindness (the real ones) will lead people to give away everything! Think about all the stories of the saintly hermit who gives away the little food that he possess to the casual traveler... Nonetheless, the brahmaviharas put limitation concerning certain subjects (no loving-kindness toward a dead person, for example). With a little experience in true cultivation, one will see "why" it is so. As for the four immeasurable: they are supposed to set up an intention, but not to develop the actual feeling of compassion, which is the stuff of dedicated practitioners (hermits, etc...). This feeling is also indispensable for tantric practitioners...

No, it's just that most of those who write about compassion have no idea of what it really is. Nor they can grasp its relation with emptiness and how it's generated in emptiness... and how it leads to emptiness! Therefore,I strongly advice to generate the "intention" of saving sentient beings continuously, but to cultivate the strong feeling of compassion only for friends, relatives and generally people who care about you. If there will be some "extra" it will flow by itself...

I really doubt that this internet buddhist have an idea of what he's talking about...

I cultivated compassion on an extensive way for a period of my life (not very long). I was extremely happy, but I lost a lot of money... I could not restrain myself from giving away to those in need. Words like "deeper truth of a person" makes no sense in certain situations... My opinions are strongly influenced by tantric vows: this one especially (10) Being loving toward malevolent people Malevolent people are those who despise our personal teachers, spiritual masters in general, or the Buddhas, Dharma, or the Sangha, or who, in addition, cause harm or damage to any of them. Although it is inappropriate to forsake the wish for such persons to be happy and have the causes for happiness, we commit a root downfall by acting or speaking lovingly toward them. Such action includes being friendly with them, supporting them by buying goods they produce, books that they write, and so on. If we are motivated purely by love and compassion, and possess the means to stop their destructive behavior and transfer them to a more positive state, we would certainly try to do so, even if it means resorting to forceful methods. If we lack these qualifications, however, we incur no fault in simply boycotting such persons. from http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/practice_material/vows/general_tantra/common_root_tantric_pledges.html

@ r v that instruction is for monks who have no possessions. @ jeff To have compassion for all sentient beings will make impossible to have possessions. One will give away everything. Imho, this ideal compassion is just for monks. We lay people should balance this "extreme" thing a little bit... but this is true if we are cultivating compassion seriously: if we are happy with just talking about how compassionate we are, then there's no risk in loving enemies. imho.

According to this definition, here we have a true daoist:

It seems that compassion in buddhism assumes different meanings in dependence of the subject: for example, compassion for your dharma friends means loving-kindness, but compassion for those who harm you means the strong "will" to save them from Nirvana. The loving-kindness compassion imply a flow of power: while it's good to exchange power with your friends and relatives, it may be very bad to do so with those who are opposed to you (enemies, or just people who flourish with your disadvantages). At least, ime.

No, a cruel death....

Are you sure? "Love your enemies" This is what you get...

Compassion is good... but compassion for those who cause harm to us... it is safe?

Imho, this isn't possible. If you really could dissociate from your body, then you'll have the realization of the impure illusory body (in vajrayana terminology): quite an advanced stage of meditation... The real problem is about excessive mental activity (continuously looking for models and coherent explanations), not dissociation. And the cure is sitting meditation, not weird movements. If you do this correctly, after a short period you will experience the real shaking: something that you cannot stop even if you will. This is a common meditation effect. I know that there are people who make huge moneys on spontaneous movement, but this is something over-emphasized imho.

Hi, I'll try to answer at my best, but consider that english is not my native language. "Delusional states of mind" means conditions in which you're fixated in something that it's not real and/or has no value. In this fixation, one is looking for meanings and explanations for things that have no meanings, nor explanations. It's like looking at the wind that gently caress the grass and start to ponder like this: "Is the grass happy now?", "OhOhOh the grass is dancing for me" , "This surely means that Kate loves me!!". Free movements may reflect certain delusion already present in the mind: they are supposed to vanish by themselves with time and understanding... but if you start to give importance to them (give meanings and explanations,etc...) then they will stay there forever and even become more powerful. Surely, there are bodily effects in advanced meditation and it may be a good idea to notice them and interpret them correctly. But, at the beginning, with a short meditation sitting, it's something that it' better to avoid because it's useless. Good to move freely, bad to use this as a diagnosis of psyco/mental/spiritual states. What do you mean by "mind-body split"? How can one do that?

Imho, this is nothing that should scare you, but it will lead to delusional states of mind. "Free movement" after meditation is just exercise for your muscles that may (or may not) reflect psychological stuff... or it may reflect insubstantial fantasies. The real problem is the mere fact that now you're looking for "meanings" and concepts for your experiences. I would suggest to avoid this kind of things. Much better to adopt an easy yoga-postures routine before the sitting.

Yes, but "how" different? Can you give me an idea of the extent to which Tsongkhapa produced a new philosophy? Just to save me hours of study. How much his idea of emptiness differs? Yes, I have the impression that our graveyards full of statues and well-cutted grass are very good for the dead... all this makes the spirits of our deceased particularly pleased as they are organized in "their own city", with their own houses, ect... So, they are not particularly "aggressive" or destructive like bhutas, pisachas and pretas produced in the cremation grounds. They are -to a certain extent- pacified. I think that our westerner graveyards generally don't present any risk for those who decide to live there for a while with a humble heart. In fact, only mad people or extreme ascetics take home in the charnel grounds ... and then they become like ghosts (see the monk in the video...). There's so much suffering in the cremation grounds

Taoist legends are full of incredible stories and miraculous feats of the mighty Immortals. My question is: do this kind of magic of the immortals comes from cultivation practice alone (meditation, long meditation, t'ai chi, hermitage....) or they were also sorcerers able to perform magical rites as the Celestial Masters. Do they train in magical rites and sorcery... or they practice intensive meditation like John Chang to develop those skills? Or maybe both? Thank you!

15 years with the dead ... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278793/Scare-home-Destitute-man-moves-100-year-old-GRAVE-losing-house.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCRbcVo8S3c

I think that Satan in christianity was born as a chaotic moisture made of pagan gods ( as in the judaic traditions for making demons), misunderstanding and intolerance. To "summarize" the false gods tamed by Christ, they used the most popular non-human god: Pan. So, in origin it was about teaching people about the mind of dis-respect for other religious beliefs: destroying pagan statues is emblematic. The "good teaching" was about the self-sacrifice (did by Christ to show the way) for the benefit of others, but it lost its popularity very early...