Vmarco

Does that have anything to do with what was said in the video? If you think that a message depends on your predisposition and judgment of the messenger, is not your being here (on this planet) frankly useless? I must agree, that to such a judgmental fellow, my posts, would indeed be a threat. As for your insult regarding my personal habits,...no drugs, no ciggies, no religion. For me,...."it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society" J Krishnamurti Isn't there a Tea Party website where you would fit in better? I'm mean, your "location", the oxymoron "here and now" points to someone quite ignorant (as in the Buddha definition),...wouldn't you agree? V

Why do you continue attacking messengers instead of commenting on the message? V

I excuse your unfamiliarity,...the term ignorance should not imply a lack of object-ive knowledge. Ignorance is what muddies the diamond that we are. Buddha said, “Your ignorance and delusion are nothing strange, for it is difficult for logical thinking to understand peace.” For a primer on the Short Path try: http://wisdomsgoldenrod.org/notebooks/ Check out: 23. Advanced Contemplation. V

Once again you are not discussing the message, but that the messenger must be wrong because she doesn't agree with your predetermined view of things. Speaking for myself, I haven't been offended, upset, or selfish for at least a dozen years,...thus your comments are puzzling, as if you tell a non-smoker that they are a smoker. Something I wrote on another thread has relevance here,..."Although those on the Long Path's appear to love calling those on the Short Path prideful and such, you really don't have a clue, because any pride has been effortless extinguished as a consequence of entering the Short Path. Thus, your insistent character assassinations is just proof of your own Long Path level,...and attachment to the delusion of humility. "Humility is just a degree of pride" Wei Wu Wei Unfortunately, the immature who see no humility, and automatically prescribe pride, are way too caught up in duality." Your indoctrinated idea of compassion doesn't match my compassion,...and that troubles you,...and that's OK. Of course I'd love to see you liberated from your sentient beliefs,...but it is not a bodhisattvas job to liberate every sentient being by herself,...is a process of cooperation,...and a process, that for many, takes a long, long time. The good news is, not only is time one-thing, but it doesn't even exist, except as people perceives it to exist. The first Absolute Bodhichitta says, treat everything you perceive as a dream. V

First, this seems to be an open question for anyone. Second, not sure what the question is asking. a) "what would you say is the nature of light?" b "interesting,...what would you say is the nature of light?" c) something else I'll take the question "what is the nature of light" The word nature implies the light of the electrodynamic field, as there is no energy or mass beyond the nature of things. Thus, the nature of light is divided. As far as from what does this nature of light arise,...that is the subject of Undivided Light. Although I'm quite capable of discussing both Divided Light and Undivided Light,...the length of effort to begin from the baby-steps is prohibitive for me (besides being no fun at all),...thus I suggested the on-line book 'Secret of Light' as a primer. Although, as I have mentioned, the book is permeated with religio-sciential imaginings, it does give a good foundation for understanding Divided and Undivided Light,...moreso in the second half. However, the book as a whole, could very well precipitate a quantum leap in understanding for any Daoist interested in the cyclical nature of duality. V

I found that, in that video quote I mentioned, at minute 14:06, and certainly minute 17:10, those observations about our indoctrinated prejudices are illustrated nicely. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCWNgSa7GvA&feature=related My apologies Chris D,...for missing where you said that there were "truths" in that video,...I thought you were referring to the zeitgeist film which was never my intent to bring up (and I agree with you that there is surely much opinion in it). However, this discussion is about Traditions and Lineages. V

I disagree with the inter-faith notion that belief systems can be good,...as Osho said, it may appear to be a consulation, but consulation is opium. All belief systems deny, disconnect, suppress, disempower. V

My comment regarding Daoists and Buddhists being better able to understand the nature of light was pretty much explained in post #8. The better question would be, why do you ask the question you do, when you already know the answer to your "out take" of the full post in question. Did you open the thread, and like a Christian blindly pointing to a particular scripture, just read that? Are you simply being nit-picky because you didn't understand the full #8 post? Or is there some other reason that compelled you to bring up what you did? To me, as I'd imagine most who read post #8 could comprehend, that an evolved Daoist or Buddhist has shred a significant amount of beliefs, to allow them to understand light in a non-object-ive, non-subect-ive way. V

To make a further point about Traditions and Lineages, start the following YouTube at minute 12:00, and whenever the word 'economics' is mentioned, think "Traditions and Lineages", and whenever the term 'Economist' is mentioned, think "Priests and Gurus". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCWNgSa7GvA&feature=related

Vajrahridaya, your beliefs are blinding you from reading what I've said. First,...although your Lineage disagrees, other Buddhists have said, "it is important to remember that dependent origination is essentially and primarily a teaching that has to do with the problem of suffering and how to free ourselves from suffering, and not a description of the evolution of the universe." That is not my quote,...but I do share that position. You then continue with your false accusations that I worship an Infinite Light, which I have said. In fact, I recall posting that,...Infinity is another voguish belief topic among the object-ive minded. Theories of infinite space, time, and quantity are just more object-ive math. Definitions of infinity are related or relative to the concept of immeasurability in space, time, or quantity. However, if there is no space, time, or quantity, as implied by quantum cosmology, then there is no infinity. I also said that I am on the Short Path,...I don't have years to follow some guru object-ively,...I've already realized the delusion of objects. Your suggestion is akin to asking a geometrist to go back to grade school to learn arithmetic. Please, don't misinterpret me,...I'm sure that there are many people who feel they need to learn arithmetic,...I'm just not one of them. Once one has stepped onto the Short Path there is no going back to the Long Path's. Although those on the Long Path's appear to love calling those on the Short Path prideful and such, you really don't have a clue, because any pride has been effortless extinguished as a consequence of entering the Short Path. Thus, your insistent character assassinations is just proof of your own Long Path level,...and attachment to the delusion of humility. "Humility is just a degree of pride" Wei Wu Wei Unfortunately, the immature who see no humility, and automatically prescribe pride, are way too caught up in duality. V

So, "Essentially every religion is the result of either the founder or his followers taking this stance"....that, "If any person claims to speak or act for the impersonal, while denying their personal nature, then this is willful ignorance. To the extent that that person has faith in their own impersonality, abominations are likely to arise." I can understand that faith in anything can, and generally does, manifest abominations of all kinds,...that's the nature of faith. But part one of the "stance" looks tricky to me. Is the claiming person speaking from the personal or impersonal (the impersonal being akin to cooperative rather than competitive, or liberal rather than illiberal). Would the impersonal actually deny the personal? Or perhaps denying the "force" of the personal as being more important than the impersonal. Next,...how does that play into the line: "You don't get a pass because you are you and those other people didn't know what they were talking about." Which you are you? The you that one thinks they are? Or the you, the impersonal you, beyond thinking? What is not getting a pass? Is it that one should not assume they should get a pass from attacking a messenger because they are offended by the message. I don't know,...not sure I understand that post. V

right where it belongs See the animal in his cage that you built Are you sure what side you're on? Better not look him too closely in the eye Are you sure what side of the glass you are on? See the safety of the life you have built Everything where it belongs Feel the hollowness inside of your heart And it's all right where it belongs What if everything around you Isn't quite as it seems What if all the world you think know Is an elaborate dream? And if you look at your reflection Is that all you want it to be? What if you could look right through the cracks would you find yourself - find yourself afraid to see? What if all the world's inside of your head Just creations of your own? Your devils and your gods all the living and the dead And you're really all alone? You can live in this illusion You can choose to believe You keep looking but you can't find the woods While you're hiding in the trees

I'm sure you feel as if you post out of the most respect, that is, from your personal viewpoint, however, your post above is as a definition of ad hominem. Interestingly, you don't address the message at all,...you just attack the messenger, as a selfish, prideful, dishonest fool to whom the truth may someday be revealed. Go figure! I can understand you have a fixed notion of compassion,...and my sharing some other points of view did not encourage you to share your feelings on compassion and how they conflict with Chögyam Trungpa or the Bodhisattva vow to liberate sentient beings from all that steps between them and their direct experience. Yes,...it is quite difficult for the personal to interact with the impersonal. The impersonal is often seen as immoral by the personal. For example, a moral person can become quite upset over the story of Naropa's time with Tilopa, and wonder how could Tilopa have been so mean. But that's the view point of a moral person. As Osho correctly said, “Morality can only be imposed from without when we are asleep. It can only be pseudo, false, a façade, it cannot become your real being…morality is bound to be nothing but a deep suppression. You cannot do anything while asleep; you can only suppress. And through morality, you will become false. You will not be a person, but simply a “persona”—just a pseudo-entity. . . . Only a dishonest person can be moral.” I must also assume that your attacks on the messenger were also prompted by an irritation of your ego to consider the nature of light and duality,...a very frightening subject for ego. Thus, overall, your total disregard of the message is indicative of a narrow belief system that keeps ego in seemingly check, such as when Martin Luther said, "Reason should be destroyed in all Christians" or St Ignatius Loyola saying, "If the church should have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appear white, we ought in like manner pronounce it black." Or William Jennings Bryan stating, "If the bible had said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would believe it." Regardless,...thanks for the dialogue. V

That is relatively true, but very misleading. The statement should read: "That light is either particles or waves depending on the method used to define Divided, Electrodynamic light" Electrocdynamic or divided light is either a (crystallized, slowed down) solid/yang; or high frequency torus/yin. Light itself, that is, Undivided Light, not the projected simulation of the electrodynamic field, is Wu (Still), that is, without time, energy or mass. V

The senses, or anything that arises from mass, cannot see stillness, it can only perceive motion. Both incandescent (yang)and radiative (yin)light have motion,...and that motion never ceases, except,...if they become balanced, in which case, they cancel each other out. The senses cannot see Undivided Light. So,...we really need a better vocabulary so to distinguish the difference between the divided light of the electrodynamic spectrum,...and Undivided Light, which travels no distance in no time, and thus has no need for speed. I look forward to dialoguing with those who take this subject both seriously and openly. V

As someone with credentials in Early Christian scholarship, and who has taken the Bodhisattva vow, I mostly agree with Thomas Jefferson, who said, "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology....The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." I fully agree that threshold to Enlightenment, that is, the direct realization of Undivided Light, comes by way of, and only by way of, the Dark polarity of Divided Light. Within this Dazzling Darkness is bodhi, the female noun for wisdom. The more you understand light, the more of what I said will be recognized. If we want to experience the "Now", the journey, repeated over and over by the Enlightened, is to uncover Clear, Undivided Light. V

On the contrary,...I'm quite sure I did not use the term anatta, nor inquired about in any post on this forum,...and yet you accuse me of having "not realized anatta and shunyata... therefore at present your views are no different from that of Advaita Vedanta*." Which is absurd,...for several reasons which can be authenticated throughout my posts. As for Dependent Origination,...you are mistaken,...it is NOT the most profound and fundamental teachings of the Buddha that underpins all his other teachings,...as I've mentioned,...most mature Buddhists have said, "it is important to remember that dependent origination is essentially and primarily a teaching that has to do with the problem of suffering and how to free ourselves from suffering, and not a description of the evolution of the universe." On the other hand, let's be clear,...Xabir's anatta believes his superior knowledge of Buddha dogma surpasses all others. The thing is Xabir, authentic Buddhism isn't about knowledge, or regurgitating the ideas of Lineages. Dependent Origination, which is in essence, the same as the Four Noble Truths, is simply to point to the fact that a sentient being is not who they think they are. I'm quite certain that you do not have a clue,...because you have given no indication as to any understanding of When you are. NO ONE, NEVER, EVER, understands Dependent Origination without simultaneously uncovering When they are. 'When' is a viewable characteristic of a true bodhisattva,...and thus I say, you don't have a clue. For example,...Buddhists have a story about Shakyamuni Buddha and Angulimala, the wearer of a garland of fingers. Angulimala was a notorious bandit who cut off a finger from each of his victims and wore them all around his neck. Although there are several variations of the story, the punch line is nearly the same. One day, Buddha, the light of Asia, was walking calmly along a road in the Kingdom of Kosala, where Angulimala was seeking his next victim. Seeing Buddha, Angulimala ran up to bash him from behind, yet he could not get close enough, and the faster he went, the Awakened One seemed to go that much faster. Infuriated and bewildered at not being able to catch him, Angulimala shouted for Buddha to stop. The light of Asia replied, “But I’m standing still. If you desire to catch me, you too must be still.” This is where oral traditions, especially Theravada ones, go off into different invented morals. The true pearl in the tale is that no matter how fast you move to catch light, light will always be 299,792 kilometers per second faster. Undivided light can only be caught through stillness. Through this experience, Angulimala acquired one taste of the present. Thus, when Buddha said, “Come, bhikkhu,” Angulimala removed his garland of fingers and became a devotee of the light. (A bhikkhu is a fully ordained male monastic). One taste of the present brings a realization that the past is not real, and who really wants what’s unreal besides the unreal? mc² < c V