There is no self

[Marblehead]

When you typed all that you were just looking at a computer screen.

 

And the important word to look at in that sentence above is "you".

 

Peace & Love!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Why don't you actually study buddhism for the answer?

With respect, i suggest that you stop studying the beliefs of others.. i'm sure i'll screw-up this quote, but: 'Don't walk in the foot-steps of others, seek what they sought.. on you own path.." A primary issue for 'me', and for Taoists (if i recall correctly), is a lack of authenticity.. where the experiences of Life are tainted by preconceived beliefs, experiencing life through your beliefs is to abandon your opportunity to be 'You'.. and, yes, i understand some people are not interested in being 'real', they prefer to play their parts.. delightful little puppets for an amused audience..

If "I" is the body, there would be annhilation. What is so hard to understand?

Hi Alwayson: What's "hard to understand" is that "I" IS the body, AND "I" IS the 'Source'.. simultaneously.. "I" never vanishes, it does change perspectives, though..

Any memory of a previous life is actually caused by negative spirits that attach to various people, transferring memories.

Any memory of a 'previous life' is most likely a mis-interpretation of a glimpse of your 'non-local' consciousness, of the 'Cosmic Memory' of ALL past existences/experiences.. from which elements of your 'local' manifestation resonate with some past existence resident in the Cosmic Memory.. which, could be argued that since we are, ultimately, One thing behaving in a Universe of 'ways'.. it could be argued that the resonance with a memory of a past existence is also an element of that same 'One thing', then okay.. it's 'your' past-life, but.. that's a bit of a stretch just to feel 'right'.. as i have been fortunate, on occasion, to experience the 'Cosmic Consciousness', i am clear as to the relationship between my current manifestation/awareness and the Oneness encounter.. as mentioned above, the glimpse of Cosmic Consciousness experiences the entire totality of existence "in that instant".. you betcha!!! WOW!!! then, as we return our awareness to our 'local' manifestation, we will recall aspects of that 'Cosmic' experience based on resonance and coherence of our individual 'understandings'.. we will interpret those recollections according to the same understandings, preferences, and prejudices.. if i prefer ancient Chinese Sage's experiences, then my recollections of the 'Cosmic' encounter will likely focus on 'Cosmic Memories' related to that.. if someone prefers 'Angels', their interpretations will resonate accordingly.. which is kind of why very few people recall their 'past-life' as a weak abused sex-slave for some slovenly warrior clan.. nope, they generally imagine a resonance much more romantically, or more 'hero-like'..

 

anyway, i ramble too much.. nothing i say is true because i say so, it only makes more or less sense to the observer according to their inclination to validate it through their own experiences..

 

Be well..

[3bob]

Greetings..

 

 

With respect, i suggest that you stop studying the beliefs of others.. i'm sure i'll screw-up this quote, but: 'Don't walk in the foot-steps of others, seek what they sought.. on you own path.." A primary issue for 'me', and for Taoists (if i recall correctly), is a lack of authenticity.. where the experiences of Life are tainted by preconceived beliefs, experiencing life through your beliefs is to abandon your opportunity to be 'You'.. and, yes, i understand some people are not interested in being 'real', they prefer to play their parts.. delightful little puppets for an amused audience..

 

Hi Alwayson: What's "hard to understand" is that "I" IS the body, AND "I" IS the 'Source'.. simultaneously.. "I" never vanishes, it does change perspectives, though..

 

Any memory of a 'previous life' is most likely a mis-interpretation of a glimpse of your 'non-local' consciousness, of the 'Cosmic Memory' of ALL past existences/experiences.. from which elements of your 'local' manifestation resonate with some past existence resident in the Cosmic Memory.. which, could be argued that since we are, ultimately, One thing behaving in a Universe of 'ways'.. it could be argued that the resonance with a memory of a past existence is also an element of that same 'One thing', then okay.. it's 'your' past-life, but.. that's a bit of a stretch just to feel 'right'.. as i have been fortunate, on occasion, to experience the 'Cosmic Consciousness', i am clear as to the relationship between my current manifestation/awareness and the Oneness encounter.. as mentioned above, the glimpse of Cosmic Consciousness experiences the entire totality of existence "in that instant".. you betcha!!! WOW!!! then, as we return our awareness to our 'local' manifestation, we will recall aspects of that 'Cosmic' experience based on resonance and coherence of our individual 'understandings'.. we will interpret those recollections according to the same understandings, preferences, and prejudices.. if i prefer ancient Chinese Sage's experiences, then my recollections of the 'Cosmic' encounter will likely focus on 'Cosmic Memories' related to that.. if someone prefers 'Angels', their interpretations will resonate accordingly.. which is kind of why very few people recall their 'past-life' as a weak abused sex-slave for some slovenly warrior clan.. nope, they generally imagine a resonance much more romantically, or more 'hero-like'..

 

anyway, i ramble too much.. nothing i say is true because i say so, it only makes more or less sense to the observer according to their inclination to validate it through their own experiences..

 

Be well..

 

cool dude

 

Om

[xabir2005]

To me it's not only ok that the Dalai Lama said that he is not enlightened,

To me I believe he is refering to the Mahayana definition of Enlightenment with the capital E - which is equivalent to Buddhahood, like Shakyamuni Buddha.

 

I have however no doubts he has attained at least enlightenment (no caps) in the sense of having entered the bhumi stages and considered an Arya, a Bodhisattva.

it is honest, humble and refreshing; and in those important ways (and some others) he seems advanced. As far as there being thousands of enlightened or liberated students (an oxymoronic like statment since students would no longer be such if they were enlightened) existing in the Buddhas time or now is something I don't buy into, even if there are some references in doctrine along such lines - although I'm sure there were and are many advanced Buddhist students.

Yes, many Buddhist scriptures actually referred to retinues of thousands of enlightened arhats at the Buddha's assembly.

 

And just because you graduated from a university doesn't mean you cannot recognise your professors and lecturers and treat them as your teacher and pay gratitude and respect to them.

 

And of course there are lots of Buddhist teachers who became enlightened and are teaching others. They are no longer just 'students on the path'. But I don't think they will be arrogant enough to disregard the Buddha as having been their original teacher. In fact it is a natural result that having become enlightened, they are even more grateful for the Buddha's teachings for seeing the subtle wisdom and teachings the Buddha imparted out of compassion to sentient beings.

 

The Buddha however, in that life time (however he had learnt from many Buddhas in his past lives), did not have a teacher, and only the category of Buddhas and Pratyekabuddhas do not have teachers because they have cultivated for a very very long time and the time was just ripe for their awakening and they did not have to rely on one. Arhats belonging to the Sravaka (hearer) category learnt from teachers within their lifetime, practiced, and then as a result gained liberation.

Why do I say these things? Because if there were thousands of fully enlightened beings on earth back then or now such would equal a spiritual/mystic force and presense great enough to offset far more of the non-dharmic times and events that took place back then and that are also happening on this Earth now; but we don't have that situation do we?

Of course it wouldn't. That is just your presumption. Given that there are countless universes in the Buddhist world views, there would be currently countless enlightened persons throughout the universe(s). But does the number mean anything? Not really. Just because there are a lot of enlightened people doesn't necessarily lead to 'mystic force' or whatever. Such things doesn't exist. Each person has their own individual karma. What do you expect enlightened beings to do? Do you think having enlightened beings means no more natural disasters etc? The world will still roll on, evil people will still be evil (if they have no intentions to change their ways), disasters still happen, etc. Wars will still happen because that is the karma of people - the Buddha tried to stop the Sakyans from engaging in war but he let go of his attempts at the end because he knew the past life karmas involved (involving a group of villagers hunting fish) and that nothing could be done.

 

For example your friend can become enlightened and yet you can remain as evil as before and then become reborn in hell, for example. The Buddha couldn't stop his cousin who is a member of his sangha from being reborn in avici hell for his evil deeds of trying to hurt the Buddha and cause schism in his sangha. Being related or close to an enlightened person doesn't help. Similarly having thousands of enlightened persons doesn't matter, they may create a positive influence (but it is still limited considering that there are millions/billions of people in the world), but they cannot force a person to become enlightened - it's the individual that matters.

 

Nobody can force another person to become enlightened. That has to come by himself, his own willingness and practice. Having thousands of enlightened beings cannot help in that regard.

Further, I'd add that when the Earth and a certain percentage of us humans are fully enlighened along with a certain percentage that are advanced - we will then vibrate together as, "a new heaven and a new earth"...

This is just some new agey assumptions. I do not believe in them. Why do you think that having a percentage of enlightened humans = a new heaven and a new earth on a collective level?

 

Lets say if we manage to get 1% of our population enlightened, but does that mean the 99% will as a result become definitely enlightened too? I highly doubt so.

 

A new heaven and a new earth is only for that particular individual. The same world we live in can still be hell for another. It is how each of us lives. Awakening is individual and up to the individual.

but until then and as it has often been for countless generations this realm retains it's slaughter-house and war-realm types of great suffering.

 

Om

And unfortunately it will still be, even if a percentage of our population becomes enlightened. Edited April 2, 2010 by xabir2005

[dwai]

The onus is on you to prove that there is a "Self", not on me.

 

Nagarjuna says "I make no claims, therefore I have none to defend"

 

This is silly! The fact that you are making such a hue and cry about "No Self" is because you start with a "Self". So, your original premise is that there IS a Self that you are trying to prove as non existent.

 

It is a matter of perspective and syntax that makes a Buddhist claim "No Self" while a Advaitin says "Self" while a Taoist says "It doesn't matter".

 

Shankara said "Brahman is Silence".

Buddha said "I don't want to talk about it".

Lao Tzu said "The tao that can be named is not the Tao".

 

What this means is that all this brouhaha about the subject is really a bunch of malarkey that people come up with when trying to explain an inexplicable experience. The fact is, as soon as we put a structure around or try to explain this "existent/Non-existent, neither-existent, nor non-existent" thing, we end up diminishing it to something that it is not.

 

So, to me, it makes sense that I consider this "thing" the Self, because that is what I have experienced in the gap between thoughts. To you, may be it is "Not Self". It doesn't matter...the experience is what is important...the direct cognition of it...the intuitive intelligence (Prajna) that rises from it. It makes us realize that material things are transient and don't matter, in face of the Eternal "Nothing/Something-ness".

[xabir2005]

Here's a short discourse given by Adyashanti entitled "The Experience of No Self".

Thanks!

[xabir2005]

It's not about the self existing or not. It's whether it exists independently, inherently, apart from phenomena.

Yes what you said is right.

 

But also as Thusness said, "one should not skew towards emptiness and neglect the non-dual essence of luminosity". The essence, nature, and energy should be seen as inseparable. Luminosity, emptiness, manifestation.

 

We are not denying the clear sensation of pain (even without labeling it as such), in fact a true practitioner is authenticated moment by moment in the "CLARITY and VIVIDNESS of the NOW" that alwayson is talking about, that is the non-dual luminous clarity, yet without reifying.

 

Of course, the same can be said likewise, "one should not skew towards luminosity and neglect its emptiness", as reification happens, solidifying a point of luminous clarity into a solid Self.

 

The true nature of mind is the union of luminosity and emptiness.

 

p.s. As for Taoism, I do not think they have a metaphysical position of Self unlike in the majority of Indian philosophies. I do not think Lao Tzu or any of the major Taoist figures actually 'posit that you do have a self' like SFJane said. This is the understanding of Thusness who used to guided by a Taoist teacher for many years in the past, and also Dr. David Loy (author of a good book 'non-duality') who noted that Buddhism and Taoism are the only religions that do not have a metaphysical self or soul in their teachings.

Edited April 2, 2010 by xabir2005

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

It's not about the self existing or not. It's whether it exists independently, inherently, apart from phenomena...

It's important to know when enough is enough..

What this means is that all this brouhaha about the subject is really a bunch of malarkey that people come up with when trying to explain an inexplicable experience. The fact is, as soon as we put a structure around or try to explain this "existent/Non-existent, neither-existent, nor non-existent" thing, we end up diminishing it to something that it is not.

Hi Dwai: Pure insight!! Sweet!!!

 

So, when i ponder, 'What's it all about'?.. i keep returning to, 'Just look, and see'.. the Universe is screaming the truth at, and through, you/me/we/us/LIFE.. stop and 'listen'..

 

Be well..

 

Be well..

[xabir2005]

If that is true, you should have memories of existence before you were born LOL.

Do you believe in rebirth?

[xabir2005]

Any memory of a previous life is actually caused by negative spirits that attach to various people, transferring memories.

 

Even if you don't agree with this truth, you cannot rule it out.

Rebirth is truth and does not contradict the teachings of anatta.

 

From Emptiness and the Middle Way

 

http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4215

 

(rizenfenix)

 

Continuing consciousness after death is, in most religions, a matter of revealed truth. In Buddhism, the evidence comes from the contemplative experience of people who are certainly not ordinary but who are sufficiently numerous that what they say about it is worth taking seriously into account. Indeed, such testimonies begin with those of the Buddha himself.

 

Nevertheless, it’s important to understand that what’s called reincarnation in Buddhism has nothing to do with the transmigration of some ‘entity’ or other. It’s not a process of metempsychosis because there is no ‘soul’. As long as one thinks in terms of entities rather than function and continuity, it’s impossible to understand the Buddhist concept of rebirth. As it’s said, ‘There is no thread passing through the beads of the necklace of rebirths.’ Over successive rebirths, what is maintained is not the identity of a ‘person’, but the conditioning of a stream of consciousness.

 

Additionally, Buddhism speaks of successive states of existence; in other words, everything isn’t limited to just one lifetime. We’ve experienced other states of existence before our birth in this lifetime, and we’ll experience others after death. This, of course, leads to a fundamental question: is there a nonmaterial consciousness distinct from the body? It would be virtually impossible to talk about reincarnation without first examining the relationship between body and mind. Moreover, since Buddhism denies the existence of any self that could be seen as a separate entity capable of transmigrating from one existence to another by passing from one body to another, one might well wonder what it could be that links those successive states of existence together.

 

One could possibly understand it better by considering it as a continuum, a stream of consciousness that continues to flow without there being any fixed or autonomous entity running through it… Rather it could be likened to a river without a boat, or to a lamp flame that lights a second lamp, which in-turn lights a third lamp, and so on and so forth; the flame at the end of the process is neither the same flame as at the outset, nor a completely different one…

Edited April 2, 2010 by xabir2005

[3bob]

To me I believe he is refering to the Mahayana definition of Enlightenment with the capital E - which is equivalent to Buddhahood, like Shakyamuni Buddha.................................

 

 

Ah Nuts again, I gotta run and don't have time to correct my corrector. (although some of your info was useable to me.

Edited April 2, 2010 by 3bob

[RongzomFan]

xabir2005,

 

You know I love you right?

 

I'm dissapointed that you are still obsessed with this "Thusness" fellow and his arbitrary schema. Yes I realize you were defending me. Thanks.

 

By the way, both Mahayana and Theravada buddhists say that one cannot obtain personal experience with past births, unless one has the divya caksus (cakkhu). It is a high level psychic ability called the Divine Eye.

Edited April 2, 2010 by alwayson

[xabir2005]

xabir2005,

 

You know I love you right?

Yes. Mutual feelings Btw how are you doing these days, curious.. you may want to PM me.

I'm dissapointed that you are still obsessed with this "Thusness" fellow and his arbitrary schema. Yes I realize you were defending me. Thanks.

What are you refering to as 'arbitrary schema'?

 

No intentions to defend anyone... just replying when I see a point to be made..

By the way, both Mahayana and Theravada buddhists say that one cannot obtain personal experience with past births, unless one has the divya caksus (cakkhu). It is a high level psychic ability called the Divine Eye.

I see your point. Yes, unless a person enters deeply into samadhi and jhanas, the person will not be able to see his past lives. Any other past life memories that one claims to have (especially as an adult who didn't remember them from young but then suddenly claim to have a vision/memory) is likely an image inserted by a spirit... and any powers that one claims to have without having attained samadhi/jhanas is almost certainly due to the influence of spirits, or an immediate past life being in those realm, and I know of many such people.

 

However there are also the case of children remembering their past lives, and there are scientists (like Dr Ian Stevensons and many others) who have researched have traced their cases and actually proven that their memories are valid. They do not at some point in their lives suddenly remember their past lives (which would be more suspicious), but rather to them the memory is like what they always had all along. They usually forget them later in their lives. Given the prevalence of cases of young children accurately remembering past lives (and then forgetting them later) I don't think I would say that their memories are necessarily from external entities though there is a possibility. I mean why do spirits choose children more than adults?

 

That said I think the children's memories are far from 'divya cakcus' as it is as far as I know only memories pertaining to their immediate past life. Those with 'divya cakcus' can remember far more than that and I know of such people personally.

Edited April 2, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

It's important to know when enough is enough..

 

Hmmm?

 

Interconnectedness is a valuable concept in Taoism. All things rise with the harmony of Yin and Yang, one cannot do without the other. And by result, we cannot say anything exists independently.

 

All practices that build towers, build an entity, a God, a demon, or whatever, are bound to fall. So the path of Yoga is always conclude with that of tantra: effortless being.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[dwai]

Hmmm?

 

Interconnectedness is a valuable concept in Taoism. All things rise with the harmony of Yin and Yang, one cannot do without the other. And by result, we cannot say anything exists independently.

 

All practices that build towers, build an entity, a God, a demon, or whatever, are bound to fall. So the path of Yoga is always conclude with that of tantra: effortless being.

 

And yet Taoism says that First there was Only One, the One Chi, Wu out of which rose Yin, Yang and Chi. First there was only One, then two and then three and from there rose the 10,000 things...

[Lucky7Strikes]

And yet Taoism says that First there was Only One, the One Chi, Wu out of which rose Yin, Yang and Chi. First there was only One, then two and then three and from there rose the 10,000 things...

Yes, but when this process is understood in its cyclical nature,

 

the "First" ceases to have meaning. And it is said the the 10,000 things are at once the Tao itself, that the Yin and the Yang forms One, but by co-existence.

 

In addition, the dependent nature of phenomena and relativity is clearly outlined in Chuang Tzu.

[SFJane]

Noone really knows what buddhism actually teaches.

 

Agreed. It is my understanding that no one is transmitting T3h R34l 8uddhism because no teachings were written down for years after Sid's death. It was oral tradition only for awhile and there were factions right away that started spinning off. We know that oral traditions never get screwed up or altered as time goes by. No one would ever dare to put their own spin on it either and add that to the teachings.

 

Study Madhyamaka.

 

Why don't you tell us all how you have actualized Madhyamaka from your own personal meditation experience? It has been my experience that a person is best served by taking a technique, practicing it a lot, noting what you've learned, then use your own words to describe what you've gained or lost spiritually.

 

And you already gave away you are a taoism supremacist.

 

You got me.

 

You already gave away that you have no understanding of buddhism.

 

You'd be surprised. I have a tremendous respect for Buddhism and once came very close to choosing that path myself. Despite not having clearly seen the obvious superiority of Buddhism I still managed to overcome my mental and emotional suffering in this life. In the last fifteen years that I've been practicing Taoist meditation I've discovered that certain Buddhist teachings make complete sense and I've often wondered if I had chosen Buddhism and stuck with it if I'd be as happy as I am today.

 

 

Any memory of a previous life is actually caused by negative spirits that attach to various people, transferring memories. Even if you don't agree with this truth, you cannot rule it out.

 

Try these variations of what you said on for size and see the difference at how it comes across.

 

It could be that any memory of a previous life is actually caused by negative spirits that attach to various people, transferring memories. Even if you don't agree with this, you cannot rule it out.

 

In my experience, I've found that memories of previous lives is actually caused by negative spirits that attach to various people, transferring memories. You may not agree but I am not sure we can rule it out.

Perhaps any memory of a previous life is actually caused by negative spirits that attach to various people, transferring memories. Even if you don't agree.

 

You don't come across as someone who has put in the time and deeply digested these things and come to your own conclusions about them. You preach as though you know but I think it's just an intellectual game for you. Your posts are not moderated for the possibility of differing opinions, experiences or even the chance that you are wrong.

 

Perhaps you could meditate on your favorite teachings for about 5-10k hours then come back and tell us what you yourself have found out about Self, not what you think you know about it from someone else's scriptures. Also, I don't agree with you that past lives are caused by negative spirits that attach to people, transferring memories. So much for 'that truth'. If you want to go further into this you better be able to come up with something better than 'study Madhyamaka'.

 

Besides, assuming (for the sake of argument) that your title and premise are correct, so what?

Edited April 3, 2010 by SFJane

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

In addition, the dependent nature of phenomena and relativity is clearly outlined in Chuang Tzu

It's funny that you bring that up.. i just finished CT for the umteenth time, and i can't find the terms phenomenona or relativity, or dependent nature.. is it just me, or am i missing something?

And by result, we cannot say anything exists independently.

It is observably so..

All practices that build towers, build an entity, a God, a demon, or whatever, are bound to fall. So the path of Yoga is always conclude with that of tantra: effortless being.

Is this intended to illustrate a superior aspect of yoga?

 

Be well..

[thelerner]

Adventures of T & B, pt 1.

 

 

Once there was Taoist monk named T and Buddhist priest called B.

 

One evening they walk into a little bar perched on the head of a pin.

 

As they enter the bartender asks 'How many of you are there?'

 

The Taoist considers and says 5,

the Buddhist says 'None'

[Lucky7Strikes]

Greetings..

 

 

It's funny that you bring that up.. i just finished CT for the umteenth time, and i can't find the terms phenomenona or relativity, or dependent nature.. is it just me, or am i missing something?

 

It is observably so..

 

Is this intended to illustrate a superior aspect of yoga?

 

Be well..

"Everything has its "that," everything has its "this." From the point of view of "that" you cannot see it, but through understanding you can know it. So I say, "that" comes out of "this" and "this" depends on "that" - which is to say that "this" and "that" give birth to each other. But where there is birth there must be death; where there is death there must be birth. Where there is acceptability there must be unacceptability; where there is unacceptability there must be acceptability. Where there is recognition of right there must be recognition of wrong; where there is recognition of wrong there must be recognition of right. Therefore the sage does not proceed in such a way, but illuminates all in the light of Heaven.6 He too recognizes a "this," but a "this" which is also "that," a "that" which is also "this." His "that" has both a right and a wrong in it; his "this" too has both a right and a wrong in it. So, in fact, does he still have a "this" and "that"? Or does he in fact no longer have a "this" and "that"? A state in which "this" and "that" no longer find their opposites is called the hinge of the Way. When the hinge is fitted into the socket, it can respond endlessly. Its right then is a single endlessness and its wrong too is a single endlessness. So, I say, the best thing to use is clarity."

 

Much of Chuang Tzu is on relative perspective of things.

Edited April 3, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Marblehead]

Yes, but when this process is understood in its cyclical nature,

 

the "First" ceases to have meaning. And it is said the the 10,000 things are at once the Tao itself, that the Yin and the Yang forms One, but by co-existence.

 

In addition, the dependent nature of phenomena and relativity is clearly outlined in Chuang Tzu.

 

But let us remember that the 10,000 things are just as 'real' as is "One".

 

Yes, all things are Tao. True, none except "One" are permanent and non-changing. But in the short term we observe the changes of the non-changing "One".

 

Yes, all things are dependent on the processes of Tao (Tzujan). Without change things would not exist.

 

Peace & Love!

[dwai]

Yes, but when this process is understood in its cyclical nature,

 

the "First" ceases to have meaning. And it is said the the 10,000 things are at once the Tao itself, that the Yin and the Yang forms One, but by co-existence.

 

In addition, the dependent nature of phenomena and relativity is clearly outlined in Chuang Tzu.

 

Yet it doesn't diminish the role of the "One". Irrespective of the "Cyclical nature", One still gives rise to Two, Two to Three and Three to everything else in the material universe.

 

Interestingly enough, the Rg Veda, which is the basis of Vedanta has a verse called the "Nasadiya Sukta" which is considered to contain the "Creation myth" of Hindu Cosmology. It is exactly identical to the Taoist position.

[forestofclarity]

If only, if only...

 

 

Why don't you tell us all how you have actualized Madhyamaka from your own personal meditation experience? It has been my experience that a person is best served by taking a technique, practicing it a lot, noting what you've learned, then use your own words to describe what you've gained or lost spiritually.

[ralis]

Agreed. It is my understanding that no one is transmitting T3h R34l 8uddhism because no teachings were written down for years after Sid's death. It was oral tradition only for awhile and there were factions right away that started spinning off. We know that oral traditions never get screwed up or altered as time goes by. No one would ever dare to put their own spin on it either and add that to the teachings.

 

 

 

Why don't you tell us all how you have actualized Madhyamaka from your own personal meditation experience? It has been my experience that a person is best served by taking a technique, practicing it a lot, noting what you've learned, then use your own words to describe what you've gained or lost spiritually.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't come across as someone who has put in the time and deeply digested these things and come to your own conclusions about them. You preach as though you know but I think it's just an intellectual game for you. Your posts are not moderated for the possibility of differing opinions, experiences or even the chance that you are wrong.

 

 

 

 

I have requested from the various apologists (Buddhist) to discuss from an experiential point of view as opposed to a purely intellectual frame of reference and not from an authoritarian position. Instead of answering the questions, I have been called names and been labeled as having anger issues.

 

ralis

[xabir2005]