Sounds like a Taoist/Buddhist cross...

[ralis]

I have no idea but I am sure his magic mushrooms helped him out a lot.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Edit to add:

 

Yeah, the mushrooms probably had a spirit of their own.

 

Good point! I always thought the Buddha was taking mushrooms. In copious amounts!

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

And this lovely bit: Andrea says her mom was the first to suggest James was remembering a past life.

 

That is called indoctrination. Sometimes called brainwashing. Legally it is called 'tampering with the witness'.

 

Peace & Love!

 

That's pretty funny. But she only suggested that upon noticing the evidence supporting that idea. She really didn't even believe in the idea of re-birth until she started witnessing the evidence through her son.

[Vajrahridaya]

Good point! I always thought the Buddha was taking mushrooms. In copious amounts!

 

 

ralis

 

Funny what people with very little deep meditative experience suggest of the great masters. "Dude... they must have been on drugs man... that's the only way they could have come up with that stuff bro."

 

Ah, the limited minded masses of todays world. You must think Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche is on shrooms when he shares his stories of manifesting items from lucid dream states into physical reality.

 

You are no Dzogchenpa!

 

Back on ignore.

[Pero]

I have no idea but I am sure his magic mushrooms helped him out a lot.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Edit to add:

 

Yeah, the mushrooms probably had a spirit of their own.

 

Probably without knowing it, you've made sort of a joke. Because some believe the Buddha died from eating mushrooms.

[Vajrahridaya]

Probably without knowing it, you've made sort of a joke. Because some believe the Buddha died from eating mushrooms.

 

I've heard two stories. One he was poisoned and the other he died of dysentery? I am more apt to believe that he was poisoned due to the fact that there were plenty of people that hated him subverting the Vedic teachings. Turning wives into Nuns and children into Monks and what not.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Pero]

I've heard two stories. One he was poisoned and the other he died of dysentery? I am more apt to believe that he was poisoned due to the fact that there were plenty of people that hated him subverting the Vedic teachings. Turning wives into Nuns and children into Monks and what not.

 

Maybe he got dsysentery by being poisoned (intentionally or unintentionally) from eating bad pork or some mushrooms.

Personally I don't think the cause of his death matters. And in Mahayana it's generally said he only manifested death as a teaching or something like that.

[Vajrahridaya]

Cool, likewise. Your rationalization of muktananda's "special transmissions" that were subsequently brought to light only make sense if he had not done those things secretly, only to be exposed later by those he transmitted to. If he had announced what he was doing, then he can get away with special tantric transmission, maybe.

 

Actually he did say what he was doing to a few people. Some of them I know personally. What he did is justified in Goddess Tantras in the Hindu Tantric tradition. Study up!

 

 

I take it as a compliment that that you have even read my posts in other threads. Which limiting mental cross do you refer to, young master? Maybe the last thread I started, about my elderly neighbor and his sick wife who committed suicide rather than live in debility without each other? Why didn't you post a comment? Too limited with my mental dross?

You also have no Idea of my personality. None. You only know what I post, that's not me. Why are other people the only ones in Vajra's world who "project"? You think you're Incapable of projection? You are one of the biggest culprits here.

 

By the way, even if you do not accept the Big Bang theory, to call it "silly" is, well, pretty silly of you to do.

 

First of all, I appologize for my insult of your character. You are right, I don't know you personally.

 

Second of all... I do agree with the Big Bang theory, just that it was not the beginning or the first big bang as Marble suggests. The Big Bang theory is supported by Buddhist cosmology, just with more of a complicated approach concerning previous universes and multiple universes all interconnected with different life spans.

[Vajrahridaya]

Maybe he got dsysentery by being poisoned (intentionally or unintentionally) from eating bad pork or some mushrooms.

Personally I don't think the cause of his death matters. And in Mahayana it's generally said he only manifested death as a teaching or something like that.

 

I do agree.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Not consciously, only unconsciously. They are unconscious sentient beings. They are beings with bodies but no brains to channel energy into conscious thought patterns.

Aha!!! You state that you need a brain in order to experience conscious thought patterns. Therefore, you are a material realist. You need the hardware in order to have your perceptions, otherwise consciousness is not possible, and you are like a plant. Do you not see that your argument is inconsistent? Your meditation depends on a BRAIN, as well as a mind! busted!

[Vajrahridaya]

Aha!!! You state that you need a brain in order to experience conscious thought patterns.

 

Yes, in the physical dimension and you need it in order to transcend the body. The human brain is especially needed on this planet for spiritual progress.

 

A plant is not a conscious sentient being and is more like the manifestation of our collective unconscious for the sake of our own sentient experience. So really, a plant does not have an individual mind-stream and is more like a sprout from a collective unconscious.

 

My view is quite a bit more complicated than your interpretation of my words, so you taking my statement within a limited context would not at all pin point my meaning at all. It goes a whole lot deeper.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Yes, in the physical dimension and you need it in order to transcend the body. The human brain is especially needed on this planet for spiritual progress.

 

A plant is not a conscious sentient being and is more like the manifestation of our collective unconscious for the sake of our own sentient experience. So really, a plant does not have an individual mind-stream and is more like a sprout from a collective unconscious.

 

My view is quite a bit more complicated than your interpretation of my words, so you taking my statement within a limited context would not at all pin point my meaning at all. It goes a whole lot deeper.

How do you know a plant is not conscious?? You don't. You are falling back on the dreaded process called science and experience to make your guess, but you actually don't know anything about plant consciousness. It may indeed have an individual mind-stream, and we can't apprehend it. You are simply projecting your human values onto plants...and you can't.

[Vajrahridaya]

How do you know a plant is not conscious?? You don't. You are falling back on the dreaded process called science and experience to make your guess, but you actually don't know anything about plant consciousness. It may indeed have an individual mind-stream, and we can't apprehend it. You are simply projecting your human values onto plants...and you can't.

 

Ok dude... whatever you say.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Gotcha, didn't I? :lol:

[Marblehead]

Wow, you're a hard core material realist. So be it!

 

Well, Duh! You already knew that.

 

Peace & Love!

[Pero]

How do you know a plant is not conscious?? You don't. You are falling back on the dreaded process called science and experience to make your guess, but you actually don't know anything about plant consciousness. It may indeed have an individual mind-stream, and we can't apprehend it. You are simply projecting your human values onto plants...and you can't.

 

Songs, I think you're right, we (or at least I) can't know for sure. But that is generally the idea in Buddhism, that while plants are living things they are not sentient (i.e. posses a mind).

As for your point on mind and "hardware", you are correct that mind always needs a body. But the body is empty and so is the mind. So in the end it's not a realist view.

[C T]

Buddhism and Science. (a number of interesting clips here from recognised PhDs and Professors).

 

University of Michigan lecture on Buddhism and Science, Autumn 08 (53 mins):

 

Alan Wallace PhD on Science, Buddhism, Skepticism and Meditation - part 1 (10 mins):

 

part 2 (8 mins):

 

The Conscious Universe: Where Buddhism and Physics Converge (11 mins):

 

Mindfulness in Clinical Psychology by Mark Williams (31 mins): http://www.voicesfromoxford.com/B-S-Williams.html

 

 

Enjoy! Keep what you think is relevant, ponder over some of the other points, and discard what you think is out of context.

[Marblehead]

The knowledge of past lives and karma is not an excuse for indifference. In fact, those that really experience and understand the nature of karma and re-birth show way more compassion towards the suffering of todays world than those that just use it as an excuse for their own apathy.

 

That is one of, if not the most, important things you have said today an I will celebrate it.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

That's pretty funny. But she only suggested that upon noticing the evidence supporting that idea. She really didn't even believe in the idea of re-birth until she started witnessing the evidence through her son.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

 

Peace & Love!

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Songs, I think you're right, we (or at least I) can't know for sure. But that is generally the idea in Buddhism, that while plants are living things they are not sentient (i.e. posses a mind).

As for your point on mind and "hardware", you are correct that mind always needs a body. But the body is empty and so is the mind. So in the end it's not a realist view.

Well, I find Vajra's take that meditation trumps science for everything, including negating the Big Bang, yet it is entirely dependent on the brain, a physical object. If non-material consciousness is so all-powerful, it is still tied to a brain, which is governed by the laws of science. It is entirely possible that mind can be a non-local phenomenon, and that a brain is not needed for consciousness or sentience. thus, a plant may not possess a brain, but they may indeed possess a non-local mind. We simply do not know. They may be sentient, but we cannot say they are not.

[Vajrahridaya]

Gotcha, didn't I? :lol:

 

Um, no... you just don't get it is all. You won't without direct human transcending experience through meditation. Again, you will insult this as circular reasoning. So... again, you won't get it until...

[Marblehead]

Probably without knowing it, you've made sort of a joke. Because some believe the Buddha died from eating mushrooms.

 

I was aware of that. He ate some bad ones. It has been suggested that they were given to him intentionally (to murder him).

 

But I really don't want to slander him because I truely believe that he had a good heart and truely wanted to help others, especially those who were forced to live in such unbearable conditions.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

Well, Duh! You already knew that.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Yeah.... I did. You're a good one though and not a closed hearted one. Which is very good!!

[Vajrahridaya]

Well, I find Vajra's take that meditation trumps science for everything, including negating the Big Bang, yet it is entirely dependent on the brain, a physical object. If non-material consciousness is so all-powerful, it is still tied to a brain, which is governed by the laws of science. It is entirely possible that mind can be a non-local phenomenon, and that a brain is not needed for consciousness or sentience. thus, a plant may not possess a brain, but they may indeed possess a non-local mind. We simply do not know. They may be sentient, but we cannot say they are not.

 

 

They are a product of our conscious minds, just unconscious of it. Our conscious minds as in all sentient beings manifesting through the elements. Uh, never mind... so complicated. Read some Buddhist cosmology, it supports my direct meditative experiences. You probably won't believe a word of any of it anyway. Yes, I'm assuming based upon your previous comments.

 

Plus, once again, maybe this time it will sink in. I do not negate the big bang, I just see it as more complicated with the inclusion of previous universes and multiple universes of differing life spans.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

... just that it was not the beginning or the first big bang as Marble suggests...

 

Wait a cottin' pickin' minute. I never said that. Remember that I speak of reversion (return) and cycles.

 

What I did say is that we cannot look into the past beyond this most recent Big Bang.

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

They are a product of conscious mind, just unconscious of it.

 

Plus, once again, maybe this time it will sink in. I do not negate the big bang, I just see it as more complicated with the inclusion of previous universes and multiple universes of differing life spans.

 

Vajraji,

 

What is the positive intent of your circular logic?

 

 

ralis