Bindi

You and bud seem to agree, I wasn't being so confident when I posted the topic I just looked up Ramana on ego and karma, he states: Being Ramana he of course suggests focusing on the ego not the karma. But then again attending to very intrusive karma is not always in the realm of choice J To get to the subconscious part I suspect focusing on the ego might be the easier route though.

Or the ego matrix which restricts Self needs to be removed. This is my current understanding at least. But the golden embryo develops, and is not already complete, so I have to choose between two philosophies. Interesting.

Instead of enlightenment I would posit the development and growth of the golden embryo or the non dual Self as the inevitable achievement, since enlightenment may be too attached to the idea of dissolution of Self.

I believe my ego tries to defend me from feeling pain, that the whole structure is an elaborate and misguided defence mechanism against pain. Having tolerated the negative aspect of each hijacker allows the positive aspect to flow as freely, so that all of my pasts will be resolved, not non existent.

Going against the flow of ego is what is painful to me, refusing to use ego defences to protect myself from my emotional hijackers, allowing how many lifetimes of fear to be felt and defused, and shame, and sadness, and anger, and anxiety. Because when I no longer have to use ego to defend myself against them, then ego won’t have a job to do at all.

Because the path to enlightenment is so painful (to me)

http://www.bhagavadgitausa.com

Do you consider the three dantians to be "an electrical exchange of ions within the Neuron." ?

I have edited this thread in response to Dwai's correct assertion that the original OP was new age, a conclusion that I came to very quickly as well.

"Making Buddhism acceptable to Brahmins " I have been researching this sutra and have found that some Eastern Buddhists are far easier with it than Western Buddhists where it is on the whole shunned. There is a Western university professor who has studied this sutra for decades and swears it is the proper conclusion to Buddhism, and a handful of other learned enthusiasts, but they do seem to be in the minority. His line was basically the Buddha wanted people to stop clinging to the 'self', but once they had achieved this the truth that there was a real 'Self' could be revealed to them. I agree that it is unlikely that the Buddha would suddenly throw in such an undermining teaching on his deathbed. I read a while ago that all the sutras were recited every year or so after the Buddha's death until they were written down, I wonder if this one was one of those that were recited or not. I suspect not because apparently this sutra expected the return of the Buddha, and introduced 'eternalism' to support this idea. I could do more research, but maybe someone knows the answer.

It would be very interesting if an actual Buddhist practitioner gave their opinion of this Sutra as I also think it hits the mark, thanks for posting it 3bob.

Chogyam Trungpa seems to be saying something eminently more sensible than that we fear the light within:

I don't think prana/Qi is a stepped down form of kundalini, I'll try to list some reasons for this, and see how they hold up under scrutiny... Prana/Qi primarily creates and fills the three dantians and central nadi's, starting with jing which is not kundalini. Kundalini on the other hand works primarily with the chakra system, clearing obstacles from the root to the crown. I don't think dantians exist in kundalini cultivation. A spiritual body is created and nurtured in the dantians with Prana/Qi, kundalini doesn't create a discrete spiritual body that is raised and nurtured within. Perhaps kundalini cultivation may be associated with an energy body outside of the physical body.

It seems you have combed the collected works of St Symeon to find all his references to becoming a god. Is this a particular interest of yours? Would you be so keen on balancing the idea of being a god with the repentance that he deemed necessary to attain this state? “Through repentance the filth of our foul actions is washed away. After this, we participate in the Holy Spirit, not automatically, but according to the faith, humility and inner disposition of the repentance in which our soul is engaged. For this reason it is good to repent each day as the act of repentance is unending.” — St. Symeon the New Theologian, Philiokalia Volume 2

Was St Symeon talking about being a God? It seems a remarkably unchristian position to take. As seen in the John quote, claiming to be God would be considered blasphemy as much in St Symeon's era as in Jesus'. He talks about being "united to God spiritually and physically", about being "sons of God" and "gods by adoption", abiding "in God" and "God in them". Claiming that he or anyone else in his day was a God would have gotten him excommunicated from the church on the spot, and nowadays would earn him a label as suffering from grandiose delusions:

Hi Spotless, I edited my previous post and put in the longer version of the clip, funnily enough it does go into direct interchange in the second half

It is hypothetical yes, but ignoring that little issue, there are lines that for me unfortunately suggest "Q" is post-Jesus anyway, such as - Q 14:27 “ The one who does not take one's cross and follow after me cannot be my disciple.” - Q 12:40 "You also must be ready, for the Son of Humanity is coming at an hour you do not expect." Both of these seem to have been written in light of the crucifixion and in expectation of his return. There may be other lines that are similarly unlikely to have come from Jesus. But there are other lines that seem to be more plausibly authentic. So it’s still necessary to remove the added layers from even this hypothetical text. But I suspect the hypothetical Q might be getting close to what the hypothetical Jesus might have actually preached I likely wouldn't even be interested in the Jesus question if I hadn't been brought up nominally Christian, and for my own sake needing to distinguish between reality and indoctrination.

Can The Sayings Gospel Q shed any light on the legacy of Jesus?

I don't know how to put the actual clip here, but this is a two minute Australian comedy that captures the spirit of things...

The Mandeans would say that both Muhammad and Jesus are false prophets... The only really safe bet would be Moses

From reading a number of 'historical Jesus' books, I can see that the Jesus story might well be the hope and expectation for the Kingdom of God to be established in Israel in the lifetime of his followers, and that Paul really just took the concept of Jesus somewhere else. But I'm still a bit on the fence as to whether Jesus himself espoused something more or not. For example, were the Beatitudes all just overlay? And the New Testament's 'seeking the kingdom within'? A lot more research, and a few more discovered ancient documents would be a fine thing.

Might they be surreptitiously seeking out wallpaper glue then?