old3bob

with some parallels to Plato's cave...

the cup can be half full or half empty depending on where one is located....Btw. rose colored glasses can't protect one from a conventional or atomic blast.

for instance the universe or multiverse would not exist unless its weaving into being with sacred song was not included... Om, (silence and roaring)...a weaving of the first and purest prana/light into further forms. (which is my witness)

I suggest not limiting the power of certain spoken words from certain sources and more so with sung words for they too can be very much a part of an experience (and in some cases be key) besides just being used as conceptual or intellectual maps or exercises...

ah I could have prefaced everything with, "a some say this or that" which I did at one point... Anyway you got your points across and I'll keep your remarks in mind for next time. Btw. a precept is defined as "a general rule and or practice" which the teachings of yama and niyama are. The big difference between Buddhism is that it has a central historic human founder in the Buddha thus any of its various schools should still be in bounds of his core teachings and if not they then become quasi this or that. Hinduism on the other hand does not have a central historic human founder claimed or taught by all, although it has founders of sects and a great many schools, but again the founders of those different sects and schools do not have a common human founder that they have to stay in bounds with to be called a Hindu. They do have the Vedas, the worship or reverence of Lord Ganesha, along with several other major key beliefs and practices across sects and most schools that are said to be the boundaries to be called a Hindu; for instance teachings on karma, reincarnation, reverence of chosen Gods or Devas, many spiritual related cultural norms, etc. etc.

As young immortal teenage surfers we used to moon people while traveling the highways on the way to the beach; (with girls who happened to be in nearby cars giving mixed reactions ranging from applause to disgust) so could that mean I will get mooned five times per karma in a future life for every one time I pulled the stunt in this life? Some say karma gains mass as it rolls downhill if you don't nip it in the bud -- so maybe I could put a sign in my car window saying, "please moon me now instead of 5 times later"...

emptiness is so jam packed, but not to worry it still has room for peanut butter... (edited)

"Do You Swear to Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth?"

which particular ray of light coming from the the sun is a true ray of light?

soul is evolutionary, the "Soul of soul" or Brahman if you will is non-evolutionary... soul merges back to the "Soul of soul" in certain schools of Hinduism but not in others. Btw, how many steps and concepts are we getting ahead of truly following the precepts of yama and niyama while talking about more advanced stuff? Note: there is the saying that Brahman is the "eater of death" so one could speculate about all that evolves and what death (and life for that matter) means in relation to evolution...but lets not torment ourselves too much.

grasping at straws to give or justify a Buddhist bias...is what it sounds like. (or maybe you are just being transcendentally cryptic for the hell of it?)

Chinese finger traps come in many forms...

so what are you trying to imply? Note: "budh" to awake, know is a word from Sanskrit (which it is said to have a 3500 year history thus Buddhists obviously did not have the term 3500 years ago being that Buddism was not yet founded along with it not yet adopting the Sanskrit language)

I miss-expressed the raft parable earlier, so this: “The dharma too is like a raft. It serves the purpose of crossing over, not the purpose of grasping. “When you understand that the dharma is like a raft, and that you should let go even of positive things (dhamma), then how much more so should you let go of negative things (adhamma).” Stephen Batchelor

the historic Buddha (edit) had to set his raft down, and by all accounts knew it. the Self (a four letter word to some Buddhists) is not bound by rafts either...

Yes, if they have: 1. high fructose corn syrup 2. hydrogenated fats 3. unknown/ unlisted gmo ingredients 4. traces of roundup and such 5. too many insect bodies or parts 6. a trump label 7. over or under cooked, improperly stored, sealed and or way past the expiration date 8. if they don't have any whole grain flour thus just bleached. 9. too many grams of sugar even if its organic 10. preservatives that only someone with a PHD in chemistry might understand and which could cause deformed body parts or strange new appendages. 11. last but not least if they taste like crap and are way expensive! (also if the "cookie monster" rejects them)

so the following question should arise: can good cookies come from evil masters? Me thinks not. Btw I still don't understand why Jesus didn't help that poor fig tree instead of putting it down being that it was just a plant...oh wait a minute maybe that was that an applegory...

we can all epitomize or not until the cows come home... the catch is that only Self can know/be the Self.

the "four fold negation" per Buddhism points to the fact that one can not know (in the common meaning of the word) - anything definite except for the indefinite, for instance: " 1. Not real. 2. Not unreal. 3. Not both real and unreal. 4. Not neither real nor unreal. Another way we can look at reality is as one (or “oneness” in spiritual terms), as many separate things, or as any combination thereof. So the four negations are: 1. Not one. 2. Not many. 3. Not both one and many. 4. Not neither one nor many. You can practice Madhyamaka by studying its logical arguments why any assertions about the nature of reality are self-defeating. You can also use it as a kind of koan practice. Accept, for the sake of argument, that things are not real, unreal, both, or neither. Contemplate where that leaves you. In either case, the Middle Way philosophy cuts through conceptualization and points you directly to the true nature of reality" Hmm, it does? Good luck with what to me is a deeply and totally convoluted form of mental gymnastics; or just study the Upanishads which do not make such mental speculations that can easily leave one adrift in forms of further confounding pretzels. (although there is a time place for pretzels, until there is not, lol)

the "still small voice" can roar instantaneously with truth and a will that follows it which can not be denied...for then there are no self-consuming or negating conflicts of doubt concerning a right decision...

in the Chandogya Upanishad all things are described as springing from the Self, thus in that sense connected to the Self but still not the Self which does not have their limits...obviously there are many other schools besides Advaita Vedanta which we should not assume as being the final word on Sanatana Dharma even if it is sometimes presented that way.

more like all uphill for the body, btw. there are examples of women who will marry a lot older guys if you know what. Michael Douglass makes more than 50 k year, otherwise....

"things" come and go, form and unform, while the kernel implied is not a thing at all and is also not nothing thus could be alluded to as No-Thing (or not a thing itself) from which every-thing springs.

Btw to the OP... it is not up to any particular yogi (or Guru) that is Self-realized to do this or that per what remains of their human personality, for in being Self-realized it is the Self that acts through a human vehicle. In the Saivite tradition (which you are probably well aware of) the Self also manifests as Lord Nataraja who creates, maintains, destroys, conceals and also reveals with Grace, a Supreme Grace which is not taught in Buddhism although they certainly teach of compassion. My favorite Upanishad is the Chandogya, and I'd say that along with the other Upanishads the Self is pointed to about as well as possible by its Self realized authors or enlightened Rishi's. (thus not with speculation)

umm, your *stated definition were your own words...which can then be applied (if stood by) to anyone that falls under it whether that be a major figure such as the historic Buddha, Jesus, a beginner of any path, or anyone in between... * "Don’t buy into rhetoric irrespective of which side it comes from. This kind of stuff (X is only a lower stage in our tradition) is a sign of unripe practitioners" Dwai I hope I don't need to give quoted examples of what major figures have said throughout history about their way being the only way, the best way and such while others fall short in this or that way.