ralis

As usual you write in contradictions. If one knows how the entire cosmos works, then it follows that one would understand the minute details. As you have pointed out, all phenomena are interrelated. Do you see beyond your own limits? Are your arguments not subjective? Argue with me on the merits of my arguments and stop condescending remarks about what changes I should make (proverbial mirror). Your condescending remarks indicate a lack of Buddhist compassion! BTW, you take the bait every time I post a remark. LOL!! You must be anxiously waiting at your computer for any opportunity to proselytize from your point of view. People like you make the best poker opponents (fish) that lose all their money. I happen to know because I play a lot of poker (No Limit Poker). ralis

You take yourself too seriously! You have no idea if your ideology works or not! ralis

On his website it says "Give yourself the gift of enlightment by visiting our store." LOL!! ralis

They have a new casino on the Towa golf course (250M cost). I like the Vegas casinos better. quote Perhaps you are in this category as well? Just asking. If so then any attemps at it (bluffing) would be readily seen by those who are good at it./quote Bluffing is an art that must be practiced carefully. One must wait for the appropriate time to bluff, otherwise it can be costly. Here are things I look for. 1. Opponents who play too many hands. 2. " who raise too much. 3. " who play out of position and call too many hands. Usually those hands are weak. ralis There is something wrong here. I tried to quote Marblehead and it quoted another post. ralis

One way that I am attempting to use this strategy is with no limit poker. I need to get better at reading my opponents and individualize a strategy for that particular situation. Bluffing is an art and not a science. ralis

deleted

I started the thread and was occupied with other things. Why not see how we can apply it to real life. More later. ralis

Please explain the symbolism of the "100 Families". Thanks ralis

I have been out all day and have not had time to participate. Starting reading Cleary's work yesterday and am strategizing as to how I will use it everyday. I have been a poker player for years and I think this will help me win more money. More later. ralis

Link? ralis

deleted

deleted

Excellent point! ralis

Does not dependent origination imply attachment to a dependent source? If that is true complete liberation is an illusion. If Vajraji is correct then dependent origination is an absolute in which nothing exists outside of dependent origination. Even suffering and liberation are defined as a function of dependent origination. How can one liberate outside of an absolute? ralis

deleted

Something is wrong here. I can't get the quote feature to work properly. Also, a previous post that I deleted shows up in my new post. Seems to store the previous operation and posts that. ralis I just cleared all history etc. from my computer and all seems well now. LOL!!

When one carefully examines the past 2500 years, Buddhism or any other ism fails to end suffering. ralis

I think I figured it out. Thanks Vajraji, If you want to really understand Einstein's work, read this. So far you have not answered my question. Are you referring to general or special? http://www.amazon.com/Stubbornly-Persisten...030&sr=8-11

Where is that stated? ralis

Ask questions instead of proceeding from assumptions. That would be appreciated! Einstein's opinion in regards to how he felt about Buddhism is just his opinion! He mentions nothing in his theories about Buddhism! If you wish to quote him, I would suggest proper footnotes with sources. I believe the book is "Out of My Later Years". http://www.amazon.com/Out-my-later-years-E...1545&sr=8-3 ralis This is a little off topic. I keep coming up with a blank quote box with the quote outside of it. Any help would be appreciated.

Of course, and they are not assumptions for me. I don't know how much meditative experience and insight you have... no. From what you say though I can only assumeThe Buddha is a representative of human potential and human realization. We don't worship him like some supreme being, but rather just wish to realize his state of perception, relative to our own personal circumstances. Infinite dependency, infinite regress. Like a chair is dependent upon the wood, the worker, the nails, and the wood is dependent upon a tree, the soil, dependent upon the rain, the water is dependent upon, etc. The worker is dependent upon parenting, conditions... add infinitum. There's no source in Buddhism, no true essential nature, just infinite relativity. Things are empty of inherent nature, meaning we are not merely what we appear to be as this moment is dependent upon the things of the previous moment. Our perception is dependent upon interpretations of experiences, which are based upon previous interpretations of experiences, environmental conditions. It's on and on and on. There is no ultimate emptiness that is the end all be all, emptiness is relative to dependent origination, and all things are relative, including perceptions. In Buddhism, enlightenment is the seeing of all interconnectivity, making no assumptions, being totally objective. This includes seeing past certain popular limits in perception and goes into the so called "supernatural" which is really just multi-dimensional viewing. Emptiness in Buddhism merely means "not without cause". Emptiness merely means "not inherently self existing" but... "dependently existing" add infinitum. I've mostly just quoted what Einstein said. I don't pretend to be a physicist. These quotes are attributed to him... Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. and: The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. As far as Einsteins theory of relativity. It's general and special. It's just that things and perceptions are relative. I'm not talking about the math and the exact methodology because the methods of physics and meditation are different. But, that things are relative is my point, not that the exact nuances of Einsteins theory are quoted by the Buddha. Talking about inertial frames of reference, where it's the mind that's always in motion and see's relatively and thus outcomes of the individuals inner experience of any one given situation is different from person to person. It also talks about natural laws and how this is based on that, the pull of our gravity is based upon the pull of the suns gravity and the moon's effects and the other planets, it's all inter-effected. Even the relativity of simultaneity is understood in a Buddhist manor. We understand the relativity of the experience of events separated by space and time. Buddhism shows that there is no absolute truth that stands on it's own, without any dependency. The only absolute Truth in Buddhism is that all things are relative and empty of any inherent substance, as in, nothing stands on it's own. It's just a vast cosmic display of inter-relative things. Even this universe is based on a previous one. Plus all this new talk about multiple universes is actually covered in Buddhism and Hinduism for that matter.... loooong ago. Because that's not required to be a Buddha. It's all relative. You need an education in the depth of complexity of Buddhism before you can know what your talking about when it comes to what Buddhists believe. The Buddha gave lay teachings and monastic teachings. Though the tenets are different from Theravada to Mahayana to Vajrayana, this is the same in all systems, that there are lay practitioners and monastic and both have equal opportunity for attaining Buddhahood relative to their own personal causes and conditions. Take care.

Vajra, You have no knowledge as to what my views and experiences are. I am only critiquing your arguments and your absolute devotion to a man who died 2500 years ago. It seems to me that Buddhist devotees see the Buddha as some absolute parent figure. Do you not question your own assumptions? I have found that Buddhists preach about emptiness all their lives and never are able to provide a reasonable explanation. Empty of what? Dependent on what? Dependent on your point of view? Please explain if you can, which part of Einstein's theories you are so intent about. General or special? In general, very few people completely understand Einstein's work! So far you have failed to answer this question. If you are so intent on following the Buddhas's teachings, then why are you not a celibate monk? ralis

What I have trouble with is Vajraji's view of the Buddha as the absolute of the absolute. After all, Vajraji claims the Buddha talked to aliens, gods and all sorts of enlightened beings. UFO's perhaps? Does that mean the Buddha understands the nature of the this universe, parallel worlds and whatever phenomena exists? I doubt it! Vajraji has fallen into the trap of explaining all phenomena as merely dependent on some sort of emptiness. Empty of? Furthermore, he uses Einstein's theories as some sort of proof. Which part? General or special? BTW, there are a number of people here in Santa Fe that regularly talk to aliens and deities. What does that make them? Hmmmm...... ralis

Jeff uses Paul Horn's music on his first DVD. I always suspected he may be using his music without permission. ralis Would you provide a better link. Thanks ralis