ralis

Vajrahridaya et.al. According to recent discussions, the universe and all phenomena therein, are without prior cause. One could therefor proceed to conclude, all pain and suffering are without prior cause. Instead of realizing there may be no answers, human primates have decided to have infinite discussions, wars, inquisitions etc. Over what? Words? However, the Buddhists have provided us with some fantastic answers. I would like to have answers to the following: 1. If the first sentence is true, then is your so called merit and good karma without prior cause? 2. Your use of the derogatory term ignorance is used to place yourselves above others. I guess you Buddhists have achieved total and complete non ignorance? 3. In terms of the last nine years, approximately 1 million innocent Iraqis (mostly women and children) are dead from an illegal war. Are those innocent victims ignorant? 4. What about the approximately 60 million dead in WW2? ralis

Do Vajrahridaya et.al. have religious backgrounds going back to childhood? Perhaps Catholicism? Are their religious (fundamentalist) views just a reaction to childhood training? I wonder why one would be so desperate to prove the unprovable. As for myself, I had fundamentalist religious doctrine (which is always based in fear) forced on me when I was growing up. It has literally taken me 45 years to liberate myself from their propaganda. Which by the way is a very painful process. Facing one's cherished belief systems (BS) is not an easy thing to do. ralis

Exactly, where did I state that I hate religion? Ignorant? Not a chance! ralis

Give me some examples that prove Buddhism "within the sense of science". ralis

How can one follow circular reasoning ( petitio principii). Your so called reasoning proceeds from incorrect conclusions. ralis ralis

Vajrahridaya, These discussions are pointless! To quantify or even attempt to define any phenomenon, whether in the realm of science or religion is an exercise in futility. The end point is always "my religion is better and more subtle than yours". Your arguments beg the question and always proceed from insubstantial evidence. e.g. You site the Pali Canon, use arcane terms and other sources as absolute evidence of every word the Buddha uttered. Can you prove the Pali Canon has been passed down intact? Are you any different than a fundamentalist of any faith asserting their scriptures are absolute? I think not. ralis

Tough love? Lol!! You fall short of the Buddhist ideal of compassion, to state it aptly. I started out by asking a question and what I receive is your heroic defense of your investment in your own anthropocentric point of view. Then you judge me as having so called bad karma for not agreeing with your point of view. You write as if you have exhausted all your karma! I doubt it! ralis

What is going on with guy? Now he has this ultra exclusive deal where only a select few will ever be able to purchase "Thick Black Theory". From what I have read, the original manuscript is very difficult to translate. ralis

Right now it is only 47.00! LOL!! ralis

If it were 400 amps, you would not be around to write about this. ralis

Just received an email on Thick Black Theory. He is only allowing 1 copy in any give city so as there won't be any conflicts between users. Must be the ultimate power in the universe! LOL!! ralis

Your arguments are absolutely anthropocentric and dogmatic. Your ability to engage in a realistic discourse is limited. Limiting this discourse by using textual arguments, so called enlightened masters and defining other belief systems as inferior to your own. Humans that adopt restricted belief systems impede evolutionary progress. In general, have humans progressed from the dogmatic (religious) view of earth as the center of the known universe? I think not. The same human centered points of view are still radically clung to. Circular religious arguments prove nothing. ralis

Associating the term Hindu at the time of the Buddha is incorrect. The use of the term Hindu is absent in early Indian literature. That term only applied historically to people living along the Indus river and did not apply to a set of spiritual practices or religion. Your ideology around a "deeper realization" only can be stated as a contrasting argument of Buddhism vs. Hinduism. A naive argument at best. Until you realize both paths, you have no basis with which to compare. Your arguments are no more than expressions of religious fundamentalism at best. In other words "my religion is better than yours". ralis

Where did you get the book? Thought it wasn't available yet. ralis

Vajrahridaya refers to deeply subtle levels as being only in the realm of certain Buddhist practices. How does one know how subtle, subtle is? How many subtle levels are there? Vajrahridaya's use of the term subtle is just another semantic game that leads nowhere. Just another trance. ralis

I think the papers on this site are well worth reading. Excellent analysis as to why pathological trance is so pervasive in all religion. That includes Buddhism! http://trance.edu/drupal/ ralis

Why is this form called "Burning Palm"? ralis

Do these guys think anyone in their right mind is going to shell out 160k in advance? LOL!! They want to do credit and background checks? What about their credit and background? LOL!! ralis

I guess he saw through their trip! LOL! ralis http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/3...sel-hita-torres

Vajrahridaya, Your arguments for the so called superiority of your Buddhist view, are no different than the early Hebrew people in Mesopotamia. They got the illusory idea that their god Yahweh was the ultimate expression of divinity. That is the reason for the belief in monotheism today. I refer you to Joseph Campbell's "The Masks of God". Your arguments are nothing more than "my god is bigger and better than your god". In your view Buddha is a God! You can't prove otherwise. ralis

Afromojo and Vajrahridaya have shown their true colors and are no different than any religious right wing fundamentalist! You judge me to be impure, and have bad karma for what I said in the original post. Good! Why would I want to be in the same path you guys are involved in! It is people like you that give Buddhism a bad name. Your posts are full of non-sequiturs, absolute statements and generally try to prove your incorrect ideas of Tibetan history. If you are going to fantasize and romanticize about Tibet, then preface your statements with (in my opinion). Please don't insult the readers intelligence with unproven statements. Base what you argue with facts, not innuendo or wild assumptions. You appear not to think for your selves and only follow your ideas around religious dogma. Someone here stated that Padmasambhava could be anyone at anytime and anywhere. Maybe I am Padmasambhava and I am here to put you both on the correct path! LOL!! Prove that I am not him or her? ralis

What original post are you referring to? ralis

KAP has changed my life! Try it and see for yourself! ralis

Well said Santi! ralis

Why is his path not spiritual anymore? If one were to follow your statement to it's ultimate conclusion, then one who does not adhere to the so called path he just left i.e, monastic, is not on a spiritual path. ralis