dwai

It is a lot of guesswork on part of the Eurocentric Philologists and Indologists who had an agenda...that was complete and unequivocal subjugation of Indians. The insidious nature of subversion and opression (both physical and intellectual) by the Europeans on India and other such "colonies" is mind-boggling (and not very well understood by the modern Westerner). There is no or very little ambiguity when looking at the internal evidence of the texts and works of traditional scholars themselves (such as Aryabhatta, Sayanacharya, Badarayana, Bhaskaracharya, etc). The debate between myself and Always and Haji was typical of a struggle to claim "antiquity" for one's system/tradition. This is an (in)security thing and I have seen Buddhists often feel this way, for they are afraid of being "subsumed" by Hinduism. So, being "older" gives the religion a greater claim to survival, since the "Other" never really existed, or was a young upstart. Of course, one could turn it around and say that the converse could be true as well...the answer to that is, it could be, but is not.

Just because an Eliot Deutsch says it doesn't make it true. It be better to trust the internal records and traditional chronologies than Max Muller-influenced Eurocentric timelines (which invariably every western academic is guilty of) Also, just because you claim Eliot Deutsch has said so, doesn't necessarily make it true. I have seen enough selective cognition of convenience from you to suspect that you are not entirely honest when you debate.

Exactly! Scientific Method has not changed much in the years following Newton. If you have time, read this critique of Scientific Method i had written a few years back... The Battle Between Science and Yoga My understanding of this matter is that Jing is externalized/transformed Chi. And the 8 powers can be externally projected using Fa Jing. Jing is just a generic term, in actuality the Fa "Jing" can be Fa Lu, Fa Peng, etc. It seems like (from reading his books) BKF is very proficient in this. What that Master was trying to show a skeptical student is that there IS no parlor trick in using the powers and has nothing to do with things like biomechanical alignments or other such things... What I'm trying to suggest is that it is not worth our while to try and prove anything to a skeptic. They will never believe it. Most skeptics I know are too committed to their "skepticism" to allow anything to change their minds. Read the Swami Rama chapter I posted a link to from the Menninger Institute's Beyond Biofeedback book by Elmer and Alyce Greene.

I have been introspecting...and speculating...and I find a very striking phenomenon being repeated everywhere I turn. We, as humans have the penchant for polarity. We cannot find rest and peace in One pole. That is why we are in search for an "Other" who is the anti-thesis of what we identify with (or who we think we are). It is as if our identity is shaped not by us ourselves, but in contrast with/in opposition to something or someone else. Without the Other, the "Us" don't exist. Why can't we as practitioners of esoteric disciplines, rest in the knowledge and experience of our personal practice? Why do we have to disrespect and put down those who seem different from us? Why do we spend so much time and energy building up these gigantic structures and then building up these gigantic antitheses to the structures we build and then defending one and tearing apart the other? What is our Identity? Why can't we be at peace in the present moment, accepting it for what it is...the only thing that matters?

I am not sure if you guys had gone through this: Beyond Biofeedback Swami Rama

How does that show that Sanatana Dharma is not the root of Pauranik Hinduism? Vaishnavism is indeed significantly different from other practices in India. I would even say that Vaishnavism has facets of Christian dogma depending on who you are talking to about Mortimer Wheeler was right on. Buddhism wasn't a heresy against Brahminical (Sankhya, Yoga, Upanishadic (Vedantic) thoughts) Orthodoxy, it borrowed from it, from Jina Philosophy and added unique insights of the Buddha. So it wasn't a heresy but an offshoot. There were influences from both directions. There is no denying that Buddhism positively influenced Hindu Dharma over the centuries. But that doesn't naturally mean that Vedic/Vedantic thought did not influence Buddhism. As we know, a lot of Buddhists were Brahmins.

May I ask what exactly are we categorizing under "Magical" abilities? Is the ability to "Fa Jing" not potentially a "magical" ability that only a few Internal MA can do? Does that mean that Ward off, roll back, press, push, etc are not energies that can projected into the outer world? The Grand Master of my style of TC can stand on one leg, leaning awkwardly off-balance and send a 200 lb man slamming into the wall behind with one finger tip, simply by Fa Jing. There might have been some on this forum who has experienced this. Is it magical? Probably unbelievable from the perspective of "Science and the Scientific Method of Inquiry". But does it mean it cannot be done? Definitely! The proof is in the pudding (and one is not obligated to prove/disprove these things to insignificant individuals like James Randi).

What makes you think I dont? I agree with you about Spiritual Practice.

Agreed...I am learning this slowly with practice. But Humanity does have a role to play, does it not? And the "We/Us" is "me/I". It is also not a phenomenon unique to one but all of humanity. So perhaps the answer lies in understanding the why through like you suggested...is there something basic and primal in human nature that makes us the way we are?

Yes. But after I get it out, how do prevent it from getting back in there? Perhaps knowing it is the best way to get it out and keep it out? I don't know...

hmm...true. I have to think about this...thanks

Tao is beyond polarity...but Polarity rises from Tao and merges into Tao.

You just proved my point about your being a Troll with that diatribe of yours. What middle-aged myth did I show myself as believing? Puranas are not even in discussion here, and except for pointing out that Haji was referring to the wrong "Brahma", I have not cited any puranic references. I do have an agenda, and it is to call out a falsehood as such, when I see it happening before my eyes. And therefore I challenged your level of knowledge. It has been made abundantly clear that you have next to none in this field.

you are so funny! This is all very fanciful employment of the imaginative faculties, for sure!

I wasn't quoting Bronkhorst, but presenting Wynne's thesis (a bad review of it, nonetheless). Like I pointed out, it doens't matter if the remain 98 Upanishads came after the Buddha, because the core content of the Upanishads the same. The treatment of the content in the Upanishads vary since each Upanishad is the narration of the corresponding Rishi's experience. Read A history of early Vedānta philosophy, Part 1 By Hajime Nakamura (http://books.google.com/books?id=BCl0qRJTpHwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+History+of+Early+Vedānta+Philosoph.&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false)

I did not cite that all Upanishad came after the Buddha. It would be completely misinformed if someone did. The quote I had posted was a review of a book by a "Western Buddhist". The idea was to highlight the author's thesis and not the biased review of the Buddhist who added commentary at the end of the review. It is obvious Alwayson knows of this. And those who chimed in to claim that Vedanta didn't exist before the Buddha seriously lack in knowledge of Indian History. The Upanishads were clearly and very well established before the Buddha was born and while there were many that were potentially written after Buddha's birth, the 10 most important ones predate the Buddha significantly. This can be proven simply by looking at the language used in the Upanishads.

Go troll somewhere else It is one thing to argue for the sake of argument and another to try and bait someone just to elicit a negative response. If and when you decide to really get educated in Indic history, you will learn that what I have articulated here is all true. All of which I said is well accepted fact in India.

Magadha, Anga, Vanga, etc are all well documented "Arya" lands (meaning non-mleccha) per the Mahabharata (which predates the Buddha by at 2-3 millenia). I will refrain from responding to the "Brahminical conspiracy" theory...those who know enough about the Vedic rishis would know that many of them were non-Brahmins.

You guys claim that The Buddha rejected the Vedic/Vedantic teachings. How exactly did he do that, if he had not learnt them? Surely "watching" someone do an esoteric practice doesn't qualify one to have genuine knowledge of that.

What were they then?

As were the Vedic/Upanishadic rishis...so what are the odds that his Gurus might have actually been Vedic/Upanishadic Rishis?

If you read Buddhist history you will see that there was a distinct chism between groups of Buddhists which led to the Theravadins (and the Vaibhasika and Satrantika schools subdivided there in) and the Mahayana (Yogachara) and Madhyamika. Each of these position in sometimes almost opposite poles of the interpretation of the Buddha's teachings. If they did not, they wouldn't split into these groups (and subgroups further within).

What does Theravada have to say about Vajrayana and Mahayana? What does it have to say about Madhyamika?