Apech

 

 

If he is a clean person you could invite him to some place for breakfast or lunch. Most guys become talkative after they have had a bite to eat and are sipping on a cup of coffee.

 

 

If he is not clean, then offer him a shower?

At least where I am, in Wisconsin, there is no hysteria. It seems to have passed in the news...haven't seen anything about it for a few weeks.

 

I don't trust David Icke, Karen (*see below), or the government which tries to vaccinate me. In fact, I don't care about the issue unless I actually know of someone who has died from it. I haven't heard of a single person dying from swine flu, and I know a lot of people.

 

*No offense meant to you personally, Karen, but I don't think you actually know that people don't die from the flu...it's not a wise thing to say unless you're sure of it.

Hi Scotty,

For me its not about trust - I don't know what its like in the US but here in the UK the government and the media like to promote public health issues in a particular way. Same for terrorism, climate change and even the economy. We are given a certain line and then its pushed until we are made to feel nervous enough to comply with whatever regulations they might want to bring in. What I like about David Icke (although I think he's a bit crazy on the lizard thing to be honest) is that he is prepared to give a strong alternate view in the face of huge pressure to conform to the official view. I find this helpful because it gives me a chance to balance up my own view.

My basic position is though, to make up my own mind - with a leaning to the maverick view!

I put up a site gathering together some of the best articles and links on the subject. More is being added.

 

The Truth About Vaccines - The Dangers and the Alternatives

Hi Karen,

Swine flu hysteria seems to be well set in in the UK. At an organisation I am involved with three people have phoned in with (undiagnosed) swine flu already (out of about 200). Every day in the media there is a new story of people dieing (followed by someone on authority telling us not to panic - after they have made us panic first of course). Although David Icke has some strange ideas I like the way he speaks out on contracersial issues.

Thanks for the link - hope all is well with you.

A.

What do you think? Would you take the vaccine?

to riddles in mind

or two more correctly if

that matters at all

 

that matters at all

as we float down the hall 'til

we fall up the stairs

 

we fall up the stairs

putting on airs and graces

magical faces

magical faces

and supernatural backsides

we are strange people.

or so people say

i'm just a haiku chain, yes:

i am immortal!

i am immortal!

screamed the vampire in his box

he forgot the stake.

Good vid from lizard conspiracy man David Icke:

vqMK_yu8APg

it's like i'm always

flowing along carelessly

as if i'm a god

as if i'm a god

you're too divine, already!

or so people say.

 

Samsara ends only in as much as the state of a Samsaric mind realizes the nature of dependent origination and thus the Samsaric realms become the experiential platform for the Nirvanic state of mind which is merely the experiential perception of dependent origination. Samsara though... never ends. Only one's experience of it as Samsara ends as Buddhahood.

 

Samsara is the cyclical world of suffering produced by the mind which clings to the objects of perception in a constant round of desire, ignorance and anger. As such it is a distorted, confused view which ends with the realization of nirvana - so it does end with Buddhahood. In saying it never ends you are making it sound as if it is a valid reality while it is actually a mistaken view.

Time and samsara are called beginningless because there is no creation in the sense of origin. If they are not created they cannot be said to have an origin or causal connection to anything. There cannot be said to be a time when they first arose, because they only seem to exist while the mind is confused. Buddhas may deal with beings who still have samsaric minds in a way which seems to acknowledge that samsara and suffering is real, but as they are actually free from these conditions this is only an expression of compassion to help them.

call to discipline

rank kundalini rises

to eat my mentos

to eat my mentos

my serpent brain tells my tongue

lick, lick, lick, lick, lick.

The earth was not always here. Where pray tell do Buddhists and Hindus say where all of us were busy rebirthing out our karma back then?

 

And why do I have no self-evident a priori awareness of this pre-earth karma-induced endless rebirthing?

 

You know...if I had even the tiniest inkling of a priori pre-birth experience it'd make all these arguments about whose ultimate truth is the real truth easier to navigate.

 

I think I'm still chained in Plato's cave....

According to Buddhism in as much as the earth is here anyway, it was always here. Samsara is 'beginingless' but has an end in nirvana.

The mind having fallen into identification with Samsaric existence has forgotten its origin and so looses connection with pre-birth experience.

Crack! Crack! Crack! them bones!

When I eat I am fast, smart,

strong, shrewd, serpentine.

strong, shrewd, serpentine -

try this apple it is sweet

irresistible.

 

 

Perhaps if you have time you could explain what you believe happens when you die.

I have time.

I have no belief about death, having not died I cannot know. Death is permanent, the temporary shut down of the body is not death, thus those who claim to have died and come back, have not died.

What I believe about death is that nobody knows.

Perhaps there is an afterlife, perhaps not. It has no bearing on the truth.

 

I simply meant that I am not aware of anyone teaching Buddhism without rebirth.

Buddhism is not a teaching of Buddha that I am aware of.

I hope my reply is good enough,

thank you for allowing me to make it.

Josh,

Thank you for this reply. I will think about what you have said.

A.

Hi Josh,

Thanks for the answer with quotes above - your ideas are very interesting.

I still have a problem though with matching up the idea of 'the immortal place' and the mind approaching the eternal - without this meaning that death (as with birth) being a temporal and illusory event which the mind can go beyond. Given especially that 'immortal' means not subject to death and eternal means beyond time.

Perhaps if you have time you could explain what you believe happens when you die.

BTW when I said that this did not seem to be any form of Buddhism that I knew of, I simply meant that I am not aware of anyone teaching Buddhism without rebirth. I realise that there are Western Soto Zen practitioners who say this - but I have been unable to locate a full explanation of their position. Many schools of Buddhism while accepting rebirth do not dwell on it as important - save as a spur to dharma - I think the Tibetan Tulku tradition has made this confusing for some as it seems to offer a way for the personality to persist (even though technically this is not the case).

Cheers.

A.

Most my friends are actualy atheists or at least agnostic and non of them are anywhere close to nihilism. Budhism woldnt have to be strange that way at all. You could just aspire to get enlightened and stay that way for as long as you live. I know of a bunch of people who both belive in enlightenment but no afterlife or that are agnostic and they are not nihilistic at all.

If death is the cessation of activity of the body - and then at this point there is no 'afterlife' - no continuation of consciousness in any sense, then the consciousness is dependent on the body and this is nihilistic materialism. Equally if one were enlightened and this was the same, in other words one's enlightenment is extinguished because the physical body ceases to function then also that enlightenment is dependent on a functioning body. As such it is some kind of body state. This may be what you believe (and obviously that is your right) but it is not any form of Buddhism as far as I can see.

If I have misunderstood forgive me - but that's how I see it.

I am struggling to understand how a Buddhist could not believe in rebirth. It goes hand in hand with karma and the begininglessness of samsara and more importantly the continuity of consciousness. I think some of the arguments against are about reincarnation which is the Hindu concept.

If you practice Soto Zen that makes you citta-matra (yes/no) and so on death there is a continuity of consciousness (?). Could someone explain the alternate view.

Thnks.

A.

Hmm....

 

It was my impression that this interpretation was branded heresy by the early church but I admit I could be wrong...

"The word "heresy" comes from the Greek αἵρεσις, hairesis (from αἱρέομαι, haireomai, "choose"), which means either a choice of beliefs or a faction of believers, or a school of thought. It was given wide currency by Irenaeus in his tract Contra Haereses (Against Heresies) to describe and discredit his opponents in the early Christian Church. He described his own position as orthodox (from ortho- "straight" + doxa "belief") and his position eventually evolved into the position of the early Christian Church.

Used in this way, the term "heresy" has no purely objective meaning: the category exists only from the point of view of speakers within a group that has previously agreed about what counts as "orthodox"."

(from Wikipedia)

It is the business of orthodox churches be they Roman, Eastern or Protestant to identify certain ideas as heresy in order to outlaw them. This is part of the argument of exclusivity. It captures certain ideas and brands them as acceptable and others as not. Ideas then may be used to control the 'flock' in order to maintain power and to direct activity. For instance the Crusades were based on an 'us and them' view which tried to eliminate all alternative views be they Muslim, Jewish or even other Christians.

Christian Mysticism on the other hand is inclusive (borrowed heavily from Classical and Arabic thought) and a genuine attempt to understand and to work spiritually towards transcendent understanding and enlightenment. Mysticism is generally persecuted by orthodox churches and suppressed.

A lot of the issues which people are pointing out here and debating are about the exclusivity or otherwise of teachings. Buddhism can appear quite laid back and easy going from the outside, which I suppose it is in a way as it is a very well meaning path, but once one is initiated into practices like vajrayana you begin to see that it is as exclusive as any religion, as it believes that it is the one way to enlightenment. People practising a particular path or school or tradition also feel protective when it comes under assault from our world, which is one of the reasons to keep certain practises secret. It is a general pattern to allow free discussion of things like rebirth and karma in beginner groups but to close down on debate once people move on to more advanced practise.

Buddhist do believe in the existence of gods but that they are not beings worthy of refuge. They are seen as earthly powers or part of the cycle of samsara and suffer from the fault of pride. This is the reason that vajrayana yidams may be seen attacking hindu gods such as vishnu or indra because the yidam is destroying the attachment of pride. The problem is that historically this has been understood as meaning that one should hate the Hindu gods and presumably Hindus themselves. This being yet another example of how misunderstood symbolism may confuse people into harmful acts. The same can be seen when Jews, Christians and Muslims set about one another each in the name of the one true God, conveniently forgetting that for the religions of the Book it is the same God!

When Jesus says that only through him can one come to the Kingdom of Heaven, the priest manipulators like to take this as a statement of exclusivity. While actually if you understand this statement to be about the Christ's nature as the Word made flesh i.e. the Logos and you understand the Logos to be the formal aspect or structure of reality (of which the Father is the power and the Holy Spirit the flow of energy between them) then what Jesus means is that through knowing the Logos you will know God... you will achieve union with the absolute. Is this any different to saying that the Lord Buddha's mind, the dharma-kaya is identical to ultimate reality? No not really. However if you tried to mix Christian Mysticism and Buddhism you would get very confused because there are specific and important differences in the view adopted at all stages except the highest. At the highest view all teachings are one. They have to be because reality is real.

So I think the people at e-sangha are right to try to protect their teachings from descending into a kind of New Age mish mash which ends up benefiting no one, but on the other hand we should avoid the historical mistakes and confusions between religions which have produced suffering and war through the ages.

cohabitation

energies play, photonic

quantum, electro

 

quantum, electro

chemical and magnetic

multidimensions

multidimensions

looks like a black hole to me

lets go back in time

(just seen Star Trek movie )

old caterpillars

skin crawling, take themselves

up new molecules

up new molecules

atoms in covalent bonds

cohabitation.

without emission

safe as energies cohere

into new being

into new being

flutter by young butterflies

old caterpillars.

I've got flu again

enlightenment pandemic

viral wake up call

viral wake up call

an alarm clock infection

its morning sickness.

now we must choose ends

as dramatic music swells

runny noses ooze

runny noses ooze

where has that damn pig gone now?

I've got flu again.

it's a threesome thing

Issa, Teisias, Caesar

bizarre bedfellows

bizarre bedfellows

a pillow or a foot rest

now we must choose ends.

mitochondria

is that Brownian motion?

or micro-jiggling?

or micro-jiggling

skinny female chemists gulp

cosmic jello shots

cosmic jello shots

you came, I saw, he conquers,

its a threesome thing.