Eviander

Ha....you see, meditation is something you can do by yourself. It is a cultivation process with a tangible result. However, what you can do yourself scientifically other than playing and understanding concepts. Just another doctrine memorization. You aren't doing any scientific experiments. You aren't creating anything new out of nothing.

I sort of agree here. Meditation is much more intuitive and it seems like the breathe is sort of the natural root of existence. In reality however western mystery tradition students such as Benjamin Franklin, da Vinci, Isaac Newton and many more have pushed the world to new heights. It is essentially the western mystery traditions that invented math, science and music, which are the foundations of western civilization.

In western traditions, mastering artistic and scientific disciplines is part of the development of the Soul. In kabbalah its working and balancing hod and netzach so that you become a stable individual/personality that is a suitable vehicle for the higher forces/states to enter.

 

As you get given mediations {later on} that start the decent of Divine energy, having filled out your personality in these ways will be crucial, as the descent amplifies character traits, including imbalances.

 

{outside of just balancing, there are also much more in depth secrets on these topics that will get revealed later on}

Are these forms of meditation similar to say, Buddhist Vipassana, or are they a branch of there own making?

I have been dabbling in the occult for awhile. I actually joined AMORC and have been trying to understand if western mystical traditions make sense at all.

I cannot vouch for the validity of western mystical practice, I myself am still confused with various philosophical paradigms "IE. Buddhism, Vedanta, Rosicrucianism. But AMORC for example, insists on mastering artistic and scientific disciplines as a means of enlightenment opposed to say eastern mysticism which insists on mastering meditation.

There are many claims as to which meditation method the Buddha taught.

Here is a method backed up by the suttas of the Pali Canon : Mindfulness Of Breathing.

I've only recently started this method and it feels natural, unforced and tranquil.

Yea the terminology used here is very similar to what Goenka teaches about anapana, though he stresses a lot on being equanimous to the painful sensations while sitting cross legged, and I however did disagree with that (that pdf does as well) but other than that it is the same technique minus the Vipassana, which is actually the technique that will change your emotional-reaction patterns.

 

i took the above from this website and i thought it was cool that the cartoon dude representing 5 gates breathing look alot like..........one of my favorite people.

http://www.integraldynamics.org/BREATHING.html

Sounds cool, I am interested in Chinese techniques, though I am a strong believer that an oral transmission of the technique is necessary for proper success in it.

Great topic!

 

A couple of weeks ago, I signed up for a Vipassana course. I'm on the waiting list. I hope to be lucky enough to get a spot.

 

Could you relate your experience a bit? You said that you received noticeable effects and still are, could you elaborate on that a bit? I've done a 5 day retreat with Adyashanti, but nothing with seated meditation as such integral focus. This technique and discipline seem to be a catalyst for some real integration and realization of things as-they-are.

 

and just because it sweetens the pot a little bit, did you have any beautiful body, mind, or spirit experiences bordering on the mystical??

 

Thank you.

 

ben

Yea, the first thing that you will notice if you practice the technique with determination is a subtle change in your emotional/reactional behavioral patterns. Before I took the course I was a very jealous and tight individual, getting angry emotions when people around me got praised for things instead of me, or when other people got noticed more than me. I also felt aversion for people who I felt where trying to "take my spot" or my field of talent. Now I feel more accepting to my position in society and more confident in my ability to succeed in things. Alot of my negative thinking and vain psychological patterns have been exposed. The first day out of the meditation retreat I felt like a completely different person. I did get back into partying abit, which I think took away from some of my development, but now I am completely sober, and usually don't even take caffeine. Don't expect to become enlightened or anything, but it is something that will help you succeed in the material world with day-to-day activities and it will gradually quiet your mind as well.

The whole philosophy is that we have this negative mental volition embedded in the framework of our mind/body physiology which Siddhartha labeled as "sankharas" which depending on how deep you go, have been creating the ego which has been causing us to incarnate into misery. The whole structure is maintained by our constant craving and aversion which is basically done unconsciously. It is through observing the sensations in our body as they are without judgement in which we are able to root out these sankharas and find an end to this suffering.

Now I had the whole nine-yards at this 10 day meditation but beforehand I had already been having visions and clairvoyance ect. which is what got me interested in meditation. I had kundalini experiences, moments of shifting perception, and all sorts of inner visions (the perception of hidden dimensions, endless tunnels, hexagrams, the ying/yang, serpents, and unexplainable ones) but I learned that ultimately they are all impermanent just like the sensations so they are ultimately not the purpose of meditation, though in my opinion they can be signs of a successful one. It is hard work though, if you are going don't be expecting some sort of pleasureful meditation, because it doesn't start out like that, but I wish you the best of luck in getting a spot, I had signed up twice before this time and it was always to late. Though you can sign up for one in a different town if your willing to travel.

So before about a month ago I can not say I was trained in meditation. I tried it myself but I never had the atmosphere or the proper instruction to say I knew what I was doing. I attended a 10 day course under the guidance of S.N. Goenka and learned 3 forms of meditation. The first one they taught for the first 3 days was anapana, the technique Goenka instructed in was focusing on the sensation the breath gives you in a small triangular area above the upper lip and on the lower nose to achieve samadhi. The next technique taught during the remaining 7 days was Vipassana,the method he instructed in was the scanning of body sensations from head to foot, then from foot to head, in different speeds and patterns with equanimity so to root out sankharas. Then the third method technique I learned was Metta, which he instructed by feeling body sensations of love, and then thinking about things that promote love, to others to in general.

I can say that I received noticeable effects from the 10 day course and am still receiving them by practicing Vipassana for 2 hours a day as instructed. Now as much as Goenka tried to market this technique as the only one out there that was directly passed down from Siddhartha because of its unbroken lineage in Burma thus being the only road to liberation, I am interested in trying other meditation techniques and other varieties of Vipassana. So, I am requesting that users share the technique they use, with a quick description of its name, who taught them it, and how it is done and what is its purpose.

you know..

 

i have always wondered why a rich man like shakayumi would give up his wife and child and his kingdom to seek solitary enlightenment..

 

what was he thinking?.. what did he see?..

 

during the past few weeks, lots of posts have been exchanged..

 

most forummers here seem only interested in getting a good gf/bf, marrying, having kids, getting a job, having a good life partying or whatever..

 

You know as much I respect spiritual achievement I respect material achievement as well. I think using your prospects of enlightenment for things such as scientific, artistic, musical and even diplomatic achievement are just as good, if not greater outcomes then using it to become a recluse, therefore mastering the material world instead of becoming dominated by it.

I joke with my friends all the time that I'll solve all the world's problems once I figure out how to go super saiyan.

Actually I just forced the universe to extend its destruction of this earth until March 23rd of 2023 by my awesome Dragonball Z like Chi abilities.

Doesn't this kid claim to be Maitreya?

Here is a section from his site of his teachings http://paldendorje.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid=3#oct8

"This mahayan or maha Ampa dharma is not only for myself but it is for the liberation of all helpless beings. I have been meditating with lot of difficulty and I have become the Guru of all dharma or the first dharma of all which is srawan dharma. Second from among the dedication dharma Bodhisattwa which means I have become the Guru to liberate all helples beings. Hundreds of Jimphen Buddha means the Maitry Buddha.Hundred Jimphen Semkoi means all the sentient beings who have the feeling of Maitry. The second form philosophy Maha Ampa dharma or mahayan yanik.

While looking at the form philosophy of the whole world from meditation philosophy point of view the instance form will be improved and changed. While changing the whole sentient beings don't be unsatisfied evil. This is the form philosophy of the whole world which keeps changing. If properly guided, if helpless sentient beings are liberated, if proper guidance for liberation and siddhi is provided for the worldly knowledge the helpless sentient beings the worldly knowledge that liberates the helpless sentient beings this is the non soul maitry knowledge which liberates and gives miraculous power.

Riddi Siddhi May all beings be happy."

Sounds like he needs a high school education to me (no pun intended)

In a capsule set to orbit the earth

Just wondering if any of you bums who are well read in the Hindu, Buddhist, taoist, and Jain texts know what this means.

For awhile now, when I close my eyes, I occasionally get visuals of light beings in full lotus, with large radiant crowns. From my understanding of this, I believe it is my inner being telling me to start meditating in this position to achieve enlightenment. I have not heard of this, but my knowledge is fairly limited. Would appreciate some opinions on to what this means if any bums have had similar visions or have read of them

Hi Eviander,

 

Are you interested to spend some quiet time in Ireland? This Tibetan Buddhist center (Nyingma - Led by Sogyal Rinpoche) is currently building a temple, and are always welcoming volunteers of various skills and backgrounds. Its a big community, with lots going on all the time. They also have a respite care/hospice on the grounds. Truly one of its kind in terms of View, feng shui, and conduciveness towards spiritual cultivation. Lots of their caregivers in the hospice are from Christian backgrounds, so its not an exclusively Buddhist environment. Very balanced energies around all the time. Its my haven whenever i need time out.

 

http://www.dzogchenbeara.org/

 

If nothing else, being simply there, present, for a few days helps recharge the batteries.

 

 

 

Let me know if anything comes up - who knows, we can meet up at some point for tea?

(If anyone wants to visit, please PM if you need further information. I know some of the people who runs the center.)

It looks nice, but I did not see anywhere where it stated free room and board. Under the visiting section it showed you needed to deposit a certain amount of cash.

I am researching a Volunteer Retreat center I wish t go to to learn meditation. Though I have to wait until I can pay off my college loans I have found a few Buddhist ones that seem pretty nice.

http://www.shambhalamountain.org/

http://www.odiyan.org/

http://www.nyingmavolunteer.org/

Was wondering if any of the bums here had experience with such a retreat center. I know there are many ones you have to pay for, but I like the idea of doing volunteer work for your food, shelter, and teachings as opposed to paying lots of cash.

If anyone has any other ones they would like to post, or would like to comment on these, please provide.

 

I've watched a number of Terrence McKenna's videos, and I think he's a pretty interesting guy. I'm interested in entheogens as a step, definitely. I do not want to make them my main practice, but I think they have a chance at being a very useful intermediate stepping stone.

 

Basically, I'm interested in tripping, but would like to do it with an experienced shaman or guide...but I have no idea how I could go about finding someone like that to do it with. A skilled psychotherapist as mentioned above would be awesome to have with me, but I have a feeling that my chances of finding one of those to sit me is pretty slim here in the US of A. I'm also not sure what the best vehicle to start with would be (LSD, psilocybin, ayahuasca, etc).

Forget about the guides or the psychotherapist. This is a rogue field and their are not many reliable people to trust as a superior regarding psychedelics. I would say get a few buddies and create a nice sacred place to have the trip and eat some mushrooms for a start. A trip sitter who isn't tripping is sometimes advised but they would be bored and the trippers would not be able to communicate with them properly...which might make things awkward. Personally I enjoy it when everyone is tripping and there is no one analyzing outside of your trip and trying define your experience from his far off point of reference.

Overall though this is a good thread and provides plenty of links for further research, but my two cents is that set and setting make or break the trip

Entheogens have taken me quite far intellectually, have shown me things on the trip that have brought me to tears, changed my outlook on life, and have brought visions that the greatest artist could not remake.

Many have relied only on entheogens for success, but for others it has shown them their path as simply a step.

Ram Dass is one of the most famous examples of what entheogens can do, he went from a Harvard Pyschology Professor to a Hindu holy man. I doubt anyone could have access to the wide array of chemicals a Harvard professor had when all of it was legal and distributed copiously in prestigious universities, but Terrence Mckenna is another famous example as well, who I would highly suggest if you are interested in the view of entheogens as being "the way"

I don't hear many scientists talking about consciousness. It assumed that awareness is a byproduct of the brain. I think you have a very idealistic view of science. Mysticism deals with universal laws as well. Impermanence, dependent origination, the unfindability of the subject, these are all universal laws. They are true for everybody. If you mean laws like the speed of gravity, then yes mystics doesn't care about that. Not really sure what you mean by subjective since everything experienced is always through your own mind. I'd rather focus on these 'subjective realizations' and attain great peace, bliss, and wisdom then spend my life on a theorem to conceptually explain the universe.

Well here is peter russel, who is currently trying to explain the two. science and consciousness and a good video about the primacy of consciousness...which basically explains how science is about to have a huge paradigm shift because of the unexplainable discoveries coming up in physics

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7799171063626430789#

Concepts can be non-verbal as well. Babies are born into this world and immediately are conditioned, actually even before birth this begins, and they have a sense of I before they are taught the word I. The feeling of mystical oneness is not beyond concept. There is still subtle conceptual non-verbal grasping there.

This statement is a bit more subjective, essentially here if you havn't experienced it..how do you even know? Concepts are usually attributed to being verbal, as for it depends on the word concept to begin with does it not?

Self being the whole is still a self. There is still identity. There is still a reference point. No-self means everything exists without a reference point or identity, and there is multiplicity. Buddhist enlightenment is not just nonduality, which you are talking about. The deeper realization is non-inherency.

Clear enough

Arithmetic was created by humans who are products of an environment that conditions us to see duality. The concept of 'two' requires there to be two separate objects which are each considered 'one.' Even if you have the same looking object, like two red apples, since they occupy different locations in space, they are considered separate. Within time and space, we see this differentiation, but to say everything is the same is just jumping to the other extreme. Instead of labeling everything as 'different' you label everything as 'same.' Multiplicity does not come from one source, and this isn't a logical necessity, not according to Buddhism.

Well it is how the universe works. Mathematics can program computers to simulate the physical world, so we see now how the universe actually coordinatess with certain equations. And if Buddhism purports something different then how the universe functions you are better off depending on something that can be verified through a few equations rather than believing some monk that you have to reincarnate 20 more times before you get anywhere.

You misunderstand what no-self means. It does not mean non-existence or no-ego or anything like that. It just means that I don't exist inherently and independently.

 

Saying a realization is deeper than another has nothing to do with ego really. If you experience a deeper realization, you'll want to clarify to others out of compassion or just wanting to share something deeper so others can experience it too. Not all realizations are made the same. For example, the mystical Christian traditions have much clearer realizations than fundamentalist Baptists. I don't think it's correct to lump all realizations into one and say only language separates them.

You can't possibly know how deep your realization is compared to someone else's besides the inflated "me" and "my" part of it. As for no self, I did think it meant no ego which makes more sense now. As for the realizations, I still hold that they all are inherently the same cosmic energies received by different mediums such that they produce different results.

Why nothing?

 

I don't understand. Why is an independent variable necessary? I just used perfume as a metaphor for everything. Hindus say that the world is the perfume and God is the source, so I just pointed out that Buddhists say that source is an illusion and there is only the world.

Because the word dependant is defined as needing something independent to even exist. As for Buddhist go, I have heard very clearly that the point of Buddhism is not to theorize about the things we speak of now because it is past the point of the Dharma and has nothing to do with suffering?

The problem isn't that you're smart enough. It's that you're too smart, that is you're conceptualizing too much and that's why you don't understand the meaning of emptiness. It's very simple. Buddhism is a phenomenology. It describes our experiences and everything that makes it up, awareness, sensations, emotions, thoughts, etc.

Even buddhism is in seperation. I have heard from one side that Buddhism is more like a pyschology, but yet it seems to have a set of metaphysics aside from simply the Dharma, which some buddhists ignore, whilst other deem essential.

Trying to compare this to science will lead you in a dark and twisted maze. I wouldn't enter that cave if i were you. Science does not describe our experience phenomenologically, and really that's all that Buddhists worry about. The speed of light doesn't really concern us much since it doesn't help us in anyway in our current predicament. Buddhism is entirely pragmatic, and its focus is on getting you to realize your true nature, the nature of awareness, the nature of phenomena, and deepen your insight and integrate that with your experience.

The more science evolves, the more it overlaps with metaphysics. The future of science is a unification of the spiritual and the scientific, and phenomenology is a very important branch in physics just as it is in psychology. We can only surmise now that a time will come when computers will beable to simulate consciousness at a quantum level. When this happens, science will have a solid explanation of many metaphysical tenets that religion will be forced to oblige to.

Not everything in science directly connects to metaphysics, but the nature of consciousness, or the nature of awareness and the nature of phenonomen are all topics of interest in the scientific world just as they are in buddhism and any other meditative tradition. The only difference is, science finds universal laws, whilst mysticism and religion deal with subjective realizations..when the two become one and are explained in depth..

The whole essence of the Dharma is no self and dependent origination. The rest is commentary. The point of these teachings is two fold. First it's to get you to break your normal pattern of perception which breaks the world up into solid independently existing objects and have an experience of things as non-things, a unified field as you say. And second, taken deeper, the teachings are meant to even deconstruct that experience because there's a conceptual overlay on top of the nondual experience. This conceptual overlay is a subtle form of grasping at an identity, and this is why Buddhists are so adamant that the point is not to experience a mystical oneness with reality. The point is to see through that oneness into a true non-conceptual experience that sees everything beyond grasping at a limited egoic self and a Grand Divine Self.

Essentially, even feeling a mystical oneness with reality is beyond any concept, and is only transmitted through a conceptual bases because that is a requisite for linguistical communication. Language is but a map, the territory is beyond the concept and must be seen for oneself. What buddhists experience is but a semantical difference in philosophical terms. In the end language can be seen as the best and worst invention of our species.

In short, the Buddhist teachings are beyond self, big and small. You might still not see the difference. You might say that it leads to the same goal. I disagree.

I really do not see the difference between no self, and the self being the whole. They both point at the same destination which is the breaking of a barrier between the perceiver and the percieved. I do not see how this is not the same goal with different semantics.

Oneness is not the same. Monism (everything is one) is the extreme of duality, so think about this. Can there be one without two? The whole idea of 'one' depends on the idea of duality since it is the polar opposite. It's like going from the idea that everything is in constant flux (Heraclitus) to nothing ever moves (Parmenides).

One comes before two so it need not depend what comes after it. Better yet, the two depends on the one because it is two components of the first number. This is simple arithmatic. The one is independant whilst all other numbers or emanations after it and depand upon it.

Both are interdependent concepts that do not actually grasp reality and truth because no concept can. Truth is beyond concepts, and the way to realize that truth is to deconstruct all experiences, even the amazing mystical experiences of union with God filled with bliss and love and feelings of knowing everything. Very important experiences, but the tendency to grasp at an identity or 'self' is still there even in those amazing samadhi experiences.

Like you say though, it is beyond concept because language is based on duality. You cannot explain things logically without it..in fact duality manifests as a measurable law in science that is uniform throughout the universe.

These experiences are no inherently pure. So the misinterpretation of that experience will create a lineage uninformed of the actual truth. This is why Buddhism doesn't try to mix with other religions. Their interpretation is off, and our interpretation generates our realization. That is how we integrate and digest our realizations.

Saying ones realization is any more "on" than the realization of the other is full of self and egoic delusions though, so if as a buddhist you really are lacking self you would not have such distinctions now would you? Even further

The point of Dependent Origination is that there's nothing to hold onto. Nothing to grasp and hold and identify with. No reference point, no ground of being, groundlessness all teh way down

 

Further, there is a confusion that emptiness means a void or formless realm that is the source of phenomena, but that isn't true. Dependent Origination leads you to realize that phenomena have no source. Sure there are many realms of experience, even formless ones, but none are self-existent.

 

Many Hindu teachers describe reality as the 'perfume of God' where God is the ground of being and everything arises from that source, but Buddhists would just say that there is only perfume which originates dependently It is the difference between saying 'something is That' and 'something simply is'

 

So while Dependent Origination may seem complex, once you understand it, it's extremely simple.

Lets see if I understand it now By the way you put it. D.O. states that any sort of existence is dependant upon something else for its sustenance ad infinitum which ultimately leads to nothing?

Still confused a bit here, because the dependant perfume by definition requires an independant variable or else nothing could have created it.

Well, Buddhism... from the Pali Suttas on, goes into formless realities, non-conceptual relativity. Which is hard to reference without formless experience in meditation.

Like I said before, Buddhism has many similarities with other mystical traditions, formless realities exists in almost all contemplative traditions.

I respect your passion for finding... I've also studied the Rosicrucians... Due to my depth of experience and study in Buddhism, I can tell you... it ain't that deep.

 

But.. have your path of study, and embrace it. The Rosicrucian belief is more of a substantial top down metaphysics stemming from a one to many ideation of reality... it's particulars are interesting though.

Interesting...I am only on the fourth degree and have stopped because of school and previous degrees, did you get your monographs from amorc or another branch? Also, did you get through all the degree work?

I am compelled to see how amorc fairs against eastern originated traditions

You should study more of it before creating a solid opinion. That would be the more enlightened thing to do.

 

I spent years reading 200 or more pages a day while meditating on what I read when I wasn't reading of the many different mystical traditions and new scientific findings of the planet.

 

Your conclusions seem to have to base themselves on some sort of clinging to inherent existence, thus you don't see the deep meaning of relativity. (imho) I humbly disagree with you.

My opinion is far from from solid. I am currently studying Rosicrucian material however, and it has taken precedence over my previous Buddhist studies.

The major problem here is the paradigm and the definitions you speak of being strictly Buddhist, while not being universal to all. Though I agree that within form nothing in and of itself exists (electricity requires two charges) I don't see how that goes into any sort of deep meaning of relativity..besides all of our perceptions being Dependant upon our frame of reference (Einstein)

The point is we are both seeing a perception from a different frame

Historically you are talking about people who lived, with the exception of Einstein, under the authority and suppression of the church. Whether or not they actually believed in God is impossible to know because if you did fancy such thoughts you'd best keep them quiet. For example, Descartes is considered the father of rationalism and science and formulated arguments for the existence of God, but many scholars today see the arguments for God in Meditations to be circular and that he purposely did this. Only the first and last chapters, which are skeptical and deconstructive in method actually reflect his actual thoughts.

 

Another example is George Berkeley who was a bishop of the church. He was a very well-known philosopher, but he also argued for God because he had to. In his very last published work, he pointed to a view that was very mystical which leads many to the conclusion that he didn't actually believe his earlier arguments for God.

 

Scientists are not philosophers, and I'd argue that some who actually said they believe in God during those times had to do it and didn't actually believe it. Or perhaps they did. Doesn't mean they were right. Doesn't matter why Newton studied gravity, but I'm happy he did.

 

 

 

Stephen Hawking is considered to be one of the greatest scientific minds of all time, and he's an atheist. He has no merit in the evolution of science? Hardly. He understands quantum physics very well, but you don't. Watching 'What the Bleep do we know' does not count as a course in quantum mechanics, which is not a new theory at all. It's been around since the 50s. There's nothing about quantum mechanics that proves that everything is created by a divine being.

 

Your argument seems to be that science and God are connected because the early scientists grew up in a time where theism was the 'in philosophy' and justified their findings through that lens. The same argument can be applied to scientists today and how they interpret everything through a lens of reductive materialism (quantum physics being no different). You're appealing to authority and not recognizing that scientists are not enlightened.

I think you are just surprised to see the two terms combined. Science and god, how can that be? And no, I am not appealing to authorities, there are more modern scientists to this day who hold the same stance, and of course, I never said scientists where enlightened, I am saying science can lead to ones own illumination. I do understand it, but Stephan hawking's is not the only guy out their. I am speaking from a newer school, that leans more towards the unified field theory. hawking's just happens to be the most renowned. Their are plenty of quantum physicists who are not atheists and have combined the two in better formats than what hawking's huge media coverage allows him to do.

Lets try to focus on the argument and not the ego

Science seems to more and more prove Buddhism these days. That's what I've found...

 

Have you read the Holographic Universe by Talbot?

 

I don't know... it seems that we have different ideas of what is going on in science. I've heard of this search for the god particle. But, because of the fact of infinite regress, even if one says... "oh, I found it" this experience will be arisen dependent upon an endless assortment of conditions which the scientist will be blind to.

Science is not just proving buddhist claims, but it is proving mysticism in gene

No I havn't read it, but I understand what its essence is. That what we see is not out there, we are projecting a sort of hologram. The point is that something is out there and it is measurable..or else there would be no shared reality..our world would be such as a lucid dream.

As for infinite regress, I don't see how that has anything to do with such discoveries..but of course I am only familiar with Aristotle definition of infinite regress. And if one says they found it, then they have the knowledge of the particles that create life..

Subjective.

Just like buddhism

You should re-read your own statements, just for clarification. You've just stated what dependent origination means. The inter-dependent self fulfilling it's self prophesies empty of inherent existence, arisen merely dependent upon an endless assortment of causes and conditions.

Sorry, but I used the term god, I don't see how that defines what your speaking of.

There is no paradox in dependent origination.

Well I now realize it is a Buddhist definition only.

Sure have... which is what took me to Buddhism. Such "god" fantasies don't hold weight.

 

Even Einstein thought Buddhism was the best religion on the planet.

 

"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."

 

or,

 

"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."

Well the second half before Buddhism is quoted describes what I am purporting.. Buddhism however might be the most accepting religion..but as a system of spiritual philosophy in general, there are better (imo)

Your attachment to this "god" thing as logical is showing and blocking your ability to understand Buddhism.

 

But yes... if you can't understand Buddhism without god, you won't understand Buddhism. It is deeply logical though. I probably am just not the right person to convey it to you as you already have so many mental blocks against anything I say.

I have no blocks against what you say. I have been saying this whole time that the word god is a choice in semantics. You can call it the cosmos if you will. I am stressing that no metaphysical model, Buddhist or not, can be adequately explained without it. It has not with what you say but by the way you say it. I have heard people explain Buddhism more clearly..thats all I'm trying to point to.

No... you're definitely not understanding what emptiness means. it merely means malleability, as in, no static being.

 

If you want to call dharmakaya, divine intelligence, you can, but then you'd be missing the point of emptiness as you are subscribing a self to chaotic order defined by the infinite mass that is us. I think you're not seeing between the words I'm using...

Sorry, your using words that have only been defined within Buddhism, and do not mean the same in the general english language. I don't understand what you mean by 'no static being'

Read... The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality by the Dalai Lama

 

Who is also atheist by the way.

Thats good, the title also points to general spirituality, not just Buddhism..

Your opinion is subjective and disagreed upon by plenty, so obviously I can't get the nuances of explanation right for your particular set of conditionings...

 

Oh well? What can I do? Just learn from it.

Lol thats fine

You make opinions about something you've never studied? How presumptive... and unenlightened.

I have read about Buddhism, and I am telling you what I took from it.

Though, without right view, you will be just as conditioned by meditative experiences as you are by life experience through your senses.

 

So be it... you don't have the openness to study even the 1st of the noble truths of the Buddha.

I have already, likewise, I have studied other things that make more sense. I actually used to lean towards Buddhism more than anything..

Only if you consider the material world material. Certainly you know that there are those that eat without food, walk through walls, fly without wings... etc. Only those open enough karmically to experience such things directly would be the witness of course.

 

Our individual reality originates dependent upon such a vast beginningless reservoir of karma... it's like infinite limitations. Until you truly see their inter-dependency and emptiness of course.

Well the material world is not material, it is simply a series of vibrations. I've heard of those who eat without food, though the others could very well be mythology, which is present in large amounts of Buddhist texts, (at least ones I have seen). Karma ect, all that I know of, of course emptiness I don't know if that is legitimate..since what is their is a frequency..though very small..its the .000001 percent of the atom that actually exists..

Science doesn't lead to God at all unless you interpret it that way. Good luck with science. According to neuroscientists, consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter, just a by product. This is the complete opposite of all mystical traditions. Yogis trust their inner experience and view it as empirical. Neuroscientists view such experiences as dreams and the firing of neurons, nothing mystical or special at all. Your two views are at odds.

Actually, your wrong. The main goal of the greatest scientists and their breakthroughs in science have been done under the stance of understanding the works of the creator. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and countless others where mystics who firmly believed in god and interpreted reality from a scientific sense. The atheists you speak of have no merit in the evolution of science and ignore a bigger half of what is now known as quantum physics...which is heavily mystical. In fact the whole paradigm of old science is slowly falling with the newer theories slowly getting more attention.

I don't understand your reasoning as a religion can indeed by atheistic.

I've read a few different places, on Buddhist sites and blogs in the past, that Buddhism is not atheistic but is non-theistic. It has been placed into an entirely separate category from atheism because atheism is much different. Atheism generally denies anything except for the material universe, while Buddhism denies everything but the mind (from my understanding) and claims the material universe is an illusion..this has nothing to do with atheism..which believes in nothing such as enlightenment nirvana, reincarnation etc..which are all supernatural claims..which again..have nothing to do with what atheism claims.

A religion is not atheistic in this sense, but rather it can be non-theistic...as for atheism it is generally opposed to not just the god part of religion, but also of its claims of anything other than the material world.

This is still a projection arisen originated from erroneous cognition. The whole is no such "self" intelligence. It is merely collective unconscious, known in Buddhism as the Alayavijnana, which has 2 applications, individual and collective unconscious.

Well, it seems Buddhism doesn't follow any form of logic which as we know by now, makes it hard for some statements to be taken seriously in a philosophical discussion.

Let me put it this way, what is coming from outside your cognition, those vibrations, have actual effects on you whether you deny their existence or not. As well, you have been organized through years of evolution to the adaptation of atoms that at the base of your components is you. All this was not done through you..it was done through an independent agent that I am calling god. Again, atheism sees this process of life blossoming as the adherence of coincidence...Buddhism says it is emptiness (which cannot explain what science has found by the way) and I am saying this is the work of a supreme intelligence.

You still don't understand dependent origination then. Neither intellectually nor experientially.

Apparently not, you can't explain it to well so I am questioning if you even know what your talking about.

Ok, so then study Buddhism in depth. I've studied all the worlds religions myself. Buddhism says and experiences something different. Not as an -ism, but as an expression of those that are truly, "awake" or Buddha.

I certainly would love to have the time to read some suttas. The fact is though Buddh-ism is still an ism with traditional racial values that turn off the un-secular.

I can only suggest one go deeper into meditation and study.

Thats what I plan to do with my life.

It is all connected, and the human brain, as far as on this Earth goes, has the unique ability to go infinite, both conceptually and experientially, of course what it can house physically is another dimension. But, this brain can transcend itself quite well.

That would be wrong. Certainly the soul consciousness or consciousness, if you would have it, can transcend the brain, but we are still limited by the body and the brains anchoring to the material world.

Actually... I was raised theist, through Advaita Vedanta, as well as Kaula Tantricism. I studied Taoism before Buddhism in fact. With much enthusiasm and openness.

Thats good, you should be open to science then without filtering it through Buddhism.

Ok, so you're not open to me at all... so be it.

It has nothing to do with you, I am not using ad-hominem attacks, it has to do with your arguments..some of them don't make to much sense?

Yes, as dependently originated, empty of self essence.

 

You do not do as you suggest, otherwise you'd come to the same conclusion and wouldn't reify the cosmos. If you want to know Buddhism, start at least with Madhyamaka, without commentary first.

 

If you are truly open to studying other systems... as you claim?

From being empty of self essence only leads me to conclude that their essence is of god, from my interpretation anyhow. But again, I am heavy on science as a means to find the answers, both physical and metaphysical. I am open to studying Buddhism, I just haven't the time to at the moment, and no, Buddhism, like anything else, is not without its holes and leads different analyzers and knowledge bases to different conclusions.

I'm not speaking in paradox, you're mentality of interpretation must be dualistic?

Yep

Oh my dear... you have no idea how much I've studied. Stop projecting and actually study Buddhism, from beginning to end.

 

I've read the Nag Hammadhi, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Upanishads and Puranas, the Vedas and the Tao Te Ching, I know the I Ching back to front, the Shamans of Pueblos in New Mexico, the Shamans of the Auywaska and Peyote tribes, experientially. I know Hinduism back to front, from the Siddhars of Tamil Nadu to the Bhakti Siddhas like Mirabai and the teachings of Jhaneswar. I know about the Hungarian Shamans, the Bon... etc. etc. etc. I've studied plenty my dear.

 

Please... study the Pali Suttas, for your own sake...

 

No baring on me though.

Well I would suggest you come to terms with science if you haven't already. which ties deeply into the fabric of religious claims...and what we are discussing now..a modern review of such things clears up a lot of mythology and false geographical dating with many religious fantasies.