RyanO

Fine. But an entire religion shouldn't be based around the fact that there is suffering, especially one that says that unless you accept that fact you will be trapped in Samsara forever until you do. There is joy too. As for Winn's experience, I can't speak for him, but I'm familiar with what you're talking about. His experience doesn't mean he didn't go through a grieving period, I pretty sure he did and honored the loss for what it was. But again I can't speak for him.

I understand what you're saying, but I still think that one consequence of the First Noble Truth when taken as Gospel is the inability to transcend it. I'm only familiar with the English translation. To say "Life Is Suffering" is utterly life-denying. Being skilled in Happiness and detachment is another matter altogether. Maybe a better way of phrasing your interpretation "Life Has Suffering" or even just "There Is Suffering". Life isn't suffering, wanting reality to be other than it is is suffering. But the way it's classically stated, then why did the Cosmos form itself in the first place? Is Life a mistake? Did Reality screw up? I don't buy it.

Shoot. Guess you're more advanced than me. How many more lifetimes will it take? Hopefully many, I love to play!

I've never been to the Summer Retreats but I have been to a number of Michael Winn's workshops and have benefited tremendously. I'm actually going to be doing a work-study there for the entire summer, working in the kitchen, so if you end up coming make sure to say hey! I agree that they do offer a lot and that can seem confusing. Just go with what seems right for you. I'm not sure about certifications, you can get an associate instructor's certification but I think it takes a year. Peace! -Ryan

Well that's a possible interpretation. It's also possible that the Lama and other Buddhist masters appear happy in spite of this teaching. Buddhism is huge, and since Bliss is in our Nature it's only natural that it would arise spontaneously. But if you look at the Theravadans, they don't seem overly joyful, more calm-like. This is because they follow a more orthodox way. The issue is less about the fact of suffering, of course there is suffering, but more on emphasis. Cultivating joy means getting beyond 'Life is Suffering' and if that's your interpretation, then I like that approach.

Cool stuff. My immediate thoughts are: Nature is cruel (and kind). Heaven based spiritualities (read: most of them) address this truth by teaching that we must transcend Nature and its cruelties. I would say a better balance would be finding harmony between our Heavenly and Earthly aspects. People think Reality sucks because we want things we can't have. But Reality created us this way. Our Nature is to seek pleasure and blissful states. Happiness arises when we accept this as our Nature without demand. The Tao created us with Will so that we can play with it and take part in its process. Evolution is merely a part of this process of play and not an imperative with regard to the Real. True Wholeness is Omnipresent, but creation requires the mystery of polarity.

I love this perspective. I really don't like all the ego-bashing so common to many forms of spirituality: "The ego will fight like hell to stay alive, the ego is an imposter, the ego is the source of all pain" nonsense. A big smile to my and everyone else's ego.

Interesting, but I was more wondering about what the final goal of reality is rather than a person's goal in this realm. So when an arhat dies, is there experience? Does final nirvana have experience? Some interpretations of Buddhism to me suggest annihilation, which is funny because this is an interpretation of Hell in some Christian perspectives. If there is some kind of experience, how can there be an emptiness to emptiness? Obviously, I realize there is no one perspective within Buddhism (as is evident in this thread), but individual interpretations are welcome.

So what is the end-goal of Buddhism? What does it look like? Is there anything there? Is there awareness?

Rush rules!

Interesting points xabir. But claiming that rebirth has been proven scientifically is treading on thin ice to say the least. I haven't looked up this Drs research but might, is there a good link for that? Other than that, taking Buddha's and others' word for it regarding past lives is a tentative, unreliable undertaking. Subjective experience does not equate to factual truth. I personally am not inclined to take someone else's word for it on such an important issue. Regarding your last statement, how is Buddhism different than say, Stoicism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism Epictetus: "Freedom is secured not by the fulfilling of one's desires, but by the removal of desire." (iv.1.175)

Right, just to be clear, I was piggybacking on your point. We're in agreement. lino, wow, I have no idea what you're talking about.

And granting his existence, what makes him different? Why take his insights on faith?

So I'm right then. Let's replace lino's message with this synonomous term: This is what happens with "karma". The Genies have been guarding earth man and woman for millions of years. A Genie has penetrative vision, they can see into every house just passing by. When they see something or somebody assaulting an earth man or woman, the first thing that they do is touch Earth so that the Earth and air can build an immune system against the someone or something. The Genies evolved so long ago that they are known as the Buddha of 32 marks. You for real lino? Where's my magic lamp? Seriously though, why use an Islamic term when discussing Buddhism? Source?

I have never heard of this. What are your sources? I thought Jinn was an Islamic term.

The biggest flaw in this reasoning is what Buddhism says about karma and life after death. You must become liberated (whatever that means) or else you will spend an eternity being reborn into samsara. This is NOT scientifically proven. I find it interesting that the Buddha said metaphysical speculation was unimportant (the poisoned arrow story), but assumed the truths of karma and rebirth. Buddhism without karma and rebirth is not Buddhism. It is just meditative practices. Without invoking metaphysics, Buddhism is mere psychology. On another note, I actually wrote my college thesis entitled "A Defense Of Radical Dualism In Patanjali's Yoga Sutras." If anyone's interested I can email it to you, it's about 30 pages (granted, it is bachelor's level work). In it, I argue a point that may help clear up a little confusion about Hinduism and non-duality. Briefly: It is known among religious scholars that Patanjali, who authored the Yoga Sutras, subscribed to the dualistic Samkhyan metaphysical system (which is mentioned in the first post's link, and one of the classical schools of Indian Philosophy). Samkhya holds that spirit (purusha) and matter (prakriti) are fundamentally distinct. Later developments in Hinduism went towards Advaita's non-dualism, but kept the Yoga Sutras as a practical manual. Today, the Yoga Sutras remain popular, and are almost always interpreted outside of their metaphysical context. I think this is a mistake. The end goal of the sutras is moksha, liberation from matter. One word the sutras use for moksha is kaivalya, roughly meaning 'aloneness'. So, using meditation to ensure this liberation makes sense for Patanjali, but how does it for a non-dualistic mode? It doesn't, and confusion results. Relating this back to topic, traces of dualism are still found in supposedly non-dualistic schools, including Advaita and Buddhism, because of their insistence on the necessity of obtaining liberation.

returning to Way I find bliss in empty space spark of creation

Looks interesting but expensive. I wonder if it works. I am also curious if anyone has any experiences with it.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons#Parsons_and_the_Occult "Parsons saw no contradiction between his scientific and magical pursuits. Before each rocket test launch, Parsons would invoke the Greek god Pan." That's awesome.

Looks interesting. I'll pick it up.

I'll look up Jack Parsons, seems like an interesting guy. I read Prometheus Rising by Wilson and loved it.

durkhrod, are you a Buddhist? Either way, Right Livelihood is one of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path#Right_livelihood Buddha thought career was relevant. So do I.

Aww c'mon, that's unnecessary. I agree with Creation, and others it seems. Career choice is an important aspect of the Way.

I answered 'other', mostly because my understanding at this point is that it's not an either/or scenario. I am still a beginner (OK, relatively), and I have much room for progress, but I have felt energy flow in all of the above. Do more experienced practitioners agree that channels aren't either opened or closed, but open in a more gradual way? That said, I am aware that powerful openings can occur in a single event. But I don't think this means that something has 'opened' all of a sudden when it was previously closed off.

Sure thing!