It is interesting to note that the Gnostics believed in reincarnation. This is not some belief system solely from India. Far from it! However the gnostics were destroyed because to follow the path of reincarnation made the masses less easy to control.
so how does one know what all has been destroyed for the sake of controlling people
Deleted.
[QUOTE=kareng;42019]SD you stated on another thread that you need to work on compassion. Well you still haven’t apologised to Lotusgirl for aiming disingenuous at her, has it not occurred to you yet?, if it hasn’t, I am here to advise you it is needed, an apology…you see an old soul would never had made this error in the first place and this is why I suggested you are a young soul, an intellectual young soul.
I retracted my statement, because who am I to be able to measure the age of ones soul, but the question of honesty arises and I have to be honest with you in this instance and say again I think in fact you are a young soul for not being able to recognise when you have gone too far and even more so for being told and still not acting on it…I have suggested it once to you, Thomas has and I have even directed the point with humour… but still you fail to get it.
When you go into practicing spirituality, in full, I wonder what measures your Master will apply to get it through to you…will a good thrashing be what it takes![/QUOTE]
I did not call her disingenious, I said that saying that Buddhism was not a religion was disingenious i.e., not genuine, honest.
I cannot say whether you are a young soul or an old soul because I cannot see your soul, but I certainly can say that you are intellectually young if you cannot differentiate between saying that something is disingenious and calling somebody disingenious.
You retracted your statement not because I have not apologised, but because I recently told you in the other thread you are not not spiritual and will not realise the Self in this lifetime 
Your other beef with me is exposing your lack of psychic ability in the remote viewing thread. I am still not holding my breathe by the way
I suppose alot has been destroyed for the sake of controlling people. Many cultures. Nice article!
The theory of re-incarnation, which is central to Hindu belief, also seems to be finding acceptance, with 24 percent of Americans saying they believe in the concept, the article said quoting a 2008 Harris poll.
According to the Cremation Association of North America, more than a third of Americans were now choosing cremation as the ultimate fate of their bodies, up from six percent in 1975, it says.
This contradicts the traditional Christian belief that bodies and souls are sacred, that together they comprise the "self? and that at the end of time they will be reunited in the Resurrection.
This is from the linked article and it couldn’t be more wrong and if they are drawing conclusions because of cremation, then they are drawing false conclusions.
Christians may cremate and Christians know full well that in so doing it does not deny the resurrection of the body.
Its also much cheaper to cremate nowadays than bury. This is not a joke but a serious consideration. Christians in many situations cannot afford the high costs here in England.
Plots are very expensive.
Ha, it is funny you wrote that Kareng. I was thinking the same thing. Of course more people choose cremation. Burial is very expensive real estate.
[B]Karengs Quote to Surya [/B]
SD you stated on another thread that you need to work on compassion. Well you still haven’t apologised to Lotusgirl for aiming disingenuous at her, has it not occurred to you yet?, if it hasn’t, I am here to advise you it is needed, an apology…you see an old soul would never had made this error in the first place and this is why I suggested you are a young soul, an intellectual young soul.
I retracted my statement, because who am I to be able to measure the age of ones soul, but the question of honesty arises and I have to be honest with you in this instance and say again I think in fact you are a young soul for not being able to recognise when you have gone too far and even more so for being told and still not acting on it…I have suggested it once to you, Thomas has and I have even directed the point with humour… but still you fail to get it.
When you go into practicing spirituality, in full, I wonder what measures your Master will apply to get it through to you…will a good thrashing be what it takes!
[B]
After my complaining SD should apolagise, Surya replies with:[/B]
I cannot say whether you are a young soul or an old soul because I cannot see your soul, but I certainly can say that you are intellectually young if you cannot differentiate between saying that something is disingenious and calling somebody disingenious.
[B]Original statement to Lotusgirl who was offended[/B]
Buddhism is not secular. It is misleading and disingenious to tell somebody that Buddhism is secular/non religious.
[B]Kareng says….[/B]
Using my intellectual inabilities, the word Disingenuous, in a debating arena, is not what you think it means SD. If you state to Lotusgirl that her point about Buddhism is disingenuous, it means she is using a sly calculating, ulterior deceptive misleading manner related to the subject to win the debate. It means that she is pretending to be ignorant using insincere deceptive ways to others, deliberately misleading them.
[B]
Surya then adds regarding me retracting my statement he is a young soul[/B]
You retracted your statement not because I have not apologised, but because I recently told you in the other thread you are not not spiritual and will not realise the Self in this lifetime
[B]Kareng Says[/B]
I have to correct you on this as well Surya, I retracted my statement because I was following your post in the thread on Intelligence and Spirituality where in #’131 you stated parts of your life that you had overcome by yourself. This was why I retracted it #133 in same thread to offer you some compassion instead of attack and because it is sensible to say that how can you or I decide on who has a young or old soul. however, I am prepared to insert this statement again simply to irritate you for not being compassionate in your address to people and apologising for it, in this, I have achieved my ends. 
As for the reason you think it is, I am hardly going to be singularly annoyed at this when you have told everyone openly they are wasting their time unless they do it your way, oh great one.
[B]
Surya then ends with[/B]
Your other beef with me is exposing your lack of psychic ability in the remote viewing thread. I am still not holding my breath by the way
[B]Kareng Says[/B]
If anyone reading this would like to go to the Ajna and Perception V Unicorns and fairies thread, (note the title, humour ) starting from the top and reading through the posts, they will see the post where big boots SD comes trundling in with his crown and scepter, exercising his pomposity to deride me, failing to see with all his superiority that it is light hearted and an attempt to prove it with valid reasons for my waiting, etc etc,
oh yes, and my response that’s angry I APOLAGISED for (in big letters as I know you don’t understand this word, I thought I would make it clear for you to Google :roll:)
And as for you “not holding your breath on it” I have pointed out to you please do hold your breath, as long as you possibly can’t.
I think I have thrashed you sufficiently on this occasion and will go and make a nice cup of English tea. 
- Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-na?f.
- Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.
not sincere; lacking candour
The meaning of disingenuous has been shifting about lately, as if people were unsure of its proper meaning. Generally, it means "insincere" and often seems to be a synonym of cynical or calculating. Not surprisingly, the word is used often in political contexts, as in It is both insensitive and disingenuous for the White House to describe its aid package and the proposal to eliminate the federal payment as "tough love." This use of the word is accepted by 94 percent of the Usage Panel. Most Panelists also accept the extended meaning relating to less reproachable behavior. Fully 88 percent accept disingenuous with the meaning "playfully insincere, faux-na?f," as in the example "I don't have a clue about late Beethoven!" he said. The remark seemed disingenuous, coming from one of the world's foremost concert pianists. Sometimes disingenuous is used as a synonym for naive, as if the dis- prefix functioned as an intensive (as it does in certain words like disannul) rather than as a negative element. This usage does not find much admiration among Panelists, however. Seventy-five percent do not accept it in the phrase a disingenuous tourist who falls prey to stereotypical con artists.
I have certainly not used disingenious in the context of calculating, deliberately deceiving and conniving. I have used in the context of being insincere, dishonest, not genuine.
Lotusgirl often makes statements that are misleading and she knows they are misleading. Like telling people Buddhism is not a religion or Yoga is older than Hinduism. Like telling Thomas, a Christian, that Buddhism is not a religion, despite knowing that the doctrines of Buddhism contradict his faith. Similarly telling Yoga has nothing to do with Hinduism, and Thomas has found himself that Yoga comes attached with beliefs like reincarnation, self-realization and Lotusgirl herself that Yoga is a 5000 year old tradition that originated in India.
Being genuine is giving people facts. Not to withhold information and not to give misleading information. Lotusgirl is going to have to respect the fact that Yoga and Buddhism contradict major doctrines of other religions, and this information should not be withheld from them.
If I was a Yoga teacher taking a class I would be very frank with my students about the origins, philosophy and doctrines of Yoga and its inseparable ties to Hinduism. I would not care if I lost half of my Christian and Muslim students because of this, because at least I am being honest and respectful towards their faith.
I think she was just saying what she believed.
She has no axe to grind here, and no motive to be deceptive.
I think you’re right that it’s a religion. I don’t see how it can’t be. But I have heard others besides lotusgirl say it is not, and I think they say that sincerely.
Also, I think there are enough legitimate claims that yoga is not Hindu for someone to believe that in good faith, though the more I think about it and read about it, including what you’ve said, I think that it must be Hindu.
I have to correct you on this as well Surya, I retracted my statement because I was following your post in the thread on Intelligence and Spirituality where in #’131 you stated parts of your life that you had overcome by yourself. This was why I retracted it #133 in same thread to offer you some compassion instead of attack and because it is sensible to say that how can you or I decide on who has a young or old soul. however, I am prepared to insert this statement again simply to irritate you for not being compassionate in your address to people and apologising for it, in this, I have achieved my ends.
You retracted your statement. Then I told you that you are not spiritual, that you have chosen a worldy life. Then all of a sudden you reinstate your statement in this thread and no new posting had been made by me here and this was all before you retracted your statement. It is therefore very logical to see that you were taking out what I had recently said to you in the other thread, here, masking it as concern for Lotusgirl 
You are my best friend… until… I say something critical of you. We all should have friends like you In any case I am not buying a lot of the stuff you are saying now. I don’t think you are spiritual and I definitely do not believe you can remote view and project into peoples homes. I think you just want to believe this. Fine, I can believe I am an astronaut, it’s not going to make me one
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;42090]http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disingenuous
- Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: “an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who … exemplified … the most disagreeable traits of his time” (David Cannadine).
You conveneintly left #1 out. And #1 is considered a personal attack on me.
- Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-na?f.
- Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.
I have certainly not used disingenious in the context of calculating, deliberately deceiving and conniving. I have used in the context of being insincere, dishonest, not genuine.
And how are we to know which of the definitions you decided to use in your attack?
Lotusgirl often makes statements that are misleading and she knows they are misleading. Like telling people Buddhism is not a religion or Yoga is older than Hinduism. Like telling Thomas, a Christian, that Buddhism is not a religion, despite knowing that the doctrines of Buddhism contradict his faith. Similarly telling Yoga has nothing to do with Hinduism, and Thomas has found himself that Yoga comes attached with beliefs like reincarnation, self-realization and Lotusgirl herself that Yoga is a 5000 year old tradition that originated in India.
I have never been misleading in any of my statements. And have you projected yourself into my mind and know my thoughts? How could you possibly be able to know my reasons unless you could read thoughts? And if you could, you would know I am not what you have accused me of. I am certainly not the only one who believes and have posted the above. There have been many others who have disagreed with you on those issues, not only me. And His Holiness The Dalai Lama has repeatedly said you do not have to give up your religion to practice any part of Buddhism. Yoga is a part of Buddhism too. So Thomas, according to the Dalai Lama, can practice yoga with out compromising his Christian beliefs.
Being genuine is giving people facts. Not to withhold information and not to give misleading information. Lotusgirl is going to have to respect the fact that Yoga and Buddhism contradict major doctrines of other religions, and this information should not be withheld from them.
I give people facts as I know them. You are the master of withholding information Surya Deva! You pick and choose at will depending on your point. I made the statement that some believe Buddhism is a religion and some believe it is not. That is a FACT. Let me share a few insightful things here:
In Walpola Rahula’s book, What the Buddha Taught, he states that when questioned whether Buddhism is a religion or philosophy his answer is, "It doesn not matter. Buddhism remains what it is whatever label you might put on it. The label is immaterial. "
Non-theistic? Yes. No divine being
Does not involve worship. Many see Buddhists bowing to statues of the Buddha and think it is worship. It is a sign of respect and humility.
The Buddha never asked anyone to accept unproven claims on faith, he actually discouraged this.
The Buddha did not find enlightenment thru religion. He found it when he left it behind.
Main religions in the west have a common denominator of a belief that GOD rules over humanity. Buddhists don’t believe this.
Again, the definition of religion are many. Much of how you define religion is based on what definition you CHOOSE to use. Buddhism, as the Buddha taught, transcends religion. But again, much depends on who you ask and what the source is.
If I was a Yoga teacher taking a class I would be very frank with my students about the origins, philosophy and doctrines of Yoga and its inseparable ties to Hinduism. I would not care if I lost half of my Christian and Muslim students because of this, because at least I am being honest and respectful towards their faith.
[/QUOTE]
And who says I am not frank with my students? Who says I don’t share info about Hinduism? I do when I talk of Patanjali and the sutras and many other things. But I also talk of Buddhism and Christianity. I teach a very spiritual class open to any and all
Get off your arrogant high horse Surya Deva. I’m sure I can speak for many here when I say we have grown tired of your constant mantras and lack of compassion. You need to find balance. You need to practice ahimsa. And I guess I do too after writing this. But I do feel much better.
:eek: I am glad you have highlighted what the FREE dictionary says in the post above, #51, and simplistically, you have placed only what suits you……In the Oxford dictionary of English, its definition is:- not sincere, especially when you pretend to know less about something than you really do’
Note…Insincere, not incorrect, which is what you should have stated (if this were wholly true) and this is where you have gone wrong, and this is what you have failed to understand and this is why you insulted Lotusgirl.
And now I will address the fact you are incorrect in stating Lotusgirl is entirely wrong in her comment to Thomas that Buddhism is not a religion.
In Post #36 AND In defense of Lotusgirl AND to give Thomas an accurate statement I added this…”There are many different definitions regarding what religion is…to say Buddhism is or is not will remain an arguable point.
Lotusgirl is right in that it is the most widely stated, that it isn’t a religion. SD is right in that the definition of a religion by some, puts parts of Buddhism into its definition” Note the highlighted parts mean that I will not be listening to your response to this as it is clear and precise that whether Buddhism is or is not a religion, will remain debatable and not the linguistic, intellectual property of Surya Deva to say it is definitely not with endless lists as to why…….:o;)
So, I have established that indeed you did insult Lotusgirl and have failed to apolagise, still.
I have also established that she was not wrong by her statement regarding Buddhism in the beginning.
Now lets address this retracting of my statement that you are a young soul etc
[B]
Surya insists this is my reason for doing this stating the following:[/B]
You retracted your statement. Then I told you that you are not spiritual, that you have chosen a worldy life. Then all of a sudden you reinstate your statement in this thread and no new posting had been made by me here and this was all before you retracted your statement. It is therefore very logical to see that you were taking out what I had recently said to you in the other thread, here, masking it as concern for Lotusgirl
[B]
Karengs reply[/B]
[B]Surya states this… in his address to EVERYONE , i.e. not me, on the Bramacharya thread post #16[/B]
I just wanted to add on the section on regulation of desire because it is a clilche in new-age spirituality today that one can live a spiritual life and balance it with a material life. My own experience has shown this balancing act is impossible. You either are spiritual or you are material, you cannot be both. Those who maintain you can do both are people who want to have their cake and eat it at the same time.
Doing some Yoga and meditation in the morning. Then going to work for the rest of the day in the office. Coming back and then watching the television. Then going out for a drink and gossip with your friends. Then coming back and having sex is not the balancing of a spirtual life with a material life. It is a material life, with the very bad excuse of a spiritual life embedded within it.
They do not go together. Just doing 1-2 hour of Yoga asana and meditation in your 24 hour day is not a spiritual life. The rest of the stuff you are doing in the day is undoing those efforts anyway. This is what I have learned by trying to do the balancing act of spiritual life with material life. I have seen it with everybody else that is trying to balance the spiritual life with material life.
With my best friend who meditates throughout the week, then on the weekend goes out and binge drinks, chats up women(with rather crude approaches) and does drugs. With my mother who gets up early everyday and prays by reading her scripture, with the rosary/mala and then meditates, then gets on with the rest of her duties. Then goes out to her college classes and socialises with her mates. Come back home and watches Hindi soap operas(trash television) then gossips with her best friend on the phone, often about who said what and did what.
A few token efforts in the day or week is not going to make you spiritual. Balancing spiritual life with material life is like trying to balance medicine with poison, light with darkness, evil with good. The more you add to the quotient of one, simultaneusly you reduce the quotient of the other. So this idea of having a total balance is a total fallacy.
This is what ultimately all so-called spiritual people currently using this method will realise, just as I have recently. Then again we all learn at different paces.
Buddha did not maintain his aristocratic lifestyle whilst seeking spirituality. He renounced his aristocratic lifestyle for 10 years of dedicated spiritual life. Then he gained enlightenment and came back into the world, but not as an aristocrt, but as a spiritual teacher for the rest of the world.
This is the ultimate fate of every individual soul in the world. As soon as you grow weary and tired of the material life, you will renounce it completely. No more of this balancing act farce. At that stage, like every other past master(all masters were once students) you will go in search of a master and dedicate yourself completely to that path.
Like I said in my previous post. I am ready. I am obviously an old soul whose been through all of this in the past innumerable times, which would explain why I developed so rapidly in this life and went from one stage to the other. I know, some people reading this are going to condemn me for boasting about my own greatness(their ego of jealousy, basically) but I am simply acknowledging my strengths. It is a good thing to have pride in your achievements, whilst recognising your weaknesses and shortcoming.
[B]Kareng says in post #50 and continues to say:[/B]
As for the reason you think it is, I am hardly going to be singularly annoyed at this when you have told everyone openly they are wasting their time unless they do it your way, oh great one. Furthermore, I didn’t actually respond to this as its very nature lends itself to self ridicule, needing nothing for me to say…you cannot escape this Surya by your distractions in saying I retracted my statement because you said I, I , I, was the reason, you said it to ALL…
Now I will repeat to you why I have reinstated it…….Because it has taken all this writing and accurate post, thread inclusions to press the point of your inability to apolagise when you are in the wrong…….You have a supreme Ego, you are grossly lacking in compassion and humility.
[B]Surya Says [/B]: By reinstating that he is a young soul and the above, I am masking it as concern for Lotusgirl
[B]
Karengs answer:[/B]
Have you noticed when Lotusgirl signed off ??? I will answer for you, NO, BIG NO!! and this is why I am pursuing you to the nth degree, with the vigour of a Phoenix rising from the ashes and you will not escape from me on any point you submit, regarding this…I am on your case Surya and will use my Master of/in Rhetoric to that ends and only your submission to apolagise, your silence or leaving this site, will stop me, which one will your ego choose, I wonder?..:D:D
[B]
Finally Surya pulls this one:[/B]
You are my best friend… until… I say something critical of you. We all should have friends like you In any case I am not buying a lot of the stuff you are saying now. I don’t think you are spiritual and I definitely do not believe you can remote view and project into peoples homes. I think you just want to believe this. Fine, I can believe I am an astronaut, it’s not going to make me one
[B]
Kareng Says….[/B]
Dont be childish about the friend part, this is showing weakness in the debating arena and I will not bother with an answer, my reasons are clear throughout.;)
Surya, what I state, is not unique, it is a function of the Ajna Chakra, all you are doing by this is stating your ignorance in the matter. It irritates you that I have, on occasion, accidently experienced these phenomena… Accidently is the key word in this, I have NEVER NEVER set out with a pre meditated ambition to do a particular task, like spying say, with this, in private. But this does not mean I have not done it, I have by sheer accident or mind intrusion by accident.
[B]
Why would I not do it on purpose? [/B]
-
I understand that it is not WISE to use it in a frivolous manner.
-
When I begin the process I relax, laying on my back, flat, close eyes, slightly inwards looking into the blackness and in a focus line with the tip of the nose, in a dark room, and look for a tiny white/yellow light that that comes and goes, comes and goes, comes and goes, I never stop looking for it…eventually the light becomes big and then this is the eye opening., NOTE I have nothing in my head but this, no thoughts, distractions, nothing!!!
-
Whatever you are presented with is what you are presented with. In my experience it can be anything, within the function of this Chakra.
-
I have chosen the remote viewing experiment with a closed envelope task as I have tried it once and it worked using the remote viewing technique described, in the Ana v Fairies thread. I know it is connected to the Ajna Chakra but does not use the deeper techniques I use normally which is a different ball game altogether. Much deeper in its intensity of focus and accesses the Astral realms.
-
I would make, and will make one exception to deliberately using the Ajna Chakra for a purpose and that it to locate Ishwara again. And if you doubt this then I will go out of my way to give you the exact way I found Ishwara seated and waiting.
-
Take this to a Master and ask the Master if what I have said is in any doubt? And when I describe the actual account the Master will know that I am telling the truth……you will not find it in any text, Not the complete description, only brief reference. And to prove this…I will set you a task if you like…….Find the detailed text that describes it and put it here on the site., all the detail please, a man of your, self stated great intellectual abilities in Hinduism should manage this
To answer your final point…. I do not need to worry about your comments on my Spirituality; I have faith in ISHWARA that surpasses any mere derisive comment.
[B]Finally to use Wisdom alone……………………….All of this was unnecessary, just for the sake of a deserving apology to Lotusgirl.and an ego that could sink a battleship.[/B] 
You should know that Lotusgirl got there seconds before me in posting and I didnt know she was posting…hmmmm
Get off your arrogant high horse Surya Deva.
This is a personal attack. It is directly addressed to me and it calls me arrogant.
This:
It is disingenious to say that Buddhism is not a religion
Is not. It is referring to idea that calling Buddhism not a religion is disingenious i.e., not genuine. I made the context very clear in which I used the word.
Nothing more needs to be said on this matter.
[QUOTE=kareng;42105]:eek: I am glad you have highlighted what the FREE dictionary says in the post above, #51, and simplistically, you have placed only what suits you……In the Oxford dictionary of English, its definition is:- not sincere, especially when you pretend to know less about something than you really do’
Note…Insincere, not incorrect, which is what you should have stated (if this were wholly true) and this is where you have gone wrong, and this is what you have failed to understand and this is why you insulted Lotusgirl.
And now I will address the fact you are incorrect in stating Lotusgirl is entirely wrong in her comment to Thomas that Buddhism is not a religion.
In Post #36 AND In defense of Lotusgirl AND to give Thomas an accurate statement, I added this…”There are [B]many [/B]different definitions regarding what religion is…to say Buddhism is or is not [B]will remain an arguable point.[/B]
Lotusgirl is right in that it is the [B]most [/B]widely stated, that it isn’t a religion. SD is right in that the definition of a religion by some, puts [B]parts[/B] of Buddhism into its definition” Note the highlighted parts mean that I will not be listening to your response to this as it is clear and precise that whether Buddhism is or is not a religion, will remain debatable and not the linguistic, intellectual property of Surya Deva to say it is definitely not with endless lists as to why…….:o;)
So, I have established that indeed you did insult Lotusgirl and have failed to apolagise, still.
I have also established that she was not wrong by her statement regarding Buddhism in the beginning.
Now lets address this retracting of my statement that you are a young soul etc
[B]
Surya insists this is my reason for doing this stating the following:[/B]
You retracted your statement. Then I told you that you are not spiritual, that you have chosen a worldy life. Then all of a sudden you reinstate your statement in this thread and no new posting had been made by me here and this was all before you retracted your statement. It is therefore very logical to see that you were taking out what I had recently said to you in the other thread, here, masking it as concern for Lotusgirl
[B]
Karengs reply[/B]
[B]Surya states this… in his address to EVERYONE , i.e. not me, on the Bramacharya thread post #16[/B]
I just wanted to add on the section on regulation of desire because it is a clilche in new-age spirituality today that one can live a spiritual life and balance it with a material life. My own experience has shown this balancing act is impossible. You either are spiritual or you are material, you cannot be both. Those who maintain you can do both are people who want to have their cake and eat it at the same time.
Doing some Yoga and meditation in the morning. Then going to work for the rest of the day in the office. Coming back and then watching the television. Then going out for a drink and gossip with your friends. Then coming back and having sex is not the balancing of a spirtual life with a material life. It is a material life, with the very bad excuse of a spiritual life embedded within it.
They do not go together. Just doing 1-2 hour of Yoga asana and meditation in your 24 hour day is not a spiritual life. The rest of the stuff you are doing in the day is undoing those efforts anyway. This is what I have learned by trying to do the balancing act of spiritual life with material life. I have seen it with everybody else that is trying to balance the spiritual life with material life.
With my best friend who meditates throughout the week, then on the weekend goes out and binge drinks, chats up women(with rather crude approaches) and does drugs. With my mother who gets up early everyday and prays by reading her scripture, with the rosary/mala and then meditates, then gets on with the rest of her duties. Then goes out to her college classes and socialises with her mates. Come back home and watches Hindi soap operas(trash television) then gossips with her best friend on the phone, often about who said what and did what.
A few token efforts in the day or week is not going to make you spiritual. Balancing spiritual life with material life is like trying to balance medicine with poison, light with darkness, evil with good. The more you add to the quotient of one, simultaneusly you reduce the quotient of the other. So this idea of having a total balance is a total fallacy.
This is what ultimately all so-called spiritual people currently using this method will realise, just as I have recently. Then again we all learn at different paces.
Buddha did not maintain his aristocratic lifestyle whilst seeking spirituality. He renounced his aristocratic lifestyle for 10 years of dedicated spiritual life. Then he gained enlightenment and came back into the world, but not as an aristocrt, but as a spiritual teacher for the rest of the world.
This is the ultimate fate of every individual soul in the world. As soon as you grow weary and tired of the material life, you will renounce it completely. No more of this balancing act farce. At that stage, like every other past master(all masters were once students) you will go in search of a master and dedicate yourself completely to that path.
Like I said in my previous post. I am ready. I am obviously an old soul whose been through all of this in the past innumerable times, which would explain why I developed so rapidly in this life and went from one stage to the other. I know, some people reading this are going to condemn me for boasting about my own greatness(their ego of jealousy, basically) but I am simply acknowledging my strengths. It is a good thing to have pride in your achievements, whilst recognising your weaknesses and shortcoming.
[B]Kareng says in post #50 and continues to say:[/B]
As for the reason you think it is, I am hardly going to be singularly annoyed at this when you have told everyone openly they are wasting their time unless they do it your way, oh great one. Furthermore, I didn’t actually respond to this as its very nature lends itself to self ridicule, needing nothing for me to say…you cannot escape this Surya by your distractions in saying I retracted my statement because you said you aimed it at me…No you didnt you said it to ALL…
Now I will repeat to you why I have reinstated it…….Because it has taken all this writing and accurate post, thread inclusions to press the point of your inability to apolagise when you are in the wrong…….You have a supreme Ego, you are grossly lacking in compassion and humility.
[B]Surya Says [/B]: By reinstating that he is a young soul and the above, I am masking it as concern for Lotusgirl
[B]
Karengs answer:[/B]
Have you noticed when Lotusgirl signed off ??? I will answer for you, NO, BIG NO!! and this is why I am pursuing you to the nth degree, with the vigour of a Phoenix rising from the ashes and you will not escape from me on any point you submit, regarding this…I am on your case Surya and will use my Master of/in Rhetoric to that ends and only your submission to apolagise, your silence or leaving this site, will stop me, which one will your ego choose, I wonder?..:D:D
[B]
Finally Surya pulls this one:[/B]
You are my best friend… until… I say something critical of you. We all should have friends like you In any case I am not buying a lot of the stuff you are saying now. I don’t think you are spiritual and I definitely do not believe you can remote view and project into peoples homes. I think you just want to believe this. Fine, I can believe I am an astronaut, it’s not going to make me one
[B]
Kareng Says….[/B]
Dont be childish about the friend part, this is showing weakness in the debating arena and I will not bother with an answer, my reasons are clear throughout.;)
Surya, what I state, is not unique, it is a function of the Ajna Chakra, all you are doing by this is stating your ignorance in the matter. It irritates you that I have, on occasion, accidently experienced these phenomena… Accidently is the key word in this, I have NEVER NEVER set out with a pre meditated ambition to do a particular task, like spying say, with this, in private. But this does not mean I have not done it, I have by sheer accident or mind intrusion by accident.
[B]
Why would I not do it on purpose? [/B]
-
I understand that it is not WISE to use it in a frivolous manner.
-
When I begin the process I relax, laying on my back, flat, close eyes, slightly inwards looking into the blackness and in a focus line with the tip of the nose, in a dark room, and look for a tiny white/yellow light that that comes and goes, comes and goes, comes and goes, I never stop looking for it…eventually the light becomes big and then this is the eye opening., NOTE I have nothing in my head but this, no thoughts, distractions, nothing!!!
-
Whatever you are presented with is what you are presented with. In my experience it can be anything, within the function of this Chakra.
-
I have chosen the remote viewing experiment with a closed envelope task as I have tried it once and it worked using the remote viewing technique described, in the Ajna v Fairies thread. I know it is connected to the Ajna Chakra but does not use the deeper techniques I use normally which is a different ball game altogether. Much deeper in its intensity of focus and accesses the Astral realms.
-
I would make, and will make one exception to deliberately using the Ajna Chakra for a purpose and that it to locate Ishvara again. And if you doubt this then I will go out of my way to give you the exact way I found Ishvara seated and waiting.
-
Take this to a Master and ask the Master if what I have said is in any doubt? And when I describe the actual account the Master will know that I am telling the truth……you will not find it in any text, Not the complete description, only brief reference. And to prove this…I will set you a task if you like…….Find the detailed text that describes it and put it here on the site., all the detail please, a man of your, self stated great intellectual abilities in Hinduism should manage this
To answer your final point…. I do not need to worry about your comments on my Spirituality; I have faith in ISHVARA that surpasses any mere derisive comment.
[B]Finally to use Wisdom alone……………………….All of this was unnecessary, just for the sake of a deserving apology to Lotusgirl.and an ego that could sink a battleship.[/B]
You should know that Lotusgirl got there seconds before me in posting and I didnt know she was posting…hmmmm[/QUOTE]
xxx SILENCE
Buddhism is a religion. This is a total no-brainer.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism8.htm
Buddhism currently has about 376 million followers and is generally listed as the world’s fourth largest religion after Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. It was founded in Northern India by Siddhartha Gautama (circa 563 to 460 BCE).
A number of countries recognize Buddhism as their official religion:
Bhutan
Cambodia
Kalmykia, a republic within the Russian Federation
Thailand
Tibet Government in ExileAlso:
Sri Lanka recognizes Theravada Buddhism as occupying “the foremost place” among its religions.
The Drepung Loseling Institute, a center for Tibetan Buddhist studies, practice and culture, fully accepts Buddhism as a religion. They state:
"Like all major religions, Buddhism contains an explanation of the origin of existence, a morality, and a specific set of rituals and behaviors. … Buddhism presents a transformational goal, a desire to improve one’s situation, and a distinct moral code. 7The Late Ven Dr.K.Sri Dhammananda Nayaka Maha Thera JSM wrote:
“The Buddha’s message as a religious way of life: ‘Keeping away from ail evil deeds, cultivation or life by doing good deeds and punfication of mind from mental impurities’.”“For our purposes, religion may be defined in a very broad sense as a body of moral and philosophical teachings and the acceptance with confidence of such teachings In this sense. Buddhism is a religion.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/
http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/index.htm
Founded in India 2,500 years ago, Buddhism remains the dominant religion of the Far East and is increasingly popular in the West. Over its long history Buddhist has developed into a wide variety of forms, ranging from an emphasis on religious rituals and worship of deities to a complete rejection of both rituals and deities in favor of pure meditation. But all share in common a great respect for the teachings of the Buddha, “The Enlightened One.”
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
There are twelve classical world religions. This is the list of religions described most often in surveys of the subject, and studied in World Religion classes (some of them more for historical rather than contemporary reasons):
•Baha’i
•Buddhism
•Christianity
•Confucianism
•Hinduism
•Islam
•Jainism
•Judaism
•Shinto
•Sikhism
•Taoism
•Zoroastrianism
Surya Deva,
You are so wrong, that wrong doesn’t even begin to address how wrong you are. Sound familiar? You’ve used those words against me.
Saying that I said something disingenuous is saying that I am. If I was not disingenuous why would I say something that is disingenuous? So you see you are saying I am disingenuous. You said you were using the word in a different context? And we are suppose to know how?
And nothing more needs to be said on this matter? Do you really think so? Is this the very same Surya Deva who accused me of being weak and backing down from a debate? You said I could not prove my argument, so I backed down. Are you doing the same thing? Sure seems like it. You insulted me, as you have insulted me many times over and over. And although an apology would be nice, I am not holding my breath. You are not a Buddhist and for all your reading you really know very little about Buddhism. BTW on another thread (I think) you said that Hindu teachers helped the Buddha reach enlightenment. This is WRONG. He was not satisfied with that those teachers were teaching him and he went off on his own with a few others to find the answers. He reached enlightenment on HIS OWN. Not with the help of Hindu teachers. Hum, no I won’t say what I was going to. Suffice to say, I have had my fill of you.
Oh Surya, sometimes you just don’t get it.
Buddhism doesn’t really fit neatly in the definition of religion. For the sake of simplicity and because of its #'s is is categorized that way. But most Buddhist would profusely argue with you that Buddhism is not a religion. Oh sure, I could quote, cut and paste my way through an argument, but I am actually a practicing Buddhist. Are you? No you are a Hindu. Buddhism has no God, says nothing of faith, no worship (except in some sects) and no dogma per se. There has always been much confusion where to place Buddhism as it really doesn’t fit any category. Why is that? Because Buddhism allows you freedom. Freedom to uncover truth on your own, or with the help of dharma teachings. There is no set way. It is an individual journey.
Talk about a no brainer!