[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44094]This short discourse by Ken Wilber will shed much light on the confused Buddhists mind 
Please, enlighten me as to how this will shed much light on the confused Buddhists mind
You often need things spoon-fed to you
Very well then. The discourse show hows the basic truth of “I am” is an infallible truth. It cannot be rejected, because “I am” awareness is everpresent. It is present as I write this, it was present 10 min ago, it was present an hour ago. It was present a day ago. It was present a week ago. It was present a month ago. It was present a year ago. It was present 5 years ago. It was present at the time of birth.
The only thing that has changed is the objects of the I am awareness, but the I am awareness has remained constant.
Come on Buddhists, wisen up
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44097]You often need things spoon-fed to you
Very well then. The discourse show hows the basic truth of “I am” is an infallible truth. It cannot be rejected, because “I am” awareness is everpresent. It is present as I write this, it was present 10 min ago, it was present an hour ago. It was present a day ago. It was present a week ago. It was present a month ago. It was present a year ago. It was present 5 years ago. It was present at the time of birth.
The only thing that has changed is the objects of the I am awareness, but the I am awareness has remained constant.
Come on Buddhists, wisen up ;)[/QUOTE]
Interesting, I am noticing a pattern here this ?;)? apparently makes it ok to insult people? but if they dare insult the great Surya Deva he becomes indignant, will not let it go, and hound people from post to post… young man you grow tiresome? and I am still not hostile
I’m still not a Buddhist how many times must I tell you that before it sinks in
But regardless, the reason I asked was to see if you understood, and you don?t. All you just told me is that you still do not understand Buddhism and you are confusing “I am” with self, like I said many many post ago you take things to literally. Producing a video of a psychologist is not proof of what you are trying to prove. I like the things written by Jon Kabat-Zinn but I would not use them or his videos to prove or disprove Buddhist thought nor do I think Jon Kabat-Zinn or Ken Wilber would either
You sure do protest a lot You give,as much as you take. Please do not pretend that you, Lotusgirl, Kareng et al do not dish out insults. I rarely see posts from you which do not contain personal attacks. Rather than sticking to the points of discussion, you always have to bring in the person themselves(ad-hominem - to the man) who brings up the points and criticise them, attack them or belittle them. You lot are the worst offenders for insults on this forum. I am not kidding
All you just told me is that you still do not understand Buddhism and you are confusing “I am” with self
“I am” and “Self” are both the same thing. To say I have a self is to say “I am” This is what is known as the doctrine of Atman in Hinduism. Buddhism has the doctrine of Anatta - no self. There is no “I am” in Buddhism.
You say you are not a Buddhist and yet for your avatar you have a Zen symbol and you often post quotes and stories from Zen. You obviously have an affiliation with Zen Buddhism.
Surya, I do not insult you…i give you a definite dig, every now and then for your arrogance, that is not the same as insulting you…if i wanted to insult you…you would absolutely know it…so come on and look at what you write, its patronising in various posts and people have their self respect and will respond, some more hostile than others and some, most, will not even join in…at least we hang out in here, don’t we.???
Any kind of dig, criticism and patronization towards the person itself is a personal attack. Adhominem(to the man)
I have found at large that both me and and Thomas are discussing points, asking questions, making arguments. On the other hand, your camp are less interested in those points, but more interested in us as people. You tell us “You are overthinking”, “You know so little”, “You are working to increase the suffering of people”, “You are arrogant”, “You are ignorant”, “You are fundamentalists”, “You are evil”
All poor old me and Thomas are doing is trynig to discuss the subject matter at hand, and all your camp is doing is discussing us. You are the guys making this personal, not us. We are more interested in the details of discussion. We are outlining our objections to some of the doctrines in Buddhism such as no-self, asking questions pertaining to the subject. Some of our criticisms of Buddhism maybe harsh — but it is the doctrine that is being criticised - not the person who holds them.
You really need to learn the art of separating your feelings from concepts and learn to address concepts. It is completely unnecessary to bring the person making the points in. Treat them as if they do not exist From hereon concentrate on the points being made on the subject and not on the person making them.
Before throw caution to the wind and tell you at least part of what I am thinking (likely I will write it and then edit it so as to not offend others beyond you) I need to say you are entirely missing the point about self.
Read this and do your best to look at it in a unbiased frame of mind this is most definitely forma Buddhist and not a confused one, it is you who are confused and trying to cover up that confusion by pointing fingers at others
It’s also helpful to realize that this body that we have, this very body that’s sitting here right now in this room, this very body that perhaps aches, and this mind that we have at this very moment, are exactly what we need to be fully human, fully awake, and fully alive." ? Pema Chodron
Now to this bit
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44104]You sure do protest a lot You give,as much as you take. Please do not pretend that you, Lotusgirl, Kareng et al do not dish out insults. I rarely see posts from you which do not contain personal attacks. Rather than sticking to the points of discussion, you always have to bring in the person themselves(ad-hominem - to the man) who brings up the points and criticise them, attack them or belittle them. You lot are the worst offenders for insults on this forum. I am not kidding {quote]
Since I am not a Buddhist and not all that enlightened I do believe I will say some of the things I have said to you before that apparently you forgot.
Who?s pretending, I am fairly certain you are an internet web troll but I have been trying to be nice, you are just making it rather difficult. My god, or gods, man (whatever the case may be) your very Web name choice shows your arrogance. Look back at some of my early posts to you I out and out told you that you were intolerant and a bit of a supremacists and a racist, you apparently have a rather short memory sonny and my beliefs about you have not changed.
As to sticking to the point of discussion, I will if you will, but it is rather hard for you to do that and still get the feeling of superiority you so need
How is that for insults, basically I am in no mood for you today so feel free to have at me if you will, report me if you like because I am likely not going to respond to you again today because I would not be as nice as I just was And don?t make me post the definition of an internet troll because frankly you hit 7 out of 8 identifiers.
But it could be that as I also once told you many many posts ago your cup is full. And as long as it is full you are incapable of learning anything and to be honest I am not sure which is worse being a troll or being incapable of learning.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44104]
“I am” and “Self” are both the same thing. To say I have a self is to say “I am” This is what is known as the doctrine of Atman in Hinduism. Buddhism has the doctrine of Anatta - no self. There is no “I am” in Buddhism.
You say you are not a Buddhist and yet for your avatar you have a Zen symbol and you often post quotes and stories from Zen. You obviously have an affiliation with Zen Buddhism.[/QUOTE]
Again the quote, read it and maybe you can learn something…but to be honest I doubt it, that would mean having to admit you were wrong and you simply cannot do that… part of that agenda I told you that you had a while back… you apparently forgot about that as well.
Buddhists are not confused… you are.
It’s also helpful to realize that this body that we have, this very body that’s sitting here right now in this room, this very body that perhaps aches, and this mind that we have at this very moment, are exactly what we need to be fully human, fully awake, and fully alive." ? Pema Chodron
Also you inability to let things go “to the man” has proven my point, thank you
Oh and I almost forgot I need to put this in to make this all ok
SD,
Very well then. The discourse show hows the basic truth of “I am” is an infallible truth. It cannot be rejected, because “I am” awareness is everpresent. It is present as I write this, it was present 10 min ago, it was present an hour ago. It was present a day ago. It was present a week ago. It was present a month ago. It was present a year ago. It was present 5 years ago. It was present at the time of birth.
The only thing that has changed is the objects of the I am awareness, but the I am awareness has remained constant.
Come on Buddhists, wisen up
It is no wonder poor Thomas is confused. No where in this do you state this is the Atman Doctrine which is Hindu. One would be led to believe you were referring to Buddhist Anatta Doctrine. Very sly.
And Thomas, even though several of us have felt we did answer your question, I shall give it one more shot.
Much like ‘the universe as an organic whole’ (Quantum Physics), we do not have a self separate from the rest of existence. Most have a false sense that we exist as distinct beings. Nothing is absolute. Everything is conditional, relative and interdependent.
The 'I" the ‘me’ as we observe does not exist. This thinking keeps us in the mindset that we are distinct beings. With I and Me comes labels/attachments. When we strip away those labels/attachments and uncover the true self we ask who is this true self? And the answer should be '“the self is the self and not the self”. Sound quite confusing I know. But Buddhism forces you to turn inward (meditaton) to see the truth. The self (who we are/I am) is self evident. WE are here right? But the self is a set on conditioned responses. All of conditioned existence, without exception, is in a constant state of flux. Not a single atom that was in your body 30 years ago is there today. Matter moves and it momentarily becomes you. (Richard Dawkins, I believe said this) What we consider permanent is only a process. Everything is impermanent and subject to change. These processes exist as a set of circumstances that have come together and given rise to an object.
Another analogy : You look in a mirror. You see an image and the mirror. You are neither.
The self is an illusion. Not an illusion as you are not here and cannot feel pain, etc. The self (who you are) is ever changing (impermanence) and not permanent, so how can it be you? There cannot be a self as a separate entity from everything else.
And really read Yulaws quote from Pema Chodron and let it resonate a bit.
This is Surya Devas and possibly Thomas’s complaint against Kareng, Lotusgirl and Yulaw
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44155]Any kind of dig, criticism and patronization towards the person itself is a personal attack. Adhominem(to the man)
I have found at large that both me and and Thomas are discussing points, asking questions, making arguments. On the other hand, your camp are less interested in those points, but more interested in us as people. You tell us “You are overthinking”, “You know so little”, “You are working to increase the suffering of people”, “You are arrogant”, “You are ignorant”, “You are fundamentalists”, "You are evil"
All poor old me and Thomas are doing is trynig to discuss the subject matter at hand, and all your camp is doing is discussing us. You are the guys making this personal, not us. We are more interested in the details of discussion. We are outlining our objections to some of the doctrines in Buddhism such as no-self, asking questions pertaining to the subject. Some of our criticisms of Buddhism maybe harsh — but it is the doctrine that is being criticised - not the person who holds them.
You really need to learn the art of separating your feelings from concepts and learn to address concepts. It is completely unnecessary to bring the person making the points in. Treat them as if they do not existFrom hereon concentrate on the points being made on the subject and not on the person making them.
……………
[/QUOTE]
Karengs Reply
Aside from cracking up in laughter…Oh I I do enjoy your posts Surya xx
I have this to say in response to your complaint x
…okay Surya let’s look at this in the same way you approach Religions’ and your knowledge of them…in a careful concise manner.
Just this thread alone can prove who insults, gives smart alec remarks and deliberately sets out to dig, provoke and patronise…Guess who starts it in this thread alone…yep sorry its you……
Lotusgirl doesn’t, Yulaw has held his patience on many posts despite your provoking answers…and me, of course, I lsimply love to dig at you whenever and wherever I possibly can xx
You are the one who first starts on this Thread with smart alec comments…check it out…I have put all your comments in order as they appear that directly do the things you have accused us of. I accept and openly declare that I dig at you and I know you dig at me…
1.SD Says….Regarding Jesus being a dime a dozen. This is not said in a disrespectful way.
KD’S Reply…Here is the first…an extremely provoking, rude, irresponsible comment no matter how you then try to defend it, its highly rude to a Christian
SD Says……To me that does not sound like Ishvara but a mental projection. A bit like how new-agers have guides and such. I am not surprised you would have an imaginary spiritual guide
KG’S Reply….Here is another example, I am telling you a fact and you insult me…And this will come back to haunt you when you start practising properly…this is not a decent debatable answer, this is rude.
SD Says……You have a strong desire to believe that you have spiritual attainments kareng. Unfortunately, your actions, speak to the contrary.
KG’S Reply……Again ,another insult after my offering an honest experience…undeniably, obviously rude.
KG’S Quote…ps you cant find these details in books or on the net
SD Says….Exactly, you read them off books and formed a fantasy around it. And now you see visions of a little Buddha you call “ishvara” I almost fell into the same trap myself when I was dabbling in the new-age like yourself, I had visions of “Brahma” and I started channeling Brahma and transcribing everything he said to me. I was astute enough to realise though it was just my own mental projection and I stopped doing that. One day you will realise that what you call “ishvara” is nothing more than a mental projection, a fantasy you have weaved for yourself.
KG’S Reply….Here you even misunderstand the quote of mine you put at top, I said you cant get what I have put in books, and then look at your answer…here your last comment is blatently Rude, indicating a lie!! In black n white Surya…you think that’s suitable do you?
SD Says….You have not realised Ishvara dear. You have no psychic powers dear. But you one day will realise ishvara and attain those spiritual powers if you continue with your practice with single minded devotion, detachment and discrimination.
KG’S Reply….Undoubtedly insulting to me……ha I don’t mind really SD But I will be haunting you on this later…mark my words xxx
SD Says……Reject the new-age nonsense. Get serious. Ishvara will come.
Stop confusing your new-age stuff with the Buddhist stuff. It is easy to see how you take a bit of everything, mix it up, add your own slant to it and then present this undigestible item to everybody. We are talking about the religion of Buddhism here, not the new-age religion. So only answer
questions on Buddhism if you have sufficient knowledge on Buddhism, else keep quiet on the matter.
KG’S Reply….Ha!!!here you are directly insulting and rude, again digging with New Age statements, again suggesting a lie, again being patronising…Questioning a genuine posters experience in a rude manner…dismissing it as nonsense…I could say how dare you at that…and again I say to you, this will come back to haunt you and you will always remember me for this Surya…,that if you ever get to practice properly!!
SD Says……It is clear for any objective reader to see Lotusgirl. I know you do not believe in the anatman doctrine really, form our previous discussion about your husband.
KG’S Reply….Here you deliberately bring up LG’S husband because you knew it upset her last time you did it…old post on another thread…whats that but a dig!
SD QuoteIt is certainly interesting how little substance the Buddhist responses here carry. They are either thinly veiled personal attacks, mocking/scoffing or evocations of the questions being asked. The religious character is certainly rearing its head here
Lotusgirl answer:- This is a matter of your opinion Surya Deva. And pray tell, what thinly veiled personal attacks? I think we’ve been playing pretty nice here. Who is mocking?
And yes, the religious character is certainly rearing its ugly head here. Glad you are being honest with yourself!
KG’S Reply……Here you make this statement because Yulaw has joined in and it is getting to you, you don’t mind the women digging, but not the men, I have seen this clearly in other posts…and you are rude to Lotusgirl…
SD Says……Then suffice it to say you are hopelessly confused about this doctrine. You do not really believe it, because you keep on saying things that contradict it. The source you just cited on it is from Mahayana Buddhism which reject anatman doctrine and are considered heresy by orthodox Buddhism.
I still think you are mixing new age beliefs with Buddhist beliefs. A lot of the words you use are new-age buzz words.
KG’S Reply….Here you dig again with the New Age statement
SD Says….Unfortunately, as me, Thomas and any rational reader can see the Buddhists here are hopelessly contradicting themselves. They say there is no self, and yet they still talk as if they exist. If you say something to them that offends, they say I have been offended. They talk about their husband and wives, their friends, their family, their life, their experiences, their posts( )
KG’S Reply……Here again a dig about Husbands to LG. You also deliberately select terms people have put which contradict Buddhist beliefs knowing that they are just being used in English language descriptive form. How else can the debate continue…Hence my reason for excluding all I’S in a post to you.
SD Says….They talk about all desire being the cause of suffering. And yet they desire to reach enlightenment, be happy, loving and compassionate. They desire to eat, drink and live. They desire to post on this forum
A Buddhist is a walking-talking contradiction.
KG’S Replay……Here, again this You also deliberately select terms people have put which contradict Buddhist beliefs knowing that they are just being used in English language descriptive form. How else can the debate continue…Hence my reason for excluding all I’S in a post to you.
Also directly digging and rude
SD Says……Ouch, we appaear to have touched a nerve. I am sorry your religious sensibilities have been hurt, but you do have to take stock of the fact that this is the religion forum and here we discuss and debate religions. You have to have a thick skin in order to post here and be prepared to address criticisms of your religion. I have faced criticisms of Hinduism, Thomas has faced criticism of Christianity, and now you are facing criticisms of Buddhism. The difference is we could take it, you obviously are finding it hard to. I can only counsel then, perhaps you should stay away from the religion forum
No, but then again do you not have to say it. It is implied. It is obvious to everybody that a Buddhist wants enlightenment. This is the goal of Buddhism. You would not be putting yourself through all that pain sitting long hours in meditation if this was not true. You want enlightenment. Nothing wrong with that, I think myself and Thomas would respect your religious goals more if you were honest about it.
Honesty has been a recurrent theme in my criticisms of your views. Interesting.
KG’S Reply……Here again a direct dig looking to get to LG with the Honesty remark which in your mind you know upset her in a previous thread…nobody likes to be accused of dishonesty…you have done it to me as well!
Lotusgirl quote…And now I will sound like Yulaw who I greatly respect. It was a mistake on my part to write religion. I have, to my defense, stated that there are those Buddhists who believe it is so. I am not one of them.
SD Says….No worries, I expected this of you Like I said Buddhists are walking-talking contradictions. One moment they say something, the other moment they say the opposite. And this is to be expected from a religion where change is seen as sacred.
SD Says…However, for the reasonable person somebody who does not have a stable and coherent viewpoint has no credibility. Why should I, or any other reasonable person, take you seriously, when you yourself do not take anything you say seriously.
After all you do not exist, so why should I take anything seriously by somebody who does not exist
KG’Reply……Here, what can I say, LG does not deserve this from what she says in her post…this is your attack on her for all to see………its insulting, digging, rude, patronising…i rest my case on it.
SD Says……You often need things spoon-fed to you
KG’S Reply……Here it is in response to a polite post from Yulaw…interesting that you answer with this to his harmless post…the comment is about as rude as it gets.
15
SD Says……Interesting, I am noticing a pattern here this “ ” apparently makes it ok to insult people… but if they dare insult the great Surya Deva he becomes indignant, will not let it go, and hound people from post to post… young man you grow tiresome… and I am still not hostile
You sure do protest a lot You give,as much as you take. Please do not pretend that you, Lotusgirl, Kareng et al do not dish out insults. I rarely see posts from you which do not contain personal attacks. Rather than sticking to the points of discussion, you always have to bring in the person themselves(ad-hominem - to the man) who brings up the points and criticise them, attack them or belittle them. You lot are the worst offenders for insults on this forum. I am not kidding
KG’S Reply…….Here you get upset because you have finally received some stick back……………insults ha…you do more than anyone iwhen it pleases you to do so….
So lets us assess what you have said about us baddies picking on you goodies….CLAPTRAP HYPOCRACY…………I have just, via one thread alone which has proved you unequivocally WRONG.
So, I can state that I dig at you because you dig at me, Lotusgirl digs at you because you dig at her, Yulaw digs at you because you dig at Yulaw……all is fair
Oh and just as a comment…when you put this…. “All poor old me and Thomas are doing is trynig to discuss the subject matter at hand”………………………………….I was throwing up laughing at this…very funny indeed. xxxx
We have estalished all is fair xxx
Namaste(The divinity within me bows to the divinity within you)
You are creating this image of me as some racist, supremist, conniving and calculating, sly and for all intents evil person. No doubt you really believe this. However, has it not occurred to you that this image you have of me is not shared by everybody on this forum? Does this not produce an occasion for doubt that your judgement of me is in error?
In defense of “myself” I can only say that you miscontruing my straight talking, critical statements of certain beliefs, philosophies and practices to be as such. I am certainly not racist and recently I posted in a thread called, “White people acting like brown people” by Mani, where Mani expressed his annoyance at white people trying to act hiphop, asian, brown. I replied to Mani that culture is not specific to any skin colour and that I have equally come across white people who are more brown than actual brown(Indian) people, and Indian people more white than white people. This is the opposite of what a racist would say.
I have also been accused of being supremist. However, I recently said in my review of the Buddhist retreat, that although I found their philosophies to be inferior to Hinduism, I found their techniques of meditation far superior. I also recently started a thread, “Contributions of world religions” where I have praised the contributions of other religions as more superior to those of my own and others. I therefore cannot be a supremist, because I am actually acknowledging the superiority of others.
I have been told I am conniving, sly, manipulative. In the most recent incident of this, the following was said:
It is no wonder poor Thomas is confused. No where in this do you state this is the Atman Doctrine which is Hindu. One would be led to believe you were referring to Buddhist Anatta Doctrine. Very sly.
Here Lotusgirl accuses me of being sly, because she says I am misleading people because I am making the discourse posted earlier by Ken Wilber sound like the annata doctrine. In actual fact I was not, I was giving actual evidence of why the annata doctrine is false because of the infallible fact of “I am” I made this clear to Yulaw as well by saying this was the Atman doctrine. In other words Lotusgirl misunderstood me and then judged this as yet another sly tactic by evil SD.
This image of evil, conniving, racist, supremist, fundamentalist SD only exists in your imagination. It has nothing to do with the actual SD, and this is why I do not get offended. This is also why this image is not universally shared by everybody on this forum.
I think the personaliization of this debate should stop now. Stop attacking the messenger and start to focus on the actual discussion points being raised.
I think what this really shows us how difficult people find it to separate their feelings from their concepts. Something Patanjali mentions in the Yogasutras how our thoughts are coloured by our emotions and how the practice of Yoga is to attentuate those emotions in our thoughts, so we do not react to them.
We should be able to talk about thoughts without becoming emotional. I expect more from people who are 50, 60, teachers of Yoga and long time meditators. I am still only 30, not a teacher of Yoga and only meditated for a few years, so I can be expected to be less than adequate in this art. Ironically, I seem to be more proficient in it
And dearest Lotusgirl - does Buddhism not teach that we should remain equanimous to all things, because they are impermenant. We should
not respond by craving or aversion. Then why are you always responding with aversion? You react to everything. If you feel I have insulted you,
then that is my problem, why are you reacting to it? Perhaps you should go for a few more courses of Vipassana
Surya…,all is fair…you raised the issue we are the baddies and each person has defended in whatever way they have chosen to prove or state their case.
And yes we should be able to talk about thoughts without becoming emotional but that is totally dependant on the words chosen in posts to others…this includes me, you and everyone else…you cant possibly disagree with this…its dependant on those factors…
Consideration of sentences constructed, words chosen within them, letting go of grudges via debating disagreements…all these have to be met if you want a peaceful debate. But also, consideration of the type of person we are addressing with our points.
And when you put all these factors together, it may be impossible and unavoidable to not insult someone down the line…if you saw my face when i speak, you would know i mean no harm…,if i saw yours, i would know the same…but as we know, we cant .x
Using our age, long term meditator and yoga teacher as a form of attack and to defend using your age is not good enough for someone as smart as you are…you can out do me in religious debate any day of the week…(I do try hard)…just accept you can be a baddie as much as we can…I will react to an accusation and Yulaw does and Lotusgirl does and clearly, you do.xx
Oh, I never claimed to be innocent. I too can give as much as I take.
Now let us proceed with this discussion and discuss actual points, not people.
What is the difference between Buddhism and Atheism?
I’m quite aware of the physical changes in my body, but do not identify my body with my “self.”
The Atheist says at death that’s the end of whatever self we had, and our body decomposes and becomes one with the earth and/or universe.
How is the Atheist belief different from the Buddhist belief?
The 'I" the ‘me’ as we observe does not exist. This thinking keeps us in the mindset that we are distinct beings. With I and Me comes labels/attachments. When we strip away those labels/attachments and uncover the true self we ask who is this true self? And the answer should be '“the self is the self and not the self”. Sound quite confusing I know. But Buddhism forces you to turn inward (meditaton) to see the truth. The self (who we are/I am) is self evident. WE are here right? But the self is a set on conditioned responses. All of conditioned existence, without exception, is in a constant state of flux. Not a single atom that was in your body 30 years ago is there today. Matter moves and it momentarily becomes you. (Richard Dawkins, I believe said this) What we consider permanent is only a process. Everything is impermanent and subject to change. These processes exist as a set of circumstances that have come together and given rise to an object.
This sounds like materialism. This is what Atheists believe, is it not?
Except I haven’t heard an athesist say, “the self is the self is not the self.” What does that mean?
Another analogy : You look in a mirror. You see an image and the mirror. You are neither.
I am neither the mirror nor the image. True. But what does that illustrate? I am the observer of the mirror and the image. The image would not exist without me.
Well, I have very strong memories of my infant period. They have been stored somewhere, and I have always kept them preciously. I could not say exactly when it was, but it was before 2 years old according to other memories and talks later with my mother. It was a state full of awareness for very long periods, a kind of samadhi (no boredom at all, nor endless thought processes, there was no discursive thought), a peaceful natural state of pure witness, the world after has taken care of me like with other babies with a lot of conditioning, I have later found this kind of state easily through yoga sadhana. The theory of purusha makes more sense in my experience of life. By the way, I have found the teachings from Sri Aurobindo most comprehensive and appealing, but it would be very long to explain. On the other hand I agree that the self understood as the body-mind complex is impermanent.
By the way if there is no Self, I find somehow pointless to search for liberation for oneself (and for the other beings in Mahayana) as there is no one alienated in the first place. The problem of suffering is thus a false one. It makes really no sense to me. During my teenagehood, I have been passionated by Buddhism especially by meditative techniques and the living examples in Buddhist traditions. Actually watching Dalai Lama on TV around 12 years old has been a shock. But I came to conclusions quite close to Surya Deva on this point, not so consistent and appealing philosophically but technically powerful and most interesting.
Philippe
And I can’t understand why a Buddhist would look forward to Nirvana, if there is nobody there to enjoy it.
It is no wonder poor Thomas is confused. No where in this do you state this is the Atman Doctrine which is Hindu. One would be led to believe you were referring to Buddhist Anatta Doctrine. Very sly.
I don’t know what this is about, but I have no “confusion” about Buddhism because of SD. I have a little frustration because of lack of answers to specific questions, and being told I “think too much,” whatever that means.
I have asked five times what the difference is between Atheism and Buddhism, and have received no answer.
I have asked five times if my analogy of an ice cube melting into a large puddle of water is illustrative of the Buddhist concept of self and Nirvana, but received no answer.
I have made it abundantly clear that I don’t see the body as the “self,” but I keep getting responses about the body changing, as if that would prove that self is changing.
My days are ending here so here goes:
SD,
You just said you never professed to be innocent, yet you have repeatedly stated you have not done this. You’ve said this over and over again.
For some reason, you and I have been at odds. That is obvious for all to see. Why are we? For me it has been I want you to accept viewpoints and be tolerant. I want you to share your knowledge (which I have stated many times before) instead of promoting contentious arguments. I admit, that was wrong of me to expect this of you. I sometimes forget my mantra, expectations are the death of serenity. That being said…
You have treated me with such disrespect and contempt throughout my time on this forum. Names I’ve been called by you are: Fluffy airy fairy new-ager, not living in this reality (Banned for 3 days for this), dishonest, weak, an intellectual inferior, told me to go back to basics and learn yoga, and more than I can remember to be honest. I have held out numerous times olive branches. I’ve asked to make peace. I’ve asked you to stop. You never accepted the olive branch, never made peace or never stopped.
In addition to that, you read in another thread where I admitted to being depressed and on medication. I admitted this to a new poster who was also suffering and needed advise. You took that information and called me weak because I was depressed. The things you said were so bad that David removed the posts. People were very upset with you for saying what you did. Also, you keep referring to the rape issue and my husband and his degree. You said I expressed outrage and was angry. Well, I’m not as patient as Kareng with writing it all out, but you can check the discussion we had on the thread Dogma free yoga starting at post 61. That is what really happened.
In the Abrahamic thread posts: 6,7,9,13,21,36,85,101,105,122,124,125,126,136,137,143,150,184-85,237,305
In these posts you either called abrahamic religions primitive, stupid, disgusting, infantile, refusing to grow up, outdated dinosaurs, or said hinduism is superior. In addition you did not treat others kindly in some of those posts.
In most of my dealings with you I have pleaded for us to find common ground. I did call you arrogant and said something of your mantras of hatred and said you were sly not to make the distinction with the Hindu and Buddhist doctrines. I did and I’m not taking it back. I’m not a perfect Buddhist, but at least I know it. You are arrogant.
Kareng, Yulaw and myself did not deserve what you said about us. Anyone who has read our posts since we have here knows better.
The intolerance and arrogance you have displayed here on this forum is the prime reason I am leaving. There is more to life than trying to discuss something with someone who doesn’t listen. I don’t like getting angry or upset. I don’t like being called names that aren’t true. I’ve learned many lessons here…good and bad.
In these posts you either called abrahamic religions primitive, stupid, disgusting, infantile, refusing to grow up, outdated dinosaurs, or said hinduism is superior. In addition you did not treat others kindly in some of those posts.
Yes, but I have called these religions that. I have not called its people primitive, stupid, disgusting, infantile. In fact, check out the contributions of world religions thread, I have praised the good people of these religions.
You do not seem to understand that when it comes to concepts, beliefs, philosophies and arguments I do not hold any barrs. I do not attack people, I attack ideas. I can be very violent when attacking ideas, because ideas are not people. If I say to you, “Your idea is stupid” I am calling your idea stupid, not you stupid. Even I have stupid ideas from time to time, but that does not make me stupid itself.
In fact on the contrary I see you as divine, as much as I see myself as divine. I recognise my divinity though and thus I call myself Surya Deva. Others, who do not recognise my divinity or their own divinity, see arrogance.
What people find threatening in me is first of all I am confident, have high self-esteem, I speak with convicion, I speak bodly and honestly, I think, act and speak freely. If I say, “I am a very powerful Jnana yogi” others respond with, “How arrogant, you are not humble at all” and condemn me. But I am not saying anything that is not true, my jnana is highly developed compared to most people and my understanding of jnana is vastly superior. I even outdo many leading philosophers. I simply acknowledge my merits, while remaining cognizant of my demerits. I humble myself to those who are superior to me only, not to those who are inferior to me.
I am very much Hindu and not Buddhist. A Buddhist is one who is humble, loving and compassionate to all - a saint - because they believe they do not really exist, they are just the flow of nature. I am not a saint, but a god. I recognise my self and my divinity - Aham Brahmasmi - and my great potential, which I am gradually tapping in my life. I will not treat everybody the same, but treat them as they should be treated.
I asked my mother recently how would she react if a great saint or swami approached her, and she said to me, “I would bow with reverence and respect” I then asked her how would she react if an avatar approached her, and she said to me, “I would fall to the their feet in awe” And that gave it all away to me. I do not want to be a saint. I want to be a god.