Re-incarnation

Originally posted by vishvahetu
The ex means nothiing, the orange robes mean nothing, and wisdom is everthing you nitwit.

You do you realise that Hand of Hecate is a revered mystic and sooth-sayer here at rhp, don't you?

Originally posted by SapanRinpoche
REINCARNATION is and interesting topic to be found on RHP -- thanks for this "Spirituality" Forum. As a Christian-Buddhist Gelong Monk, Tibetan Vajrayana Lama, and recognized Western Emanation of Sakya Pandita [1182-1251], it would obviously get my attention. Wading through the first page of threads, I can see it will take me some time and patience to ...[text shortened]... nter
and the Phuntsok Choephel Ling Monastery Project
Lyons, Colorado, USA, North America

How interesting! I for one would be fascinated and pleased to hear much more from you on this subject and other places your attention may wander to. For now I am meditating on the idea that we pick our parents. A baffling proposition, if your parents are anything like mine!

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
How interesting! I for one would be fascinated and pleased to hear much more from you on this subject and other places your attention may wander to. For now I am meditating on the idea that we pick our parents. A baffling proposition, if your parents are anything like mine!

I'm sorry, but, what crap that is. We pick our parents? What absolute bunk. I'm all for having fun with spiritual exploration, but, to serious consider incorporating such drivel into one's understanding of existence is unacceptable.

I am exceedingly tired of the constant stream of bull that this forum and organized religion in general propagates. Ground yourself in reality before inventing a fantasy world to fill the gaps in your understanding. Just because you can think it doesn't make it true. ****!!!

Meditate away!

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
I'm sorry, but, what crap that is. We pick our parents? What absolute bunk. I'm all for having fun with spiritual exploration, but, to serious consider incorporating such drivel into one's understanding of existence is unacceptable.

I am exceedingly tired of the constant stream of bull that this forum and organized religion in general propagat ...[text shortened]... derstanding. Just because you can think it doesn't make it true. ****!!!

Meditate away!

No apology necessary. I also find it interesting that you are able to dismiss this idea with quite such certainty. Is your reality a purely materialist view, or do you just find this particular concept to be a step too far?

Originally posted by SapanRinpoche
REINCARNATION is and interesting topic to be found on RHP -- thanks for this "Spirituality" Forum. As a Christian-Buddhist Gelong Monk, Tibetan Vajrayana Lama, and recognized Western Emanation of Sakya Pandita [1182-1251], it would obviously get my attention. Wading through the first page of threads, I can see it will take me some time and patience to ...[text shortened]... nter
and the Phuntsok Choephel Ling Monastery Project
Lyons, Colorado, USA, North America

Gal te skye ba 'dus byas na
de la mtshan nyid gsum ldan 'gyur
ci ste skye ba 'dus ma byas
ji ltar 'dus byas mtshan nyid yin

May You Always Be Happy
😵

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
No apology necessary. I also find it interesting that you are able to dismiss this idea with quite such certainty. Is your reality a purely materialist view, or do you just find this particular concept to be a step too far?

A step way too far. This concept is pure invention. How do you even begin to tie this belief into reality?

Originally posted by black beetle
Gal te skye ba 'dus byas na
de la mtshan nyid gsum ldan 'gyur
ci ste skye ba 'dus ma byas
ji ltar 'dus byas mtshan nyid yin

May You Always Be Happy
😵

I found the translation. Still no nearer to understanding!

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
A step way too far. This concept is pure invention. How do you even begin to tie this belief into reality?

Isn't that the case with the whole arena of spirituality? I don't find this idea any more or less believable than most of the other concepts covered in this forum, but that doesn't stop me from thinking seriously about them.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I found the translation. Still no nearer to understanding!

Nagarjuna was talking to trained monks, so his zen is extremely sharp. But the tulku I greeted, understood alright🙂

Anyway: there is no such a thing as inherent being in birth, amongst else;




What exactly do you understand and what exactly do you understand not about emptiness?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Nagarjuna was talking to trained monks, so his zen is extremely sharp. But the tulku I greeted, understood alright🙂

Anyway: there is no such a thing as inherent being in birth, amongst else;




What exactly do you understand and what exactly do you understand not about emptiness?
😵

Nothing and everything. But I haven't finished thinking yet.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Nothing and everything. But I haven't finished thinking yet.

Evaluate your thoughts then, and then evaluate the nature of your thoughts😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Evaluate your thoughts then, and then evaluate the nature of your thoughts😵

I think that emptiness implies absence, but then it has to be defined in terms of what is absent, so, I suppose, emptiness is nothing, and everything. This seems reasonable, but I doubt I'm really anywhere near to understanding Mu. My thoughts are ephemera by which, when combined with my physical boundary, I define myself. Although, on reflection, I don't really define myself at all, so maybe they're less than that.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Isn't that the case with the whole arena of spirituality? I don't find this idea any more or less believable than most of the other concepts covered in this forum, but that doesn't stop me from thinking seriously about them.

No. I disagree. Spirituality should be testable and measurable for it to be useful. For example, one can take a simple spiritual concept that welcoming good things into your life yields successful results and test it. A simple methodology would be to gather a test population, train them in a ritual/procedure of daily meditation, welcoming "good" test results. Carefully defined criteria would allow for measurable results. Any spiritual concept should be able to stand up to some form of testing. Without repeatable results wouldn't the concept itself be useless.


Quite frankly, I would expect such a test to be successful.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I think that emptiness implies absence, but then it has to be defined in terms of what is absent, so, I suppose, emptiness is nothing, and everything. This seems reasonable, but I doubt I'm really anywhere near to understanding Mu. My thoughts are ephemera by which, when combined with my physical boundary, I define myself. Although, on reflection, I don't really define myself at all, so maybe they're less than that.

How can emptiness be itself (by means of implying on a being/ dharma the absence of being/ dharma, thus by means of implying negation of being/ dharma in a being/ dharma) and at the same time not itself? This is not the void but confusion, because, if in fact birth and birth root are not a being/ dharma, how could they ever arise in firstplace and thus being a being/ dharma?

So what exactly is the one that is arising? What is the agent that prompts you to accept that there is indeed such a thing as an arising being/ dharma (that does not lack of inherent being)? If there is an agent other than mind (that prompts you etc), name it!

The negation of the mind leaves you stranded, but the negation of the arising of the forms is the footprint of the perfected nature. Breaking free from your own moving mind you see no arising of the perfected nature, therefore the perfected nature arises out of your own mind whilst the forms that are projected from your own mind are not born out of the perfected nature. When you see emptiness you have no moving mind, thus there is no thing to see. Emptiness is form and form is emptiness, thus every form you see is empty. Emancipating your mind from forms you see that the nature of the mind and the nature of the perfected nature are the same but in a different state. Emancipating your mind from forms means do see the forms but do not allow to be worn out from the forms. Whenever you are in chains, become clear light; (your awareness that will keep you constantly in that state) eases you to transmit clear light constantly.

Clear Light has not the nature of karmic delusions -but all these words are solely an illustration used from my mind in order to establish a communication with your mind, and as such they should be discarded😵

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
A step way too far. This concept is pure invention. How do you even begin to tie this belief into reality?

Ok. I would start by saying that when we say "we" pick our parents, the "we" is not our egos but our whole beings.
I would not have chosen my parents if the decision was up to my ego alone, however, viewed from a wholistic, "spiritual learning/unlearning" perspective I can see why I would have the parents I have. I would not be the person I am without having my experinces. Maybe my parents didn't teach me the lessons I needed to learn in this life directly, however they have physically led me to scources of information that I would have not come across had I been born into another family.
Pure invention? A step way too far? Not far enough for me 😉