1 edit
Originally posted by Hand of HecateIt cant be testable and measureable reliably because everyone is different. What is good for one is not good for another. There is no proof for God, and so I dont go up that flagpole.
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" t e concept itself be useless.
Quite frankly, I would expect such a test to be successful.
I do like stories though..
Consider the story where the bhudda gave a sermon to 500 followers. He said nothing and only raised a flower for his "sermon". Nobody got it except one guy. He understood the bhuddas gesture and was enlightened on the spot.
Apparently the other 499 guys were left scratching thier heads , some quite pissed off at bhudda. What a sermon!!
So majority can think what they like, but to me that story, like others, is precious. It talks to me through the ages and other differences that stand between me and the "meaning" of that story.
The spiritual quest is not a game. It is not a race. It does not need scientific proofs. It is just exposing yourself to ideas/info and making and honest assessment of what these mean to you. No body need agree with you. You know...you know the truth.
Originally posted by karoly aczelWhat I got from that story is that one person interpreted it how he saw fit which could be completely different from the message that Buddha intended to communicate. Therefore the meaning can still be lost.
It cant be testable and measureable reliably because everyone is different. What is good for one is not good for another. There is no proof for God, and so I dont go up that flagpole.
I do like stories though..
Consider the story where the bhudda gave a sermon to 500 followers. He said nothing and only raised a flower for his "sermon". Nobody got it e ...[text shortened]... sment of what these mean to you. No body need agree with you. You know...you know the truth.
Anything that isn't testable is pure speculation and is not "truth".
Originally posted by lauseyWhy does it need to be testable?
What I got from that story is that one person interpreted it how he saw fit which could be completely different from the message that Buddha intended to communicate. Therefore the meaning can still be lost.
Anything that isn't testable is pure speculation and is not "truth".
What if you had no frame of reference for such things? You would no know what to test.
The main meesage of that story,imo, is that bhudda transmitted the ...(I forget the word)..."universal message" by that simple gesture.
I am trying to understand my place in the universe.
I am trying to understand what was taking place during this sermon. There is obviously more to the story.
To you it is pure speculation, and I cant see that. For me it is pure fascination and immersion in the experiences and stories that resonate with me. The proof is within myself (for me).
BTW I really enjoy your posts🙂 thnx man
Originally posted by karoly aczelWhy does it need to be testable?
Why does it need to be testable?
What if you had no frame of reference for such things? You would no know what to test.
The main meesage of that story,imo, is that bhudda transmitted the ...(I forget the word)..."universal message" by that simple gesture.
I am trying to understand my place in the universe.
I am trying to understand what was taking ...[text shortened]... onate with me. The proof is within myself (for me).
BTW I really enjoy your posts🙂 thnx man
What if you had no frame of reference for such things? You would no know what to test.
Exactly, and in those situations, you cannot draw any conclusions. Anything you do draw from it will be conjecture.
The main meesage of that story,imo, is that bhudda transmitted the ...(I forget the word)..."universal message" by that simple gesture.
I am trying to understand my place in the universe.
I don't think it is necessary for me to understand my place in the universe. As the universe is concerned, it does not care. I just strive to live my life to the full and enjoy it. That doesn't mean my life has no purpose, as I have created one. 🙂
I am trying to understand what was taking place during this sermon. There is obviously more to the story.
Sounds like you are trying to fit what you interpret to the story. What Buddha could be trying to say can be anything. Probably he was suggesting that even something as simple as a flower has its place in the universe.
To you it is pure speculation, and I cant see that. For me it is pure fascination and immersion in the experiences and stories that resonate with me. The proof is within myself (for me).
We all have different experiences in our upbringing, as well as dogma, and we have a tendency to fit those to what we see around us. Doing this is far too subjective, hence why science is developed to strip away this preconceptions and analyse things in an objective way.
BTW I really enjoy your posts thnx man
Thank you very much. 🙂
Originally posted by karoly aczelEdit: "I am trying to understand what was taking place during this sermon."
Why does it need to be testable?
What if you had no frame of reference for such things? You would no know what to test.
The main meesage of that story,imo, is that bhudda transmitted the ...(I forget the word)..."universal message" by that simple gesture.
I am trying to understand my place in the universe.
I am trying to understand what was taking ...[text shortened]... onate with me. The proof is within myself (for me).
BTW I really enjoy your posts🙂 thnx man
One needs nothing outside of one’s own mind, one just needs a fresh point of attention -thus no specific method and no specific cultivation is necessary. Just holding up the flower reveals suchness, and the flower itself becomes a pure skilful means amongst many.
What “skilful means” are? They are any kind of means that help all beings without exception to awaken -to shift their focus at a specific point of attention, to stay at that level of awareness constantly and to enable them to transmit this awareness constantly. Since there is no thing that cannot become skilful means, everything is practice, thus one can be awaken anywhere anyhow anytime regardless of one’s object of attention.
So Mahakasyapa’s face cracked a smile because Mahakasyapa understood. And how Mahakasyapa could ever transmit the essence -the suchness- that was revealed between him and the Buddha if he was not acquiring Form/ smile?
The supreme Way is not difficult for the one who dislikes choosing. Only if there is no love or hatred, all is complete clarity; but even if a word is uttered, it is already an action of choosing or of adhering to clarity! So remember: right now, black beetle does not dwell in clarity (because his mind is in touch with your mind -and how could he ever dwell in clarity when his mind is moving)?
😵
Originally posted by black beetleOh me oh my.
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 ...[text shortened]... ind in order to establish a communication with your mind, and as such they should be discarded😵
I know what you say means something, but I am not able to discern this meaning. Maybe I am not smart enough, or maybe not tutored enough or maybe too wedded to my mind. I don't feel confused, but I don't feel enlightened by your kind guidance. I do appreciate your attempt, however.
1 edit
Originally posted by BadwaterMatter cannot animate itself, go and get some matter, and make it live, you cannot do it.
And you can prove this by......by.........................by.........................................................?
The soul is the real person, the soul is you, and consciousness is a symptom of the presence of the soul.
Where there is life, there is the soul.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatMay i add something!
Oh me oh my.
I know what you say means something, but I am not able to discern this meaning. Maybe I am not smart enough, or maybe not tutored enough or maybe too wedded to my mind. I don't feel confused, but I don't feel enlightened by your kind guidance. I do appreciate your attempt, however.
The whole purpose of the Buddha coming to this planet, was to stop animal slaughter and meat eating, ( Ahymsa ) because the sacrifices for killing animals was being abused.
Neo Buddhism, has reduced Buddhism to one hand clapping mind bending mind games.
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetle😵
Edit: "I am trying to understand what was taking place during this sermon."
One needs nothing outside of one’s own mind, one just needs a fresh point of attention -thus no specific method and no specific cultivation is necessary. Just holding up the flower reveals suchness, and the flower itself becomes a pure skilful means amongst many.
What “ski ...[text shortened]... in touch with your mind -and how could he ever dwell in clarity when his mind is moving)?
😵
Yes,Mahakasyapa-thats him.
Edit: Thnx for "pencil full of lead". Such a happy song. You got anything else?
1 edit
Originally posted by lauseyMy belief is not built on dogma. Please read blackbeetles post for furthur clarification(if needed).HAND🙂
[b]Why does it need to be testable?
What if you had no frame of reference for such things? You would no know what to test.
Exactly, and in those situations, you cannot draw any conclusions. Anything you do draw from it will be conjecture.
The main meesage of that story,imo, is that bhudda transmitted the ...(I forget the word)..."universal mess objective way.
[b]BTW I really enjoy your posts thnx man
Thank you very much. 🙂[/b]
Originally posted by avalanchethecatEnlightenment is just a change of the point of one's attention
Oh me oh my.
I know what you say means something, but I am not able to discern this meaning. Maybe I am not smart enough, or maybe not tutored enough or maybe too wedded to my mind. I don't feel confused, but I don't feel enlightened by your kind guidance. I do appreciate your attempt, however.
And satori is the result of overcoming dualism by means of activating one's awareness once the new point of attention is fixed
So, first practice and conduct satori, and then activate constantly this new point of attention (do overcome freely the dualist approach!) through your constant awareness
There is no satori if the dualist approach is present; the presense of the dualist approach is an indication that your uncontrolled mind projects uncontrolled thoughts (for, whenever you think, words arise). Therefore, when even a single word arises, you don't duel in clarity and thus you cannot enter emptiness; in fact, right now I don't duel in clarity (because thoughts arise in my mind during our communication)
Conditioned reality (the ground of being of dualism) is activated by means of forms, thus every conditioned phenomenon is empty of inherent being
Dualism (arises by means of thoughts, thus by means of the condition known as moving mind, and) prevents you from understanding emptiness because, whenever you are thinking whatever, you are choosing your own reality out of many (instead of "remaining calmly" at the realm of the unconditioned reality; the realm of the unconditioned reality is empty of forms and at the same time full of itself, therefore it does not lack of inherent being; and, since the unconditioned reality lacks of forms, it can neither be born nor die nor cease or arise etc)
Conditioned reality is activated by means of forms, thus every conditioned phenomenon is empty of inherent being. Our ideas are mind-only forms too, for they are maps (of specific territories) projected by the human mind
So, whatever is empty of everything and at the same time full of itself, it is unborn because it never arises. Do you understand Nagarjuna's quote now?
😵