is buddhism satanism? [my appologies for the mere suggestion!]

[Nick the Pilot]

Z, you said,

"i don’t think i should blend religions so much though as i usually do, there are limits to where one simply confuses the other falsely."
​

--> That is true. On the other hand, you are taking responsibility for your belief system. That is a great thing to do. I always encourage people to take a look at each separate part of their belief system. If they do not like one particular piece, throw it out.

"indeed, yet what if they are gods gift?"
​

--> Hey, if that terminology works for you, go for it.

"what if we simply didn’t exist before our birth into this world, then indeed the birth of a child would be a miraculous thing!"
​

--> I see the birth of a child as special, whether it is the first or 100th incarnation.

"i wonder if this is the metaphoric message of the virgin birth - where we are all given life by god."
​

--> I see the virgin birth as the virgin birth of the universe. For unto us a child is born. For unto us an entire universe is born. There have been many universes — the Son has had many siblings. According to my belief system, the universe was born out of virgin "pre-cosmic pre-matter." That is what I think the symbolism of the virgin stands for.

"...to become sons and daughters of god!"
​

--> ...to become sons and daughters of the Universal Mind!

"Animals are conscious, but not self-conscious. --> i think they are self conscious."
​

--> I have four cats. They are very clever and very inquisitive. But self-aware? I would say no.

"this does not mean that they are not aware...."
​

--> Aware, yes. Self-aware, no.

"they are very in tune with their surrounding and one another - as if connected by the heart."
​

--> I believe an animal has a well-developed astral body — the body of emotion.

"there are problems with this; humans may not exist that much longer, the sun will not - so some poor amoebas will never make it."
​

--> I think amoebas will become human long before the sun burns out.

"enlightenment is there to be arrived at, yet that doesn’t mean existence was built for that purpose!"
​

--> I see Enlightenment as one more step along the Path, rather than the end of the Path.

"phew that took two hours"
​

 

[Snoopy]

there is no phenomena or noumena which is viewed as eternal from the Buddhist point of view, as i understand it. in a pretty famous Sutta the Buddha states that there is nothing which can rightly be considered the "ground of being" (to paraphrase from Paul Tillich) not Nibbana or Buddhanature nor any sort of sentient being from which all things emmanate forth.

This only caught my eye because I am presently re-reading The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching by Thich Nhat Hanh. How does one square this sutra with teachers who may seem to say other than what is found in them? By way of example, in this book Thich Nhat Hanh describes nirvana as exactly this – “the ground of being.” Of course we are talking about the ineffable here! He also describes the dharma body as the Buddha that is “everlasting.” Perhaps this all relates to the "infallibility of doctrine" or the two truths?


s.

 

[Francis king]

i don't know how it is where u live, but koala-porn is banned here!

 

[_Z_]

namaste
hi vaj, sorry i took so long to reply, been thinking!
great post!

This does not mean that there is no phenomenon apart from the name, imputation, or label, but rather that if we analyze and search objectively for the essence of any phenomenon, it will be un-findable.

i agree nothing is absolute nor distinct, equally so the whole and entirety cannot be defined. this leaves it all in a no mans land always between things, and is the very reason why i opt for the ‘universal entity’ option, where everything is part of an everchanging entity which is indescribable ~ and very evasive. i think this view of reality is in many traditions inc the awen in druidry which is kinda like the tao.

For the Prasangikas, if anything exists objectively and is identified within the basis of designation, then that is, in fact, equivalent to saying that it exists autonomously, that it has an independent nature and exists in its own right.
yet all things are not distinct! and thus cannot exist independently as one forms from another without ever actually fully becoming itself.

here then we see what i call a ‘string of entity’ there is no such thing but it shows how everything from objective realities to meaning are connected as if on a string [see define ‘it’ thread for a better understanding].

Because the proponents of the Yogacara philosophical system assert that things cannot exist other than as projections of one’s own mind, they also maintain that there is no atomically structured external physical reality independent of mind.

universal mind then. i would disagree that things are projections of ones own mind ~ rather that they are ‘projections’ or forms of the universal mind, just as we are.

a very real way of understanding the Buddhadharma is as a means to experience reality, as it is, without any conceptual interpetation or overlay and this experience is what we are usually going on about with Satori and Samadhi and that sort of thing. it happens, for many beings, like flashes of lighting in the dark of night.. for a moment, everything is completely illumed but we cannot cognitively process the totality of the experience.

truly i can go there in my mind , yet still see this state [not a state as such i know] as part of the all [where ‘part’ is not a part as such] as the universal. it’s not much of a grand flash or anything though, it is simply a part of us. we arrive at it then come back from it in our mind just as we emanate from it as the ‘original self’, for me it is a very simple thing if not the simplest [not attaining it but the thing itself].

it would appear that paradoxically, everything is within the emptiness!? then when you are the emptiness everything is outside of it.

the lineage holder from my school has remarked that he does not expereience any difference between day and night he perceives it all in shades of blue.

fascinating change of his perspective view! the world we see is entirely made up in the mind, light radiation is turned to info which is interpreted by the brain and ‘made’ into a vision of our reality. thus as his view has changed, so does his subjective reality ~ but not the objective reality.

in Carteisan terms it would be the subject/object dichotomy where we experience reality in terms of experience and experiencer.

interesting. i will think on this too. what i see of it at the moment, is that the experiencer or centralised entity of being can be made manifest, which to me means that we have an innate ability to be!

have you heard of our teaching called Interdependent Co-Arising?

i think i have read a little on it - but prey enlighten me!

as for existence.. it simply is.... no conceptions need apply

ha, see above - the greater universal view needs interpretation, it is only by this that we arrive at nirvana surely?

phenomena are what they are without underlying ideations. a tree is a tree, rock a rock and water is water all without any conceptions about them being applicable.

i disagree entirely, everything is within everything! they all have there own inherrant meaning. secondly law is primary! the way things change and come into being is entirely dictated by law which in turn is entirely dictated to by universality ~ where universal mind and its entity are one, e.g light is one as white, then can become seven because it is the way of the universal mind according to what light is within it.

i will do a comprehensive post on universal mind at some point, so far i have been considering the notion for 23 years, but i am nearly close to some kind of completion, it is simply a case of waiting for it to arrive in my mind.

perhaps it is due to equating "lack of inheret permanent characteristic" with "infinity"?

ah i see! it cannot be the ground as it has no essence or no part of anything for things to be made manifest of them.

if you have a serious interest in this subject, from our point of view, i cannot extol the virtues of Secret of the Vajra World by Reginald Ray sufficiently. he provides an academic text infused with the realizations of a practioner.
thank you! the only book on buddhism that i have read properly is the clear

light of bliss by gesha kelsand gyatso [forgive if spelling is wrong].
when your conceptions are all gone and do not arise in response to sensory stimuli, what remains?

the pheonix.

in other words, as i was trying to explain above, it would seam that reality as entire is all inclusive and at the same time all un-inclusive according to ones position and direction to it - or perspective.

metta