so here is the Buddha et al,

[Guest guest]

> The first of Buddhism's ten precepts is: ' refrain from destroying

> life.'

 

Not really, the foundation is "Right View".

 

There are storm clouds and clouds with silver linings, raw steak and bird

seed, but the fundamental reality of their composition remains the same:

total and constant flux.

 

When you are "right" about something, and truly, one does not kill, and one

also practices Right Speech which also means in its way, not to kill, or to

argue and try to be "right" making others "wrong." I don't want to hurt your

feelings but you have a way of communicating that makes me feel you are

sticking yourself out in the cold. So one looks to find general agreement

(lets all be "wrong" and then get on with it) and in Buddhism, since you are

quoting Buddha...

 

"What do you think, monks? Are bodily and sense impressions (rupa) permanent

or impermanent?

 

"Impermanent, Lord," they replied.

 

"Are feeling (vedana), perception (samjna), mental composites (samskara),

and consciousness (vijnana), permanent or impermanent?"

 

"Impermanent, Lord," they replied.

 

"But what is impermanent - is that pleasant or unpleasant the cause of

suffering (dukkha)?"

 

"It is suffering, Lord," they replied.

 

"But of that which is impermanent -suffering and subject to change -when

that is considered, could one rightly say; This belongs to me, this is me,

this is my self?"

 

"No, Lord," they replied.

 

Therefore, whatever there is of bodily form, whether past, present or

future, internal or external, gross or subtle, far or near, one should

understand it according to reality and true wisdom: this does not belong to

me, this is not me, this is not my self."

 

This is the prelude to meditation/contemplative practic (in Buddhism), one

then investigates to see the truth of these words from one's own experience.

 

And then out of this (kindly) debate can happen relative to ones experience

-it is then something mutually shared, no one is right, no one is wrong,

just investigation - seeing what is here, clearly comprehending. Doctrine

is not meant to be quoted in order to argue opinions, its a basis for

investigation - and that is what we can share, since there are absolutely no

"wrong" answers. many times people post things on this list and what they

say gives me indication where I'm "wrong" - Im delighted about this.

 

So, Tony, I'd be happy to hear all about what you have intimately discovered

- you are evidently sincere, I'm not challenging you, just inviting, if you

wish....just simple stuff.

 

Joyce

[Guest guest]

, "Joyce Short" <insight@s...> wrote:

>

> > The first of Buddhism's ten precepts is: ' refrain from destroying

> > life.'

>

> Not really, the foundation is "Right View".

>

> There are storm clouds and clouds with silver linings, raw steak and

bird

> seed, but the fundamental reality of their composition remains the

same:

> total and constant flux.

>

> When you are "right" about something, and truly, one does not kill,

and one

> also practices Right Speech which also means in its way, not to

kill, or to

> argue and try to be "right" making others "wrong." I don't want to

hurt your

> feelings but you have a way of communicating that makes me feel you

are

> sticking yourself out in the cold. So one looks to find general

agreement

> (lets all be "wrong" and then get on with it) and in Buddhism, since

you are

> quoting Buddha...

>

> "What do you think, monks? Are bodily and sense impressions (rupa)

permanent

> or impermanent?

>

> "Impermanent, Lord," they replied.

>

> "Are feeling (vedana), perception (samjna), mental composites

(samskara),

> and consciousness (vijnana), permanent or impermanent?"

>

> "Impermanent, Lord," they replied.

>

> "But what is impermanent - is that pleasant or unpleasant the cause

of

> suffering (dukkha)?"

>

> "It is suffering, Lord," they replied.

>

> "But of that which is impermanent -suffering and subject to change

-when

> that is considered, could one rightly say; This belongs to me, this

is me,

> this is my self?"

>

> "No, Lord," they replied.

>

> Therefore, whatever there is of bodily form, whether past, present

or

> future, internal or external, gross or subtle, far or near, one

should

> understand it according to reality and true wisdom: this does not

belong to

> me, this is not me, this is not my self."

>

> This is the prelude to meditation/contemplative practic (in

Buddhism), one

> then investigates to see the truth of these words from one's own

experience.

>

> And then out of this (kindly) debate can happen relative to ones

experience

> -it is then something mutually shared, no one is right, no one is

wrong,

> just investigation - seeing what is here, clearly comprehending.

Doctrine

> is not meant to be quoted in order to argue opinions, its a basis

for

> investigation - and that is what we can share, since there are

absolutely no

> "wrong" answers. many times people post things on this list and what

they

> say gives me indication where I'm "wrong" - Im delighted about this.

>

> So, Tony, I'd be happy to hear all about what you have intimately

discovered

> - you are evidently sincere, I'm not challenging you, just inviting,

if you

> wish....just simple stuff.

>

> Joyce

 

Namaste Joyce,

 

My communications skills aren't the best, I am aware of that. However

again I am only restating what every 'Satguru', or real teacher has

advised about vegetarianism. Why would they be wrong and the rest of

the world right? Nothing wrong nothing right is in the realm of the

absolute, although this realm is illusion, as Sankara said it is real

whilst one is in it. We do have to deal with it. I'll get back again

to what I said about vegetarianism. It reflects compassion if it is

done for that reason not just health. Compassion in every teaching

that I have read, even Mohammed, is important in cleansing the sheaths

and enhancing the awareness sheath.

 

This has nothing to do with intelligence, which is well illustrated on

this board with all the high IQs but many cannot make the connection

between what is on their plate and what suffering is caused to the

animal and the interference with its karma.

 

There is hardly any point in explaining this to some people for they

do not have a developed vijnanamayakosa or awareness sheath, only a

well developed lower mind. Some call themselves Buddhists yet are not

followers of Buddha. Some teach yoga yet do not understand the first

precept of non violence or ahimsa.

 

This is because they don't have a developed awareness sheath, exactly

my point, just intellectual roundabouts. You do not have to have a

brilliant mind for liberation as is evideced by this board all this

Avidya is an impediment.

 

It is my opinion but I haven't quoted anything as my opinion, just

what I have learned in my way from reading the masters. They must say

these things for a reason.

 

Om Namah Sivaya...Tony.

[Guest guest]

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

> > So, Tony, I'd be happy to hear all about what you have intimately

> discovered

> > - you are evidently sincere, I'm not challenging you, just

inviting,

> if you

> > wish....just simple stuff.

> >

> > Joyce

>

> Namaste Joyce,

>

> This is because they don't have a developed awareness sheath,

exactly

> my point, just intellectual roundabouts. You do not have to have a

> brilliant mind for liberation as is evideced by this board all this

> Avidya is an impediment.

>

> It is my opinion but I haven't quoted anything as my opinion, just

> what I have learned in my way from reading the masters. They must

say

> these things for a reason.

>

> Om Namah Sivaya...Tony.

 

 

Dear Tony: If I follow Joyce's question, and your response, I suspect

she (and I for sure) would like to know about your experience. What

is your experience of the awareness sheath? How does it feel? Are

there times when it is available to you and other times not, or is it

always there? You have mentionned nirguna and saguna Braham. What

is your experience of these states, and how are they different for

you? Thanks for considering these questions. (They are for me, not

for you. ) Terry

[Guest guest]

, tmnabata@h... wrote:> > Om Namah

Sivaya...Tony.

>

>

> Dear Tony: If I follow Joyce's question, and your response, I

suspect

> she (and I for sure) would like to know about your experience. What

> is your experience of the awareness sheath? How does it feel? Are

> there times when it is available to you and other times not, or is

it

> always there? You have mentionned nirguna and saguna Braham. What

> is your experience of these states, and how are they different for

> you? Thanks for considering these questions. (They are for me,

not

> for you. ) Terry

 

Namaste Terry,

 

It is all subjective and individual. My first conscious awareness was

of my energy sheath, for one can literally feel that energy.( Ask Wim)

 

The awareness sheath is more subtle and comes through in intuition

and decisions not based on mental mechanics. A just 'knowing', so to

speak. Sometimes I am surprised by this process, for I wonder how I

know a particular thing, when I have no previous experience etc. There

is also the developed conscience, and compassion. Realising that even

the littlest creature is a little Brahman. It is a sort of integrated

awareness, I suppose. It is constantly available if one wishes, but

one does get diverted of course. I suppose I also experience it in

contemplation on the way to meditation. However ultimately it is

reflected in one's behaviour and awareness about things, spiritual and

otherwise. It is the Higher Self's Mind.

 

The Bliss sheath can be experienced in 'meditation', and in sleep.

Sometimes people will awake in the morning in Bliss or rather in the

memory of the Bliss of deep sleep. This is because they moved to the

waking state very quickly instead of tarrying in the dream state.

 

Om Namah Sivaya....Tony.

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony,

>again I am only restating what every 'Satguru', or real teacher has

>advised about vegetarianism.

 

Until recently, all the Tibetans lived up in the high Himalayas. Do you

know what they had to eat up there? Yaks, plenty of yaks. In the summer

someone could make the trip to bring some rice and other things from lower

places, and they tried to stretch out those supplies through the rest of

the year. But what they mostly ate was yak meat. They drank tsampa, a hot

drink made with plenty of yak butter.

 

Yet there were many sages among them, and many of our most wonderful

spiritual books came from them.

 

Before modern technology and transportation arrived, the Eskimos - and

probably other natives of the far North - ate a completely meat/fish diet,

unless something else was found in the warm season. That was what was

there to eat. You could stack food outside your home, where it would stay

frozen throughout the winter, and you could grab a frozen fish or hunk of

blubber any time for a nice snack.

 

Surely you don't think that no one who lives in high mountains or the far

North can possibly become a sage or reach the highest samadhi?

 

Why don't we concern ourselves with important things? Jesus said that what

comes out of a man's mouth is important, not what goes into it.

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

, Dharma <deva@L...> wrote:

> Hi Tony,

>

> >again I am only restating what every 'Satguru', or real teacher has

> >advised about vegetarianism.

>

> Until recently, all the Tibetans lived up in the high Himalayas. Do

you

> know what they had to eat up there? Yaks, plenty of yaks. In the

summer

> someone could make the trip to bring some rice and other things from

lower

> places, and they tried to stretch out those supplies through the

rest of

> the year. But what they mostly ate was yak meat. They drank

tsampa, a hot

> drink made with plenty of yak butter.

>

> Yet there were many sages among them, and many of our most wonderful

> spiritual books came from them.

>

> Before modern technology and transportation arrived, the Eskimos -

and

> probably other natives of the far North - ate a completely meat/fish

diet,

> unless something else was found in the warm season. That was what

was

> there to eat. You could stack food outside your home, where it

would stay

> frozen throughout the winter, and you could grab a frozen fish or

hunk of

> blubber any time for a nice snack.

>

> Surely you don't think that no one who lives in high mountains or

the far

> North can possibly become a sage or reach the highest samadhi?

>

> Why don't we concern ourselves with important things? Jesus said

that what

> comes out of a man's mouth is important, not what goes into it.

>

> Love,

> Dharma

 

Namaste All,

 

What have yaks and eskimos/inuit got to do with the suburbs of the

western world? Today there are even supermarkets in the Inuit Province

of Nunavut here in Canada, and in the Dene Indian NW Territories. No

hunting for food necessary. I'm sorry but that is a lame excuse. I'm

sure in the past the Inuit had no choice, or perhaps even the

Tibetans. I haven't noticed a lot of realisation teaching from Tibet

anyway. A lot of Bon Po mixed with a type of Buddhism and lots on

reincarnation and several heavens etc. Not the same emphasis on

Nirguna, Moksha etc. I also haven't noticed many Ramana's in the Inuit

either, not much opportunity. As I said in an earlier post we can only

do our best under the circumstances.

 

These are the same tired old type of excuses used by drug addicts and

alcoholics for their addictions. I know I used this type of alibi.

There are no alibis, animals suffer and die to put meat on people's

place what a holocaust!!!

 

Again I reiterate my original point, it is about awareness and each

post contrary is just reinforcing what I am actually saying. Or rather

what the Satgurus said.

 

I do not condemn meat eaters, members of my family eat meat. However

they are not on a spiritual site talking about non dualism, yoga and

spirituality. I don't condemn the ordinary joe, he knows no better,

any more than I would condemn a cat or dog for similar behaviour.

 

I sit across from my wife eating meat and it doesn't bother me one

bit, she is not on the 'spiritual path'. I have separate pots and

utensils though ha ha ahahah

 

Om Namah Sivaya...Tony.