Guest guest Posted August 14, 2001 Report Share Posted August 14, 2001 Namaste All, Michael, >From what I appreciate, the Buddha taught observance, observing breathing, observing this and that, with being a doer. So if there were any residual pain in the body and mind it would be just observed from a detached point of view, 'there is pain happening', in that particular body etc. What the Buddha taught and what the Buddhist Religions teach are two different things. Gautama would not recognise them, for they have become the very thing he was trying to correct. Mahayana for example is really a form of fundamentalist Hinduism popular at the time, with a bon pu admixture. I am not condemning dualistic religion, anymore than I would tell my child there isn't a santa, until she/he was mature enough to accept the devastating fact. It is all about one pointedness and having a sadhana, any will do as long as one sticks to it. The simple truth that there is Brahman, Somehow a projection of creation appears on Brahman's screen, This projection of energy, is multi formed and is the mind projected by sakti or maya/ To a realised soul, all the past, present, future and ending can be observed at once, in the dream that it is. There is no beginning to lifetimes but there is an end. He didn't teach of gods and goddesses but the end of suffering, nirguna/nirvana........ONS.......Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2001 Report Share Posted August 14, 2001 Hi Tony, What a sweeping statement! This is often said about Tibetan forms. But are you including Zen, Pure Land, Shin Buddhism, and the various forms of Chinese Mahayana in this statement? --Greg At 05:18 PM 8/14/01 -0000, Tony O'Clery wrote: >Mahayana for example >is really a form of fundamentalist Hinduism popular at the time, with >a bon pu admixture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2001 Report Share Posted August 14, 2001 , Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote: > Hi Tony, > > What a sweeping statement! This is often said about Tibetan forms. But > are you including Zen, Pure Land, Shin Buddhism, and the various forms of > Chinese Mahayana in this statement? > > --Greg > > At 05:18 PM 8/14/01 -0000, Tony O'Clery wrote: > > >Mahayana for example > >is really a form of fundamentalist Hinduism popular at the time, with > >a bon pu admixture. Namaste Greg, They are steps on the path some of them. I base by statement on the teachings of the Vipassana or Buddha's meditation. I'm only talking of what the Buddha taught and not religions full of gods and demons....ONS....Tony. It seems to me that Theravada seems nearer to the original. I have only read Suzuki, in the Zen, Ch'an area. It seemed pretty near to the original but I don't know.....ONS....Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2001 Report Share Posted August 14, 2001 , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote: [snip] > but I don't know.....ONS....Tony. Finally, you write of what you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2001 Report Share Posted August 14, 2001 , jodyrrr@h... wrote: > , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote: > > [snip] > > > but I don't know.....ONS....Tony. > > Finally, you write of what you know. Namaste, Actually the only thing that I do know is that I don't know!!! I am avidya of maya........ONS.....Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.