Ask MysticSang'ha anything (Buddhism, disciple, doctrine, experience, pray)

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by zenzero

YmirGF,
Thanks for your response/comments.
Love & rgds

Darn, the system won't let me frubal you again so soon zz.

[zenzero]

Friend Lilithu,
thanks for that too.
The source of all creation/existnece is one.
All forms/ no-forms are one and the same [composed of ENERGY] BUT only in differnt forms / no - forms.
When tahnks are offered it is directed to the same energy that flows through all of us.
Names we carry are just labels and appear different but nothing is permanent they keep changing from one form to another.
When one focuses on the background the gestalt changes and then both your dark/light appears together clearly then the BALANCE is reached and existence continues on its own without any interference, as none is contributing towards it.
It was, IS and WILL BE.
Love & rgds

[YmirGF]

Originally Posted by zenzero

The source of all creation/existnece is one.

In essence this is true, however after decades of seeing reality from this vantage point I am simply saying, "Hmm. There appears to be something more even beyond the perception of Oneness." It is like Oneness is the "final" peg in our physical reality where physical meets and begins to consciously manifest its origin (Self AS energy). I call that Framework One (although it is also known as simply Self-Realization). Framework Two begins from the vantage-point OF Oneness wherein a whole new order of reality begins to unfold. So far I am up to what I call Framework 6... and I believe that there are endless arrays of frameworks beyond what I currently experience. The key is that each Framework encapsulates the preceeding framework, like an onion in some ways although don't get too hung up on the analogy.

Originally Posted by zenzero

All forms/ no-forms are one and the same [composed of ENERGY] BUT only in differnt forms / no - forms.

That is rather obvious, lol, as energy precipitates "form" however I simply prefer to say "physical and non-physical". Don't get too hung up on this as a dualistic notion. It is not because there is an aweful lot taken into consideration when I use the term "Non-physical". I suppose you could discern this as a type of form as well, but it is certainly not form as we normally consider it.

Originally Posted by zenzero

When tahnks are offered it is directed to the same energy that flows through all of us.

True, energy is much more "fluid" than most people (and science) expect. I am reminded of a line from one of my favorite songs... "And now I'm passing through, the One you know as you and yet you'll never know I do. I really do." I suppose that I just rebel against the idea of dissolving our identity into one vast pool of being/non-being. It strikes me as an odd thing for an individualized awareness to attempt to do. I am thinking that what was intended was to get people completely away from their very limited view of self. In those terms, the larger identity that I babble on about is not like our egotistical sense of self in the slightest... it may as well be a non-self, as it is a fairly "alien" way of viewing self when compared to the ususal human perception of self. Most certainly, I could be wrong, but then there is the 1 in a trillion chance that I am correct. I am good with the odds, lol. Imho, a multidimensional sense of self just makes more sense than the "no self" concept that folks have accepted.

Originally Posted by zenzero

Names we carry are just labels and appear different but nothing is permanent

The simple reason for this is our physical perception of time is erroneous.

Originally Posted by zenzero

they keep changing from one form to another.

Again, true, and that process is perpetual. In some ways, reality is like a conscious chain reaction, imho, that simply grows and becomes more.

Originally Posted by zenzero

When one focuses on the background the gestalt changes and then both your dark/light appears together clearly then the BALANCE is reached and existence continues on its own without any interference, as none is contributing towards it.

Indeed and that is the normal perspective of one bound in dualistic thought. However there is a great deal beyond duality WITHIN the Oneness. Oneness isn't just sitting There cooling its jets.

Originally Posted by zenzero

It was, IS and WILL BE.

True once again, but this is just another way to say reality is not based in time as our senses hypnotise us into perceiving.

Smooshies 'n' hugs Captain Zen



Love ya,

From your resident "energy personality essence"
who calls himself

Paul
Enjoy the shmooshies... they are always free.

*we now return you to your regular programming*

[zenzero]

Friend YmirGF,
The individual here considers it to be a small spec in this vast universe and that too only as a part of the whole existence and the situation to call that spec *I* would go against the very understanding only a small i if found necessary in a given circumstances for an understanding.
The frames that you mention; do not have any idea but do not deny it as anything and everything is possible and accepted. The final result is what matters which is nothingness the very source of existnece. Which has/ has not a meaning could be a subject of debates to MIND but ONLY a reality to those individuals who are no more present as a SELF/ EGO.
Whatever an individual feels/experiences/thinks are accpetable again like all things as *different forms* * different stages*
Have a good day.
Love & rgds

[vandervalley]

and the concept of the Bodhisattva does not exist as it does in Mahayana.

So many sutras in Mahayana mentions of Bodhisattvas yet none in Theravada do? Thats interesting.

I can think of an example; Mitrea Buddha (not sure of the spelling) is the Buddha that will come after Shakyamuni Buddha; however; Mitrea has not yet attained Buddhahood at this moment and his current status is a Bhodisattava; at least that is what is said in Mahayana Buddhism in China; i am not sure if Tibetan Buddhists say the same thing.

So what is the status of the future Mitrea Buddha right at this moment in time; from Theravada Buddhists point of view?

[MysticSang'ha]

Originally Posted by vandervalley

So many sutras in Mahayana mentions of Bodhisattvas yet none in Theravada do? Thats interesting.

For the most part, yes. I'm thinking overall here, but if we're getting nit-picky (over the Tipitaka and discourses, and I'm not that smart), from what I understand, then yes Siddhartha and Maitreya are the only bodhisattvas in Theravada tradition that is worth mentioning. I believe that Theravada considers the possibility of bodhisattvas, but that they have not come of form as of yet or they are not recognized.

The only schools that I have studied have been under the Mahayana umbrella, so my understanding of Theravada is mostly from an outsider's point of view.

Originally Posted by vandervalley

I can think of an example; Mitrea Buddha (not sure of the spelling) is the Buddha that will come after Shakyamuni Buddha; however; Mitrea has not yet attained Buddhahood at this moment and his current status is a Bhodisattava; at least that is what is said in Mahayana Buddhism in China; i am not sure if Tibetan Buddhists say the same thing.

This is our general view as well.

Originally Posted by vandervalley

So what is the status of the future Mitrea Buddha right at this moment in time; from Theravada Buddhists point of view?

From the Theravada POV, I can't answer this for sure.

I apologize for not being able to give a more succinct answer, but a little embrassment never hurt anyone.




Peace,
Mystic

[YmirGF]

Originally Posted by zenzero

Friend YmirGF,
The individual here considers it to be a small spec in this vast universe and that too only as a part of the whole existence and the situation to call that spec *I* would go against the very understanding only a small i if found necessary in a given circumstances for an understanding.
The frames that you mention; do not have any idea but do not deny it as anything and everything is possible and accepted. The final result is what matters which is nothingness the very source of existnece. Which has/ has not a meaning could be a subject of debates to MIND but ONLY a reality to those individuals who are no more present as a SELF/ EGO.
Whatever an individual feels/experiences/thinks are accpetable again like all things as *different forms* * different stages*
Have a good day.
Love & rgds

I hear you and I certainly am well versed in your position on the matter. Please understand that. I would really love to explore this further with you, if indeed you are even interested, but I think we have derailed Heather's thread enough. I couldn't help but noticed she leapt over our discussion without comment, lol.

*waves to Heather*

Perhaps a one on one discussion would prove interesting... if you are the slightest bit interested, of course.

[zenzero]

Friend YmirGF,
The question is not of interest as that comes from the mind.
Here it is the KARMA. the only involvement at all times.
Response may be delayed due to other factors but never negated intentionally.
One to one or on open platforms shall carry out the balance of karma left in store..
Sorry if Heather feels let down to her thread but what is seen here is the same thing in differnt forms like names, persons, threads. The subject matter all leads to the same goal.
Love & rgds