|
| Welcome to Religious Forums |
| Welcome Guest to ReligiousForums.com . You are currently not registered. When you become registered you will be able to interact with our large base of already registered users discussing topics. Some annoying Ads will also disappear when you register. Registering doesn't cost a thing and only takes a few seconds. We provide areas to chat and debate all World Religions. Please go to our register page! |
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#31
03-16-2007, 01:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Dropping the mind? Are you suggesting that the mind is the reason why sentient beings are caught in samsara? Is your definition of "nature" synonomous with "buddha-nature"? I'm trying to follow your argument when you say that everything returns to its original form, which implies a beginning or starting point. I don't see how that is reconciled with the Dharma. Can you explain further without being cryptic?  Peace, Mystic 
|
|
#32
03-16-2007, 01:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Cryptic - is not intentional; please excuse. Limitations of explaining the unexpainable IS. More words have been said on the topic than any other subject in human history but still the message is not understood by most.
The transmission is possible in silence and not by attanding lectures or reading books. It is only meditation. There is no begining nor any end to life. Out of nothing comes every form and no form and goes back to nothing. That nothing again is achived by silencing the mind and being with nature. in nature again no begining and no end. Always in the midlle. so is the middle path; don't allow the mind to take sides. Both exists. Be an observer of both. Rest allow the nature to do everything and the understanding will grow on its own. Love & rgds
|
|
#33
12-29-2007, 11:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I must say MU
|
|
#34
12-30-2007, 02:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I must say, "KATZ"
In Sydney today, it's very hot.
__________________
David It's like a finger pointing at the moon...... Look at the moon stupid 
Last edited by koan; 12-30-2007 at 02:13 PM. Reason: too short
|
|
#35
12-30-2007, 08:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's generally hot in Thailand...
|
|
#36
12-31-2007, 10:42 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
If you achieve enlightenment several incarnations from now as a Norweigan viking's concubine in the year 1012, how long will that have been?
|
|
#37
01-04-2008, 10:54 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Seyorni,
Never was good in studies but Maths or history/geography seems to be your strong points. Solve the question yourself LOL. Love & rgds
|
|
#38
01-06-2008, 01:43 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 But this "enlightenment" thing, something tells me that we've been at it since the time before time began. And that we'll be doing so forever and ever more. It's infinate. That's what I've just pulled up from somewhere in the darkest recesses of my mind.
__________________
If I do not
go within I go without THERE IS ONLY ONE OF US
|
|
#39
01-06-2008, 10:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
My point is that time, as we perceive it, is an artifact of our present, 3rd-state consciousness. When the question involves alternate states of consciousness words like "first, before or after" become meaningless. Consider: Twin A trips, hits his head on a Bo-Tree, and wakes in Cosmic Consciousness -- tomorrow. Twin B lives on in 3rd-state, eventually dies, and continues thus through a dozen incarnations, eventually achieving enlightenment in an incarnation as a eleventh-century woman. One achieves enlightenment less than twenty-four hour from now. The other goes on to live many lifetimes before achieving enlightenment, but does so a thousand years ago. Which was "first?"  Last edited by Seyorni; 01-06-2008 at 10:49 AM.
|
|
#40
01-07-2008, 06:13 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
