Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Welcome home! Please contact if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take up to 48 hours. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

techie Veteran


Last Active
  • Re: Hypothetical question

    @Bunks said:
    If science proved that the Blessed ones teachings on rebirth and the results of karma were true I.e. past and future lives were true and were determined by our karma, would you actually change your behaviour? Would you be more motivated to change your behaviour?

    Changing behavior (or anything else) is not a matter of will (or incentive, desire, etc.). Else, everyone would be a saint. Many factors - our efforts, circumstances, luck, karma, etc. - have to come together for changes on any level to occur.

  • Re: The Nyönpa, or "mad ones"

    @Kerome said:
    I've been thinking some more about @Dakini's story about the temple girls, and it makes me quite angry. It is an abuse of young women in the name of tantric practice... the whole idea behind those tantric practices is to recover the diamond of samadhi that has fallen into the mud of sexual desire. It should be undertaken with pure motives, and abusing young girls as temple whores seems very far from right.

    Disappointing that people who spend so much time on clarity of thought can't free themselves from superstition, or treat sex with more respect.

    What makes you think they do? They could be 'monks' because it gives them power over others, not because they really have or even seek clarity of thought. Most religious institutions are about power anyway. That is why it's good to distinguish between religion and spirituality.

  • No-self revisited

    I've been meditating on anatta or no-self.

    Some people say it's not no-self but only no permanent self. But let's leave that aside for a moment and take it literally to mean no self at all.

    Is it possible that no-self is a goal rather than a current reality?

    Let me explain. My memories/experiences make me distinct from you, and your memories/experiences make you distinct from your neighbor, and so on. This creates a self in me (and in you and everyone else) that thinks and feels it's different from the rest.

    So when the buddha spoke of no-self, is it possible that he meant the following: we have developed a 'self' through years and years of experience, and therefore nibanna means getting rid of this self (or attaining no-self).

    In short, self is our current reality. No-self is the goal.

    Make sense?

    Something to consider?

    Let me know your thoughts.

  • Why do we blame technology?

    It's fashionable among Buddhists to blame technology, that Twitter etc. keeps us engaged with trifles, or that video games/TV keep us over stimulated.

    But isn't this a wrong conclusion? Even without technology, our own minds keep us over stimulated, preoccupied with trivial things, always chattering, etc. So are we not conveniently blaming technology when our own minds are the real culprit?

    Just something to ponder.

  • Re: Chogyam Trungpa Died Of Alcoholism

    I do not know much about CT, but generally speaking ... if a person has wisdom, does that necessarily mean he has self-control/will power as well? A person may know that smoking is injurious (wisdom) and yet lack the will power to stop smoking. So is it possible that wisdom (even the highest kind of wisdom leading to nibanna) could exist without any self-control whatsoever?

    Just wondering, not saying it is so.