It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Pachomius
What I have come to know from reading about Buddhism and discussions with Western Buddhists, is that anyone can be a Buddhist if for no other reasons than using its meditation exercise.
What I come to know from reading about Buddhism and discussions with Western Buddhists is that Buddhists believe in the no-self, which they take care to explain as the non-reality of the self, and also they maintain the non-identity of the self or no-self from one moment to the next.
What I have come to know from reading abut Buddhism and discussions with Western Buddhists is that the genuine authentic pure Buddhism as taught by the man Gautama is bereft of all myths and superstitious or supernatural elements.
If you read in supposedly Gautama's words anything at least connoting myths, superstitions, or supernatural concepts and entities, they were spoken by the Gautama to accommodate to the audience of his time and clime who were steeped in myths, superstitions, and supernatural ideas and entities,
but his true mind is in tune with contemporary Westerners who don't accept any myths, superstitions, or supernatural concepts and entities.
Originally posted by count shivula
I think it would be more likely that the 'black skinned buddhis' that were supposed to have helped create stonehenge were not Bon adherents but people of the Indus Valley civilisation in pre vedic times
firstly the mountainous region of tibet is not reknowned for people with 'black skin' - a lot of them are fair, wheraes the dravidian/indus valley would have been filled with much darker skinned inhabitants who are closer to what we see as black. These people were part of an advanced civilization dated around 4000 - 3000 B.C. before being displaced by the lighter skinned northern tribes. The time of stonehenge being built (according to estimates) coincides with this.
Also the Indus valley civilization was said to be seafaring, and had an extensive merchant class - this is in contrast to the Bons, who are incredibly isolated in comparison. It would make far more sense that people with dark skin, who have a trade based culture and were obviously in contact with and trading with a huge amount of other large civilizations at the time (from their seal being found in Sumeria, afghanistan etc) are more likely to have travelled to Britain. Tibet has no sea for hundreds of miles as well as being a further couple of thousand miles away from Britain anyway.
thirdly the indus valley civilization has left architecture that indicates that they had an advanced knowledge and a great interest in astrology - with streets pointing in the four cardinal directions as well as this the vedics adopted their calandar and from the translation of one of their seals they identified the great bear constellation and the 7 stars that make up the Pleiades. The fact that their calandar was adapted by the Aryans/Brahmins probably (IMO) indicates they had an advanced knowledge of astrology and an advanced calendar similar to the knowledge held by the druids.
Finally if you look at the horned god seal of the Indus valley civilization that is said to be the prototype for Shiva, he is pictured as a horned god sitting in a crossed legged position surrounded by animals. This is incredibly similar to the horned god cenunnuros as depicted much later (400B.C.) also as a horned god sitting crossed legged surrounded by animals it is possible (probable IMO) that they are depicting the same god.
so i think in conclusion a dark skinned, seafaring tribe, with a deep knowledge and interest in astrology as well as similar godforms - that also occur at the same time as stonehenge is sadi to have been built (and came to the height of their power around 2300 - 2800 B.C.) would be far more likely to be the guys in the description.
Secret Teachings of All Ages
Doubt has always existed as to whether the name Rosicrucian came from the symbol of the rose and cross, or whether this was merely a blind to deceive the uninformed and further conceal the true meaning of the Order. Godfrey Higgins believes that the word Rosicrucian is not derived from the flower but from the word Ros, which means dew. It is also interesting to note that the word Ras means wisdom, while Rus is translated concealment. Doubtless all of these meanings have contributed to Rosicrucian symbolism.
A. E. Waite holds with Godfrey Higgins that the process of forming the Philosopher's Stone with the aid of dew is the secret concealed within the name Rosicrucian. It is possible that the dew referred to is a mysterious substance within the human brain, closely resembling the description given by alchemists of the dew which, falling from heaven, redeemed the earth. The cross is symbolic of the human body, and the two symbols together--the rose on the cross--signify that the soul of man is crucified upon the body, where it is held by three nails.
From "The Secret Doctrine of Anahuac":
"The Brahmans got their cosmogony, arts, culture and science from the famous Naga-
Mayans, later called Danavas.
The Nagas and the Brahmans used the sacred symbol of the feathered serpent, an
irrefutable Mexican or Mayan symbol.
The Upanishads contain a treatise on the science of the serpents, or, in other words, the
science of occult knowledge.
The Nagas (serpents) of esoteric Buddhism, are perfect, authentic and self-realized men,
by virtue of their occult knowledge and they are the protectors of Buddha’s Law, because
they correctly interpret his metaphysical doctrines.
The crown, in the shape of an asp — the Thermuthis — belongs to Isis, our individual
inner Divine Mother Kundalini (we all have our own).
Kundalini, the Igneous Serpent of our magical powers, coiled in the coccygeal magnetic
center (base of the spinal column), flashes likes a lightning bolt.
The great Kabir Jesus of Nazareth would never have advised his disciples to be as wise as
the serpent if it had been the symbol of evil. Neither would have the Ophites, the
Egyptian Gnostic sages of the fraternity of the Serpent, adored a living snake in their
liturgy as the symbol of divine Sophia (wisdom), If the reptile had been related to the
powers of evil." - Samael Aun Weor
Originally posted by MrNECROS
Put simply about these rather offbeat ventures into Buddhism, you are talking about a derived forms of Buddhism, which contain items from other religions.
The Buddha never said there was or was not a god (or reincarnation etc...) and pure forms of Buddhism like the Zen Buddhism practiced in Thailand are much simpler than things like Tao Buddhism.
In Thailand (and also I noticed in Burma) Buddhist temples are clearly differentiated from other temples and they don't mix'n'match like they do in other countries.
Originally posted by MrNECROS
Best advice is to ask a monk.
Better yet become a monk for a month.
Originally posted by thekidxii
Since I can not U2U (yet), I post my question here. In your previous post you had a link regarding The Fraternity of the Rose Cross. Which of the four postulates do you think correct? ..or do you have another idea?
The Bhagavad-Gita, the holy book of Lord Krishna, says the following:
"The Being is not bom, does not die, nor does it reincarnate; it has no origin; it is eternal and changeless; it is the first of all, and does not die when the body passes away."
Let our Gnostic readers now reflect upon the following contradictory and antithetical verse.
"As one sets aside wom out clothes and puts on new ones, so the embodied Being leaves its spent body and enters other new ones."
These are two opposing verses from the Great Avatar Krishna. If we did not know the key, we would obviously be confused:
"Upon leaving the body, taking the path of the fire, of the light, of the day, of the luminous lunar fortnight and of the northern solstice, those who know Brahma, go towards Brahma.
"Upon death, the Yogi who takes the path of smoke of the dark Lunar fortnight and of the southern solstice, reaches the Lunar sphere (the Astral World) and is then reborn (returns, reembodies).
"These two paths, the luminous and the dark, are considered permanent. Through the first, one is emancipated, and through the second, one is reborn (returns).
We declare that the Being, the Lord Incarnated in some perfect creature, can Return, Reincarnate...
"When the Lord (The Being) acquires a body, or leaves it, He associates with the six senses, or abandons them and passes like the breeze which carries with it the scent of flowers.
"Directing the ears, the eyes, the organs of touch, taste and smell as well as the Mind, He experiences the objects of the senses.
"The ignorant and deluded do not see Him when He takes a body, when He leaves it or has experiences associated with the Gunas. Whereas, those who have the Eyes of Wisdom do see Him."
The following verse of Lord Krishna, as an extraordinary document on the doctrine of Reincarnation, is worth meditating on.
"Oh, Bharata! Every time that religion deteriorates and irreligion prevails, I incarnate anew (in other words I Reincarnate) to protect the good, destroy evil and establish religion, I incarnate (or Reincarnate) in different times."
From all these verses of Lord Krishna, two conclusions can be logically drawn:
Those who know Brahma go to Brahma and can, if they so Desire, return, embody, Reincarnate, to carry out the Great Work of the Father.
Those who have not dissolved the Ego, the Self, the Me, Myself, go, after death, along the path of smoke, of the dark lunar fortnight and the southern solstice, reaching the Lunar sphere and are then reborn, Return, reembody in this painful Vale of Samsara.
The Doctrine of the Great Avatar Krishna teaches that the Gods, Demi-Gods, Divine Sovereigns, Titans and only Devas Reincarnate.
To Return is something very different: unquestionably it is the Return of the Kalpas, Yugas, Mahamanvantaras, Maha-Pralayas, etc.
The Law of Eternal Return of all things is always combined with the Law of Recurrence.
The egos return incessantly to repeat dramas, scenes, and events, here and now. The past is projected towards the future through the passage of the present.
The Word Reincarnation is most demanding, it must not be used carelessly: No one would be able to Reincarnate without first having eliminated the ego, without truly possessing Sacred Individuality.
Incarnation is a very venerable word, signifying in fact the reembodiment of the Divine in a man.
Reincarnation is the repetition of such a cosmic event, a new manifestation of the Divine...
We are in no way exaggerating concepts by emphasizing the transcendental idea that Reincarnation is only possible for "Golden Embryos" which have achieved the glorious union with the Super-Soul in any Cycle of Manifestation.
It would be absurd to confuse Reincarnation with Return. We would be making the worst kind of mistake to attest that the ego, legion of dark, sinister, twisted "I's," can Reincarnate.
- Excerpted from The Mystery of the Golden Blossom, by Samael Aun Weor.
Originally posted by MrNECROS
Buddhism DOES NOT teach reincarnation.
It's a common theme in Thai comedys when foreigners try to pretend to be Buddhists and go on about reincarnation.
Ask a monk.
Originally posted by Tamahu
I think you're getting confused with Buddhisms various philosophies regarding reincarnation and return.
Most schools of Buddhism simply deny that a self-existing "Eternal Soul" reincarnates.
The philosophy is very complex and I won't get into it right now, but they do teach that a sum of values of a person is what returns to the Wheel of Samsara after that person dies(unless of course this person has gone beyond).
The gist of it is that the Buddha Nature is trapped, in a sense, within a multiple set of negative and positive values, that are imprints on the "mind"(Consciousness rather) of the "individual", and that when those values(whether negative or positive) are comprehended and eliminated, then Samsara ends for that spark of Consciousness or Buddha Nature.
In other words, the Buddha-Nature becomes a Tathagata, fully realized Buddha, or even a Paramarthasatya.
So like I said, the original Pali canon(the first set of teachings of the Buddha) teaches what would be interpreted as "reincarnation" or return to samsara.
The following will give you an idea(since the Doctrine of Krishna is almost completely identical to Buddhism):
The Bhagavad-Gita, the holy book of Lord Krishna, says the following:
"The Being is not bom, does not die, nor does it reincarnate; it has no origin; it is eternal and changeless; it is the first of all, and does not die when the body passes away."
Let our Gnostic readers now reflect upon the following contradictory and antithetical verse.
"As one sets aside wom out clothes and puts on new ones, so the embodied Being leaves its spent body and enters other new ones."
These are two opposing verses from the Great Avatar Krishna. If we did not know the key, we would obviously be confused:
"Upon leaving the body, taking the path of the fire, of the light, of the day, of the luminous lunar fortnight and of the northern solstice, those who know Brahma, go towards Brahma.
"Upon death, the Yogi who takes the path of smoke of the dark Lunar fortnight and of the southern solstice, reaches the Lunar sphere (the Astral World) and is then reborn (returns, reembodies).
"These two paths, the luminous and the dark, are considered permanent. Through the first, one is emancipated, and through the second, one is reborn (returns).
We declare that the Being, the Lord Incarnated in some perfect creature, can Return, Reincarnate...
"When the Lord (The Being) acquires a body, or leaves it, He associates with the six senses, or abandons them and passes like the breeze which carries with it the scent of flowers.
"Directing the ears, the eyes, the organs of touch, taste and smell as well as the Mind, He experiences the objects of the senses.
"The ignorant and deluded do not see Him when He takes a body, when He leaves it or has experiences associated with the Gunas. Whereas, those who have the Eyes of Wisdom do see Him."
The following verse of Lord Krishna, as an extraordinary document on the doctrine of Reincarnation, is worth meditating on.
"Oh, Bharata! Every time that religion deteriorates and irreligion prevails, I incarnate anew (in other words I Reincarnate) to protect the good, destroy evil and establish religion, I incarnate (or Reincarnate) in different times."
From all these verses of Lord Krishna, two conclusions can be logically drawn:
Those who know Brahma go to Brahma and can, if they so Desire, return, embody, Reincarnate, to carry out the Great Work of the Father.
Those who have not dissolved the Ego, the Self, the Me, Myself, go, after death, along the path of smoke, of the dark lunar fortnight and the southern solstice, reaching the Lunar sphere and are then reborn, Return, reembody in this painful Vale of Samsara.
The Doctrine of the Great Avatar Krishna teaches that the Gods, Demi-Gods, Divine Sovereigns, Titans and only Devas Reincarnate.
To Return is something very different: unquestionably it is the Return of the Kalpas, Yugas, Mahamanvantaras, Maha-Pralayas, etc.
The Law of Eternal Return of all things is always combined with the Law of Recurrence.
The egos return incessantly to repeat dramas, scenes, and events, here and now. The past is projected towards the future through the passage of the present.
The Word Reincarnation is most demanding, it must not be used carelessly: No one would be able to Reincarnate without first having eliminated the ego, without truly possessing Sacred Individuality.
Incarnation is a very venerable word, signifying in fact the reembodiment of the Divine in a man.
Reincarnation is the repetition of such a cosmic event, a new manifestation of the Divine...
We are in no way exaggerating concepts by emphasizing the transcendental idea that Reincarnation is only possible for "Golden Embryos" which have achieved the glorious union with the Super-Soul in any Cycle of Manifestation.
It would be absurd to confuse Reincarnation with Return. We would be making the worst kind of mistake to attest that the ego, legion of dark, sinister, twisted "I's," can Reincarnate.
- Excerpted from The Mystery of the Golden Blossom, by Samael Aun Weor.
So Individuality is beyond egoism.
The Christ is beyond Individuality.
And AElohim or Adi-Buddha, the Absolute Abstract Space, is "beyond" the Christ.
Originally posted by MrNECROS
Buddhism DOES NOT teach reincarnation.
It's a common theme in Thai comedys when foreigners try to pretend to be Buddhists and go on about reincarnation.
Ask a monk.
They're probably making fun of Westerner's mistaken interpretations of that particular philosophy of "reincarnation"(which is probably Theraveda).
Originally posted by Tamahu"But more importantly; learn to read between the lines, and utilize the right-hemisphere of the brain along with Intuition."
"
Originally posted by Tamahu"The religious texts of the world are mostly symbolic, with not much that is literal within them.."
Originally posted by Tamahu"Some say that the authentic scriptures have a seven-fold meaning."."
Originally posted by cfader
It is better to take up learning activities that utilize both hemispheres of the cerebral cortex..this will also utilize the reward system of the brain and nervous system and strengthen neural curcuitry primarily in the frontal lobes.
And to learn anything properly you need to use logic that is based on an actual reality...and not imagination.
Lucifer: Details
From a Buddhist perspective, there are two perspectives which are like two trees that share the same roots. To explain it Kabbalistically, we can say that the true nature of a thing is the Ain Soph, which transcends duality, the perceiver and perceived etc. That is the Seity. On the other hand, under the Absolute, within the created and manifested universe, duality is the seed of everything that seems to exist. The problem occurs when you don't understand both of these perspectives.
If you forget about the Seity, then you believe that everything is happening and occuring as it seems to be happening according to your so-called awareness--this is the root ignorance and this is why the ego becomes identified.
On the other hand, if we were to think that there isn't relative existence and that dualism is a lie, then we ignore the understanding of the mechanics of the manifested universe (which leads again into delusion) and therefore could not ever attain liberation from the mechanics of this universe.
Therefore, in order to be liberated or above Good and Evil, you must have the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Originally posted by Tamahu"The religious texts of the world are mostly symbolic, with not much that is literal within them.."
Apart from Christianity and Judaism I will agree.
Then you would also need a text with the cipher to decode and then prove this...so keep looking...and you may need to strengthen your conceptual boundaries whilst you are at it.
Originally posted by MrNECROS
Dude - Hinduism IS NOT Buddhism.
Now you're really piling on the bull.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
Gnosis is the same Path as Buddhism, differing only in usage of terminology, and some slightly different ways of explaining certain aspects of the Path.
Introduction to Gnostic Meditation
A complete treatise on all the steps one must ascend in order to achieve real Meditation: the acquisition of information by the consciousness, free of the interference of the mind.