Anattā (no self)

Originally Posted by JustBe

You did it!!😀

Now to get to 0 .....

[sky]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Show me.

Show me HHDL saying that. Show me a Bihkku saying that.

I didn't mention HHDL or a specific person but I have encountered some personally.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Rain95

Everyone is on the same path, (there is only one!) even though they are in different religions or not religious at all

Here are teachings pointing to the same thing Buddha was in my humble opinion. The are from a Catholic Benedictine Monk.

Above all we have to go beyond words and images and concepts. No imaginative vision or conceptual framework is adequate to the great reality.”
― Bede Griffiths

God had brought me to my knees and made me acknowledge my own nothingness, and out of that knowledge I had been reborn. I was no longer the centre of my life and therefore I could see God in everything.”
― Bede Griffiths

“I was suddenly made aware of another world of beauty and mystery
such as I had never imagined to exist, except in poetry.
It was as though I had begun to see and smell and hear for the first
time. The world appeared to me as Wordsworth describes
with “the glory and freshness of a dream.” The sight of a wild rose
growing on a hedge, the scent of lime-tree blossoms caught
suddenly as I rode down a hill on a bicycle, came to me like
visitations from another world. But it was not only my senses
that were awakened. I experienced an overwhelming emotion
in the presence of nature, especially at evening. It began
to have a kind of sacramental character for me. I approached it
with a sense of almost religious awe and , in a hush that
comes before sunset, I felt again the presence of an almost
unfathomable mystery. The song of the birds, the shape
of the trees, the colors of the sunset, were so many signs
of the presence, which seemed to be drawing me to itself.”
― Bede Griffiths

Lovely

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by janielee

I can't speak for Hinduism but what I can speak for is Buddhism traditions whereby the end point is not different, despite what you and the cult member book you quoted might say...

And there are many mystical traditions and others such as Advaita Vedanta where there are definite overlaps and complete synchronization.

People who look on the surface levels might not detect it, but for many mystics I think they will disagree.

YMMV.

JL

AV has a way different end point.

In Buddhism it is about what can be achieved. From my understanding Theravada doesn’t believe you can reach Buddha hood in a lifetime. Can only be an arhat if you are a monk.

Tantra traditions disagree with all that.

So all the endpoints in Buddhism are the same. Just the means and if it is possible is what is different.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by JustBe

So in those end points how would each one fit into the ‘whole continuum of life itself’? How would each one serve the whole flow of life regardless of its idea of seperation from the ‘one’ and it’s own means to an endpoint that each one believes?

It’s about the realization and even if there is a One. Buddhism doesn’t believe that.

Is there only the One? Cessation...

Are we all a subset of the One? One like Siva...

Are we all Ones. Buddhism/Taoism...

Each answer effects the endpoint realization.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by sky123

I didn't mention HHDL or a specific person but I have encountered some personally.

Well yeah. Haven’t we seen that here with Theravada practitioners here and how they dismiss all Mahayana teachings.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

AV has a way different end point.

In Buddhism it is about what can be achieved. From my understanding Theravada doesn’t believe you can reach Buddha hood in a lifetime. Can only be an arhat if you are a monk.

SS says "in this very life..."

Tantra traditions disagree with all that.

So all the endpoints in Buddhism are the same. Just the means and if it is possible is what is different.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Well yeah. Haven’t we seen that here with Theravada practitioners here and how they dismiss all Mahayana teachings.

Didn't happen.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Gem

SS says "in this very life..."

Is SS a tradition I don’t know about?

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Gem

Didn't happen.

If course it has.

You have been part of threads where people have said Tibetans are rapists, not Buddhist, etc..

You have even said you don’t care about any of their teachings or traditions. Which often leads to discussions of how some teachings aren’t Buddhism or cherry picked or not true.

Remember the old discussions on if Buddhism was even tantra? If Zen was tantra?

To make a simple point.

Originally Posted by Gem

Didn't happen.

I did a little searching..

Originally Posted by Gem

Dzogchen in the sense of its meaning as 'primordial state' or 'ground of being' is basically the truth of yourself, and that is really what I'd call 'spiritual'.

In its meaning of Dzogchen as a Tibetan Buddhist tradition, or different traditions, it's just a menial, trivial thing which isn't important.

Serious people are too concerned with truthfulness, love and kindness to care about things lots of rhetoric, symbols, ritualistic theatrics and all that silliness.

I think people who want to go into Buddhism would do best to take note of what Guatama the Buddha had to say, and practice the 'right meditation' based on the satipatthana sutta. The rest of this stuff will just lead people astray from the core principles of Buddhism.

I think the real issue is to with what sort of loving vibrations we are channelling or emanating or emitting, how kind we are to ourselves and toward one another, and how we could go about enhancing the general happiness of our lives and affecting the well-being of those whom we encounter. There is much softer and more subtle aspects to this Buddhist thing in compassionate living and such things.

Originally Posted by Gem

Try to understand. The word Buddha primarily refers to the enlightenment in yourself. This regards every person without exception, so Buddhism IS NOT exclusive, and the Dhamma is for everyone. It simply doesn't matter if a person practices something we might find identifiably Buddhist. The core of critique of 'Tibetan' Buddhism is making 'Dzochen' the exclusive domain of some menial, arbitrary, cultural/religous practice.