Another Buddha??

[Netti-Netti]

Oops, almost forgot:

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Good thing you don't have responsibilities as a moderator around here, SG.
If they were considering you, I think you may have ruined your chances.

No thank you, I might have to give up being a button pusher!
OK, sorry for taking the off-topic bait.

Good of you to include a relevant issue in the discussion. Alas, I don't have any answers for you.

I try.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I try.

You do, and very nice it is too.

My understanding is that “Buddha” is an epithet meaning “awakened or enlightened one.” In its narrowest sense (in common parlance), it refers to Siddhartha Gautama, as in the Buddha. In a somewhat broader sense, it refers to an “enlightened being,” hence Nagarjuna, Maitreya etc. In its widest sense, all beings are said to be a Buddha.


s.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I think I'd rather stick with the baking soda, if you must use a leavening agent. Baking powder can be rather explosive with too much heat. (I don't use either.)

I'd be interested to know what you use instead of baking powder and baking soda.

I forget where I saw this. Something about true insight arises in a thicket of seemingly irrelevant, off-topic posts that push the envelope of absolutist thinking.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I'd be interested to know what you use instead of baking powder and baking soda.

I forget where I saw this. Something about true insight arises in a thicket of seemingly irrelevant, off-topic posts that push the envelope of absolutist thinking.

Well, to answer your question while keeping nominally within topic: relate the pastry making process to the original point of insisting on 'purely original teachings.' Pastry does not respond well to heavy-handed authority.

Baking powder and baking soda forcefully separates the flour apart, whereas when you mingle the fat with the flour, without forcefully homogenizing it, (i.e. cutting the fat into pea-sized chunks and lightly mingling it with the flour before adding the water,) and then with the lightest touch possible, rolling out and shaping the pastry, you will achieve flakiness when the pastry is heated and the fat melts, the fat will migrate towards the flour of its own accord, leaving the space one occupied by the fat empty, thus achieving a natural flakiness in an elegant and non-forceful manner.

Forced homogenization via rough handling toughens the pastry, and more rough action would be required to force the homogenized dough apart via baking powder or baking soda to achieve 'flakiness.' That would be analogous to the rough handling of Buddhism by forcing all the different schools of Buddhism to stick solely to 'the original teachings presented to those 'authorative' people so long ago, instead of adapting them to naturally work with each person.

[Ciel]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Well, to answer your question while keeping nominally within topic: relate the pastry making process to the original point of insisting on 'purely original teachings.' Pastry does not respond well to heavy-handed authority.

Baking powder and baking soda forcefully separates the flour apart, whereas when you mingle the fat with the flour, without forcefully homogenizing it, (i.e. cutting the fat into pea-sized chunks and lightly mingling it with the flour before adding the water,) and then with the lightest touch possible, rolling out and shaping the pastry, you will achieve flakiness when the pastry is heated and the fat melts, the fat will migrate towards the flour of its own accord, leaving the space one occupied by the fat empty, thus achieving a natural flakiness in an elegant and non-forceful manner.

Forced homogenization via rough handling toughens the pastry, and more rough action would be required to force the homogenized dough apart via baking powder or baking soda to achieve 'flakiness.' That would be analogous to the rough handling of Buddhism by forcing all the different schools of Buddhism to stick solely to 'the original teachings presented to those 'authorative' people so long ago, instead of adapting them to naturally work with each person.

Beautiful well founded description Seattlegal,
Good cooks sure have a way with words.

- c -

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Forced homogenization via rough handling toughens the pastry, and more rough action would be required to force the homogenized dough apart via baking powder or baking soda to achieve 'flakiness.' That would be analogous to the rough handling of Buddhism by forcing all the different schools of Buddhism to stick solely to 'the original teachings presented to those 'authorative' people so long ago, instead of adapting them to naturally work with each person.

At what point does adapting the orginal teachings to fit in with personal preferences become a largely solipsistic, self-serving attempt to justify the corruption of true doctrine -- an effort that reflects a desire for quick and easy solutions that would be incompatible with real progress on The Path?

Here's a nice recipe for Irish Soda Bread:
http://www.elise.com/recipes/archives/004338irish_soda_bread.php
The recipe calls for half a teaspoon of baking soda. What should I substitute?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

At what point does adapting the orginal teachings to fit in with personal preferences become a largely solipsistic, self-serving attempt to justify the corruption of true doctrine -- an effort that reflects a desire for quick and easy solutions that would be incompatible with real progress on The Path?

Here's a nice recipe for Irish Soda Bread:
http://www.elise.com/recipes/archives/004338irish_soda_bread.php
The recipe calls for half a teaspoon of baking soda. What should I substitute?

I was making pie.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I was making pie.

I'd still appreciate info for substitution guidelines.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I'd still appreciate info for substitution guidelines.

This might be a good place to find some inspiration for where to begin your research.
Blackwell Synergy - J Food Science, Volume 44 Issue 3 Page 765-769, May 1979 (Article Abstract)

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

This might be a good place to find some inspiration for where to begin your research.
Blackwell Synergy - J Food Science, Volume 44 Issue 3 Page 765-769, May 1979 (Article Abstract)

You made it sound like you had experience in this area. I wanted to benefit from your experience.

[Bishadi]

There must be some Buddhists who choose not to get off the wheel and keep coming back in order to continue their works of compassion. Which reminds me, why would Buddhism need a second or third Buddha?

Because knowledge evolves.

Seems quite important to recognize that each ‘buddha’ passes on material knowledge for the next generation.

To read shares that Alzheimer’s disease destroys the physical link to memories. Likewise death of the body removes the memories of a person. Meaning the ‘soul’ of an individual is not what a person ‘thinks’ while alive because a person with Alzheimer’s has a deteriorating capacity to remember, proving the idea of a spirit continuing after physical death does not exist.


What a person imposes to existence by choice is that living spirit. A choice to take a thought and impose a ‘life’ to existence is that spirit each can leave. Good one’s live a long time, bad one’s fade to extinction. Each are of energy (light) a person conveys to existence by choice.

So when a Buddha contributes knowledge to existence when another contributor observes that knowledge the next evolution continues. Hence the pinnacle of evolution is for mass to know how ‘it’ exists. Now imagine all of the children on this globe knowing how and what makes them alive and how to live a long time, all based on each individual choice.

So why have many generation’s had a different buddha?

As time progresses, the total (God) conveyed in time. All mass, all energy, all time; One: the total. Everything exists, within God.

The last Buddha is a nut that made a covenant to share the truth once and for all.

And it is our time folks, with the internet and the capability to do the real homework and contribute uninterrupted by any bias but to simply understand and share.

And in one full swoop….. to Understand; light or electromagnetism upon mass, that a pure set of rules does, in fact, share the universal truth of existence. No magic, no omnipotence, just the TRUTH founded in pure natural (God) law and of no opinion, just a revealing.

So why a messiah dude or kalki or Quetzalcoatl or even the return of jc, as the story goes, which could be the same guy born of june 1966… or how ever you wish to suggest a religious icon of a possible ‘Last Buddha’……

Is only a man, just like anyone else but with a personal mission to just give the next generation a chance. To simply give the time energy and care to simply share what has been learned.

Now is it scary to simply see reality? Is magic and the supernatural now bred as instinctive? Is it possible that each can actually think and see if the truth applies?

So if a word above is incorrect based on real application, please speak up!

And that is a humble request as I am asking for an honest answer and not of a biased predetermination but to see if there is more to learn.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Bishadi,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Because knowledge evolves.

can you given an example of this? i suspect that we are not using the term "evolution" in the same manner as this term, for me, is indicative of biological processes only.

Seems quite important to recognize that each ‘buddha’ passes on material knowledge for the next generation.

why does that seem important?

To read shares that Alzheimer’s disease destroys the physical link to memories. Likewise death of the body removes the memories of a person. Meaning the ‘soul’ of an individual is not what a person ‘thinks’ while alive because a person with Alzheimer’s has a deteriorating capacity to remember, proving the idea of a spirit continuing after physical death does not exist.

most beings that hold the view of souls and spirits do not think they are the same thing. is it your view that soul and spirit are the same aspect of being?

So why have many generation’s had a different buddha?

they haven't?

The last Buddha is a nut that made a covenant to share the truth once and for all.

not according to the Suttas.

So why a ..... possible ‘Last Buddha’……

Buddhas arise in a world system when the Dharma is no longer present.

Is only a man,

when Buddha Shakyamuni was asked if he was a "man" he said "no".

metta,

~v

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Which school of Buddhism endorses this method of forceful discursive homogenization for online discussions?

[Bishadi]

can you given an example of this?

Yes, you are reading something you may never had seen before. Today, your knowledge evolved since yesterday. So the collection of mass known as you has learned.

To follow a set of literature not compatible with personal experience remains opinion.

So defining a reincarnation of a spirit/soul or whatever you wish to call the ‘thing’ moving forward in time, upon physical death…. Is speculative! There is a reality behind it but to describe that reality in actual physical application is much different than most have the knowledge to comprehend. So they rely on opinions rather than do the homework.

But is mass entangled by energy as momentum changes the passage of time between the entangled mass? Yes.

What this means is that if you walked within a room you imposed a physical interaction with that location even when you are no longer there. For example; a women wearing a strong perfume and walks by in a large crowd you may never see the person but the point is you have a faculty capable of noticing the presence; smell.

Funny part is she may not have been there for quite some time. So you could notice a presence when they are really not there …… other than what they left.

As for the Buddha or what interpretations each have to debate, I am not interested in argumentative interactions.

A question was asked about ‘another buddha’….. it was an easy one and the best I (this opinion) can offer was written. If someone wants to go over any specifics as to how the opinion was derived, then ask otherwise I am not interested in tearing down material just to retain a position.

Seems best to build.