It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

A Great beam of Light again from Nepal, a Buddha boy has been granted to a nation in Cruel civil war

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 02:08 AM
I don't get bad vibes at all from him.

As for the violence, the only thing I really recall from HIM, was when a group of villiagers was bothering him, trying to manhandle him and break his meditation. I don't know what he did, but he must have Buddha palmed them, because the entire group went running saying he had beat them.

His side was that he did not hurt them permanently, but that he was meditating for the betterment of all mankind, and that personal spiritual practice must be protected.

Yeah, that was a Dzogchen practitioner that approached him was doing a tummo meditation that produced heat I think. Buddha boy did start to sweat, but he didn't break his meditation.

He's mainly spoken out trying to stop animal sacrifices. (As far as a public call to action that could threaten any of the local PTB) When watching him speak, he does seem like he, at times, forgets himself. I've thought it seemed like he was fading in and out.
edit on 27-4-2015 by hadriana because: added some observations

posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 02:34 PM
I am highly skeptical of this violent "buddha" boy, that asks his followers to kidnap and hurt women.

posted on May, 1 2015 @ 03:01 PM
a reply to: RadioKnecht

Dear RadioKnecht,

I appreciate you bring materials that are in some way giving more diversity to the points of view in the discussion of the topic here, but there are aspects of this link that have caught my attention and I am wondering about them:

- Only two of the victims appear with name, all the others are cited as just generically, like a women, or men, the Spanish lady, the Slovak woman etc.

- The adverb allegedly is used exhaustively along all the website, like if the charges were never proved or there is no criminal records to support them.

- There is no explanation of what were doing foreigners in that so isolated region of Nepal: the Spanish Lady, the Slovak one, etc, why they were there? were they invited to take part on the rites? or were them sensationalist journalists trying to "expose" this event as "hoax"?

- It is clear that the entire link assumes a so much negative attitude with respect to the boy, the urgency to destroy his prestige is evident, there is nothing positive about him mentioned on it, so it does not look as an objective report on the subject.

- The fact that a person wants to change his name once being adult is not necessarily a crime, as a matter of fact in America, like in many other nations of the free world is a right, so what is all that accusation of attempt to change birth certificate about? of course if he changes his name all his civil records must reflect that situation.

- It is good to remember that Nepal is right now under an Atheistic dictatorship that wants to implant a totalitarian regime with centralized economy, in other words making the bureaucrats of the Communist party the absolute rulers not only of the politics but of the administration of all the wealth of the nation.

I am wondering if this link is part of a Marxist propaganda strategy to discredit an event that is clearly defying that monolithic political power? Honestly it has all the appearance of Stalinist misinformation campaign.


The Angel of Lightness
edit on 5/1/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 2 2015 @ 12:19 AM
a reply to: The angel of light


Full Definition of MARXISM : the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society

Seriously, you shouldn't use words you don't understand.

posted on May, 2 2015 @ 06:53 AM
a reply to: Peeple

Seriously, I don't need a dictionary to define Marxism, just a good book of History will tell anybody what it is in reality, not in just Theoretical principles that sound attractive but are in the deep end false or wrong.

Marxism certainly works, as your funny definition says in the last paragraph, for a Dictatorship not for a genuine Democracy or a Republic, one that claim to be acting in the name of an entity they call Proletariat class, that supposedly represents the only workers class of History, and using such sophism they take for themselves the right to decide who can be part of the future or who can be exterminated in purgues or concentration fields or cultural revolutions without any mercy since it is either a parasite of the society or an enemy of the revolution.

Marxism excludes entrepreneurs, creative artists, creative scientists, industry founders, inventors, or any other person that showed in History that wealth can be not just accumulated but also created of any working or productive role in History, as well as many intellectuals that are fundamental in the life of a society to provide well being to many people, like human rights defenders, priests, spiritual leaders, mystics, etc.

Marxism is responsible to have demonized whoever has showed along History that if you want to have something you must risk something, it does not give any credit to the ones that work in risky projects, sponsoring them even long time before they become productive for anybody else, that is the role of entrepreuners that of course are excluded of any place in the Proleteriat your funny definition mentions.

Why don't you open books of History and check How many millions were imprisioned, violated of all their human rights, how many were brutally killed, sent to gulags, forced to work in starvation conditions, in Holomodors, by Marxist regimes just in the XX century?

Moreover, Marxism wants to deprive people of one of the principal motivations and justifications of any truly working activity: the right to have something, the right to get property with the fruit of work, the right to own something, the right to be able to have means of survival and to don't be for ever slave of others.

Don't come to this Thread to talk about fables of Utopias, those fantasies are for the ones like to read literature, Here we are referring Marxism as a cruel and brutal reality of History, we don't speculate or waste our time with speculations based on revolutionary rhetoric.

The people of Nepal has not walked thousands of years of spiritual path, since the times of Buddha, to end being part of the last experiment of corrupt Bureaucrats of a regime that wants to erase entire pages of History to repeat the same terrible mistakes and crimes, I have already mentioned were done in the XX century, creating some of the most horrendous and evil Tyrannies of History in the name of abstract entities that were devised by who wanted to manipulate ignorant people as a source of political power.


The Angel of Lightness

edit on 5/2/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 2 2015 @ 07:03 AM
a reply to: The angel of light

Okay you really have a thick brick in your head, don't you? It is Communism you are talking about and there is a big difference. Just like if i would call all hindus christians. It's wrong. And you are also totally wrong with your OP, but sinceI am the only one who seems to care and notice. Okay then.
Smiles, nodes friendly and leaves the deluded in their delusion.

edit on 2-5-2015 by Peeple because: stupid space bar

posted on May, 2 2015 @ 07:13 AM
a reply to: Peeple

You are quite a case, Karl Marx wrote a book called the Communist manifest, that is one of his principal seminal papers, so don't try to come here to trick us with rhetoric positions that try to mask Communism with much mild terms like Socialism.

Democratic Socialism is something entirely different than Marxism, is an association among different social classes to create an harmonious society that has place for everybody, it is not based on any Dictatorship or into prosecute or violate the human rights of anybody, it is a social pact among diversity, it does not have obsessions for homogenize or make any social cleaning that are characteristic of Marxism.

Democratic Socialism or Christian Socialism are movements of the center of the spectrum of Politics, while Marxism represents a non democratic extreme of it, one that believes only in the use of the brutal force and the fight among Social classes as the only resource to build a superior social order.


The Angel of Lightness

edit on 5/2/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 2 2015 @ 09:00 AM

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: The angel of light

Although I come from a Christian perspective, I feel deep respect to what Buddhism has contributed to the spiritual advance of Humanity

Sorry for asking this...don't mean to derail the thread...but how do you reconcile these two ?

Buddism claims no gods but yourself...and despite some similarities in the teachings, the core belief is vastly different. Surely you can't believe in both...either there is a God or we are all gods (which christianity explicitly disagrees with).


There is really no reconciling the two. Those that give in a try end up hacking everything all up even though they probably believe they are answering some higher spiritual deal.

posted on May, 2 2015 @ 10:24 AM
a reply to: Logarock

Dear Logarock,

This is a really interesting and important question, I believe deserves a deeper analysis.

I sincerely disagree that Buddhism rejects the idea of God, or claim the that humans occupy the same role that
corresponds to God Creator in Christianity. One thing is sure, he never also claimed to be God, but to have achieved

First at all it is important to understand the context on which these words are used, in order to don't fall in huge

Siddhartha Gautama , the Buddha, was born five centuries before Christ in Nepal in times of polytheism, so the idea of one only God didn't exist in his life span , but the idea of a Supreme God Creator belonged to who is called in Hinduism Brahma.

Jesus was condemned by the Jewish Sanhedrin since he accepted that the people used to call him the Son of God,
although the gospels show that he used to refer to himself several times more frequently as the Son of Man.

Luke 22:70 They all shouted, "So, are you claiming to be the Son of God?" And he replied, "You say that I am."

Matthew 16:13
13Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."…

Interestingly both titles were used by other Prophets before him, and nothing bad happened to them, for instance Elijah
and Jeremiah were also called the Son of Man, and Adam and King David were called in the scriptures as the Son of God.

Secondly, there is the belief in Christianity that we all if accept Christ become Children of God, what is that situation
has to do with this? Well it is impossible to be Children of God without being members of his family.

Finally let me quote some interesting texts, just to give you material to compare between Christianism with Budhism,

One popular misconception of Buddhism must be dismissed at this point. This is view that the Buddha is some kind of God figure. In the Theravada tradition the Buddha is regarded as a supremely enlightened human teacher who has come to his last birth in samsara (the Buddhist cycle of existence). Even Mahayana traditions which tend to think in terms of transcendental Buddhas do not directly make a claim for Buddha as God. Thus the Buddha cannot be considered as playing a God-like role in Buddhism.

Buddhism speaks of the existence of category of beings called devas. This term is generally translated as "gods" (with a simple `g' and in the plural). The term deva literally means a shining or radiant being, and describes their physical appearance rather than their supernatural powers (as the translation "gods" seems to imply). To prevent confusion with the notion of a supreme personal God we shall refer to these beings of Buddhist cosmology as devas.

The Buddha argues that the three most commonly given attributes of God, viz. omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence towards humanity cannot all be mutually compatible with the existential fact of dukkha.

These quotes come from the following Buddhist site:

Psalm 82:1
A psalm of Asaph. God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the "gods":

Psalm 82:6 "Indeed I said, 'You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High.

John 10.33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

John 10:34
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

Zechariah 12:8
On that day the LORD will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the LORD going before them.

I leave to the readers space to reflect and meditate by themselves about these scriptures.


The Angel of Lightness
edit on 5/2/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 3 2015 @ 06:09 AM
a reply to: The angel of light

I am not saying that Buddha or Buddhism rejects an idea of god.

I am saying that Jesus wasn't cycling through. Wasn't one of any number of light persons born periodically into the world.

Jesus shows up in world history as a man claiming to be the Door Keeper, demonstrated power over the laws of physics and clearly indicated that He had an existence before taking human form, being eternal, stepping into time.

edit on 3-5-2015 by Logarock because: n

posted on May, 7 2015 @ 10:40 PM
a reply to: Logarock

Let me just try to go through the logic in your argument,

It is clear that Jesus ( Joshua in Hebrew) openly declared that John the Baptist was the Prophet Elijah reincarnated again.

Malachi 4:5
"See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes.

St. Matthew 17:10
The disciples asked him, "Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?"

St. Mark 9:11
And they asked him, "Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?"

St Matthew 11,
13"For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14"And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come. 15"He who has ears to hear, let him hear.…

So if a prophet was allowed to reincarnate, and we agree that Joshua preexisted to his birth as Messiah, that he was the Son of God before all ages, what prevented him to have come before with human form in any time of the old testament?

was he less than Elijah to do so?

of course neither Elijah nor Jesus needed to reincarnate at all, but how about their mission on the divine plan of salvation for the humanity?

For God is so easy to take any form after all, he does not have human limitations.

Check these three scriptures and meditate if what I say is an impossible:

St Matthew 22,
43He said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying, 44'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET "'? 45"If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his son?" 46No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question.

Genesis 32:22-32New International Version (NIV)

Jacob Wrestles With God

22 That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two female servants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. 24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”

But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”

27 The man asked him, “What is your name?”

“Jacob,” he answered.

28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel,[a] because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”

29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.”

But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there.

30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”

Genesis 18,

1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
.2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him [by Abraham]: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.

Do you think Prophets of the category of Abraham, Jacob or David were going to praise or call an ordinary Human or Angel as if he might be God, their Lord? knowing that if they were wrong it was a capital sin against the first commandment of Gods Law?.

There are so many that can't accept or believe that Joshua Bar Joseph (Jesus ) couldn't be truly Son of God, since God "can't" multiply itself, so is any ordinary human and even an animal or a plant able to do something that is out of the scope of God? Is not that a limitation we are putting to God?


The Angel of Lightness

edit on 5/7/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in