You're missing out, personally I love them and find them so inspirational. Perhaps you've already seen some of the stuff I'm going to ramble about below, but maybe others will find it interesting. :) Some of the final shuttle launches almost brought me to tears, even though I think it was right to retire it and move onto something else, and long over due. It was just kind of sad, because the space shuttle was such a huge focus of my whole life, and is what got me into space/astronomy as a hobby. Last Shuttle Launch: STS-135 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v... Did you watch the Curiosity rover landing? While not a launch, it was pretty amazing, and they broadcasted it live in the middle of the night. The night of the Curiosity rover landing, no joke, I teared up a bit and had to choke back some tears. When they finally announced the landing was successful and said "Wheels down on Mars", and everyone in the control room lost it, I couldn't help but feel happy for them and humans in general. An Overview of the landing, so that the second video make sense, and you can get an understanding of how complicated a landing this was. Atmospheric breaking, parachute deploy, powered flight, sky crane dropping it onto the surface... just so many things that could have failed but didn't. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2I8AoB1xgU The Landing: A little dry at first, but keep in mind every thing they are seeing is 14 minutes behind. So the probe had already landed and was safe before they even got confirmation it was entering the atmosphere. It goes through cruise stage separation, atmospheric breaking, parachute deploy, powered flight, and then the sky crane landing, and then they even got pictures right away, which they weren't expecting because they weren't sure if the other probe in orbit would still be in line of site to transmit (they use it like a relay). I linked to a point in the video that starts at the atmosphere entry phase. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v... Depending on how old you are, you'll get to see NASA/SpaceX or SOMEONE land people on Mars. The things these people do, from launches, to landings, it just amazes and inspires me. Just imagine what it's going to take to put people, supplies, and vehicles onto Mars. Personally, I'm going to completely lose my shit. I <3 space exploration.
I feel like I'm the only one on the internet who doesn't care lately. I can still watch youtube videos, and I've never commented there nor intend to. It hasn't really changed my experience at all. I have never touched my G+ account and don't really care about it, it could be telling the world I eat poop for all I care right now, and I couldn't be bothered to login and stop it. I only use youtube for clips that get linked, looking up a song here and there, and watching project related instructional videos for around the house type stuff. That's it. Again, I'm not saying I'm FOR it, because like all of you I really don't see the benefit to them doing this. It's just a grab to try and force more people into using G+ and hopefully adopting it more so they can pull some of those revenue streams (people) away from Facebook. But it certainly doesn't seem to make the experience better for anyone who uses youtube. So I get why people are upset, but I also get why Google is doing it. Meanwhile I just really haven't been personally affected by it or had my internet experience altered in anyway whatsoever, so I simply "don't care". I am really surprised how the internet mob has mobilized against Google all of a sudden. I personally enjoy a lot of Google products, and some of their projects are pretty cool, and it seemed that was kind of the common opinion. But now this happens and the torches and pitchforks are in hand, and Google is now "one of them", one of those evil companies out to quash the proles. I've been more in awe of that, than the actual youtube/G+ fiasco itself. I feel like this will all be forgotten by next week, and I'd bet G+ actually picks up a bunch of users, not because of the force, but actual users who develop their profiles and check it out. No matter how much hate they get, I feel it's just temporary. I just don't see the "forced down my throat" sensational crap. I can still watch Youtube videos, and I still don't use G+. What's the big deal!?
Buddha had no master. He sat under a fig tree. Yet Zen practice - traditionally - would say you need a master, but it's open to interpretation. I practice Zen as well and sit zazen daily, and have been since about 2006. I would say no, it does not require a master, plus you have to think of the quality of master you would be able to find in the US. There are many other sects of Buddhism that do not require a master. There are even a few sects that pretty much say "everyone is already Buddha and has Buddhahood inside them", and that you just need to practice to unlock it. Again, Buddha had no master, no scriptures, no texts, no nothing. He sat quietly and meditated, and eventually became enlightened one day under a fig tree, after vowing not to leave until it happened. I read up on lots of Mahayana buddhism in general, and wouldn't call myself a strict Zen practioner. I find Buddhism in general very interesting, but I tend to stick with Mahayana because it seems more my style. I only follow for the practices and the writings/scriptures/koans, I do not take any of the mystical/spiritual/deity like portions to heart. But many sects would say you do not need a master. Take Nichiren Buddhism for example, which would say... Many other sects of Buddhism, even within Mahayana, would consider this kind of a cop out. Nicheren's argument was that you don't need to treat a new buddhist pupil like a child, and spend all this time wasting on silly riddles and questions that have no answers, and that one can go straight to the Lotus Sutra where the actual knowledge is spelled out and more apparent, which makes sense to me. So I've read a few books from Nicheren teachers and that various associated texts with it. Personally, I would say yes, Buddhahood can be attained by ones self, because Buddha himself did just that. To say that everyone else after him has to do it differently and under the watchful eye of a master is silly. Depending on what texts you read, most would say it took him six years to attain enlightenment, but it was extreme practice, and austerity of pretty much all things that lead him there. If he did it in six years without a master, I think the rest of us should be able to at least do it in our lifetimes. I seek to emulate the practices and would love to be enlightened, but I don't see enlightenment ever happening in my hectic life. I simply don't think my modern lifestyle would allow enlightenment, but the practice can still bring me close, and bring a lot of value of mindfulness to my life. I've also taken removing vanity and ego as much as possible from my life, down to the point that I shave my head weekly as a part of my practice. That's what I seek, the practice and dedication to it. So I guess it's up to you, what you seek, and how you need to get there. For me, it's the journey, not the destination. The dedicated practice itself is the enlightenment. Good luck, fellow Bodhisatta.But is it necessary if buddhahood can be attained by one's "self?"
"that all people have an innate Buddha nature and are therefore inherently capable of attaining enlightenment in their current form: “…the attainment of Buddhahood in one’s present form is limited to the Lotus Sutra alone”. According to Nichiren, the Lotus Sutra is “the direct path to enlightenment"