***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is Love)
cupcake
Jen wrote:
>"Anders Honore" <anders...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
>[10]news:Mjyo9.41$4d1....@news.get2net.dk...
>>
>> Jen <ish...@netzero.net> skrev i en
>> nyhedsmeddelelse:antrvr$hgh4o$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de...
>> >
>> > "Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> > [11]news:3DA26D8B...@verizon.net...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Anders Honore wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Dr Ben Lau <drbe...@aol.com> skrev i en
>> > > > nyhedsmeddelelse:20021007110033...@mb-me.aol.com...
>> > > > > Those who make a big deal about it, hadnt really seen God, they
>just
>> > > > > wanted it so bad their minds imagined it, what is not imagined is
>> > truth.
>> > > >
>> > > > It is not impossible that those who make a big deal of it
>> > > > have indeed seen God.
>> > > > They have however attached to the experience
>> > > > and objectified it.
>> > > > And thus what they are seeing is not really God
>> > > > But merely the image of it,
>> > > > clung to as real.
>> > > >
>> > > > Because the true god cannot be clung to
>> > > > cannot be grasped
>> > > > cannot be touched by the mind.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thus there is no enlightenment to obtain
>> > > > and those who fuzz about it
>> > > > are surely deluded about their own enlightenment
>> > > > causing them to lose their very realisation.
>> > >
>> > > do they lose it, or just obscure it?
>> > >
>> > > robert
>> > >
>> > Thank you all for this seemingly never-ending thread proving my original
>> > point of WAR IS LOVE.
>>
>> Jen, there was no animosity or conflict in this post. That it took place
>> within a thread named so, is not indicative of its content. At least not
>on
>> usenet.
>>
>> Have you recognised the power of habit and delusion?
>>
>> Sincerely
>> Anders
>>
>If you will look over this whole thread just in general you will find many
>combatants who claim to be loving people or buddhists or whatever engaged in
>a little war of words. War is love. I don't have to even say it . It is
>being said for me by the very people who poo-pooed the idea when I first
>presented it. I have no habits and no delusions. I have never even had a
>personality or ego. You would need to cling to a phantom personality in
>order to cling to habits or delusions. I have borrowed bits and pieces from
>others throughout my life to exist in the tribal scheme of things but I see
>no real use in these invented egos after a short time and take on different
>bits and pieces just to try new things. I have never understood how someone
>can cling to a certain way of behaving, believing or imagining and call it
>their-selves. There is no real self. The ones that people invent for
>their-selves are so phoney I don't know why people cling to them like they
>do.
>
well, then why do yu keep implying that you are trying
to verify some kind of "true ultimate identity", the
"higher self", the "true self", ...the "absolute", ect.
huh?
Jen
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
news:4UCo9.455$q9....@news.more.net...
It is not a "self" as such but language limits the ability to describe it.
So for those among you that cling to your phantom identities this is the
only way to 'back-door' it so some may come to an understanding of it.
cupcake
> Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is Love)
>
> From: "Jen" <ish...@netzero.net>
> Reply to: [1]"Jen"
> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:49:04 -0400
> Newsgroups:
> [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [3]alt.zen
> Followup to: [4]newsgroups
> References:
> [5]<anutcj$hukeh$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de>
> [6]<4UCo9.455$q9....@news.more.net>
>
>"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> Jen <ish...@netzero.net> skrev i en
>> >> nyhedsmeddelelse:antrvr$hgh4o$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message
well, if it's anything at all to you, then it must
be called a "self", ie. an "identity" of some kind
(an object)
yes? no?
cupcake
cupcake wrote:
>>
>> From: "Jen" <ish...@netzero.net>
>> Reply to: [1]"Jen"
>> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:49:04 -0400
>> Newsgroups:
>> [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
>> [3]alt.zen
>> Followup to: [4]newsgroups
>> References:
>> [5]<anutcj$hukeh$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de>
>> [6]<4UCo9.455$q9....@news.more.net>
>>
>>"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>>[7][6]news:4UCo9.455$q9....@news.more.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> Jen wrote:
>>>
>>> >"Anders Honore" <anders...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
>>> >[10][8][7]news:Mjyo9.41$4d1....@news.get2net.dk...
>>> >>
>>> >> Jen <ish...@netzero.net> skrev i en
>>> >> nyhedsmeddelelse:antrvr$hgh4o$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de...
>>> >> >
>>> >> > "Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> >> > [11][9][8]news:3DA26D8B...@verizon.net...
and, if yu end up clinging to it, then it becomes
doubly problematic, then
yes? no?
>
> yes? no?
>
Jen
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
It has no identity. Identity is simply conceptual reasoning. It has no
attributes. It is causeless. Make no mistake. The Absolute is not some
momentary experience I have had. I AM the Absolute. I AM the creative
principle. I AM the self-existent one. When all identities fade, when this
entire universe and God dissolves I alone prevail.
cupcake
Jen wrote:
>"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>[7]news:hdDo9.456$q9....@news.more.net...
>> >
>> > Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is Love)
>> >
>> > From: "Jen" <ish...@netzero.net>
>> > Reply to: [1]"Jen"
>> > Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:49:04 -0400
>> > Newsgroups:
>> > [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
>> > [3]alt.zen
>> > Followup to: [4]newsgroups
>> > References:
>> > [5]<anutcj$hukeh$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de>
>> > [6]<4UCo9.455$q9....@news.more.net>
>> >
>> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >[7][8]news:4UCo9.455$q9....@news.more.net...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Jen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"Anders Honore" <anders...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
>> >> >[10][8][9]news:Mjyo9.41$4d1....@news.get2net.dk...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jen <ish...@netzero.net> skrev i en
>> >> >> nyhedsmeddelelse:antrvr$hgh4o$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> > [11][9][10]news:3DA26D8B...@verizon.net...
well, then, maybe what yer looking for
is The Buddha's _Nirvana_
...good luck!
Jen
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
Just recede. Go back to when you were one month old before words and
concepts took over. Abide in this ' I Amness' only. What is that state ?
What is that identity ? Allow awareness to look at itself only. Pure
awareness without being aware has taken on a consciousness and a bunch of
concepts and formed a body-mind identity. Buddha's nirvana is abidance in
this beingness that is there before language and concepts.
cupcake
Jen wrote:
>"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>[7]news:5kDo9.458$q9....@news.more.net...
>>
>>
>> Jen wrote:
>>
>> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >[7][8]news:hdDo9.456$q9....@news.more.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is
>Love)
>> >> >
>> >> > From: "Jen" <ish...@netzero.net>
>> >> > Reply to: [1]"Jen"
>> >> > Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:49:04 -0400
>> >> > Newsgroups:
>> >> > [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
>> >> > [3]alt.zen
>> >> > Followup to: [4]newsgroups
>> >> > References:
>> >> > [5]<anutcj$hukeh$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de>
>> >> > [6]<4UCo9.455$q9....@news.more.net>
>> >> >
>> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >[7][8][9]news:4UCo9.455$q9....@news.more.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >"Anders Honore" <anders...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
>> >> >> >[10][8][9][10]news:Mjyo9.41$4d1....@news.get2net.dk...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Jen <ish...@netzero.net> skrev i en
>> >> >> >> nyhedsmeddelelse:antrvr$hgh4o$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > "Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> > [11][9][10][11]news:3DA26D8B...@verizon.net...
well, just by way of clarification -- you have to
understand that The Buddha's Nirvana begins with
the end of *being*, itself! -- and, then, you
may proceed from there :)
Jen
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
being, an ability to be. Abiding in your potential to be. Abiding in the
infinite possibilities of being.
cupcake
Jen wrote:
>"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>[8]news:xNDo9.459$q9....@news.more.net...
>>
>> Jen wrote:
>>
>> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >[7][9]news:5kDo9.458$q9....@news.more.net...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Jen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >[7][8][10]news:hdDo9.456$q9....@news.more.net...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is
>> >Love)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > From: "Jen" <ish...@netzero.net>
>> >> >> > Reply to: [1]"Jen"
>> >> >> > Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:49:04 -0400
>> >> >> > Newsgroups:
>> >> >> > [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
>> >> >> > [3]alt.zen
>> >> >> > Followup to: [4]newsgroups
>> >> >> > References:
>> >> >> > [5]<anutcj$hukeh$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de>
>> >> >> > [6]<4UCo9.455$q9....@news.more.net>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >> >[7][8][9][11]news:4UCo9.455$q9....@news.more.net...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >"Anders Honore" <anders...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >[10][8][9][10][12]news:Mjyo9.41$4d1....@news.get2net.dk...
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Jen <ish...@netzero.net> skrev i en
>> >> >> >> >> nyhedsmeddelelse:antrvr$hgh4o$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de...
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > "Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> > [11][9][10][11][13]news:3DA26D8B...@verizon.net...
well, then, quit playing with words, and
just "be" Nirvana, then
Jen
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
Thank you. I AM.
cupcake
Jen wrote:
>"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>[8]news:6VDo9.460$q9....@news.more.net...
>>
>>
>> Jen wrote:
>>
>> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >[8][9]news:xNDo9.459$q9....@news.more.net...
>> >>
>> >> Jen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >[7][9][10]news:5kDo9.458$q9....@news.more.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >> >[7][8][10][11]news:hdDo9.456$q9....@news.more.net...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War
>is
>> >> >Love)
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > From: "Jen" <ish...@netzero.net>
>> >> >> >> > Reply to: [1]"Jen"
>> >> >> >> > Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:49:04 -0400
>> >> >> >> > Newsgroups:
>> >> >> >> > [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
>> >> >> >> > [3]alt.zen
>> >> >> >> > Followup to: [4]newsgroups
>> >> >> >> > References:
>> >> >> >> > [5]<anutcj$hukeh$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de>
>> >> >> >> > [6]<4UCo9.455$q9....@news.more.net>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >[7][8][9][11][12]news:4UCo9.455$q9....@news.more.net...
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >"Anders Honore" <anders...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >[10][8][9][10][12][13]news:Mjyo9.41$4d1....@news.get2net.dk...
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Jen <ish...@netzero.net> skrev i en
>> >> >> >> >> >> nyhedsmeddelelse:antrvr$hgh4o$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > "Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >> > [11][9][10][11][13][14]news:3DA26D8B...@verizon.net...
Ole~ !
Jonathan Jennings
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote
So how come he gets an 'Ole' but when I point out that the Buddha's terms
for Nibbana are identical to Patanjali's for the Self it's 'hindu
blabberings' huh ?
cupcake
> Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is Love)
>
> Reply to: [1]"Jonathan Jennings"
> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 01:19:18 +0100
> Newsgroups:
> [2]alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,
> [3]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [4]alt.zen
> Followup to: [5]newsgroups
> References:
> [6]<anv27s$hpms1$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de>
> [7]<hdEo9.461$q9....@news.more.net>
>
>"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote
>>
>> Jen wrote:
>>
>> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Jen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re:
>War
>> >is
>> >> >> >Love)
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > From: "Jen" <ish...@netzero.net>
>> >> >> >> >> > Reply to: [1]"Jen"
>> >> >> >> >> > Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:49:04 -0400
>> >> >> >> >> > Newsgroups:
>> >> >> >> >> > [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
>> >> >> >> >> > [3]alt.zen
>> >> >> >> >> > Followup to: [4]newsgroups
>> >> >> >> >> > References:
>> >> >> >> >> > [5]<anutcj$hukeh$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de>
>> >> >> >> >> > [6]<4UCo9.455$q9....@news.more.net>
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >"Anders Honore" <anders...@get2net.dk> wrote in
>message
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jen <ish...@netzero.net> skrev i en
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>nyhedsmeddelelse:antrvr$hgh4o$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in
>message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
cuz jen is a really really cute girl!
Jonathan Jennings
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
Well I can see why that might make me want to be nicer to her but why the
hell should you care ?
cupcake
> Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is Love)
>
> From: "Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net>
> Reply to: [1]"Jonathan Jennings"
> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 01:36:32 +0100
> Newsgroups:
> [2]alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,
> [3]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [4]alt.zen
> Followup to: [5]newsgroups
> References:
> [7]<GKKo9.470$q9....@news.more.net>
>
>"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >
>> > Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is Love)
>> >
>> > From: "Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net>
>> > Reply to: [1]"Jonathan Jennings"
>> > Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 01:19:18 +0100
>> > Newsgroups:
>> > [2]alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,
>> > [3]talk.religion.buddhism,
>> > [4]alt.zen
>> > Followup to: [5]newsgroups
>> > References:
>> > [6]<anv27s$hpms1$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de>
>> > [7]<hdEo9.461$q9....@news.more.net>
>> >
>> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote
>> >>
>> >> Jen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was
>Re:
>> >War
>> >> >is
>> >> >> >> >Love)
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > From: "Jen" <ish...@netzero.net>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Reply to: [1]"Jen"
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:49:04 -0400
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Newsgroups:
>> >> >> >> >> >> > [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
>> >> >> >> >> >> > [3]alt.zen
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Followup to: [4]newsgroups
>> >> >> >> >> >> > References:
>> >> >> >> >> >> > [5]<anutcj$hukeh$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > [6]<4UCo9.455$q9....@news.more.net>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >"Anders Honore" <anders...@get2net.dk> wrote in
>> >message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jen <ish...@netzero.net> skrev i en
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >nyhedsmeddelelse:antrvr$hgh4o$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in
>> >message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
cuz i like cute girls -- i mean, i gave jan to yu after
i wuz finished with her, didn't i?
Robert Epstein
cupcake wrote:
good point. that is jen's substitute self, having disowned the one she's
currently
inhabiting.
robert
Robert Epstein
Jen wrote:
you should understand samsara a little better,
get your face right into it
instead of pushing it away.
robert
Robert Epstein
Jen wrote:
And what about all this?
Is it still here?
Who are you talking to?
Robert
Jonathan Jennings
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
Yes but I'm trying to remember why that didn't seem like such a big favour
in the end.
Robert Epstein
Jen wrote:
yes, and that is its continuous nature -
why does it keep doing that
only to desperately struggle to get back to 'purity'?
maybe it is trying to create enlightenment within manifestation,
rather than 'get back to where it once belonged'. ?
> Buddha's nirvana is abidance in
> this beingness that is there before language and concepts.
and also becomes immanent empty enlightened spontaneity
within language and concepts.
Robert
cupcake
> Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is Love)
>
> From: "Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net>
> Reply to: [1]"Jonathan Jennings"
> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 02:18:08 +0100
> Newsgroups:
> [2]alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,
> [3]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [4]alt.zen
> Followup to: [5]newsgroups
> References:
> [7]<NYKo9.471$q9....@news.more.net>
>
>"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >
>> > Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is Love)
>> >
>> > From: "Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net>
>> > Reply to: [1]"Jonathan Jennings"
>> > Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 01:36:32 +0100
>> > Newsgroups:
>> > [2]alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,
>> > [3]talk.religion.buddhism,
>> > [4]alt.zen
>> > Followup to: [5]newsgroups
>> > References:
>> > [6]<anvsss$i9js1$2...@ID-103701.news.dfncis.de>
>> > [7]<GKKo9.470$q9....@news.more.net>
>> >
>> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >> > Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is
>Love)
>> >> >
>> >> > From: "Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net>
>> >> > Reply to: [1]"Jonathan Jennings"
>> >> > Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 01:19:18 +0100
>> >> > Newsgroups:
>> >> > [2]alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,
>> >> > [3]talk.religion.buddhism,
>> >> > [4]alt.zen
>> >> > Followup to: [5]newsgroups
>> >> > References:
>> >> > [6]<anv27s$hpms1$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de>
>> >> > [7]<hdEo9.461$q9....@news.more.net>
>> >> >
>> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was
>> >Re:
>> >> >War
>> >> >> >is
>> >> >> >> >> >Love)
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > From: "Jen" <ish...@netzero.net>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Reply to: [1]"Jen"
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:49:04 -0400
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Newsgroups:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > [3]alt.zen
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Followup to: [4]newsgroups
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > References:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > [5]<anutcj$hukeh$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > [6]<4UCo9.455$q9....@news.more.net>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >"Anders Honore" <anders...@get2net.dk> wrote in
>> >> >message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jen <ish...@netzero.net> skrev i en
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >nyhedsmeddelelse:antrvr$hgh4o$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote
>in
>> >> >message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
prolly cuz yu don't know how ta handle women, jonathan
Jonathan Jennings
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
I could give you references of plenty of women who were happy to be handled
by me but I think the key is that they were normal - relatively
cupcake
> Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is Love)
>
> From: "Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net>
> Reply to: [1]"Jonathan Jennings"
> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 02:38:29 +0100
> Newsgroups:
> [2]alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,
> [3]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [4]alt.zen
> Followup to: [5]newsgroups
> References:
> [7]<SCLo9.472$q9....@news.more.net>
>
>"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >
>> > Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is Love)
>> >
>> > From: "Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net>
>> > Reply to: [1]"Jonathan Jennings"
>> > Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 02:18:08 +0100
>> > Newsgroups:
>> > [2]alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,
>> > [3]talk.religion.buddhism,
>> > [4]alt.zen
>> > Followup to: [5]newsgroups
>> > References:
>> > [6]<anvtu6$i2b8k$1...@ID-103701.news.dfncis.de>
>> > [7]<NYKo9.471$q9....@news.more.net>
>> >
>> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >> > Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is
>Love)
>> >> >
>> >> > From: "Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net>
>> >> > Reply to: [1]"Jonathan Jennings"
>> >> > Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 01:36:32 +0100
>> >> > Newsgroups:
>> >> > [2]alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,
>> >> > [3]talk.religion.buddhism,
>> >> > [4]alt.zen
>> >> > Followup to: [5]newsgroups
>> >> > References:
>> >> > [6]<anvsss$i9js1$2...@ID-103701.news.dfncis.de>
>> >> > [7]<GKKo9.470$q9....@news.more.net>
>> >> >
>> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is
>> >Love)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > From: "Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net>
>> >> >> > Reply to: [1]"Jonathan Jennings"
>> >> >> > Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 01:19:18 +0100
>> >> >> > Newsgroups:
>> >> >> > [2]alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,
>> >> >> > [3]talk.religion.buddhism,
>> >> >> > [4]alt.zen
>> >> >> > Followup to: [5]newsgroups
>> >> >> > References:
>> >> >> > [6]<anv27s$hpms1$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de>
>> >> >> > [7]<hdEo9.461$q9....@news.more.net>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee-
>was
>> >> >Re:
>> >> >> >War
>> >> >> >> >is
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Love)
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > From: "Jen" <ish...@netzero.net>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Reply to: [1]"Jen"
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:49:04 -0400
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Newsgroups:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > [3]alt.zen
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Followup to: [4]newsgroups
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > References:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>[5]<anutcj$hukeh$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > [6]<4UCo9.455$q9....@news.more.net>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >"Anders Honore" <anders...@get2net.dk> wrote
>in
>> >> >> >message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >>
>>
>.
>..
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jen <ish...@netzero.net> skrev i en
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >nyhedsmeddelelse:antrvr$hgh4o$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net>
>wrote
>> >in
>> >> >> >message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >>
jan's a "space cadet"! -- ya gotta handle a space cadet
like a space cadet, you idiot!
Robert Epstein
Jonathan Jennings wrote:
Jonothan,
I'm happy to have someone pop in and defend Patanjali.
Robert
Jonathan Jennings
"Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote
> Jonathan Jennings wrote:
> > "cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote
> > > Jen wrote:
> > > >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote
Normally I'd be happy for someone to be happy that I'd popped in to defend
Patanjali but unfortunately, ten months ago, from the Pali Canon, I
discovered that the Buddha was grossly deluded in various ways (as per a
recent post). Because the Buddha rambled on for 45 years, he managed to give
this away whereas the Patanjali Yoga Sutras are so terse that he didn't (or
at least if he did, I haven't put enough effort into figuring how yet) but
all I was doing was pointing out the similarity between what they taught.
For all I know, they could both have been grossly deluded (and not just the
Buddha). I wouldn't defend Patanjali by comparing him 'to' the Buddha
though - only 'with'.
Jonathan
Jonathan Jennings
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
Well unfortunately, I'm not very good at doing that. For instance, I was in
Jan's town last week (Birmingham) walking down the main street and I got
bothered by this Scientologist so I told him that unfortunately, I'd read
L.Ron.Hubbard's book 'Dianetics' and that it was tripe (or somesuch word).
He had the audacity to say "Didn't you understand it then" ? Unfortunately,
I just laughed instead of being able to think of any riposte.
Birmingham is full of bothersome vermin that no-one ever rounds up and takes
away and as I was walking back along the street, I got collared by someone
else trying to shove a leaflet into my hand which he couldn't because I kept
my hands behind my back while I worked out what he was promoting. He was
another one so this time I avoided getting sucked into conversation and just
told him I'd read the book 'Dianetics' and then put my fingers to my lips
and flapped them up and down making a 'bibbling' sound as I wanderedf off.
He didn't look very 'handled'.
cupcake
> Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is Love)
>
> Reply to: [1]"Jonathan Jennings"
> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 11:03:11 +0100
> Newsgroups:
> [2]alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,
> [3]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [4]alt.zen
> Followup to: [5]newsgroups
> References:
> [6]<anv27s$hpms1$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de>
> [7]<hdEo9.461$q9....@news.more.net>
> [9]<3DA39D45...@verizon.net>
>
>"Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote
>> Jonathan Jennings wrote:
>> > "cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote
>> > > Jen wrote:
>> > > >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote
>> > > >> Jen wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Jen wrote:
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> > > >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> > > >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> > > >> >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >> > Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was
>Re:
>> > War
>> > > >is
>> > > >> >> >Love)
>> > > >> >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >> > From: "Jen" <ish...@netzero.net>
>> > > >> >> >> >> > Reply to: [1]"Jen"
>> > > >> >> >> >> > Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:49:04 -0400
>> > > >> >> >> >> > Newsgroups:
>> > > >> >> >> >> > [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
>> > > >> >> >> >> > [3]alt.zen
>> > > >> >> >> >> > Followup to: [4]newsgroups
>> > > >> >> >> >> > References:
>> > > >> >> >> >> > [5]<anutcj$hukeh$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de>
>> > > >> >> >> >> > [6]<4UCo9.455$q9....@news.more.net>
>> > > >> >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> > > >> >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> > > >> >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >"Anders Honore" <anders...@get2net.dk> wrote in
>> > message
>> > > >> >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Jen <ish...@netzero.net> skrev i en
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> > nyhedsmeddelelse:antrvr$hgh4o$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de...
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in
>> > message
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >
well, jonathan, there are lots of people who have views
that are similar to Gotama The Buddha's -- i mean, if
yu put 100 monkies, tapping away at typewriters for
100,000 years, i bet they would type Patanjali's 'Yoga Sutra',
too!
so, what's yer point? huh?
Robert Epstein
in any case, it might be fruitful to discuss your findings on the buddha's
contradictions,
and also look at patanjali, who, deluded or not,
was very clear in what he was saying and did it somewhat systematically.
robert
================
Robert Epstein
amongst proslytizers,
and scientologiests can be a bothesome lot.
I forgive you!
Robert
============
Jonathan Jennings
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote > >> > > >> >> well, just by way of
> well, jonathan, there are lots of people who have views
> that are similar to Gotama The Buddha's -- i mean, if
> yu put 100 monkies, tapping away at typewriters for
> 100,000 years....
OK. I see you're describing t.r.b
> ...i bet they would type Patanjali's 'Yoga Sutra',
> too!
No. They'd never manage that without my help
> so, what's yer point? huh?
Well - my little fluff-bucket - I was simply correcting Robert's reasonable
but erroneous assumption.
cupcake
> Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is Love)
>
> From: "Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net>
> Reply to: [1]"Jonathan Jennings"
o.k., listen, jonathan, -- this is a whole new topic
here:
yu and a few other people have intrigued me about
the possible reconciliation between hinduism and
buddhism;
so, i want yu to meet up with Jen, in some of these
posts that are going on, and see if yu two can
develop some kind of a discussion, from the "hindu"
perspective that might help me to see if there
is any room for compromise, here (because, i'm
not at all clear where the divergence is once
we get to these subject of "Nirvana"
Jonathan Jennings
"Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote
> while alrighty then!
>
> in any case, it might be fruitful to discuss your findings on the buddha's
> contradictions,
Hey Robert - very wise ! - It's always fruitful to discuss my findings :)
The gist of one of my objections to what the Buddha taught has to do with
the various identical texts about the projection of the 'mind-made' body
such that one can 'stroke the sun'. If one followed the instructions and
'created' a mind-made' body with the same dimensions as the physical body
and projected it to the counterpart of the sun, one could not 'stroke' the
edge of the sun because the 'edge' would be hundreds of miles wide. It only
seems as if you could looking at it from down here where it look likes a
light-bulb with a discrete edge to it. In other words, he was deluded while
at the same time claiming to be the master of getting rid of delusion.
The Buddha claimed this 'astral projection' 'power' among a bunch of powers
and that he also used it and the others after his liberation. It would be
almost acceptable if you could shove this fact into a seperate compartment
but you can't because the whole theoretical superstructure to the Dhamma is
supposed to be have been verified by the Buddha's experience. E.g. every
time someone dies and the departed's friends want to know of his post-death
fate - the Buddha uses his 'powers' to give them an answer as to what realm
the person now occupies etc. The same with their 'kamma' etc. etc. You can
go virtually nowhere in the Pali Canon before you come across the 'powers'
that were necessary to 'verify' some part of the theoretical structure
(including dependent origination and suchlike 'core' items).
To me - the fault in the Buddha's thinking is like this - I would
distinguish between experience (touches, tastes, smells, pictures, sounds
etc.) and inference although normal life involves a blend of the two and
both conscious and unconscious inference. For instance, one assumes that
tarmac will support one's weight and not 'melt' even though the inference
might never be conscious. To be able to figure out that although you appear
to be stroking the sun (and suchlike 'deva dung'), this might be a false
inference from experience, you need to be able to keep thinking rationally,
otherwise you just fall into a kind of 'naive realism' where you just take
the world to be organized precisely the same as your experiences. The Buddha
is a bit averse towards thinking rationally as a way of discovering the
truth about anything as it is and the result is that he ends up in a world
of sun-stroking and devas and ludicrous realms where he can check people's
kamma etc.
I think one reason for this 'thought-aversion' is the bliss that arises from
suppressing conscious thought and people prefer pleasure to the truth. I
think another is the longstanding Indian belief in meditation as a means to
knowledge - that one can come to know 'new stuff' simply by meditation. I
think another is that plenty of people have no concept of what might
constitute 'sufficient proof' of whatever proposition. The Buddha is
particularly lame and cult-leaderish in this department and his arguments
usually break down to something fairly crude like - I'm the most liberated
one and I've got the most experience and if you'd had the experiences I've
had, you'd see the world the way I do (which ignores the fact that the
problem isn't with what he has or hasn't 'experienced' but with what he has
'inferred' from it e.g. that he strokes the sun.
> and also look at patanjali, who, deluded or not,
> was very clear in what he was saying and did it somewhat systematically.
As far as I can see, Patanjali doesn't bother with a vast theoretical
structure and cosmology derived from his using a load of 'supernatural
powers' and he regards all these 'supernatural powers' as obstacles in the
way of liberation whereas the Buddha used them after his claimed
'liberation' from greed, doo-dah and delusion (although he was still
sun-stroking hence still deluded hence not liberated hence a bit of a joke).
Jonathan
cupcake
> Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is Love)
>
> Newsgroups:
> [2]alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,
> [3]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [4]alt.zen
> Followup to: [5]newsgroups
> References:
> [6]<anv27s$hpms1$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de>
> [7]<hdEo9.461$q9....@news.more.net>
> [9]<3DA39D45...@verizon.net>
> [10]<ao13c2$iai6p$1...@ID-103701.news.dfncis.de>
> [11]<3DA461F0...@verizon.net>
well, this is not The Buddha that i know, but i'm still
willing to give yu the benefit of the doubt --
please continue :)
>Jonathan
>
>>
>> robert
>>
>> ================
>>
>> Jonathan Jennings wrote:
>>
>> > "Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote
>> > > Jonathan Jennings wrote:
>> > > > "cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote
>> > > > > Jen wrote:
>> > > > > >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote
>> > > > > >> Jen wrote:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> > > > > >> >[8][9][12]news:xNDo9.459$q9....@news.more.net...
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> Jen wrote:
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> > > > > >> >> >[7][9][10][13]news:5kDo9.458$q9....@news.more.net...
>> > > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> > > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> > > > > >> >> >> >[7][8][10][11][14]news:hdDo9.456$q9....@news.more.net...
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> >
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> > Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee-
>was
>> > Re:
>> > > > War
>> > > > > >is
>> > > > > >> >> >Love)
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> >
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> > From: "Jen" <ish...@netzero.net>
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> > Reply to: [1]"Jen"
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> > Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:49:04 -0400
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> > Newsgroups:
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> > [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> > [3]alt.zen
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> > Followup to: [4]newsgroups
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> > References:
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> >
>[5]<anutcj$hukeh$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de>
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> > [6]<4UCo9.455$q9....@news.more.net>
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> >
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> > > > > >> >> >> >>
>>[7][8][9][11][12][15]news:4UCo9.455$q9....@news.more.net...
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> >> Jen wrote:
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >"Anders Honore" <anders...@get2net.dk> wrote
>in
>> > > > message
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> >>
>> > > > >[10][8][9][10][12][13][16]news:Mjyo9.41$4d1....@news.get2net.dk...
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Jen <ish...@netzero.net> skrev i en
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> > > > nyhedsmeddelelse:antrvr$hgh4o$1...@ID-163374.news.dfncis.de...
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote
>in
>> > > > message
>> > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> > > > [11][9][10][11][13][14][17]news:3DA26D8B...@verizon.net...
Jonathan Jennings
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote
Well although Jen seems like an amiable young chickabiddy, I no longer want
to reconcile hinduism and Buddhism because I've come to believe that the
Buddha was deluded. As far as I can tell, the Buddha was an cult-leader who
wanted his new cult to be doctrinally 'distinctive' when compared with the
other long-dead factions of his day so he warbled endlessly about the 'self'
and views about it. He made the goal (or similar) of Buddhism 'nibbana'
which he described by various metaphors whereas certain Indian schools make
knowledge of the 'Real Self' the ultimate goal but describe it using exactly
the same metaphors.
In a way, this is not surprising in that what everyone wants is a variety of
EXPERIENCE and if you ask people for an 'experiential' wish-list they're
likely to have similar items on them like 'peace' and 'no more thirst' and
'Truth' and suchlike. The Buddha says you will have the desired experience
on liberation - certain Indian schools also on liberation or on the
knowledge of the 'Self' but these are just technical details. All anyone
really gives a rat's ass about is 'experience'.
cupcake
> Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is Love)
>
> From: "Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net>
> Newsgroups:
> [2]talk.religion.buddhism
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup
> References:
precisely! -- and, i know what i have experienced,
over the past 30, or more, years; and, it has all
been at the hands of the "school" of Gotama The Buddha.
...so, what shud i do, now, jonathan, huh?
Jonathan Jennings
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote
> > From: "Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net>
OK :) My memory of what the Buddha taught has fallen off a bit (mercifully)
but for instance - the Five Khandhas - inexcusable. He starts out
arbitrarily carving up various aspects of the human body and perception and
goes on to act as if the resulting five bits are in some way fundamental to
the entire universe. He then subdivides these five ways into those related
to the eye, ear, nose, tongue and body. What about all of the other senses
that we and other species have like balance ? or bats' echolocation ? or
dolphins' echolocation ? or what enables animals to migrate or detect the
earth's magnetic field and so forth. It's totally anthropocentric and again
confuses personal experience with the structure of the universe.
Jonathan Jennings
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
Just 'drop' it (tee hee)
cupcake
> Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is Love)
>
> From: "Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net>
> Reply to: [1]"Jonathan Jennings"
> Newsgroups:
> [2]alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,
> [3]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [4]alt.zen
> Followup to: [5]newsgroups
> References:
> [7]<Bl4p9.488$q9....@news.more.net>
he's merely trying to designate some indicators, to help
yu realize that it's all a crock'a shit, yu fucking moron
cupcake
> Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is Love)
>
> From: "Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net>
> Reply to: [1]"Jonathan Jennings"
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:45:06 +0100
> Newsgroups:
> [2]talk.religion.buddhism
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup
> References:
> [4]<ao2kcc$igc2v$2...@ID-103701.news.dfncis.de>
> [5]<lD4p9.489$q9....@news.more.net>
>
>"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
right! -- why? -- juzt so yu can turn around
and dawg me up the butt?
Jonathan Jennings
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
Well it's perfectly understandable that you should want to make excuses for
him and try and hide behind some vague and fluffy "designate some
indicators" but he seemed pretty damn specific in his autistic - the whole
world is like my experience - kind of way.
Jonathan Jennings
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
Well since I'm not desperately ugly..... ;)
cupcake
> Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is Love)
>
> From: "Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net>
> Reply to: [1]"Jonathan Jennings"
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 03:07:48 +0100
> Newsgroups:
> [2]alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,
> [3]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [4]alt.zen
> Followup to: [5]newsgroups
> References:
> [7]<h15p9.492$q9....@news.more.net>
>
>"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
jonathan, yu shudn't be confusing "autistic" with Bliss
cupcake
> Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is Love)
>
> From: "Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net>
> Reply to: [1]"Jonathan Jennings"
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 03:10:06 +0100
> Newsgroups:
> [2]talk.religion.buddhism
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup
> References:
> [4]<ao2m6m$irt57$1...@ID-103701.news.dfncis.de>
> [5]<W35p9.493$q9....@news.more.net>
>
>"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>> >
>> > Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is Love)
>> >
>> > From: "Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net>
>> > Reply to: [1]"Jonathan Jennings"
>> > Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:45:06 +0100
>> > Newsgroups:
>> > [2]talk.religion.buddhism
>> > Followup to: [3]newsgroup
>> > References:
>> > [4]<ao2kcc$igc2v$2...@ID-103701.news.dfncis.de>
>> > [5]<lD4p9.489$q9....@news.more.net>
>> >
>> >"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
who the fuck cares! -- i got plenty'a guys who
are on *this* side'a the atlantic!
Boris Fuller
>"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote
>
>
>> well, jonathan, there are lots of people who have views
>> that are similar to Gotama The Buddha's -- i mean, if
>> yu put 100 monkies, tapping away at typewriters for
>> 100,000 years....
>>
>>
>
>OK. I see you're describing t.r.b
>
oook!
>
>
>
>> ...i bet they would type Patanjali's 'Yoga Sutra',
>> too!
>>
>>
>
>No. They'd never manage that without my help
>
oook oook ooook !
>
>
>
>> so, what's yer point? huh?
>>
>>
>
>Well - my little fluff-bucket - I was simply correcting Robert's reasonable
>but erroneous assumption.
>
>
Boris
>
>
Ch'an Fu
ook ook ook oook oook oook ook ook ook
Boris Fuller
oooooooooooooook!
nee naw nee naww neeee naaaaaaw neeeeeeee naaaaaaaaaaw
screeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeech
nick nick nick nick nick nick
oook?
Boris
Ch'an Fu
ok
Boris Fuller
ooook ok!
jonathans wubbish!
...but who the fuck's patanjali?
Boris
Jonathan Jennings
"Boris Fuller" <orour...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3DA5EDB7...@hotmail.com...
Dead Indian sage dude and codifier of one the the main Indian 'philosophical
schools' - the Yoga school.
Ch'an Fu
ooook ooook big ol ooookoookooookooook ooookooookooook
ooookooookoook oookoookooook oookooookoook
ooook dood
Ch'an Fu
HAHAHAHAHA! you said,
"ooookoookoook oookoookooook ooookoookoook oook!"
Boris Fuller
yoga dude huh?
so what does he know from shinola?
Boris
Evelyn Ruut
"Ch'an Fu" <Cha...@mail.metta.lk> wrote in message
news:3DA5F79C...@mail.metta.lk...
>
> ooook ooook big ol ooookoookooookooook ooookooookooook
> ooookooookoook oookoookooook oookooookoook
> ooook dood
Answers like this: Why t.r.b. is getting so BORING lately :-)
Ev.
Boris Fuller
but he wasn't talking to dolphins or bats
he was talking to a load of stupid humans
with bags of accumulated socially-determined 'knowledges'
which were messing up their practice.
you are taking it too literally
get gileht to explain it to you...again.
Boris
>
>
Tang Huyen
Boris Fuller wrote:
> Jonathan Jennings wrote:
>
> >OK :) My memory of what the Buddha taught has fallen off a bit (mercifully)
> >but for instance - the Five Khandhas - inexcusable. He starts out
> >arbitrarily carving up various aspects of the human body and perception and
> >goes on to act as if the resulting five bits are in some way fundamental to
> >the entire universe. He then subdivides these five ways into those related
> >to the eye, ear, nose, tongue and body. What about all of the other senses
> >that we and other species have like balance ? or bats' echolocation ? or
> >dolphins' echolocation ? or what enables animals to migrate or detect the
> >earth's magnetic field and so forth. It's totally anthropocentric and again
> >confuses personal experience with the structure of the universe.
>
> but he wasn't talking to dolphins or bats
> he was talking to a load of stupid humans
> with bags of accumulated socially-determined 'knowledges'
> which were messing up their practice.
>
> you are taking it too literally
> get gileht to explain it to you...again.
>
> Boris
Sure, he was talking to a load of stupid humans with bags of accumulated
socially-determined 'knowledges', which were messing up not just their practice
but also their lives, idiot.
Their practice would be worth diddly squat if it didn't reflect in their lives.
It would be most pathetic if they could end their suffering in their practice
but not in their lives.
Tang Huyen
Jonathan Jennings
"Boris Fuller" <orour...@hotmail.com>
> Jonathan Jennings wrote:
I was responding to Cupcake's request for further instances of the Buddha's
delusional beliefs and explaining why they arose - In roughly the same way
in which some Old Testament author manages to write a universal creation
which only included species he happens to be able to see from his window -
assuming the vast unknown resembles the small known. It's not my fault the
Buddha claimed to be 'omniscient' and then fell so far short.
> you are taking it too literally
I'm taking it too literally *for you*. Returning to your paragraph above -
Buddhist practice is 'for' liberation (as described or defined by the
Buddha) within a 'reality' described by the Buddha. If the 'reality' is
misdescribed then the 'liberation' could be misdescribed or fantasized etc.
and the 'practice' supposed to lead to it a huge waste of time. For
instance, the Buddha's 'liberation' includes liberation from delusion and
believing he was flitting round the universe with his 'mind-made body' and
'stroking the sun' is a delusion which demonstrates that he wasn't
'liberated' according to his own definition of 'liberation'.
You say I'm taking it too literally but I would say that *you people* can
only remain 'Buddhists' by turning a blind eye to most of what there's every
reason to believe that the Buddha taught.
> get gileht to explain it to you...again.
I've read too many of his posts in this life already.
Jonathan
Lee Dillion
> "Boris Fuller" <orour...@hotmail.com>
>> you are taking it too literally
Hi Jonathan. Meant to say hello earlier.
> I'm taking it too literally *for you*. Returning to your paragraph
> above - Buddhist practice is 'for' liberation (as described or
> defined by the Buddha) within a 'reality' described by the Buddha. If
> the 'reality' is misdescribed then the 'liberation' could be
> misdescribed or fantasized etc. and the 'practice' supposed to lead
> to it a huge waste of time.
Yes, I think that possibility always exists and should give pause to
anyone predisposed to uncritical belief.
> For instance, the Buddha's 'liberation' includes liberation from
> delusion and believing he was flitting round the universe with his
> 'mind-made body' and 'stroking the sun' is a delusion which
> demonstrates that he wasn't 'liberated' according to his own
> definition of 'liberation'.
I agree and thus I use a variety of interpretive approaches to
trivialize these types of passages. :)
--
Lee
Jonathan Jennings
"Lee Dillion" <leedi...@cableone.net> wrote
> Jonathan Jennings wrote:
> > "Boris Fuller" <orour...@hotmail.com>
>
> >> you are taking it too literally
>
> Hi Jonathan. Meant to say hello earlier.
Likewise - Hi Lee.
> > I'm taking it too literally *for you*. Returning to your paragraph
> > above - Buddhist practice is 'for' liberation (as described or
> > defined by the Buddha) within a 'reality' described by the Buddha. If
> > the 'reality' is misdescribed then the 'liberation' could be
> > misdescribed or fantasized etc. and the 'practice' supposed to lead
> > to it a huge waste of time.
>
> Yes, I think that possibility always exists and should give pause to
> anyone predisposed to uncritical belief.
>
> > For instance, the Buddha's 'liberation' includes liberation from
> > delusion and believing he was flitting round the universe with his
> > 'mind-made body' and 'stroking the sun' is a delusion which
> > demonstrates that he wasn't 'liberated' according to his own
> > definition of 'liberation'.
>
> I agree and thus I use a variety of interpretive approaches to
> trivialize these types of passages. :)
LOL (maybe when I've liberated you you won't need to).
Boris Fuller
thank you, my dear tang-ential
...but isn't that rather obvious?
"pathetic"?
it looks like common practice from here!
Boris
>
>
Boris Fuller
>"Boris Fuller" <orour...@hotmail.com>
>
>
>>Jonathan Jennings wrote:
>>
>>
>>>OK :) My memory of what the Buddha taught has fallen off a bit
>>>
>>>
>(mercifully)
>
>
>>>but for instance - the Five Khandhas - inexcusable. He starts out
>>>arbitrarily carving up various aspects of the human body and perception and goes on to act as if the resulting five bits are in some way fundamental to the entire universe. He then subdivides these five ways into those related to the eye, ear, nose, tongue and body. What about all of the other senses that we and other species have like balance ? or bats' echolocation ? or
>>>dolphins' echolocation ? or what enables animals to migrate or detect the
>>>earth's magnetic field and so forth. It's totally anthropocentric and again confuses personal experience with the structure of the universe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>but he wasn't talking to dolphins or bats
>>he was talking to a load of stupid humans
>>with bags of accumulated socially-determined 'knowledges'
>>which were messing up their practice.
>>
>>
>
>I was responding to Cupcake's request for further instances of the Buddha's
>delusional beliefs and explaining why they arose - In roughly the same way
>in which some Old Testament author manages to write a universal creation
>which only included species he happens to be able to see from his window -
>
so? how does this negate the process?
>assuming the vast unknown resembles the small known. It's not my fault the
>Buddha claimed to be 'omniscient' and then fell so far short.
>
what makes you think that the buddha "believed" this?
...and it wasn't skillfull means?
>
>
>
>>you are taking it too literally
>>
>>
>
>I'm taking it too literally *for you*.
>
you aren't doing anything "for" me, jonathan
>Returning to your paragraph above -
>Buddhist practice is 'for' liberation (as described or defined by the
>Buddha) within a 'reality' described by the Buddha. If the 'reality' is
>misdescribed then the 'liberation' could be misdescribed or fantasized etc.
>and the 'practice' supposed to lead to it a huge waste of time. For
>instance, the Buddha's 'liberation' includes liberation from delusion and
>believing he was flitting round the universe with his 'mind-made body' and
>'stroking the sun' is a delusion which demonstrates that he wasn't
>'liberated' according to his own definition of 'liberation'.
>
yes i read that the first time.
couldn't it be figurative?
or that he is merely using language
and ideas that his students were familiar with?
anyhow, the real question is
- is it relevant now?
>
>You say I'm taking it too literally but I would say that *you people* can
>only remain 'Buddhists' by turning a blind eye to most of what there's every
>reason to believe that the Buddha taught.
>
fortunately i don't have any hangups
about what the buddha taught or didn't teach
...but i'm interested in hearing
how you benefit from distancing yourself like this?
>
>
>
>>get gileht to explain it to you...again.
>>
>>
>
>I've read too many of his posts in this life already
>
>Jonathan
>
Boris
>
>
Lee Dillion
> "Lee Dillion" <leedi...@cableone.net> wrote
>>> For instance, the Buddha's 'liberation' includes liberation from
>>> delusion and believing he was flitting round the universe with
>>> his 'mind-made body' and 'stroking the sun' is a delusion which
>>> demonstrates that he wasn't 'liberated' according to his own
>>> definition of 'liberation'.
>> I agree and thus I use a variety of interpretive approaches to
>> trivialize these types of passages. :)
> LOL (maybe when I've liberated you you won't need to).
Well, I'm waiting. I was praying that the I Amma of the Whole Damna
Jamma, the One of Us All, was going to do it, but she fell asleep to
dream again, so you are the only hope I have left. Do your thing.
--
Lee
Jonathan Jennings
"Lee Dillion" <leedi...@cableone.net> wrote
Your previous humorous response amply (if tacitly) demonstrates that I've
already succeeded and my thing's been done.
Jonathan
Jonathan Jennings
"Boris Fuller" <orour...@hotmail.com> wrote
It doesn't affirm or negate it - it just explains what the 'point' was in
the original discussion between me and Cupcake (i.e. before you wanted it to
be about something else). I returned to your paragraph later anyway.
> >assuming the vast unknown resembles the small known. It's not my fault
the
> >Buddha claimed to be 'omniscient' and then fell so far short.
> >
> what makes you think that the buddha "believed" this?
> ...and it wasn't skillfull means?
The suttas (and their internal coherence and apparently 'singular voice').
I'm approaching Buddhism from the outside and apart from not wanting to sign
up if the Buddha turned out to be delusional, I have no vested interest in
whether he believed it or not whereas you would appear to have more of one.
> >>you are taking it too literally
> >>
> >I'm taking it too literally *for you*.
> >
> you aren't doing anything "for" me, jonathan
Pah !
> >Returning to your paragraph above -
> >Buddhist practice is 'for' liberation (as described or defined by the
> >Buddha) within a 'reality' described by the Buddha. If the 'reality' is
> >misdescribed then the 'liberation' could be misdescribed or fantasized
etc.
> >and the 'practice' supposed to lead to it a huge waste of time. For
> >instance, the Buddha's 'liberation' includes liberation from delusion and
> >believing he was flitting round the universe with his 'mind-made body'
and
> >'stroking the sun' is a delusion which demonstrates that he wasn't
> >'liberated' according to his own definition of 'liberation'.
> >
> yes i read that the first time.
> couldn't it be figurative?
No. If you read the DN2 or similar you'll find it's perfectly explicit with
a method and description and the whole works.
> or that he is merely using language
> and ideas that his students were familiar with?
No. There's no reason to believe they are familiar with it before he tells
them about it.
> anyhow, the real question is
> - is it relevant now?
Brilliant ! 1) skillful means 2) figurative 3) using familiar language 4)
Is it relevant now ? Would there be any end to the new possible get-out
clauses you could add if I said "Yes" ? (Yes - it purports to be about how
the universe was/is/will be organized)
> >You say I'm taking it too literally but I would say that *you people* can
> >only remain 'Buddhists' by turning a blind eye to most of what there's
every
> >reason to believe that the Buddha taught.
> >
> fortunately i don't have any hangups
> about what the buddha taught or didn't teach
>
> ...but i'm interested in hearing
> how you benefit from distancing yourself like this?
If I provisionally accepted that the words attributed to the Buddha were
near enough true, it would put me to a hell of a lot of inconvenience
because as a serious-minded type of geezer - I'd have to start taking up the
'practice'.
Jonathan
Lee Dillion
Holy Schmoley Jonathan. Your so good, I didn't even feel the pain. I
should have you talk to my dentist.
--
Lee
Ch'an Fu
Jonathan Jennings wrote:
<otherwhere>
> If I provisionally accepted that the words attributed to the Buddha were
> near enough true, it would put me to a hell of a lot of inconvenience
> because as a serious-minded type of geezer - I'd have to start taking up the
> 'practice'.
so your objective is to prove
that they're not "true" ?
ie: reliable, workable, leading
to cessation of suffering?
or simply to skip such a silly
exercise and deny the whole thing?
buddha said not to believe him -
to find out for yourself.
words are just words, regardless.
there's not a single
'concept' in all of it...
(unless you form them, that is...)
Jonathan Jennings
>
> <otherwhere>
>
> > If I provisionally accepted that the words attributed to the Buddha were
> > near enough true, it would put me to a hell of a lot of inconvenience
> > because as a serious-minded type of geezer - I'd have to start taking up
the
> > 'practice'.
>
> so your objective is to prove
> that they're not "true" ?
> ie: reliable, workable, leading
> to cessation of suffering?
Not necessarily. I would love to find some teacher and teaching that I could
find no falsity in (and would have loved the Buddha's teaching to have been
that way when I came into t.r.b almost two years ago following a crossposted
thread here). One thing I would assume (from previous experience) about a
teaching that is true is that it would be simpler (and simpler to follow)
than one that was false e.g. the heliocentric model of the solar system is a
whole lot simpler than the geocentric one which is made more complicated
than it needs be on account of resisting the consequences of the other one.
> or simply to skip such a silly
> exercise and deny the whole thing?
I don't consider it would be a 'silly exercise' to determine whether the
words attributed to the Buddha were true or not. If you picked up a road
atlas in a shop, you might expect most of the pages to be maps of places you
didn't know but if the maps of all the places you did know were hopelessly
inaccurate, it would be downright stupid to then buy the atlas because all
the other pages might be right.
> buddha said not to believe him -
> to find out for yourself.
That's a brilliant scam ! - advise people to detain themselves for an
indefinite number of 'lifetimes' following the methods you prescribe
according your whacky supernatural world-view until they agree you're right.
They'll never see through it !
> words are just words, regardless.
> there's not a single
> 'concept' in all of it...
> (unless you form them, that is...)
An even better scam ! My truth is 'inexpressable' so be content to just lie
back while I shaft you with it. As Cupcake would say "Kherisssttt!!!!" Why
assume that the Buddha was anything but another of many many deluded and/or
fraudulent gurus in the first place ? What does he say anywhere that is so
impressive that you have to follow his methodology or buy into this
'wordless, conceptless' stuff ?
Jonathan
Jonathan Jennings
Thanks Lee - Clearly most people tacitly accept that I've already succeeded
although there are bound to be a few stragglers like Tang, Ch'an and Boris
who feel compelled to fake up some token show of resistance.
Jonathan
Lee Dillion
> "Lee Dillion" <leedi...@cableone.net> wrote
>>Holy Schmoley Jonathan. Your so good, I didn't even feel the pain. I
>>should have you talk to my dentist.
>
> Thanks Lee - Clearly most people tacitly accept that I've already succeeded
> although there are bound to be a few stragglers like Tang, Ch'an and Boris
> who feel compelled to fake up some token show of resistance.
Well, we would lose our Buddh-Lite membership if we didn't argue a
little. But in the end, you are irresistable. Like Jonathan of Borg.
--
Lee
Jonathan Jennings
"Lee Dillion" <leedi...@cableone.net> wrote
> Jonathan Jennings wrote:
> > "Lee Dillion" <leedi...@cableone.net> wrote
>
> >>Holy Schmoley Jonathan. Your so good, I didn't even feel the pain. I
> >>should have you talk to my dentist.
> >
> > Thanks Lee - Clearly most people tacitly accept that I've already
succeeded
> > although there are bound to be a few stragglers like Tang, Ch'an and
Boris
> > who feel compelled to fake up some token show of resistance.
>
> Well, we would lose our Buddh-Lite membership if we didn't argue a
> little.
True. And it reminds me of something I meant to point out to Tang when he
introduced <<...[he was] just playing along with the herd>> and
<<...reluctant accommodations to social reality in order to get his message
across.>> that the most beloved passage by the Buddh-Lite /
anti-supernaturalists is (part of) the Kalamas which was addressed to 'lay
people' so you could hardly say that the Buddha was trying to accommodate
himself to the ignorant's desire for supernaturalism when he left it out for
them but put it in more for his own monks.
> But in the end, you are irresistable.
Thanks. That's certainly the way I've always felt about myself and why I get
up each morning, look in the mirror and say "Down boy, it's only me"
> Like Jonathan of Borg.
Well that's how Dharmatroll used to refer to me too (though in relatrion to
'Hinduism') so I bet you're both aware of the same Sci-Fi references that
I'm not.
Jonathan
Lee Dillion
> "Lee Dillion" <leedi...@cableone.net> wrote
>>But in the end, you are irresistable.
>
> Thanks. That's certainly the way I've always felt about myself and why I get
> up each morning, look in the mirror and say "Down boy, it's only me"
I'm guessing that it takes real will power to pull yourself away from
that mirror. And I wouldn't be suprised if your mirror cries moonbeams
when you leave.
--
Lee
Jonathan Jennings
Ch'an Fu
Jonathan Jennings wrote:
>
> "Ch'an Fu" <Cha...@mail.metta.lk> wrote
> > Jonathan Jennings wrote:
> >
> > <otherwhere>
> >
> > > If I provisionally accepted that the words attributed to the Buddha were
> > > near enough true, it would put me to a hell of a lot of inconvenience
> > > because as a serious-minded type of geezer - I'd have to start taking up
> the
> > > 'practice'.
> >
> > so your objective is to prove
> > that they're not "true" ?
> > ie: reliable, workable, leading
> > to cessation of suffering?
>
> Not necessarily. I would love to find some teacher and teaching that I could
> find no falsity in (and would have loved the Buddha's teaching to have been
> that way when I came into t.r.b almost two years ago following a crossposted
> thread here). One thing I would assume (from previous experience) about a
> teaching that is true is that it would be simpler (and simpler to follow)
> than one that was false e.g. the heliocentric model of the solar system is a
> whole lot simpler than the geocentric one which is made more complicated
> than it needs be on account of resisting the consequences of the other one.
oooh - then it's LOGICAL falsity is it?
well, the path's not much for LOGIC, eh?
it just makes sense in the workings of mind.
you should check into an aristotelian hotel
if you want a logic feast.
> > or simply to skip such a silly
> > exercise and deny the whole thing?
>
> I don't consider it would be a 'silly exercise' to determine whether the
> words attributed to the Buddha were true or not. If you picked up a road
> atlas in a shop, you might expect most of the pages to be maps of places you
> didn't know but if the maps of all the places you did know were hopelessly
> inaccurate, it would be downright stupid to then buy the atlas because all
> the other pages might be right.
well, chum, if you wanna tackle it,
go right ahead. but you're saying that
u feel it's inaccurate to your knowledge,
so why bother?
> > buddha said not to believe him -
> > to find out for yourself.
>
> That's a brilliant scam ! - advise people to detain themselves for an
> indefinite number of 'lifetimes' following the methods you prescribe
> according your whacky supernatural world-view until they agree you're right.
> They'll never see through it !
<snort!> the methods <I> prescribe?
not hardly. <my> "whacky supernatural world-view"?
LOLOLOLOL
> > words are just words, regardless.
> > there's not a single
> > 'concept' in all of it...
> > (unless you form them, that is...)
>
> An even better scam ! My truth is 'inexpressable' so be content to just lie
> back while I shaft you with it. As Cupcake would say "Kherisssttt!!!!" Why
> assume that the Buddha was anything but another of many many deluded and/or
> fraudulent gurus in the first place ? What does he say anywhere that is so
> impressive that you have to follow his methodology or buy into this
> 'wordless, conceptless' stuff ?
>
> Jonathan
"my truth"? LOLOL! isn't that
quite an assumption?
hardly "mine" in't it?
why assume anything?
whatever - pete won't take
on your literalism, but he might
take on you. hahaha!
if you don't suffer, don't bother.
LOL! you said "buy into"!!
what's to buy or sell?
oh, jonathan - you're just a bundle
of joy! thanks for the fun.
Lee Dillion
Me?? Nah. No such abilities. Its actually been Jen, who then
communicates with the rest of us by mere knowingness. Oh, and she says
to clean the hair out of the drain.
--
Lee
Tang Huyen
Jonathan Jennings wrote:
Actually, you spilled your guts profusely on these boards, so Lee didn't need to
read minds.
Some Indians take the Hinduist teaching "You are That!" seriously and literally,
and think that they see God/Brahman when they look in the mirror.
I bet that Jen sees the One when she looks in the mirror, too.
Tang Huyen
Lee Dillion
Dang it Tang. I had two more feet of rope to let out.
--
Lee
Jonathan Jennings
You're wriggling worse than a worm in heat here and everyone knows what
they're like. NO its not LOGICAL falsity. The Buddha's belief that he could
'astral travel' and 'stroke the surface of the sun' is not a 'logical'
falsity. It's a delusion born of taking personal experience for universal
reality and especially 'bogus inference'.
It's like this - suppose someone climbs a high mountain and enters a cave
full of beetles and trains them to jump on hearing the word "Jump". Then he
chops their legs off and they cease to jump thus proving to him that cutting
the legs off beetles renders them deaf. When he comes back down the mountain
he tells everyone of this 'fact' and that there's no need to believe him
because they can test it for themselves by climbing the same mountain and
getting the same experience he did etc. It's not a LOGICAL falsity but one
of bogus inference and you don't have to repeat his experiment to figure
that out.
> > > or simply to skip such a silly
> > > exercise and deny the whole thing?
> >
> > I don't consider it would be a 'silly exercise' to determine whether the
> > words attributed to the Buddha were true or not. If you picked up a road
> > atlas in a shop, you might expect most of the pages to be maps of places
you
> > didn't know but if the maps of all the places you did know were
hopelessly
> > inaccurate, it would be downright stupid to then buy the atlas because
all
> > the other pages might be right.
>
> well, chum, if you wanna tackle it,
> go right ahead. but you're saying that
> u feel it's inaccurate to your knowledge,
> so why bother?
The Buddha's belief that he could 'astral travel' and 'stroke the surface of
the the sun' is inaccurate to more than my knowledge.
> > > buddha said not to believe him -
> > > to find out for yourself.
> >
> > That's a brilliant scam ! - advise people to detain themselves for an
> > indefinite number of 'lifetimes' following the methods you prescribe
> > according your whacky supernatural world-view until they agree you're
right.
> > They'll never see through it !
>
> <snort!> the methods <I> prescribe?
> not hardly. <my> "whacky supernatural world-view"?
> LOLOLOLOL
Well I originally wrote that putting 'the Buddha' in the relevant bits where
I later changed it to 'you' but for some reason, I felt that you were so
deeply asleep and so used to mechanically trotting out the platitude "the
buddha said not to believe him etc." that it would wake you up more and have
more of an impact if I rewrote it as though YOU were trying to pull the scam
personally.
That might seem unfair but I don't think so. For instance, my sister joined
a Christian cult for a while and used to say things like "It's all so
unfortunate that you're going to burn in hell for all eternity". No evidence
compelled her to subscribe to the cult and its beliefs - she chose to and
she chose one with as pernicious a set of beliefs as she had before she
joined but after joining she could stand to one side of them and put them
into the mouth of God instead of owning to them and taking personal
responsibility for them.
You choose to promulgate the Buddha's (what I call a...)...'scam' as being
somewhere between perfectly acceptable and good but then want to stand to
one side of it. L Ron Hubbard or anyone could have said the same. Don't
believe me - test everything I believe for yourself by coming along to the
meetings and reading all my books and being 'audited' etc. etc.
> > > words are just words, regardless.
> > > there's not a single
> > > 'concept' in all of it...
> > > (unless you form them, that is...)
> >
> > An even better scam ! My truth is 'inexpressable' so be content to just
lie
> > back while I shaft you with it. As Cupcake would say "Kherisssttt!!!!"
Why
> > assume that the Buddha was anything but another of many many deluded
and/or
> > fraudulent gurus in the first place ? What does he say anywhere that is
so
> > impressive that you have to follow his methodology or buy into this
> > 'wordless, conceptless' stuff ?
> >
> > Jonathan
>
> "my truth"? LOLOL! isn't that
> quite an assumption?
> hardly "mine" in't it?
See above for explanation of why I put it like that.
> why assume anything?
Because you couldn't even sit on a chair or walk on tarmac without assuming
that the chair would hold you up or that the tarmac wouldn't melt. You have
to make provisional assumptions just to get through life - even if most of
them are non-conscious. Besides which - in the case of the Buddha - it makes
a big practical difference to how a normal person would live if they thought
he was generally right or generally deluded.
> whatever - pete won't take
> on your literalism, but he might
> take on you. hahaha!
> if you don't suffer, don't bother.
That's a ludicrous, cruel and haughty thing to say and fairly typical of
Buddhists and partly why the Buddha-Lands are some of the most inhumane
shit-holes on earth. If God was operating a 'by their fruits shall ye know
them' basis - Buddhism would be damned. Most religions teach some version
of 'dukkha' but it's a huge leap from that to buying into the specific
guru's 'cure-all'.
> LOL! you said "buy into"!!
> what's to buy or sell?
<<...this 'wordless, conceptless' stuff ?>> Try to keep up !!
> oh, jonathan - you're just a bundle
> of joy! thanks for the fun.
My pleasure.
Jonathan
Jonathan Jennings
"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote
Well I was just recycling an old joke I liked about getting an erection when
I look in the mirror and having to say "Down boy, it's only me" but you seem
to have turned it into some kind of wierd religious phantasmagoria involving
them there 'Hinduists' and a mysteriously introduced the word 'too' for some
reason.
Jonathan
Jonathan Jennings
"Lee Dillion" <leedi...@cableone.net> wrote
Two left feet, Lee ? You don't want to try dancing with those :)
Jonathan
Jonathan Jennings
"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Jonathan Jennings wrote:
>
> > "Lee Dillion" <leedi...@cableone.net> wrote
> > > Jonathan Jennings wrote:
> > > > "Lee Dillion" <leedi...@cableone.net> wrote
> > >
> > > >>But in the end, you are irresistable.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks. That's certainly the way I've always felt about myself and
why I
> > > > get up each morning, look in the mirror and say "Down boy, it's only
me"
> > >
> > > I'm guessing that it takes real will power to pull yourself away from
> > > that mirror. And I wouldn't be suprised if your mirror cries
moonbeams
> > > when you leave.
> >
> > It's as if you've been spying on me and it Lee !
>
> Actually, you spilled your guts profusely on these boards, so Lee didn't
need to
> read minds.
That's 'poured' [your guts] since I'm not galvanized by your fear of
'spilling' them :)
Jonathan
cupcake
> Re: ***WAR IS LOVE*** ( was Re: Fess up, Lee- was Re: War is Love)
>
> From: "Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net>
> Reply to: [1]"Jonathan Jennings"
> Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 01:50:02 +0100
> Newsgroups:
> [2]alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,
> [3]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [4]alt.zen
> Followup to: [5]newsgroups
> References:
> [6]<ao2ihe$ie35k$2...@ID-103701.news.dfncis.de>
> [7]<Bl4p9.488$q9....@news.more.net>
> [8]<ao2m2t$ioacj$1...@ID-103701.news.dfncis.de>
> [9]<3DA7F462...@hotmail.com>
> [10]<ao9bm3$k7h7k$1...@ID-103701.news.dfncis.de>
> [11]<3DA83524...@cableone.net>
> [12]<ao9mss$kmrjl$1...@ID-103701.news.dfncis.de>
> [13]<3DA87531...@cableone.net>
> [14]<ao9vai$ki9bj$1...@ID-103701.news.dfncis.de>
> [15]<3DA88413...@cableone.net>
> [16]<aoa7ig$ko07s$2...@ID-103701.news.dfncis.de>
> [17]<3DA8A4D4...@cableone.net>
> [18]<aoa9d0$l1774$1...@ID-103701.news.dfncis.de>
> [19]<3DA8AB02.10
jonathan, it sounds ta me like tang is not pleased with
you -- why don't yu straighten up, and fly right, huh?
Jonathan Jennings
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote
> > From: "Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net>
> >"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> Jonathan Jennings wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Lee Dillion" <leedi...@cableone.net> wrote
> >> > > Jonathan Jennings wrote:
> >> > > > "Lee Dillion" <leedi...@cableone.net> wrote
> >> > >
> >> > > >>But in the end, you are irresistable.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thanks. That's certainly the way I've always felt about myself
and
> >why I
> >> > > > get up each morning, look in the mirror and say "Down boy, it's
only
> >me"
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm guessing that it takes real will power to pull yourself away
from
> >> > > that mirror. And I wouldn't be suprised if your mirror cries
> >moonbeams
> >> > > when you leave.
> >> >
> >> > It's as if you've been spying on me and it Lee !
> >>
> >> Actually, you spilled your guts profusely on these boards, so Lee
didn't
> >need to
> >> read minds.
> >
> >That's 'poured' [your guts] since I'm not galvanized by your fear of
> >'spilling' them :)
>
> you -- why don't yu straighten up, and fly right, huh?
Well unfortunately - in Tang's eyes - Once a 'Hinduist' - Always a
'Hinduist' - So there's no way to 'straighten up' in his eyes because he's
constructed the game in such a way that he can always look over his
half-specs with disapproval :)
Ch'an Fu
ROFL!!!!
> It's like this - suppose someone climbs a high mountain and enters a cave
> full of beetles and trains them to jump on hearing the word "Jump". Then he
> chops their legs off and they cease to jump thus proving to him that cutting
> the legs off beetles renders them deaf. When he comes back down the mountain
> he tells everyone of this 'fact' and that there's no need to believe him
> because they can test it for themselves by climbing the same mountain and
> getting the same experience he did etc. It's not a LOGICAL falsity but one
> of bogus inference and you don't have to repeat his experiment to figure
> that out.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!
> > > > or simply to skip such a silly
> > > > exercise and deny the whole thing?
> > >
> > > I don't consider it would be a 'silly exercise' to determine whether the
> > > words attributed to the Buddha were true or not. If you picked up a road
> > > atlas in a shop, you might expect most of the pages to be maps of places
> you
> > > didn't know but if the maps of all the places you did know were
> hopelessly
> > > inaccurate, it would be downright stupid to then buy the atlas because
> all
> > > the other pages might be right.
> >
> > well, chum, if you wanna tackle it,
> > go right ahead. but you're saying that
> > u feel it's inaccurate to your knowledge,
> > so why bother?
>
> The Buddha's belief that he could 'astral travel' and 'stroke the surface of
> the the sun' is inaccurate to more than my knowledge.
AHHHHHHAHAHAAHAAAAAAA!
> > > > buddha said not to believe him -
> > > > to find out for yourself.
> > >
> > > That's a brilliant scam ! - advise people to detain themselves for an
> > > indefinite number of 'lifetimes' following the methods you prescribe
> > > according your whacky supernatural world-view until they agree you're
> right.
> > > They'll never see through it !
> >
> > <snort!> the methods <I> prescribe?
> > not hardly. <my> "whacky supernatural world-view"?
> > LOLOLOLOL
>
> Well I originally wrote that putting 'the Buddha' in the relevant bits where
> I later changed it to 'you' but for some reason, I felt that you were so
> deeply asleep and so used to mechanically trotting out the platitude "the
> buddha said not to believe him etc." that it would wake you up more and have
> more of an impact if I rewrote it as though YOU were trying to pull the scam
> personally.
AhAhahahahahahahaaaaaa yes! yes! wake me up more!!! pleasssseee!!!
> That might seem unfair but I don't think so. For instance, my sister joined
> a Christian cult for a while and used to say things like "It's all so
> unfortunate that you're going to burn in hell for all eternity". No evidence
> compelled her to subscribe to the cult and its beliefs - she chose to and
> she chose one with as pernicious a set of beliefs as she had before she
> joined but after joining she could stand to one side of them and put them
> into the mouth of God instead of owning to them and taking personal
> responsibility for them.
so she wouldn't fuck you anymore? that's rotten luck, in't it?
was this about "beliefs" then? wrong board for that, eh?
> You choose to promulgate the Buddha's (what I call a...)...'scam' as being
> somewhere between perfectly acceptable and good but then want to stand to
> one side of it. L Ron Hubbard or anyone could have said the same. Don't
> believe me - test everything I believe for yourself by coming along to the
> meetings and reading all my books and being 'audited' etc. etc.
i choose WHAT??? what do i choose? who are you to say what <I> choose?
choose by your own experience.
i can do whatever i want without a single assumption.
if you can't, that's your problem, in't it?
> > whatever - pete won't take
> > on your literalism, but he might
> > take on you. hahaha!
> > if you don't suffer, don't bother.
>
> That's a ludicrous, cruel and haughty thing to say and fairly typical of
> Buddhists and partly why the Buddha-Lands are some of the most inhumane
> shit-holes on earth. If God was operating a 'by their fruits shall ye know
> them' basis - Buddhism would be damned. Most religions teach some version
> of 'dukkha' but it's a huge leap from that to buying into the specific
> guru's 'cure-all'.
indeed. so what? just forget it and leave.
it's all wrong, so why bother with any of it?
you don't know whether to shit or get off the pot, johnnie.
where are the <HUMANE> shitholes?
> > LOL! you said "buy into"!!
> > what's to buy or sell?
>
> <<...this 'wordless, conceptless' stuff ?>> Try to keep up !!
you think understanding can be described?
tell us of anatta, anicca, dukkha.
> > oh, jonathan - you're just a bundle
> > of joy! thanks for the fun.
>
> My pleasure.
indeed, have at it.
Jonathan Jennings
"Ch'an Fu" <Cha...@mail.metta.lk> wrote
> > > > > buddha said not to believe him -
> > > > > to find out for yourself.
> > You choose to promulgate the Buddha's (what I call a...)...'scam' as
being
> > somewhere between perfectly acceptable and good but then want to stand
to
> > one side of it. L Ron Hubbard or anyone could have said the same. Don't
> > believe me - test everything I believe for yourself by coming along to
the
> > meetings and reading all my books and being 'audited' etc. etc.
>
> i choose WHAT???
<<You choose to promulgate the Buddha's (what I call
a...)...'scam'...'Don't believe me...find out for yourself'>> You're still
not really keeping up are you ? No wonder you said <<yes! yes! wake me up
more!!! pleasssseee!!!>>
> > > why assume anything?
> >
> > Because you couldn't even sit on a chair or walk on tarmac without
assuming
> > that the chair would hold you up or that the tarmac wouldn't melt. You
have
> > to make provisional assumptions just to get through life - even if most
of
> > them are non-conscious. Besides which - in the case of the Buddha - it
makes
> > a big practical difference to how a normal person would live if they
thought
> > he was generally right or generally deluded.
>
> i can do whatever i want without a single assumption.
> if you can't, that's your problem, in't it?
No you can't - you couldn't even type that sentence without plenty of
conscious and unconscious assumptions.
> > That's a ludicrous, cruel and haughty thing to say and fairly typical of
> > Buddhists and partly why the Buddha-Lands are some of the most inhumane
> > shit-holes on earth. If God was operating a 'by their fruits shall ye
know
> > them' basis - Buddhism would be damned. Most religions teach some
version
> > of 'dukkha' but it's a huge leap from that to buying into the specific
> > guru's 'cure-all'.
>
> indeed. so what? just forget it and leave.
> it's all wrong, so why bother with any of it?
> you don't know whether to shit or get off the pot, johnnie.
Did you get your newfound psychic powers from the same shop as the Buddha
got the ones he claimed to have ? I know what I want to be doing and I'm
doing it and to date, until Boris wakes back up, there's only really you
that's obviously so discomforted by it.
> where are the <HUMANE> shitholes?
Most historically Christian and Hindu countries (of which there are plenty)
are more humane than most historically Buddhist and Islamic ones.
> > > LOL! you said "buy into"!!
> > > what's to buy or sell?
> >
> > <<...this 'wordless, conceptless' stuff ?>> Try to keep up !!
>
> you think understanding can be described?
It depends what it is that has been understood and whether the describer and
the hearer both understand it and suchlike relevant things.
> tell us of anatta, anicca, dukkha.
They're words from some dead Indian language which the Buddha used to flesh
out his delusions.
Jonathan
Ch'an Fu
Jonathan Jennings wrote:
>
> "Ch'an Fu" <Cha...@mail.metta.lk> wrote
>
> > > > > > buddha said not to believe him -
> > > > > > to find out for yourself.
>
> > > You choose to promulgate the Buddha's (what I call a...)...'scam' as
> being
> > > somewhere between perfectly acceptable and good but then want to stand
> to
> > > one side of it. L Ron Hubbard or anyone could have said the same. Don't
> > > believe me - test everything I believe for yourself by coming along to
> the
> > > meetings and reading all my books and being 'audited' etc. etc.
> >
> > i choose WHAT???
>
> <<You choose to promulgate the Buddha's (what I call
> a...)...'scam'...'Don't believe me...find out for yourself'>> You're still
> not really keeping up are you ? No wonder you said <<yes! yes! wake me up
> more!!! pleasssseee!!!>>
was that some kind of answer?
> > > > why assume anything?
> > >
> > > Because you couldn't even sit on a chair or walk on tarmac without
> assuming
> > > that the chair would hold you up or that the tarmac wouldn't melt. You
> have
> > > to make provisional assumptions just to get through life - even if most
> of
> > > them are non-conscious. Besides which - in the case of the Buddha - it
> makes
> > > a big practical difference to how a normal person would live if they
> thought
> > > he was generally right or generally deluded.
> >
> > i can do whatever i want without a single assumption.
> > if you can't, that's your problem, in't it?
>
> No you can't - you couldn't even type that sentence without plenty of
> conscious and unconscious assumptions.
yes, i can. and you have no way to understand it,
so you make assumptions.
> > > That's a ludicrous, cruel and haughty thing to say and fairly typical of
> > > Buddhists and partly why the Buddha-Lands are some of the most inhumane
> > > shit-holes on earth. If God was operating a 'by their fruits shall ye
> know
> > > them' basis - Buddhism would be damned. Most religions teach some
> version
> > > of 'dukkha' but it's a huge leap from that to buying into the specific
> > > guru's 'cure-all'.
> >
> > indeed. so what? just forget it and leave.
> > it's all wrong, so why bother with any of it?
> > you don't know whether to shit or get off the pot, johnnie.
>
> Did you get your newfound psychic powers from the same shop as the Buddha
> got the ones he claimed to have ? I know what I want to be doing and I'm
> doing it and to date, until Boris wakes back up, there's only really you
> that's obviously so discomforted by it.
i have no powers or problems with your delusions.
only you do.
> > where are the <HUMANE> shitholes?
>
> Most historically Christian and Hindu countries (of which there are plenty)
> are more humane than most historically Buddhist and Islamic ones.
>
> > > > LOL! you said "buy into"!!
> > > > what's to buy or sell?
> > >
> > > <<...this 'wordless, conceptless' stuff ?>> Try to keep up !!
> >
> > you think understanding can be described?
>
> It depends what it is that has been understood and whether the describer and
> the hearer both understand it and suchlike relevant things.
babble what?
> > tell us of anatta, anicca, dukkha.
>
> They're words from some dead Indian language which the Buddha used to flesh
> out his delusions.
ah! perfect. have fun, johnny.
don't even bother to reply.
see u in your next rebirth
or not...
Boris Fuller
>"Ch'an Fu" <Cha...@mail.metta.lk> wrote
>
>
>>Jonathan Jennings wrote:
>>
>><otherwhere>
>>
>>
>>
>>>If I provisionally accepted that the words attributed to the Buddha were
>>>near enough true, it would put me to a hell of a lot of inconvenience
>>>because as a serious-minded type of geezer - I'd have to start taking up
>>>
>>>
>the
>
>
>>>'practice'.
>>>
>>>
>>so your objective is to prove
>>that they're not "true" ?
>>ie: reliable, workable, leading
>>to cessation of suffering?
>>
>>
>
>Not necessarily. I would love to find some teacher and teaching that I could
>find no falsity in
>
there! thats how you benefit.
you look for falsity so you can
- by finding it -
be better than all the teachers.
its like a kid who behaves badly
until the adults get angry with him
then he says "told you so - you never really loved me anyhow"
>(and would have loved the Buddha's teaching to have been
>that way when I came into t.r.b almost two years ago following a crossposted
>thread here). One thing I would assume (from previous experience) about a
>teaching that is true is that it would be simpler (and simpler to follow)
>than one that was false e.g. the heliocentric model of the solar system is a
>whole lot simpler than the geocentric one which is made more complicated
>than it needs be on account of resisting the consequences of the other one.
>
it IS simple
it's you that's complicating it
>
>
>
>>or simply to skip such a silly
>>exercise and deny the whole thing?
>>
>>
>
>I don't consider it would be a 'silly exercise' to determine whether the
>words attributed to the Buddha were true or not. If you picked up a road
>atlas in a shop, you might expect most of the pages to be maps of places you
>didn't know but if the maps of all the places you did know were hopelessly
>inaccurate, it would be downright stupid to then buy the atlas because all
>the other pages might be right.
>
ahhh, there's your problem!
- ditch the map!
>
>
>
>>buddha said not to believe him -
>>to find out for yourself.
>>
>>
>
>That's a brilliant scam ! - advise people to detain themselves for an
>indefinite number of 'lifetimes' following the methods you prescribe
>according your whacky supernatural world-view until they agree you're right.
>They'll never see through it !
>
hahaha! its really easy to diss stuff that you don't understand
- bit more of an effort to
work through your fears
to try it out though, isn't it?
>
>
>
>>words are just words, regardless.
>>there's not a single
>>'concept' in all of it...
>>(unless you form them, that is...)
>>
>>
>
>An even better scam ! My truth is 'inexpressable' so be content to just lie
>back while I shaft you with it. As Cupcake would say "Kherisssttt!!!!" Why
>assume that the Buddha was anything but another of many many deluded and/or
>fraudulent gurus in the first place ? What does he say anywhere that is so
>impressive that you have to follow his methodology or buy into this
>'wordless, conceptless' stuff ?
>
>Jonathan
>
because there are 86,000 ways
and you are still looking
for one that fits your shoes
what price patanjali
if you are still seeking?
Boris
>
>
Jonathan Jennings
"Ch'an Fu" <Cha...@mail.metta.lk> wrote in message
news:3DA8D52D...@mail.metta.lk...
>
>
> Jonathan Jennings wrote:
> >
> > "Ch'an Fu" <Cha...@mail.metta.lk> wrote
> >
> > > > > > > buddha said not to believe him -
> > > > > > > to find out for yourself.
> >
> > > > You choose to promulgate the Buddha's (what I call a...)...'scam' as
> > being
> > > > somewhere between perfectly acceptable and good but then want to
stand
> > to
> > > > one side of it. L Ron Hubbard or anyone could have said the same.
Don't
> > > > believe me - test everything I believe for yourself by coming along
to
> > the
> > > > meetings and reading all my books and being 'audited' etc. etc.
> > >
> > > i choose WHAT???
> >
> > <<You choose to promulgate the Buddha's (what I call
> > a...)...'scam'...'Don't believe me...find out for yourself'>> You're
still
> > not really keeping up are you ? No wonder you said <<yes! yes! wake me
up
> > more!!! pleasssseee!!!>>
>
> was that some kind of answer?
What do you expect to a rhetorical question ?
> > > i can do whatever i want without a single assumption.
> > > if you can't, that's your problem, in't it?
> >
> > No you can't - you couldn't even type that sentence without plenty of
> > conscious and unconscious assumptions.
>
> yes, i can. and you have no way to understand it,
> so you make assumptions.
You assume I do.
> > > indeed. so what? just forget it and leave.
> > > it's all wrong, so why bother with any of it?
> > > you don't know whether to shit or get off the pot, johnnie.
> >
> > Did you get your newfound psychic powers from the same shop as the
Buddha
> > got the ones he claimed to have ?
> i have no powers...
You claim to know what I'm thinking often enough (as above).
> > > you think understanding can be described?
> >
> > It depends what it is that has been understood and whether the describer
and
> > the hearer both understand it and suchlike relevant things.
>
> babble what?
It's simple enough.
> > > tell us of anatta, anicca, dukkha.
> >
> > They're words from some dead Indian language which the Buddha used to
flesh
> > out his delusions.
>
> ah! perfect. have fun, johnny.
> don't even bother to reply.
Don't even bother to believe that barking orders at me will result in their
being followed.
Jonathan
Ch'an Fu
Jonathan Jennings wrote:
> Don't even bother to believe that barking orders at me will result in their
> being followed.
>
> Jonathan
woof woof!
Jonathan Jennings
"Boris Fuller" <orour...@hotmail.com> wrote
I would love to find some teacher and teaching that I could
> >find no falsity in
> >
> there! thats how you benefit.
> you look for falsity so you can
> - by finding it -
> be better than all the teachers.
No. You are imputing your own skanky competitive one-upmanship-led motives
to me. If I think a given teacher is false what the hell satisfaction is it
supposed to give me to be 'better' than them ? That's just wierd. And a
'false' teacher loses their qualification to be thought of as a 'teacher'
anyway.
>
> its like a kid who behaves badly
> until the adults get angry with him
> then he says "told you so - you never really loved me anyhow"
If the 'adult' is 'false' and the 'kid' is 'true' then the 'kid' is really
the 'adult' and vice versa. What you're implying in this roundabout way is
more like "We all know that the Buddha is 'true' and a 'teacher' but
Jonathan thinks he can feel superior to him if he pulls some scam where he
pretends to have discovered he's 'false' (which af course is unthinkable but
let's just indulge him for a bit)." What if I'm right ? Do you even accept
the *possibility* that the Buddha could just have been a deluded idiot ?
>
> >(and would have loved the Buddha's teaching to have been
> >that way when I came into t.r.b almost two years ago following a
crossposted
> >thread here). One thing I would assume (from previous experience) about a
> >teaching that is true is that it would be simpler (and simpler to follow)
> >than one that was false e.g. the heliocentric model of the solar system
is a
> >whole lot simpler than the geocentric one which is made more complicated
> >than it needs be on account of resisting the consequences of the other
one.
> >
> it IS simple
You're kidding - even just the Eightfold Path (without the massive
theoretical gubbins) has endless petty rules and regulations to follow and
endless complications. People get round that fact by just ignoring them but
they're still there.
> it's you that's complicating it
It's me that's facing it squarely.
> >I don't consider it would be a 'silly exercise' to determine whether the
> >words attributed to the Buddha were true or not. If you picked up a road
> >atlas in a shop, you might expect most of the pages to be maps of places
you
> >didn't know but if the maps of all the places you did know were
hopelessly
> >inaccurate, it would be downright stupid to then buy the atlas because
all
> >the other pages might be right.
> >
> ahhh, there's your problem!
> - ditch the map!
I have - deciding that the Buddha was deluded.
> >>buddha said not to believe him -
> >>to find out for yourself.
> >>
> >That's a brilliant scam ! - advise people to detain themselves for an
> >indefinite number of 'lifetimes' following the methods you prescribe
> >according your whacky supernatural world-view until they agree you're
right.
> >They'll never see through it !
> >
>
> hahaha! its really easy to diss stuff that you don't understand
What the hell is supposed to be complicated about it ?
> - bit more of an effort to
> work through your fears
> to try it out though, isn't it?
Ludicrous ! How many religious teachers' instructions to 'try it out' have
you followed ? Jesus's ? Patanjali's ? Muhammed's ? Baha's ? Moses's ?
Lao-Tze's ? Sun Myung Moon's ? L.Ron Hubbard's ? Mary Baker Eddy's ?
Aleister Crowley's ? The list is endless and there wouldn't be the hours in
your life to 'work through your fears' and do that so in the end you'd have
to form an opinion of which it would be a good idea to 'try out' anyway. The
overwhelming majority of people in the world would dismiss Buddhism out of
hand and I've given it way more of a chance than any of them have.
> >Why
> >assume that the Buddha was anything but another of many many deluded
and/or
> >fraudulent gurus in the first place ? What does he say anywhere that is
so
> >impressive that you have to follow his methodology or buy into this
> >'wordless, conceptless' stuff ?
> >
> because there are 86,000 ways
> and you are still looking
> for one that fits your shoes
'Ways' is a bit vague. I think maybe you're referring to 'ways' to
'enlightenment' or 'liberation' or somesuch concepts I also have to buy into
when I buy into the 'way' (like it helps if people believe they have sins to
be saved from when approached by Christian evangelists). The Buddha said
there was only ONE way all over the place but it doesn't matter because he
was deluded and believed he could stroke the sun using his 'mind-made' body.
>
> what price patanjali
> if you are still seeking?
I'll have another look at him later if I can be bothered.
Jonathan
jesson
lol!
oops.
that is...
aye aye!
Jonathan Jennings
"jesson" <spac...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > Don't even bother to believe that barking orders at me will result in
> their
> > > being followed.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> >
> > woof woof!
>
> lol!
> oops.
> that is...
> aye aye!
Oh God - Not you too - he only managed a brief almost coherent interlude
between oook oook and woof woof.
jesson
"Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:aoao6v$krl2p$1...@ID-103701.news.dfncis.de...
excellent trouble-maker, with all due respect, jonathan darling...
Jen
"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3DA8BDF8...@yahoo.com...
How many would you expect me to see when I look in the mirror ? Forty three
?
Boris Fuller
>"Boris Fuller" <orour...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>
>>Jonathan Jennings wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Ch'an Fu" <Cha...@mail.metta.lk> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jonathan Jennings wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>
>I would love to find some teacher and teaching that I could
>
>
>>>find no falsity in
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>there! thats how you benefit.
>>you look for falsity so you can
>> - by finding it -
>>be better than all the teachers.
>>
>>
>
>No. You are imputing your own skanky competitive one-upmanship-led motives
>to me. If I think a given teacher is false what the hell satisfaction is it
>supposed to give me to be 'better' than them ? That's just wierd. And a
>'false' teacher loses their qualification to be thought of as a 'teacher'
>anyway.
>
so why are you chasing wrongnesses
instead of trying to connect with rightnesses ?
you are looking for a perfect parent
grow up jonathan
do you think if you find a perfect teacher that
they will be able to teach you how to be perfect?
>
>
>>its like a kid who behaves badly
>>until the adults get angry with him
>>then he says "told you so - you never really loved me anyhow"
>>
>>
>
>If the 'adult' is 'false' and the 'kid' is 'true' then the 'kid' is really
>the 'adult' and vice versa. What you're implying in this roundabout way is
>more like "We all know that the Buddha is 'true' and a 'teacher' but
>Jonathan thinks he can feel superior to him if he pulls some scam where he
>pretends to have discovered he's 'false' (which af course is unthinkable but
>let's just indulge him for a bit)." What if I'm right ? Do you even accept
>the *possibility* that the Buddha could just have been a deluded idiot ?
>
i think thats a slippy justification
if the child is judging he's the parent
which makes him still an adapted child
i don't care either way
my connection to buddhism
is about process - not people
...although i do have a huge amount
of undying love and gratitude for some people...
i'm not qualified to judge the
duality of value of the buddha or his teachings -
unlike you, clearly!
>
>
>>>(and would have loved the Buddha's teaching to have been
>>>that way when I came into t.r.b almost two years ago following a
>>>
>>>
>crossposted
>
>
>>>thread here). One thing I would assume (from previous experience) about a
>>>teaching that is true is that it would be simpler (and simpler to follow)
>>>than one that was false e.g. the heliocentric model of the solar system
>>>
>>>
>is a
>
well, thats what life's for....
>
>
>>>whole lot simpler than the geocentric one which is made more complicated
>>>than it needs be on account of resisting the consequences of the other
>>>
>>>
>one.
>
>
>>it IS simple
>>
>>
>
>You're kidding - even just the Eightfold Path (without the massive
>theoretical gubbins) has endless petty rules and regulations to follow and
>endless complications. People get round that fact by just ignoring them but
>they're still there.
>
>
...and its incarnations...LOL
>
>
>>it's you that's complicating it
>>
>>
>
>It's me that's facing it squarely.
>
>
are you also facing yourself squarely?
...for that matter, is "squarely" the best way?
>
>
>>>I don't consider it would be a 'silly exercise' to determine whether the
>>>words attributed to the Buddha were true or not. If you picked up a road
>>>atlas in a shop, you might expect most of the pages to be maps of places
>>>
>>>
>you
>
>
>>>didn't know but if the maps of all the places you did know were
>>>
>>>
>hopelessly
>
>
>>>inaccurate, it would be downright stupid to then buy the atlas because
>>>
>>>
>all
>
>
>>>the other pages might be right.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>ahhh, there's your problem!
>> - ditch the map!
>>
>>
>
>I have - deciding that the Buddha was deluded.
>
so! you immediately replaced it with another map!
- ditch ALL maps!
>
>
>
>>>>buddha said not to believe him -
>>>>to find out for yourself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That's a brilliant scam ! - advise people to detain themselves for an
>>>indefinite number of 'lifetimes' following the methods you prescribe
>>>according your whacky supernatural world-view until they agree you're
>>>
>>>
>right.
>
>
>>>They'll never see through it !
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>hahaha! its really easy to diss stuff that you don't understand
>>
>>
>
>What the hell is supposed to be complicated about it ?
>
see? i told you it was simple!
>
>
>
>> - bit more of an effort to
>>work through your fears
>>to try it out though, isn't it?
>>
>>
>
>Ludicrous ! How many religious teachers' instructions to 'try it out' have
>you followed ? Jesus's ? Patanjali's ? Muhammed's ? Baha's ? Moses's ?
>Lao-Tze's ? Sun Myung Moon's ? L.Ron Hubbard's ? Mary Baker Eddy's ?
>Aleister Crowley's ? The list is endless and there wouldn't be the hours in
>your life to 'work through your fears' and do that so in the end you'd have
>to form an opinion of which it would be a good idea to 'try out' anyway. The
>overwhelming majority of people in the world would dismiss Buddhism out of
>hand and I've given it way more of a chance than any of them have.
>
ahhh, you are so full of opinions
on other people's experiences that
there's no room left to try a few of your own?
...even just for the joy of it?
>
>
>
>>>Why
>>>assume that the Buddha was anything but another of many many deluded
>>>
>>>
>and/or
>
>
>>>fraudulent gurus in the first place ? What does he say anywhere that is
>>>
>>>
>so
>
>
>>>impressive that you have to follow his methodology or buy into this
>>>'wordless, conceptless' stuff ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>because there are 86,000 ways
>>and you are still looking
>>for one that fits your shoes
>>
>>
>
>'Ways' is a bit vague. I think maybe you're referring to 'ways' to
>'enlightenment' or 'liberation' or somesuch concepts
>
well thank you for clarifying that for me.
your mind-reading skills must be quite advanced -
i wasn't even aware that i had qualified that word
by adding so many concepts to it ! ;-)
>I also have to buy into
>when I buy into the 'way' (like it helps if people believe they have sins to
>be saved from when approached by Christian evangelists). The Buddha said
>there was only ONE way all over the place but it doesn't matter because he
>was deluded and believed he could stroke the sun using his 'mind-made' body.
>
well i understand what you are getting at with the sin thing
but i had never heard of the sun thing until you mentioned it.
...sorry, haven't the faintest idea what he's talking about
- but i suppose that _he_ did.
>
>
>>what price patanjali
>>if you are still seeking?
>>
>>
>
>I'll have another look at him later if I can be bothered.
>
>Jonathan
>
>
>
well fine.
i'm curious to hear what he teaches
...but if his method requires the full lotus
- well fergettit! -
it'll have to wait for another lifetime!
Boris
Jonathan Jennings
"Boris Fuller" <orour...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Jonathan Jennings wrote:
> >"Boris Fuller" <orour...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>Jonathan Jennings wrote:
> >>>"Ch'an Fu" <Cha...@mail.metta.lk> wrote
> >>>>Jonathan Jennings wrote:
> >>there! thats how you benefit.
> >>you look for falsity so you can
> >> - by finding it -
> >>be better than all the teachers.
> >>
> >No. You are imputing your own skanky competitive one-upmanship-led
motives
> >to me. If I think a given teacher is false what the hell satisfaction is
it
> >supposed to give me to be 'better' than them ? That's just wierd. And a
> >'false' teacher loses their qualification to be thought of as a 'teacher'
> >anyway.
> >
> so why are you chasing wrongnesses
> instead of trying to connect with rightnesses ?
I am not (as you put it) 'chasing wrongnesses'. I am (was) 'trying to
connect with rightnesses' - I just found the Buddha deluded.
>
> you are looking for a perfect parent
> grow up jonathan
> do you think if you find a perfect teacher that
> they will be able to teach you how to be perfect?
What the hell are you talking about ? When you start imputing your own
thinking and motives to me you give far too big a glimpse into your private
world and it's ego-driven self-conscious obsession with comparing yourself
with others to see who is the 'teacher' or the 'parent' or 'grown up' or
'perfect'. It's freakish.
> >>its like a kid who behaves badly
> >>until the adults get angry with him
> >>then he says "told you so - you never really loved me anyhow"
> >>
> >If the 'adult' is 'false' and the 'kid' is 'true' then the 'kid' is
really
> >the 'adult' and vice versa. What you're implying in this roundabout way
is
> >more like "We all know that the Buddha is 'true' and a 'teacher' but
> >Jonathan thinks he can feel superior to him if he pulls some scam where
he
> >pretends to have discovered he's 'false' (which af course is unthinkable
but
> >let's just indulge him for a bit)." What if I'm right ? Do you even
accept
> >the *possibility* that the Buddha could just have been a deluded idiot ?
> >
> i think thats a slippy justification
> if the child is judging he's the parent
> which makes him still an adapted child
If I'd known I'd have to talk to you later I'd have paid more attention when
I was handed the book "I'm OK, You're OK".
> i don't care either way
> my connection to buddhism
> is about process - not people
> ...although i do have a huge amount
> of undying love and gratitude for some people...
>
> i'm not qualified to judge the
> duality of value of the buddha or his teachings -
> unlike you, clearly!
I'm not qualified to judge whether that sentence meant something or whether
I just stumbled into Zen-Riddle-Land by mistake. Duality of value ? Is that
like on Two-for-the-price-of-one Day at Kwik-Save ?
> >It's me that's facing it squarely.
> >
> are you also facing yourself squarely?
> ...for that matter, is "squarely" the best way?
Good God - Not merely slightly Zennist but a Hippie too ! That is like
Two-for-the-price-of-one-day at a shop I avoid.
> >>ahhh, there's your problem!
> >> - ditch the map!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I have - deciding that the Buddha was deluded.
> >
> so! you immediately replaced it with another map!
> - ditch ALL maps!
No. Map ALL ditches.
> >>hahaha! its really easy to diss stuff that you don't understand
> >> - bit more of an effort to
> >>work through your fears
> >>to try it out though, isn't it?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Ludicrous ! How many religious teachers' instructions to 'try it out'
have
> >you followed ? Jesus's ? Patanjali's ? Muhammed's ? Baha's ? Moses's ?
> >Lao-Tze's ? Sun Myung Moon's ? L.Ron Hubbard's ? Mary Baker Eddy's ?
> >Aleister Crowley's ? The list is endless and there wouldn't be the hours
in
> >your life to 'work through your fears' and do that so in the end you'd
have
> >to form an opinion of which it would be a good idea to 'try out' anyway.
The
> >overwhelming majority of people in the world would dismiss Buddhism out
of
> >hand and I've given it way more of a chance than any of them have.
> >
> ahhh, you are so full of opinions
> on other people's experiences that
> there's no room left to try a few of your own?
> ...even just for the joy of it?
You have been in religious ngs so long you have replaced all sense of
reality and perspective with authentic religio-babble. "no room to try a few
of your own [experiences]...even just for the joy of it" !!!! Whaaatttt !!!
> >>because there are 86,000 ways
> >>and you are still looking
> >>for one that fits your shoes
> >>
> >>
> >
> >'Ways' is a bit vague. I think maybe you're referring to 'ways' to
> >'enlightenment' or 'liberation' or somesuch concepts I also have to buy
into
> >when I buy into the 'way' (like it helps if people believe they have sins
to
> >be saved from when approached by Christian evangelists). The Buddha said
> >there was only ONE way all over the place but it doesn't matter because
he
> >was deluded and believed he could stroke the sun using his 'mind-made'
body.
> >
> well i understand what you are getting at with the sin thing
> but i had never heard of the sun thing until you mentioned it.
> ...sorry, haven't the faintest idea what he's talking about
> - but i suppose that _he_ did.
Sure _he_ did - and he was deluded.
>
> >
> >
> >>what price patanjali
> >>if you are still seeking?
> >>
> >I'll have another look at him later if I can be bothered.
> >
> well fine.
> i'm curious to hear what he teaches
> ...but if his method requires the full lotus
> - well fergettit! -
> it'll have to wait for another lifetime!
Well I expect it's all on the web under 'Patanjali' or 'Yoga Sutras' but
unfortunately the entire teaching only extends to about 200 sentences so it
wouldn't satisfy Buddhists - who prefer someone to waffle on about his
innumerable beliefs for 45 years touching on everything under the
sun...(that reminds me...have I mentioned....)...
Jonathan
Boris Fuller
>"Boris Fuller" <orour...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>
>>Jonathan Jennings wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Boris Fuller" <orour...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jonathan Jennings wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Ch'an Fu" <Cha...@mail.metta.lk> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jonathan Jennings wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>there! thats how you benefit.
>>>>you look for falsity so you can
>>>>- by finding it -
>>>>be better than all the teachers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>No. You are imputing your own skanky competitive one-upmanship-led
>>>
>>>
>motives
>
>
>>>to me. If I think a given teacher is false what the hell satisfaction is
>>>
>>>
>it
>
>
>>>supposed to give me to be 'better' than them ? That's just wierd. And a
>>>'false' teacher loses their qualification to be thought of as a 'teacher'
>>>anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>so why are you chasing wrongnesses
>>instead of trying to connect with rightnesses ?
>>
>>
>
>I am not (as you put it) 'chasing wrongnesses'. I am (was) 'trying to
>connect with rightnesses' - I just found the Buddha deluded.
>
fine. so what business is it of yours
if other people find it useful?
>
>
>>you are looking for a perfect parent
>>grow up jonathan
>>do you think if you find a perfect teacher that
>>they will be able to teach you how to be perfect?
>>
>>
>
>What the hell are you talking about ? When you start imputing your own
>thinking and motives to me you give far too big a glimpse into your private
>world and it's ego-driven self-conscious obsession with comparing yourself
>with others to see who is the 'teacher' or the 'parent' or 'grown up' or
>'perfect'. It's freakish.
>
ok, don't bother to make any effort
to try to engage with the questions.
- your choice.
>
>
>
>
>>>>its like a kid who behaves badly
>>>>until the adults get angry with him
>>>>then he says "told you so - you never really loved me anyhow"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>If the 'adult' is 'false' and the 'kid' is 'true' then the 'kid' is
>>>
>>>
>really
>
>
>>>the 'adult' and vice versa. What you're implying in this roundabout way
>>>
>>>
>is
>
>
>>>more like "We all know that the Buddha is 'true' and a 'teacher' but
>>>Jonathan thinks he can feel superior to him if he pulls some scam where
>>>
>>>
>he
>
>
>>>pretends to have discovered he's 'false' (which af course is unthinkable
>>>
>>>
>but
>
>
>>>let's just indulge him for a bit)." What if I'm right ? Do you even
>>>
>>>
>accept
>
>
>>>the *possibility* that the Buddha could just have been a deluded idiot ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>i think thats a slippy justification
>>if the child is judging he's the parent
>>which makes him still an adapted child
>>
>>
>
>If I'd known I'd have to talk to you later I'd have paid more attention when
>I was handed the book "I'm OK, You're OK".
>
close guess.
well, its a shame you didn't.
i could quite enjoy discussing it, ...finally.
>
>
>
>>i don't care either way
>>my connection to buddhism
>>is about process - not people
>>...although i do have a huge amount
>>of undying love and gratitude for some people...
>>
>>i'm not qualified to judge the
>>duality of value of the buddha or his teachings -
>>unlike you, clearly!
>>
>>
>
>I'm not qualified to judge whether that sentence meant something or whether
>I just stumbled into Zen-Riddle-Land by mistake. Duality of value ? Is that
>like on Two-for-the-price-of-one Day at Kwik-Save ?
>
yes.
>
>
>
>>>It's me that's facing it squarely.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>are you also facing yourself squarely?
>>...for that matter, is "squarely" the best way?
>>
>>
>
>Good God - Not merely slightly Zennist but a Hippie too ! That is like
>Two-for-the-price-of-one-day at a shop I avoid.
>
thats two valid points neatly avoided then.... :-D
>
>
>
>>>>ahhh, there's your problem!
>>>>- ditch the map!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I have - deciding that the Buddha was deluded.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>so! you immediately replaced it with another map!
>>- ditch ALL maps!
>>
>>
>
>No. Map ALL ditches.
>
LOL, there you go again,
focussing on the wrongnesses!
>
>
>
>>>>hahaha! its really easy to diss stuff that you don't understand
>>>>- bit more of an effort to
>>>>work through your fears
>>>>to try it out though, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Ludicrous ! How many religious teachers' instructions to 'try it out'
>>>
>>>
>have
>
>
>>>you followed ? Jesus's ? Patanjali's ? Muhammed's ? Baha's ? Moses's ?
>>>Lao-Tze's ? Sun Myung Moon's ? L.Ron Hubbard's ? Mary Baker Eddy's ?
>>>Aleister Crowley's ? The list is endless and there wouldn't be the hours
>>>
>>>
>in
>
>
>>>your life to 'work through your fears' and do that so in the end you'd
>>>
>>>
>have
>
>
>>>to form an opinion of which it would be a good idea to 'try out' anyway.
>>>
>>>
>The
>
>
>>>overwhelming majority of people in the world would dismiss Buddhism out
>>>
>>>
>of
>
>
>>>hand and I've given it way more of a chance than any of them have.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>ahhh, you are so full of opinions
>>on other people's experiences that
>>there's no room left to try a few of your own?
>>...even just for the joy of it?
>>
>>
>
>You have been in religious ngs so long you have replaced all sense of
>reality and perspective with authentic religio-babble. "no room to try a few
>of your own [experiences]...even just for the joy of it" !!!! Whaaatttt !!!
>
not at all, i was merely testing yours.
....and that's three valid points avoided,
i can see you find this a useful arguing style
but i get bored quickly
...and i don't sit still for personal abuse for long either.
- your choice.
>
>
>
>>>>because there are 86,000 ways
>>>>and you are still looking
>>>>for one that fits your shoes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>'Ways' is a bit vague. I think maybe you're referring to 'ways' to
>>>'enlightenment' or 'liberation' or somesuch concepts I also have to buy
>>>
>>>
>into
>
ooops! lost a bit here !
did you cut it because you couldn't refute it?
>
>
>>>when I buy into the 'way' (like it helps if people believe they have sins
>>>
>>>
>to
>
>
>>>be saved from when approached by Christian evangelists). The Buddha said
>>>there was only ONE way all over the place but it doesn't matter because
>>>
>>>
>he
>
>
>>>was deluded and believed he could stroke the sun using his 'mind-made'
>>>
>>>
>body.
>
>
>>well i understand what you are getting at with the sin thing
>>but i had never heard of the sun thing until you mentioned it.
>>...sorry, haven't the faintest idea what he's talking about
>>- but i suppose that _he_ did.
>>
>>
>
>Sure _he_ did - and he was deluded.
>
...in your opinion...fwiw...
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>what price patanjali
>>>>if you are still seeking?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>>>I'll have another look at him later if I can be bothered.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>well fine.
>>i'm curious to hear what he teaches
>>...but if his method requires the full lotus
>>- well fergettit! -
>>it'll have to wait for another lifetime!
>>
>>
>
>Well I expect it's all on the web under 'Patanjali' or 'Yoga Sutras' but
>unfortunately the entire teaching only extends to about 200 sentences so it
>wouldn't satisfy Buddhists - who prefer someone to waffle on about his
>innumerable beliefs for 45 years touching on everything under the
>sun...(that reminds me...have I mentioned....)...
>
>Jonathan
>
>
LOL, you are funny though,
...thats the only reason i'm still talking to you...
Boris
fredrock
>
> > >>what price patanjali
> > >>if you are still seeking?
> > >>
>
> > >I'll have another look at him later if I can be bothered.
> > >
> > well fine.
> > i'm curious to hear what he teaches
> > ...but if his method requires the full lotus
> > - well fergettit! -
> > it'll have to wait for another lifetime!
>
> Well I expect it's all on the web under 'Patanjali' or 'Yoga Sutras' but
> unfortunately the entire teaching only extends to about 200 sentences so
it
> wouldn't satisfy Buddhists - who prefer someone to waffle on about his
> innumerable beliefs for 45 years touching on everything under the
> sun...(that reminds me...have I mentioned....)...
>
> Jonathan
Hi Jonathan,
Don't know if you're a seeker, a master, or merely looking for an argument.
Here's a couple cents worth (no more, no less):
I once followed a small "cult" of Japanese "buddhists" called the Nichiren
Shoshu. Then they became the Soka Gokkai and feuded with what was left of
the Shoshu. Each faction claimed to have the only correct interpretation of
the only true Buddhism (the Lotus Sutra, according to both groups.) Both
sects hated the all schools of Zennies. Some Zennies argue with Tibetan
Buddhists. There's a schism in Tibetan Buddhism. Mahayanas argue with
Theravadans. Christians think they're all going to hell, and a few extreme
(and extremely misguided) Muslims are ready to send us all to meet Allah.
There are lots of battles available to be joined.
As for buddhism, of course it's inconsistent--The guy lived a very long time
ago, he spoke a lot, other people wrote down the stories long after he was
far too dead to edit them.
Some form of buddhist practice (most involving what's frequently termed
"meditation," or more simply, "sitting") works for lots of people. Even
after I walked away from the Nichies, I wanted to learn more--there was so
much good thought mixed in with the inconsistencies. If you find some people
you like (and perhaps respect) who are practicing one form or another,
perhaps that form will work for you, as well. Perhaps not. Perhaps it's
worth a try. Perhaps the yoga sutras will suite you better. (Yoga here
doesn't necessarily mean sitting in a lotus position--that's Hatha yoga.
There are lots of kinds of yoga, too. In my limited experience, yogis argue
less than buddhists.)
If you're looking for a path, you'll find one that leads you where you want
to go. Someone in here (absfg) once said, though, that if you don't care
where you're going, it doesn't really matter what path you're on.
If you're looking for perfect truth and perfect consistency, though, stay to
simple mathematics. I say "simple" here because (at least to my limited
understanding), beyond a certain point, even something as pure, abstract,
and "truthful" as math shows signs of internal conflict--theories diverge,
number systems behave according to different rules, inconsistency rears its
head in the most unlikely places.
Back to my two cents: as I learn to tolerate, even understand
inconsistencies, my own life becomes a bit better. If that's as close as I
get to enlightenment, it's still a bit more enlightened than I might
otherwise have been. But my shaky path started with a wrong step. Enjoy!
Fred
Lee Dillion
Nicely said.
--
Lee
Jen
"fredrock" <fke...@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote in message
news:yhfq9.3698$1P1.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
enlightenment.
Jonathan Jennings
"Boris Fuller" <orour...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Jonathan Jennings wrote:
> >"Boris Fuller" <orour...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>Jonathan Jennings wrote:
> >>>"Boris Fuller" <orour...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>>>Jonathan Jennings wrote:
> >>>>>"Ch'an Fu" <Cha...@mail.metta.lk> wrote
> >>>>>>Jonathan Jennings wrote:
> >I am not (as you put it) 'chasing wrongnesses'. I am (was) 'trying to
> >connect with rightnesses' - I just found the Buddha deluded.
> >
> fine. so what business is it of yours
> if other people find it useful?
I don't believe that the Buddha's delusions and hence delusion-rich
teachings can be 'useful' (overall) to anyone and I wish to help save them
from them - like a "cult-buster". I wish there had been someone like me who
had put in the hours when I first arrived on t.r.b - it would have been more
"efficient" (although there are still positive spin-offs to figuring out
delusions oneself).
> >>you are looking for a perfect parent
> >>grow up jonathan
> >>do you think if you find a perfect teacher that
> >>they will be able to teach you how to be perfect?
> > <snip>
> ok, don't bother to make any effort
> to try to engage with the questions.
> - your choice.
Call that a question(s ?) ? 'Question' implies that that you don't know the
answer before you start - the above's merely *rhetorical*. There's no
'question' that isn't riddled with 'assumption' (like "When did you stop
beating your wife ?") It's not my fault you don't ask "clean"
"non-rhetorical" questions. I would merely be adding gravity to the built-in
assumptions in them if I were to just answer them in an ordinary way.
> >>if the child is judging he's the parent
> >>which makes him still an adapted child
> >>
> >If I'd known I'd have to talk to you later I'd have paid more attention
when
> >I was handed the book "I'm OK, You're OK".
> >
> close guess.
> well, its a shame you didn't.
> i could quite enjoy discussing it, ...finally.
But it was HORRIBLE !!!!
> >>i'm not qualified to judge the
> >>duality of value of the buddha or his teachings -
> >>unlike you, clearly!
> > ....Duality of value ? Is that
> >like on Two-for-the-price-of-one Day at Kwik-Save ?
> >
> yes.
:)
> >>>It's me that's facing it squarely.
> >>>
> >>are you also facing yourself squarely?
> >>...for that matter, is "squarely" the best way?
> >>
> >Good God - Not merely slightly Zennist but a Hippie too ! That is like
> >Two-for-the-price-of-one-day at a shop I avoid.
> >
> thats two valid points neatly avoided then.... :-D
Well that's what I tend to do if I read questions like that. Now call me an
evil evasive bastard if you like but I wouldn't know where to begin trying
to interpret them.
> >>>>ahhh, there's your problem!
> >>>>- ditch the map!
> >>>
> >>>I have - deciding that the Buddha was deluded.
> >>>
> >>so! you immediately replaced it with another map!
> >>- ditch ALL maps!
> >>
> >No. Map ALL ditches.
> >
> LOL, there you go again,
> focussing on the wrongnesses!
Well I didn't realise that - I thought I was just following the standard
rules in Zen riddle-swapping oneupmanship contests.
>
> >>>>hahaha! its really easy to diss stuff that you don't understand
(Including the word "diss" ! Where are we ? On Rikki Lake ? She's big
enough.)
> >>ahhh, you are so full of opinions
> >>on other people's experiences that
> >>there's no room left to try a few of your own?
> >>...even just for the joy of it?
> >>
> >You have been in religious ngs so long you have replaced all sense of
> >reality and perspective with authentic religio-babble. "no room to try a
few
> >of your own [experiences]...even just for the joy of it" !!!! Whaaatttt
!!!
> >
> not at all, i was merely testing yours.
> ....and that's three valid points avoided,
So you're not going to pretend they were "questions" like last time ? :)
Alleged 'point' one - "You are so full of opinions on other people's
experiences" Where's the evidence for that ? I went through this elsewhere
about someone cutting the legs off beetles and then finding that it made
them deaf to his command 'Jump'. You don't have to replicate his
'experience' to know that he's confused 'experience' with 'bogus inference'.
The Buddha claimed to 'astrally travel' in a 'mind-made body' the same size
as his physical body and stroke the surface of the sun (because it looks
like you could from down here). You don't have to replicate the 'experience'
to know why that's a *bogus inference* - same with his heavens and hells and
devas and his knowledge of what gandharvas like to drink etc. And *thinking
straight* is also a kind of "experience" and it would would be a very new
one for most of *YOU PEOPLE* :)
Alleged 'point' two - "no room left to try a few of your own [experiences]".
I've never had any 'room' to try any other experiences than the actual ones
that I actually have.
Alleged 'point' three - "...Even just for the joy of it". This was in
reference to my listing of teachers whose teachings *you* could also be
"trying out" like I should "try out" those of the Buddha. If you say what
they wanted you to "try out" - I don't think you'd confuse it with anything
'joyful'.
> i can see you find this a useful arguing style
> but i get bored quickly
> ...and i don't sit still for personal abuse for long either.
> - your choice.
Well you've sat still for plenty so far so I'll keep adding the humour and
you can keep feeling conflicted till doomsday ! Besides which, IIRC, you
originally wanted to cast aspersions on the pristine gorgeousness of every
last word I post but now you're making out that unless I shape up I won't be
able to 'detain' you any more !
> >>>>because there are 86,000 ways
> >>>>and you are still looking
> >>>>for one that fits your shoes
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>'Ways' is a bit vague. I think maybe you're referring to 'ways' to
> >>>'enlightenment' or 'liberation' or somesuch concepts I also have to buy
> >>>
> >>>
> >into
> >
>
> ooops! lost a bit here !
> did you cut it because you couldn't refute it?
I can refute anything Boris. I'm the King of Refutation. The point is - when
I look at other people's posts, most of the best bits are those I wrote and
I enjoy rereading them and re-admiring them. Now unfortunately 'some people'
cut halfway into my beautiful paragraphs with persnicketty comments which I
don't mind leaving if I consider them worthy but sometimes I don't like the
interruption in the gorgeous flow of what I was expounding so I restore that
instead.
> >>well i understand what you are getting at with the sin thing
> >>but i had never heard of the sun thing until you mentioned it.
> >>...sorry, haven't the faintest idea what he's talking about
> >>- but i suppose that _he_ did.
> >>
> >Sure _he_ did - and he was deluded.
> >
> ...in your opinion...fwiw...
Well it's worth more than yours and most people's because I've been arsed to
examine the evidence for it (available e.g. in the DN2 and at least six
other places on accesstoinsight) which often turns out to be a handy way to
have an opinion that's worth plenty :)
> > <>
> LOL, you are funny though,
> ...thats the only reason i'm still talking to you...
Well if you think I'll buy that that's the 'only' reason....
Jonathan