Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: What is wrong with Buddhism
17 views
Skip to first unread message
Tang Huyen
Apr 16, 2012, 9:29:00 AM4/16/12
to
On 4/14/2012 7:01 PM, Ćzen wrote:
> It's Buddhist.
>
> It has a negative connotation in the eyes
> of other religious dispositions as it is
> a 'competing' religion. Though that is
> obviously not what Buddhism is about, so
> that is sort of the irony of it being what
> it is.
>
> If it were recognised as just a set of
> healthy practices and ideas that could be
> applied to anyone of any spiritual or
> religious disposition - theist, atheist
> and apatheist alike - then there would be
> no problem with Buddhism.
>
> Just as Algebra is not Arabic or Muslim,
> as Calculus is not British or Christian,
> as Science is not apart of any culture,
> but transcends culture... so too should
> the ideals of Buddhism transcend Buddhism
> as a culture and religion.
>
> Meditation is not Buddhist, it just
> happens to be a part of and developed
> through Buddhism. The 4 Noble Truths are
> not Buddhist and neither is the 8 Fold
> Path. Buddhism is belief is silly things
> like prayer wheels, alms bowls, robes,
> rituals and traditions that have nothing
> to do with the core aspects of it's
> philosophy. A Philosophy that should
> transcend the mythos of it's culture.
>
> Buddhism would be far more beneficial to
> more people if it weren't so Buddhist.
Stoicism, Daoism and Buddhism share some
common themes, like non-resistance. If you
do not put up resistance, you do not
suffer. All three religions (yes, all
three are religions) aim to make people
happier, and happier by not attaching so
hard. Attaching to what? Attaching to
anything at all, but especially to the "I"
or self. All three counsel disinvestment
from anything, detachment from everything.
All three teach fluidity and flexibility,
and inveigh against fixity and rigidity,
and the object that those traits cluster
around is the "I" or self. Ultimately
fluidity and flexibility help to shed the
"I" or self, so that the greatest
happiness (often called grace) occurs to
no one, and nobody is the recipient of
such greatest happiness. That is the
tradeoff of mental culture.
So, there is a universal path to the
ending of suffering, and it is simple.
To practice it is not easy, but still
worth it, all the way. To call such
method "religion" or not may or may not
be important, but it promises the
greatest happiness accessible to humans,
and what promises the greatest happiness
accessible to humans is often called
"religion".
By the way, Stoicism has its God, who
is impersonal and is the seminal reason
(logos) of the universe, just as Dharma
in Buddhism is the Law of the universe,
and the Way (Dao) is the law that
governs the universe in Daoism.
But to come down to the dirty realities
of daily life, if such method or path
was not supported by a lay community
and practiced intensively by a clerical
community supported by such laity, it
would have vanished within a few
generations after its founder(s). Real
life contains such dirty realities, and
such dirty realities have successfully
preserved such method or path down to us,
so we should be grateful for them. We
could not even live without such dirty
realities anyway. One can think of a
pure Platonic heaven shorn of such dirty
realities, but it would not be our real
world.
Tang Huyen
> It's Buddhist.
>
> It has a negative connotation in the eyes
> of other religious dispositions as it is
> a 'competing' religion. Though that is
> obviously not what Buddhism is about, so
> that is sort of the irony of it being what
> it is.
>
> If it were recognised as just a set of
> healthy practices and ideas that could be
> applied to anyone of any spiritual or
> religious disposition - theist, atheist
> and apatheist alike - then there would be
> no problem with Buddhism.
>
> Just as Algebra is not Arabic or Muslim,
> as Calculus is not British or Christian,
> as Science is not apart of any culture,
> but transcends culture... so too should
> the ideals of Buddhism transcend Buddhism
> as a culture and religion.
>
> Meditation is not Buddhist, it just
> happens to be a part of and developed
> through Buddhism. The 4 Noble Truths are
> not Buddhist and neither is the 8 Fold
> Path. Buddhism is belief is silly things
> like prayer wheels, alms bowls, robes,
> rituals and traditions that have nothing
> to do with the core aspects of it's
> philosophy. A Philosophy that should
> transcend the mythos of it's culture.
>
> Buddhism would be far more beneficial to
> more people if it weren't so Buddhist.
Stoicism, Daoism and Buddhism share some
common themes, like non-resistance. If you
do not put up resistance, you do not
suffer. All three religions (yes, all
three are religions) aim to make people
happier, and happier by not attaching so
hard. Attaching to what? Attaching to
anything at all, but especially to the "I"
or self. All three counsel disinvestment
from anything, detachment from everything.
All three teach fluidity and flexibility,
and inveigh against fixity and rigidity,
and the object that those traits cluster
around is the "I" or self. Ultimately
fluidity and flexibility help to shed the
"I" or self, so that the greatest
happiness (often called grace) occurs to
no one, and nobody is the recipient of
such greatest happiness. That is the
tradeoff of mental culture.
So, there is a universal path to the
ending of suffering, and it is simple.
To practice it is not easy, but still
worth it, all the way. To call such
method "religion" or not may or may not
be important, but it promises the
greatest happiness accessible to humans,
and what promises the greatest happiness
accessible to humans is often called
"religion".
By the way, Stoicism has its God, who
is impersonal and is the seminal reason
(logos) of the universe, just as Dharma
in Buddhism is the Law of the universe,
and the Way (Dao) is the law that
governs the universe in Daoism.
But to come down to the dirty realities
of daily life, if such method or path
was not supported by a lay community
and practiced intensively by a clerical
community supported by such laity, it
would have vanished within a few
generations after its founder(s). Real
life contains such dirty realities, and
such dirty realities have successfully
preserved such method or path down to us,
so we should be grateful for them. We
could not even live without such dirty
realities anyway. One can think of a
pure Platonic heaven shorn of such dirty
realities, but it would not be our real
world.
Tang Huyen
Ned Ludd
Apr 16, 2012, 12:28:34 PM4/16/12
to
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:6fednQMMe8EHgxHS...@supernews.com...
Nor does Dharma or Tao in any way imply God, as
your slippery analogy above attempts to do.
And if 'dirty reality' is so important in bringing
these fine philosophies to us, why don't you
worship dirty reality?
The elements of Buddhism have evolved in many
cultures throughout time, and, I presume, on many
planets throughout the universe. Their preservation
is unnecessary. More so because the process of
preservation entails so many rites, structures
and elites that are antithetical to the Buddhist
teaching itself.
Ned
Tang Huyen
Apr 16, 2012, 1:03:09 PM4/16/12
to
On 4/16/2012 12:28 PM, Ned Ludd wrote:
> You'll have a hard time translating Tao as 'Law'.
> Nor does Dharma or Tao in any way imply God, as
> your slippery analogy above attempts to do.
>
> And if 'dirty reality' is so important in bringing
> these fine philosophies to us, why don't you
> worship dirty reality?
>
> The elements of Buddhism have evolved in many
> cultures throughout time, and, I presume, on many
> planets throughout the universe. Their preservation
> is unnecessary. More so because the process of
> preservation entails so many rites, structures
> and elites that are antithetical to the Buddhist
> teaching itself.
The Way (Dao) is how the universe operates,
> You'll have a hard time translating Tao as 'Law'.
> Nor does Dharma or Tao in any way imply God, as
> your slippery analogy above attempts to do.
>
> And if 'dirty reality' is so important in bringing
> these fine philosophies to us, why don't you
> worship dirty reality?
>
> The elements of Buddhism have evolved in many
> cultures throughout time, and, I presume, on many
> planets throughout the universe. Their preservation
> is unnecessary. More so because the process of
> preservation entails so many rites, structures
> and elites that are antithetical to the Buddhist
> teaching itself.
in chapter 5 it is called "heaven and earth"
(tian di), and the line says: "heaven and
earth is inhumane and treats the ten
thousand things like straw dogs". The straw
dogs are fake holocausts which are burnt
for the dead, like fake clothings, fake
money, fake carriages, fake beds (in
modernity, fake cars, fake radios, fake
iPads, etc.) These things are used once,
iow, burnt, and then are gone for good.
Nobody cares for them any more.
The Stoics call their God the seminal
reason (logos), which is the way the
universe operates, independently of any
will, anthropomorphic or otherwise. It is
impersonal, which is how the above verse
represents "heaven and earth": inhumane,
without consideration for human
sensibilities. Stoicism, Daoism and
Buddhism agree that the universe operates
impersonally, without partiality and
consideration for human sensibilities.
With the proviso that the way the
universe operates is impersonal and
impartial, shorn of any will,
anthropomorphic or otherwise, that way
can be called God, and worshipped as such,
namely as the way the universe operates,
impersonal and impartial though it is.
God as a word and concept is not owned by
anybody or any group, and it can mean what
the user wants it to mean. If users agree
to mean by it the way the universe
operates, they are free to do so, just as
in computerese, abstract processes (like
routines in programmes) are often called
by anthropomorphic names, like "he".
People use words and concepts the way they
want, only realists and literalists
chained to some arbitrary anthropomorphic
traditions like you are used by them. (Fu
also takes the *words* "God", "the soul"
and "grace" to belong exclusively to Jewish
mythology, and he means the words, not the
referents). I hope that you (and he) are
happy.
Tang Huyen
noname
Apr 16, 2012, 1:43:01 PM4/16/12
to
Not caring about becoming the leader in the religion market,
caring only about liberation, "what *is* wrong with Buddhism?"
noname
Apr 16, 2012, 1:44:39 PM4/16/12
to
self-enforcing law of falling; the concept of God is not required.
oxtail
Apr 16, 2012, 2:32:13 PM4/16/12
to
noname wrote:
>
> I like the title of this thread.
> Not caring about becoming the leader in the religion market, caring only
> about liberation, "what *is* wrong with Buddhism?"
It's so easily misunderstood.
>
> I like the title of this thread.
> Not caring about becoming the leader in the religion market, caring only
> about liberation, "what *is* wrong with Buddhism?"
--
oxtail
oxtail
Apr 16, 2012, 2:36:17 PM4/16/12
to
noname wrote:
> On 04/16/2012 10:28 AM, Ned Ludd wrote:
>>
>> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
>> news:6fednQMMe8EHgxHS...@supernews.com...
> On 04/16/2012 10:28 AM, Ned Ludd wrote:
>>
>> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
>> news:6fednQMMe8EHgxHS...@supernews.com...
What if God is always everywhere
regardless whether required or not?
--
oxtail
beerlet dhiblang
Apr 16, 2012, 2:41:34 PM4/16/12
to
That's the problem, it's where it's being kept.
/l
Ned Ludd
Apr 16, 2012, 3:21:12 PM4/16/12
to
news:nt6dnRsst_tXzRHS...@supernews.com...
Yes. Now explain the widespread Buddhist
belief in karma. I'm not disagreeing with you -
I'm saying Buddhism as it exists and is taught
disagrees with you.
> With the proviso that the way the
> universe operates is impersonal and
> impartial, shorn of any will,
> anthropomorphic or otherwise, that way
> can be called God, and worshipped as such,
> namely as the way the universe operates,
> impersonal and impartial though it is.
>
Why would one worship that? And why would
one impute any quality of any kind to it? (Like
God, or Godness.)
> God as a word and concept is not owned by
> anybody or any group, and it can mean what
> the user wants it to mean. If users agree
> to mean by it the way the universe
> operates, they are free to do so, just as
> in computerese, abstract processes (like
> routines in programmes) are often called
> by anthropomorphic names, like "he".
>
Except you will never have a conversation
with a normal human if you use the word God
in that sense, because you will constantly
have to be saying, "No I don't mean God that
way, I just mean it to be 'the way the universe
works'."
> People use words and concepts the way they
> want, only realists and literalists
> chained to some arbitrary anthropomorphic
> traditions like you are used by them. (Fu
> also takes the *words* "God", "the soul"
> and "grace" to belong exclusively to Jewish
> mythology, and he means the words, not the
> referents). I hope that you (and he) are
> happy.
> Tang Huyen
>
Let us hope that the study and practice of
Buddhism and Zen do not foster the creation of
a separate specialized language, which one must
constantly explain to people.
As for your bristling at the Semitic overtones
to the word 'God', I've said here repeatedly that
if your study of Zen means that you can't use the
word 'God', then Zen has failed you. That being
said, the purpose of language is to communicate.
Why you would WANT to use the word 'God' to
mean something quite unlike its normal worldwide
usage in the English language is a question that
might bear some useful fruit from self-inquiry.
Ned
belief in karma. I'm not disagreeing with you -
I'm saying Buddhism as it exists and is taught
disagrees with you.
> With the proviso that the way the
> universe operates is impersonal and
> impartial, shorn of any will,
> anthropomorphic or otherwise, that way
> can be called God, and worshipped as such,
> namely as the way the universe operates,
> impersonal and impartial though it is.
>
one impute any quality of any kind to it? (Like
God, or Godness.)
> God as a word and concept is not owned by
> anybody or any group, and it can mean what
> the user wants it to mean. If users agree
> to mean by it the way the universe
> operates, they are free to do so, just as
> in computerese, abstract processes (like
> routines in programmes) are often called
> by anthropomorphic names, like "he".
>
with a normal human if you use the word God
in that sense, because you will constantly
have to be saying, "No I don't mean God that
way, I just mean it to be 'the way the universe
works'."
> People use words and concepts the way they
> want, only realists and literalists
> chained to some arbitrary anthropomorphic
> traditions like you are used by them. (Fu
> also takes the *words* "God", "the soul"
> and "grace" to belong exclusively to Jewish
> mythology, and he means the words, not the
> referents). I hope that you (and he) are
> happy.
> Tang Huyen
>
Buddhism and Zen do not foster the creation of
a separate specialized language, which one must
constantly explain to people.
As for your bristling at the Semitic overtones
to the word 'God', I've said here repeatedly that
if your study of Zen means that you can't use the
word 'God', then Zen has failed you. That being
said, the purpose of language is to communicate.
Why you would WANT to use the word 'God' to
mean something quite unlike its normal worldwide
usage in the English language is a question that
might bear some useful fruit from self-inquiry.
Ned
Ned Ludd
Apr 16, 2012, 3:23:10 PM4/16/12
to
"beerlet dhiblang" <dodeca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:24c3b0b6-57d6-4c34...@h20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> I like the title of this thread.
>>> Not caring about becoming the leader in the religion market,
>>> caring only about liberation, "what *is* wrong with Buddhism?"
>>
>> It's so easily misunderstood.
>
> Where is Buddhism?
> That's the problem, it's where it's being kept.
> /l
>
In the temple.
>>> I like the title of this thread.
>>> Not caring about becoming the leader in the religion market,
>>> caring only about liberation, "what *is* wrong with Buddhism?"
>>
>> It's so easily misunderstood.
>
> Where is Buddhism?
> That's the problem, it's where it's being kept.
> /l
>
Ned
(Is there an echo in here?)
beerlet dhiblang
Apr 16, 2012, 3:32:30 PM4/16/12
to
On Apr 16, 3:23 pm, "Ned Ludd" <nedl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> "beerlet dhiblang" <dodecapus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Ned
>
> (Is there an echo in here?)
Echocephaly can be cured.
/l
> "beerlet dhiblang" <dodecapus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:24c3b0b6-57d6-4c34...@h20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >>> I like the title of this thread.
> >>> Not caring about becoming the leader in the religion market,
> >>> caring only about liberation, "what *is* wrong with Buddhism?"
>
> >> It's so easily misunderstood.
>
> > Where is Buddhism?
> > That's the problem, it's where it's being kept.
> > /l
>
> In the temple.
Or between them.
> news:24c3b0b6-57d6-4c34...@h20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >>> I like the title of this thread.
> >>> Not caring about becoming the leader in the religion market,
> >>> caring only about liberation, "what *is* wrong with Buddhism?"
>
> >> It's so easily misunderstood.
>
> > Where is Buddhism?
> > That's the problem, it's where it's being kept.
> > /l
>
> In the temple.
> Ned
>
> (Is there an echo in here?)
/l
noname
Apr 16, 2012, 3:35:52 PM4/16/12
to
probably just confuse us both.
Sanford Manley
Apr 16, 2012, 5:38:50 PM4/16/12
to
IMHO.
--
Sanford
Sanford Manley
Apr 16, 2012, 5:41:42 PM4/16/12
to
On 4/16/2012 3:21 PM, Ned Ludd wrote:
> Except you will never have a conversation
> with a normal human if you use the word God
> in that sense, because you will constantly
> have to be saying, "No I don't mean God that
> way, I just mean it to be 'the way the universe
> works'."
I guess I am not a normal human.
> Except you will never have a conversation
> with a normal human if you use the word God
> in that sense, because you will constantly
> have to be saying, "No I don't mean God that
> way, I just mean it to be 'the way the universe
> works'."
--
Sanford
Ned Ludd
Apr 16, 2012, 6:51:01 PM4/16/12
to
"Sanford Manley" <ans...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jmi3mn$krv$1...@dont-email.me...
Now look at your last 20 posts. Do you maybe
want to de-sarcasticize the above proposition?
Ned
Nobody in Particular
Apr 16, 2012, 9:09:24 PM4/16/12
to
"Sanford Manley" wrote in message news:jmi3mn$krv$1...@dont-email.me...
http://img2.etsystatic.com/il_fullxfull.139606250.jpg
Tang Huyen
Apr 16, 2012, 9:27:13 PM4/16/12
to
On 4/16/2012 3:23 PM, Ned Ludd wrote:
> "beerlet dhiblang"
>> Where is Buddhism?
>> That's the problem, it's where it's being kept.
slavery to Jewish mythology. More
precisely, Jewish mythology has
brainwashed (yes) you into
believing that Religion and God
belong exclusively to it (Jewish
mythology). You are a good slave
and should be proud of it.
To many Buddhists in traditional
Buddhist countries, Buddhism is
in nature, out there, it is the way
the universe runs, or, in simpler
terms, it is the way things run. It
is natural and abstract, it
underlies nature (just think of the
modern laws of physics in the
aggregate). The temples, with their
monks and nuns, keep the scriptures
and rituals, but the Law (Dharma) is
out there, running the world. It is
abstract, universal, impersonal, it
does not belong to anybody, it is
not made by anybody.
When I grew up and went to French
schools in Vietnam, my French
teachers taught me the modern
scientific views, which are
consonant with the above. More
recently, I read in US newspapers
that the Chinese in mainland
(Communist) China are slowly
learning to move away from
allegiance to some people in power
(like Mao) towards the following
of abstract rules and regulations,
decoupled from the people who hold
power, like democracy, the rule of
law and the constitution.
I knew that Jewish mythology goes
for personal, concrete centres of
allegiance, like Yahweh or Jesus,
and its followers accept some
such person (like Jesus) as
personal saviour, which is very
backward (primitive) to my way of
thinking. The world was created by
such a personal being, in human
language and thought ("Let there
be light!"), and the will of God
governs the world.
But prior to Jewish mythology,
your ancestors, the Europeans (do
you remember them?), had Stoicism,
which survived into the Christian
era, albeit as a boutique religion,
followed by a small elite (just as
Daoism is a boutique religion,
followed by a small elite in China).
It had a God who is the replica of
the Buddhist Law (Dharma) and the
Way (Dao) of the Daoists. The
Stoic God is impersonal and has no
regard to human sensibilities, just
like the Buddhist Law (Dharma) and
the Way (Dao) of the Daoists. He is
merely the way the universe
operates, the seminal reason
(logos) which structures the
universe, in modern terms the DNA
of the universe.
What it comes down to is that you
(and most Americans, like Fu) have
been brainwashed by Jewish
mythology into accepting a
concretist, personal worldview,
whereas Buddhists, Daoists and
modern Europeans (like my French
teachers) hold an abstract,
impersonal worldview that hews to
abstract laws and empty modes of
operation. You hold a primitive
worldview, based on personal
allegiance, whereas Buddhists,
Daoists and modern Europeans get
abstract and impersonal --
advanced -- in the way they look
at the world (the direct meaning
of worldview).
So, go with the modern world and
traditional Buddhists and Daoists,
dear. You should catch up, after
all these years and decades. You
are backward.
Tang Huyen
> "beerlet dhiblang"
>> Where is Buddhism?
>> That's the problem, it's where it's being kept.
> In the temple.
>
> Ned
>
> (Is there an echo in here?)
Your belief simply gives away your
>
> Ned
>
> (Is there an echo in here?)
slavery to Jewish mythology. More
precisely, Jewish mythology has
brainwashed (yes) you into
believing that Religion and God
belong exclusively to it (Jewish
mythology). You are a good slave
and should be proud of it.
To many Buddhists in traditional
Buddhist countries, Buddhism is
in nature, out there, it is the way
the universe runs, or, in simpler
terms, it is the way things run. It
is natural and abstract, it
underlies nature (just think of the
modern laws of physics in the
aggregate). The temples, with their
monks and nuns, keep the scriptures
and rituals, but the Law (Dharma) is
out there, running the world. It is
abstract, universal, impersonal, it
does not belong to anybody, it is
not made by anybody.
When I grew up and went to French
schools in Vietnam, my French
teachers taught me the modern
scientific views, which are
consonant with the above. More
recently, I read in US newspapers
that the Chinese in mainland
(Communist) China are slowly
learning to move away from
allegiance to some people in power
(like Mao) towards the following
of abstract rules and regulations,
decoupled from the people who hold
power, like democracy, the rule of
law and the constitution.
I knew that Jewish mythology goes
for personal, concrete centres of
allegiance, like Yahweh or Jesus,
and its followers accept some
such person (like Jesus) as
personal saviour, which is very
backward (primitive) to my way of
thinking. The world was created by
such a personal being, in human
language and thought ("Let there
be light!"), and the will of God
governs the world.
But prior to Jewish mythology,
your ancestors, the Europeans (do
you remember them?), had Stoicism,
which survived into the Christian
era, albeit as a boutique religion,
followed by a small elite (just as
Daoism is a boutique religion,
followed by a small elite in China).
It had a God who is the replica of
the Buddhist Law (Dharma) and the
Way (Dao) of the Daoists. The
Stoic God is impersonal and has no
regard to human sensibilities, just
like the Buddhist Law (Dharma) and
the Way (Dao) of the Daoists. He is
merely the way the universe
operates, the seminal reason
(logos) which structures the
universe, in modern terms the DNA
of the universe.
What it comes down to is that you
(and most Americans, like Fu) have
been brainwashed by Jewish
mythology into accepting a
concretist, personal worldview,
whereas Buddhists, Daoists and
modern Europeans (like my French
teachers) hold an abstract,
impersonal worldview that hews to
abstract laws and empty modes of
operation. You hold a primitive
worldview, based on personal
allegiance, whereas Buddhists,
Daoists and modern Europeans get
abstract and impersonal --
advanced -- in the way they look
at the world (the direct meaning
of worldview).
So, go with the modern world and
traditional Buddhists and Daoists,
dear. You should catch up, after
all these years and decades. You
are backward.
Tang Huyen
oxtail
Apr 16, 2012, 10:08:12 PM4/16/12
to
--
oxtail
Ned Ludd
Apr 16, 2012, 10:18:34 PM4/16/12
to
news:T-Gdnb0XVcdyWxHS...@supernews.com...
>
Nothing underlies anything. Any assertion
to the contrary is non-Buddhist.
> ...modern laws of physics in the
nothing out there. It's been called
"vast emptiness" or even "the abyss", but
you have nothing in any of it to hang a
quality on.
> When I grew up and went to French
> schools in Vietnam, my French
> teachers taught me the modern
> scientific views, which are
> consonant with the above. More
> recently, I read in US newspapers
> that the Chinese in mainland
> (Communist) China are slowly
> learning to move away from
> allegiance to some people in power
> (like Mao) towards the following
> of abstract rules and regulations,
> decoupled from the people who hold
> power, like democracy, the rule of
> law and the constitution.
>
China? The Vinegar Tasters begin
to think it tastes sour, instead of
bitter, after thinking it was sweet?
The seminal reason is desire. The
structure and the universe disappear
when desire disappears.
> What it comes down to is that you
> (and most Americans, like Fu) have
> been brainwashed by Jewish
> mythology into accepting a
> concretist, personal worldview,
> whereas Buddhists, Daoists and
> modern Europeans (like my French
> teachers) hold an abstract,
> impersonal worldview that hews to
> abstract laws and empty modes of
> operation. You hold a primitive
> worldview, based on personal
> allegiance, whereas Buddhists,
> Daoists and modern Europeans get
> abstract and impersonal --
> advanced -- in the way they look
> at the world (the direct meaning
> of worldview).
>
"hewing to abstract laws" is brainwashed.
"holding a worldview" is being enslaved.
Read Joshu's "Cautions".
> So, go with the modern world and
> traditional Buddhists and Daoists,
> dear. You should catch up, after
> all these years and decades. You
> are backward.
> Tang Huyen
>
Go with the modern and traditional?
Catch up after lasting through years
and decades? Your koans are silly -
Read Blue Cliff and see how the experts
do it.
Ned
> "beerlet dhiblang"
>>> Where is Buddhism?
>>> That's the problem, it's where it's being kept.
>
>> In the temple.
>> Ned
>> (Is there an echo in here?)
>
> Your belief simply gives away your
> slavery to Jewish mythology. More
> precisely, Jewish mythology has
> brainwashed (yes) you into
> believing that Religion and God
> belong exclusively to it (Jewish
> mythology). You are a good slave
> and should be proud of it.
> To many Buddhists in traditional
> Buddhist countries, Buddhism is
> in nature, out there, it is the way
> the universe runs, or, in simpler
> terms, it is the way things run. It
> is natural and abstract, it
> underlies nature (just think of the...
>>> Where is Buddhism?
>>> That's the problem, it's where it's being kept.
>
>> In the temple.
>> Ned
>> (Is there an echo in here?)
>
> Your belief simply gives away your
> slavery to Jewish mythology. More
> precisely, Jewish mythology has
> brainwashed (yes) you into
> believing that Religion and God
> belong exclusively to it (Jewish
> mythology). You are a good slave
> and should be proud of it.
> To many Buddhists in traditional
> Buddhist countries, Buddhism is
> in nature, out there, it is the way
> the universe runs, or, in simpler
> terms, it is the way things run. It
> is natural and abstract, it
>
Nothing underlies anything. Any assertion
to the contrary is non-Buddhist.
> ...modern laws of physics in the
> aggregate). The temples, with their
> monks and nuns, keep the scriptures
> and rituals, but the Law (Dharma) is
> out there, running the world. It is
> abstract, universal, impersonal, it
> does not belong to anybody, it is
> not made by anybody.
>
The dharma is not out there. There is
> monks and nuns, keep the scriptures
> and rituals, but the Law (Dharma) is
> out there, running the world. It is
> abstract, universal, impersonal, it
> does not belong to anybody, it is
> not made by anybody.
>
nothing out there. It's been called
"vast emptiness" or even "the abyss", but
you have nothing in any of it to hang a
quality on.
> When I grew up and went to French
> schools in Vietnam, my French
> teachers taught me the modern
> scientific views, which are
> consonant with the above. More
> recently, I read in US newspapers
> that the Chinese in mainland
> (Communist) China are slowly
> learning to move away from
> allegiance to some people in power
> (like Mao) towards the following
> of abstract rules and regulations,
> decoupled from the people who hold
> power, like democracy, the rule of
> law and the constitution.
>
to think it tastes sour, instead of
bitter, after thinking it was sweet?
structure and the universe disappear
when desire disappears.
> What it comes down to is that you
> (and most Americans, like Fu) have
> been brainwashed by Jewish
> mythology into accepting a
> concretist, personal worldview,
> whereas Buddhists, Daoists and
> modern Europeans (like my French
> teachers) hold an abstract,
> impersonal worldview that hews to
> abstract laws and empty modes of
> operation. You hold a primitive
> worldview, based on personal
> allegiance, whereas Buddhists,
> Daoists and modern Europeans get
> abstract and impersonal --
> advanced -- in the way they look
> at the world (the direct meaning
> of worldview).
>
"holding a worldview" is being enslaved.
Read Joshu's "Cautions".
> So, go with the modern world and
> traditional Buddhists and Daoists,
> dear. You should catch up, after
> all these years and decades. You
> are backward.
> Tang Huyen
>
Catch up after lasting through years
and decades? Your koans are silly -
Read Blue Cliff and see how the experts
do it.
Ned
oxtail
Apr 16, 2012, 10:29:01 PM4/16/12
to
Ned Ludd
Apr 16, 2012, 11:00:34 PM4/16/12
to
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:YqCdnSpexPtmTxHS...@earthlink.com...
>
>> ...You hold a primitive
>> worldview, based on personal
>> allegiance, whereas Buddhists,
>> Daoists and modern Europeans get
>> abstract and impersonal --
>> advanced -- in the way they look
>> at the world (the direct meaning
>> of worldview).
>
> "hewing to abstract laws" is brainwashed.
> "holding a worldview" is being enslaved.
> Read Joshu's "Cautions".
>
Very sorry, that's Mumon's "Cautions".
>> allegiance, whereas Buddhists,
>> Daoists and modern Europeans get
>> abstract and impersonal --
>> advanced -- in the way they look
>> at the world (the direct meaning
>> of worldview).
>
> "hewing to abstract laws" is brainwashed.
> "holding a worldview" is being enslaved.
> Read Joshu's "Cautions".
>
Ned
beerlet dhiblang
Apr 17, 2012, 12:01:04 AM4/17/12
to
On Apr 16, 9:27 pm, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
wrote:
Pretty wide swing there. I'm not even sure there was a ball.
/l
wrote:
> On 4/16/2012 3:23 PM, Ned Ludd wrote:
>
> > "beerlet dhiblang"
>
> >> Where is Buddhism?
> >> That's the problem, it's where it's being kept.
>
> > In the temple.
> >
> > Ned
> >
> > (Is there an echo in here?)
>
> Your belief simply gives away your
> slavery to Jewish mythology.
????
>
> > "beerlet dhiblang"
>
> >> Where is Buddhism?
> >> That's the problem, it's where it's being kept.
>
> > In the temple.
> >
> > Ned
> >
> > (Is there an echo in here?)
>
> Your belief simply gives away your
> slavery to Jewish mythology.
Pretty wide swing there. I'm not even sure there was a ball.
/l
beerlet dhiblang
Apr 17, 2012, 12:11:45 AM4/17/12
to
On Apr 16, 3:23 pm, "Ned Ludd" <nedl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> "beerlet dhiblang" <dodecapus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
All religion resides in the minds of its human creators, Buddhism
inclusive.
How it has been taught, and by whom or to whom, there are myriad
details subject to scrutiny.
Why it's still being taught, and what salience it can retain going
forward, is a challenge for every religion that finds its origins in
antiquity.
Buddhism was foremost a reformation against the hierarchy of Brahma.
Nothing was too sacrosanct then to not try something new (I surmise it
helped that Gotama was of noble birth and well educated).
So nothing is so sacrosanct now to not reimagine what we have, and
formulate something anew, abiding to principle and insight in pursuit
of a common weal.
/l
beerlet dhiblang
Apr 17, 2012, 12:31:20 AM4/17/12
to
an archetype, it's a feeling, evoked by a variety of experiences.
Escalating to a top Krishna or YHWH is just an abstraction, but
there's really no such thing -- just billions of small gods,
propagating via various media and regimen.
The abstraction carries force by token of the threat of sanction - be
it conquest or ostracism.
Einstein's "God" carries no force, but is the best god there is. "What
really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of
the world."
Einstein meant "God." But not in the way that most believers might
think, and probably not in the way that most non-believers would
prefer.
He was fully aware of the concept, to the point of succinct, adroit
subtlety.
/l
noname
Apr 17, 2012, 4:55:59 AM4/17/12
to
about that, people could get the wrong idea.
noname
Apr 17, 2012, 5:16:29 AM4/17/12
to
what the word Tao might mean and have probably never heard it before
except for seeing it on someone's T-shirt or a book title.
The word 'God' on the other hand, is a word every Tom-Dick-&-Harry
thinks he knows all about. Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, they all
*know* what God means, what God is all about, what God wants, and so on
and so forth. Muslims also know what God means and what God wants and
the rest. Historically just about every glob of people you can find
have used their understanding of God as an excuse to kill or at least
subjugate others, even if their name for God was Zeus or something else.
When everybody knows what the same word means, and all their
understandings of it are different, it's pretty pointless to try talking
about everything at once, and narrowing it down to a few dozen different
understandings amounts to a perpetual argument.
Every once in a while I drive past a church with a big sign that says
"Come Worship With Us". I just roll my eyes, shake my head, realizing
that those retards are the people who will be carrying torches and
pitchforks one of these days, or the descendants of those who have in
the past.
Worship. The whole concept flies in the face of all that is reasonable
or sensible. Any "God" that wants to be worshipped is no god at all.
Any "God" that demands obiesance and blind obediance is a child
masturbating.
Life is not about being "God's puppet", or even "God's sock-puppet".
So pick something else to talk about, talking about God is a waste of
time because the word God has too many meanings to allow its discussion
in any meaningful way. It isn't even a necessary concept; sure, you can
put things in "theistic" terminology if you choose, but it is entirely
unnecessary.
noname
Apr 17, 2012, 5:31:36 AM4/17/12
to
matter what's true, they know by merit of having been told.
noname
Apr 17, 2012, 5:42:11 AM4/17/12
to
On 04/16/2012 10:11 PM, beerlet dhiblang wrote:
> (I surmise it helped that Gotama was of noble birth and well educated)
It is probably easier for a spoiled brat of a prince to become a beggar
> (I surmise it helped that Gotama was of noble birth and well educated)
and through that experience discover the essence of princehood than it
is for one born a beggar to discover it, but that doesn't mean that it's
necessary, it doesn't mean that only one born a prince can discover it;
anyone can learn disdain for whatever is not brought before him as an
offering, which is the essential lesson taught by loss of desire, that
of needing nothing, of accepting nothing unsuitable.
oxtail
Apr 17, 2012, 7:53:23 AM4/17/12
to
beerlet dhiblang wrote:
> On Apr 16, 3:23 pm, "Ned Ludd" <nedl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> "beerlet dhiblang" <dodecapus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:24c3b0b6-57d6-4c34-bf81-
> On Apr 16, 3:23 pm, "Ned Ludd" <nedl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> "beerlet dhiblang" <dodecapus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
b599f3...@h20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >>> I like the title of this thread.
>> >>> Not caring about becoming the leader in the religion market, caring
>> >>> only about liberation, "what *is* wrong with Buddhism?"
>>
>> >> It's so easily misunderstood.
>>
>> > Where is Buddhism?
>> > That's the problem, it's where it's being kept. /l
>>
>> In the temple.
>>
>> Ned
>>
>> (Is there an echo in here?)
>
> As for my original question, it was rhetorical but perhaps oblique.
>
> All religion resides in the minds of its human creators, Buddhism
> inclusive.
>
> How it has been taught, and by whom or to whom, there are myriad details
> subject to scrutiny.
>
> Why it's still being taught, and what salience it can retain going
> forward, is a challenge for every religion that finds its origins in
> antiquity.
>
> Buddhism was foremost a reformation against the hierarchy of Brahma.
>
> Nothing was too sacrosanct then to not try something new (I surmise it
> helped that Gotama was of noble birth and well educated).
>
> So nothing is so sacrosanct now to not reimagine what we have, and
> formulate something anew, abiding to principle and insight in pursuit of
> a common weal.
>
> /l
What is this creative minds you are talking about?
>> >>> I like the title of this thread.
>> >>> Not caring about becoming the leader in the religion market, caring
>> >>> only about liberation, "what *is* wrong with Buddhism?"
>>
>> >> It's so easily misunderstood.
>>
>> > Where is Buddhism?
>> > That's the problem, it's where it's being kept. /l
>>
>> In the temple.
>>
>> Ned
>>
>> (Is there an echo in here?)
>
> As for my original question, it was rhetorical but perhaps oblique.
>
> All religion resides in the minds of its human creators, Buddhism
> inclusive.
>
> How it has been taught, and by whom or to whom, there are myriad details
> subject to scrutiny.
>
> Why it's still being taught, and what salience it can retain going
> forward, is a challenge for every religion that finds its origins in
> antiquity.
>
> Buddhism was foremost a reformation against the hierarchy of Brahma.
>
> Nothing was too sacrosanct then to not try something new (I surmise it
> helped that Gotama was of noble birth and well educated).
>
> So nothing is so sacrosanct now to not reimagine what we have, and
> formulate something anew, abiding to principle and insight in pursuit of
> a common weal.
>
> /l
Does a mirror crate all things it reflects?
--
oxtail
oxtail
Apr 17, 2012, 7:55:36 AM4/17/12
to
--
oxtail
oxtail
Apr 17, 2012, 8:00:47 AM4/17/12
to
How about in China?
Is Dao absolutely necessary?
--
oxtail
leebert
Apr 17, 2012, 8:20:48 AM4/17/12
to
/l
leebert
Apr 17, 2012, 8:24:42 AM4/17/12
to
/l
leebert
Apr 17, 2012, 8:50:05 AM4/17/12
to
My point is that Gotama's position in society carried some weight, and
it helped popularize his mission.
And were he considered heir apparent to the throne (of this I'm not
sure ...), it would be remarkable in any era, and certainly lend
gravitas to the mission.
/l
leebert
Apr 17, 2012, 8:53:52 AM4/17/12
to
On Apr 17, 7:53 am, oxtail <oxt...@nowhere.org> wrote:
> beerlet dhiblang wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 3:23 pm, "Ned Ludd" <nedl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> "beerlet dhiblang" <dodecapus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> news:24c3b0b6-57d6-4c34-bf81-
>
> b599f3f00...@h20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> beerlet dhiblang wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 3:23 pm, "Ned Ludd" <nedl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> "beerlet dhiblang" <dodecapus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> news:24c3b0b6-57d6-4c34-bf81-
>
I'm sometimes game for oblique and inscrutable, but that went all
whoooshy & barely touched a hair.
Anytime you wanna come down from that cloud ....
/l
SG
Apr 17, 2012, 10:01:46 AM4/17/12
to
oxtail
Apr 17, 2012, 10:26:48 AM4/17/12
to
--
oxtail
oxtail
Apr 17, 2012, 10:30:33 AM4/17/12
to
even if it is not human?
--
oxtail
brian mitchell
Apr 17, 2012, 12:48:41 PM4/17/12
to
i2i
Apr 17, 2012, 12:51:50 PM4/17/12
to
"brian mitchell" <brai...@fishing.net> wrote in message
news:2j7ro75vbmintvne7...@4ax.com...
were left intentionally blank
brian mitchell
Apr 17, 2012, 12:53:21 PM4/17/12
to
oxtail wrote:
>What is this creative minds you are talking about?
>Does a mirror create all things it reflects?
>What is this creative minds you are talking about?
The mirror is an essential element in the arisal of a reflection, without which no reflection,
without which nothing reflected.
What did you mean by 'create'?
liaM
Apr 17, 2012, 12:59:37 PM4/17/12
to
for 2 euros, set it alight on the stand in front
of the Virgin Mary, crossed myself, said a prayer,
crossed myself again.
Then sat I, thinking to myself : this church ( a church
built in the 12 century) is far greater a project
than any project of mine. How did these guys and women
do it?
Then I remembered a short film I saw when
I was a kid in France, called the "Jongleur de Notre
Dame", about a juggler despairing about not having
something of value to offer to the Holy virgin.
Then he thinks, I'll do my act for Her, and proceeds
to juggle his set of quills.
The camera pans to the Mary's face which changes into
a benevolent smile.
i2i
Apr 17, 2012, 1:04:36 PM4/17/12
to
"liaM" <cud...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:jmk7ma$h42$1...@dont-email.me...
her face in a nachos bel grande
from taco bell ?
liaM
Apr 17, 2012, 3:52:50 PM4/17/12
to
you have salt loving taste buds, don't you,
and a belly to match, and a belly to match, don't you?
oxtail
Apr 17, 2012, 6:10:19 PM4/17/12
to
to 'create' something that is always everywhere?
--
oxtail
Tang Huyen
Apr 17, 2012, 6:29:21 PM4/17/12
to
On 4/17/2012 5:47 PM, Lee Rudolph wrote:
> Sanford Manley:
>> Do you even read what you write?
>> This borders on narcissistic personality
>> disorder.
> So, we can chunk you into the Literalist
> bag, then?
>
> I do suspect Tang of having vast text
> buffers from which he can copy and paste
> semi-automatically (and perhaps without
> re-reading). But, who knows, the
> Mysterious East is full of peoples with
> long traditions of retransmitted texts,
> and correspondingly capacious (if
> fallible) memories; so he may type
> everything afresh each time he posts it
> (but still not necessarily re-reading
> it).
>
> What's more mysterious is those, *not*
> the author, who re-read it. As Ram
> Dass put it (in a blurb for a book
> about the Horrors of Drug Use), "Once
> you've got the message, hang up the
> phone."
>
> Lee Rudolph (and be sure not to picture
> the operator at the old-fashioned rural
> switchboard as an octopus in a calico
> skirt!)
Good society everywhere at every age
tends to get shocked at artists and
thinkers (novelists, poets,
philosophers, theologians, mystics,
etc.) who express non-conformist
forms or ideas. Some such
non-conformists get thrown in the
Seine or the Rhine, or burnt to a
crisp, or spend the rest of their
lives rotting in gaol.
Benson Mates, The Philosophy of
Leibniz: Metaphysics and Language,
Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1986, 40, n. 21 quotes from Christoph
Mathaeus Pfaff, Acta eruditorum
lipsensis, 1728, 125-127 who himself
quoted Leibniz from memory: "You have
grasped the matter acccurately. And I
am astonished that up to now nobody
has perceived this game of mine. For
it isn't necessary for philosophers
always to be serious when, as you
properly note, in devising
hypotheses they are just testing
their powers of thought."
Over one side are realists and
literalists, and over the other are
people who are not realist and
literalist. It does not matter what
topic or discipline they are in or
are talking about, people in the
two camps don't communicate. The
realists and literalists never "get"
those who are not realists and
literalists, though the latter do
"get" the former (and have pity on
them).
Recently, SG characterises absfg as
a "satirical" group. This is true,
but the meaning varies. For those
participants who are not realists
and literalists, satire is something,
but for those who are, satire is
quite something else. Some of the
stuff that gets posted must be
outrageous, but it depends on the
readers' viewpoints. I can trip up
the realists and literalists in no
time flat.
To be sure, Sanfie posts much that
is outrageous, intentionally so, but
his kind of shock is realist and
literalist. The people who are not
realists and literalists form a
fringe group, who (perhaps) get each
other, but cannot communicate across
to the other camp.
My "octopus" speech is pure satire,
as is my talk of throwing ninja
stars, but it is satire of a
non-realist and non-literalist kind,
and realists and literalists must
think that such talk is insane,
really and truly. Iow, it is not
satire, to them.
It is quite funny (or sad) that
people can go through years and
decades of meditational training,
like in Japanese Zen, and come out
as realist and literalist as they
were when they began. These boards
are littered with such. It is not
just Japanese Zen, but Theravada
meditation can also attract
Westerners of a realist and
literalist bend, who never loosen
(even less lose) their realist
and literalist mindset after half
a century of meditative training.
If it doesn't click, it doesn't
click.
As I often say, the Chan records
are tests for realism and
literalism. In old movies up to
half a century ago, there were
scenes of fierce dogs about to
attack people, and the intended
victims threw a hankerchief
imbued with aether to them, and
they sniffed it and fell
unconscious. Their enemies threw
them a trap, and they jumped
right into it head first. Chan
dialogues (the famous public
cases) mostly test for the
realism and literalism of the
interlocutors (two awakeneds can
test each other), and are
structured along the line of
throwing crumbs of pegs on the
mental wall so that the
interlocutors can hang their
realism and literalism on them
-- or not. The realists and
literalists, like Daisetz T.
Suzuki, automatically dive in
head first to show their
realism and literalism unasked.
Tang Huyen
> Sanford Manley:
>> Do you even read what you write?
>> This borders on narcissistic personality
>> disorder.
> So, we can chunk you into the Literalist
> bag, then?
>
> I do suspect Tang of having vast text
> buffers from which he can copy and paste
> semi-automatically (and perhaps without
> re-reading). But, who knows, the
> Mysterious East is full of peoples with
> long traditions of retransmitted texts,
> and correspondingly capacious (if
> fallible) memories; so he may type
> everything afresh each time he posts it
> (but still not necessarily re-reading
> it).
>
> What's more mysterious is those, *not*
> the author, who re-read it. As Ram
> Dass put it (in a blurb for a book
> about the Horrors of Drug Use), "Once
> you've got the message, hang up the
> phone."
>
> Lee Rudolph (and be sure not to picture
> the operator at the old-fashioned rural
> switchboard as an octopus in a calico
> skirt!)
Good society everywhere at every age
tends to get shocked at artists and
thinkers (novelists, poets,
philosophers, theologians, mystics,
etc.) who express non-conformist
forms or ideas. Some such
non-conformists get thrown in the
Seine or the Rhine, or burnt to a
crisp, or spend the rest of their
lives rotting in gaol.
Benson Mates, The Philosophy of
Leibniz: Metaphysics and Language,
Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1986, 40, n. 21 quotes from Christoph
Mathaeus Pfaff, Acta eruditorum
lipsensis, 1728, 125-127 who himself
quoted Leibniz from memory: "You have
grasped the matter acccurately. And I
am astonished that up to now nobody
has perceived this game of mine. For
it isn't necessary for philosophers
always to be serious when, as you
properly note, in devising
hypotheses they are just testing
their powers of thought."
Over one side are realists and
literalists, and over the other are
people who are not realist and
literalist. It does not matter what
topic or discipline they are in or
are talking about, people in the
two camps don't communicate. The
realists and literalists never "get"
those who are not realists and
literalists, though the latter do
"get" the former (and have pity on
them).
Recently, SG characterises absfg as
a "satirical" group. This is true,
but the meaning varies. For those
participants who are not realists
and literalists, satire is something,
but for those who are, satire is
quite something else. Some of the
stuff that gets posted must be
outrageous, but it depends on the
readers' viewpoints. I can trip up
the realists and literalists in no
time flat.
To be sure, Sanfie posts much that
is outrageous, intentionally so, but
his kind of shock is realist and
literalist. The people who are not
realists and literalists form a
fringe group, who (perhaps) get each
other, but cannot communicate across
to the other camp.
My "octopus" speech is pure satire,
as is my talk of throwing ninja
stars, but it is satire of a
non-realist and non-literalist kind,
and realists and literalists must
think that such talk is insane,
really and truly. Iow, it is not
satire, to them.
It is quite funny (or sad) that
people can go through years and
decades of meditational training,
like in Japanese Zen, and come out
as realist and literalist as they
were when they began. These boards
are littered with such. It is not
just Japanese Zen, but Theravada
meditation can also attract
Westerners of a realist and
literalist bend, who never loosen
(even less lose) their realist
and literalist mindset after half
a century of meditative training.
If it doesn't click, it doesn't
click.
As I often say, the Chan records
are tests for realism and
literalism. In old movies up to
half a century ago, there were
scenes of fierce dogs about to
attack people, and the intended
victims threw a hankerchief
imbued with aether to them, and
they sniffed it and fell
unconscious. Their enemies threw
them a trap, and they jumped
right into it head first. Chan
dialogues (the famous public
cases) mostly test for the
realism and literalism of the
interlocutors (two awakeneds can
test each other), and are
structured along the line of
throwing crumbs of pegs on the
mental wall so that the
interlocutors can hang their
realism and literalism on them
-- or not. The realists and
literalists, like Daisetz T.
Suzuki, automatically dive in
head first to show their
realism and literalism unasked.
Tang Huyen
brian mitchell
Apr 17, 2012, 6:58:16 PM4/17/12
to
Tang Huyen
Apr 17, 2012, 7:21:39 PM4/17/12
to
On 4/17/2012 5:42 AM, noname wrote:
> beerlet dhiblang:
You folks may come from outside the
Buddhist tradition, so may not know
what kind of narrative (justification)
the Buddhist tradition holds on these
issues.
It says that for the future Buddha to
deprecate something (like luxurious
life, sex in a harem, thought,
volition, etc.), he must be first
*good* at it, so that he will reject
it from a position of strength and
not, say, from envy. He has known it,
tasted it at its best, and then known
its vanity before he can convincingly
reject it.
So, he started life in easy
conditions (perhaps his life was not
as princely as it would be made out
to be, as his father was governor in
a small and poor republic), but he
was well trained in rhetorical and
martial arts of his native Nepalese
milieu. He got married, did not like
conjugal life, left the home life to
become a beggar (bhikkhu means
beggar), spent six years in severe
Jaina penance (to show his will),
then realised that it had been an
error, took milk to regain strength
(he was days, perhaps hours away
from success, namely death by
self-starvation and
self-mortification), went into the
meditative states, quiesced his
thinking and volition, and awoke. In
each of these things, he got good at
something, then rejected it, so that
he rejected it from experience and
from a realisation of its vanity.
Extreme pleasure, extreme pain,
thought, volition, etc., they got
rejected after he got to know them
and their vanity. It was not the
case that he rejected them without
knowing them, but it was the case
that he went through them, got to
know them, and rejected them for
their vanity.
Ancillary to this narrative is his
knowledge of realism and literalism,
which was required for his traversal
of severe Jaina penance, iow he had
to believe in the literal truth of
the efficacy of severe penance, like
sleeping standing up and eating one
sesame seed a day. After six years,
he saw through the realism and
literalism of the whole
self-punishment, and it was
self-punishment of the most extreme
kind, and by extension he saw
through the realism of language and
thought. What he taught was the
penetration, iow the penetration of
one's own mind, and not any
specific content.
When you look at the realism and
literalism of Daisetz T. Suzuki,
you have to pity the chap, as he
never saw through the realism and
literalism of his own mind. In fact,
he never penetrated his own mind.
He never even knew that he was a
realist and literalist. His milieu
of Japanese Zen did not teach that
to him, and he was oblivious to it
after he became famous. Nobody
pointed it out to him, in Japan
and in the West.
Tang Huyen
> beerlet dhiblang:
Buddhist tradition, so may not know
what kind of narrative (justification)
the Buddhist tradition holds on these
issues.
It says that for the future Buddha to
deprecate something (like luxurious
life, sex in a harem, thought,
volition, etc.), he must be first
*good* at it, so that he will reject
it from a position of strength and
not, say, from envy. He has known it,
tasted it at its best, and then known
its vanity before he can convincingly
reject it.
So, he started life in easy
conditions (perhaps his life was not
as princely as it would be made out
to be, as his father was governor in
a small and poor republic), but he
was well trained in rhetorical and
martial arts of his native Nepalese
milieu. He got married, did not like
conjugal life, left the home life to
become a beggar (bhikkhu means
beggar), spent six years in severe
Jaina penance (to show his will),
then realised that it had been an
error, took milk to regain strength
(he was days, perhaps hours away
from success, namely death by
self-starvation and
self-mortification), went into the
meditative states, quiesced his
thinking and volition, and awoke. In
each of these things, he got good at
something, then rejected it, so that
he rejected it from experience and
from a realisation of its vanity.
Extreme pleasure, extreme pain,
thought, volition, etc., they got
rejected after he got to know them
and their vanity. It was not the
case that he rejected them without
knowing them, but it was the case
that he went through them, got to
know them, and rejected them for
their vanity.
Ancillary to this narrative is his
knowledge of realism and literalism,
which was required for his traversal
of severe Jaina penance, iow he had
to believe in the literal truth of
the efficacy of severe penance, like
sleeping standing up and eating one
sesame seed a day. After six years,
he saw through the realism and
literalism of the whole
self-punishment, and it was
self-punishment of the most extreme
kind, and by extension he saw
through the realism of language and
thought. What he taught was the
penetration, iow the penetration of
one's own mind, and not any
specific content.
When you look at the realism and
literalism of Daisetz T. Suzuki,
you have to pity the chap, as he
never saw through the realism and
literalism of his own mind. In fact,
he never penetrated his own mind.
He never even knew that he was a
realist and literalist. His milieu
of Japanese Zen did not teach that
to him, and he was oblivious to it
after he became famous. Nobody
pointed it out to him, in Japan
and in the West.
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph
Apr 17, 2012, 7:45:59 PM4/17/12
to
Lee Rudolph
liaM
Apr 17, 2012, 9:03:09 PM4/17/12
to
Envy is rejection enough. He who finds
envy in his heart and
has not the mind to uproot it,
has many adolescences and senescences
to live through.
Talk of vanity is for
preachers, superfluous, like Koheleth's
preaching. Envy is the root.
And the root lives in the person and not
in a book.
of Zazen sessions ??????
Probably not, heh :)
brian mitchell
Apr 17, 2012, 9:18:22 PM4/17/12
to
oxtail
Apr 17, 2012, 9:45:13 PM4/17/12
to
With an awareness imbued with compassion, of course.
--
oxtail
i2i
Apr 18, 2012, 12:09:57 AM4/18/12
to
news:jmkhr3$ht4$1...@dont-email.me...
and miles to go before i sleep
leebert
Apr 18, 2012, 12:40:19 AM4/18/12
to
All I can see are your words!
/l
noname
Apr 18, 2012, 4:39:40 AM4/18/12
to
multinymicisms herein demonstrated... thenkew, thenkewverymush.
Fortunately for me I am blessed with sufficient stupidity that I can
hardly remember one from another anyway and always respond realistically
and literally (since, hey, this is the manifestation, physical reality,
that's what we do here because it's all that can be done here where
there is hereness).
noname
Apr 18, 2012, 4:59:12 AM4/18/12
to
idea of "God" and you have a church that probably consists entirely of
idiots.
> How about in China?
I'm sure more people have heard of Tao in China than in most other
places, thus those who understand it constitute a correspondingly
smaller percentage of the population. Then there are those who have
been Christianized, who are probably a large part of the reason the
Chinese government is working hard to limit real-estate speculation.
> Is Dao absolutely necessary?
Ignore it and see if it goes away.
noname
Apr 18, 2012, 5:00:16 AM4/18/12
to
makes any difference whether they were or not.
noname
Apr 18, 2012, 5:02:21 AM4/18/12
to
noname
Apr 18, 2012, 5:08:14 AM4/18/12
to
>>
>> Anytime you wanna come down from that cloud ....
>>
>> /l
>
>
> Can anything be creative
> even if it is not human?
Can water be destroyed, any more than energy?
>> Anytime you wanna come down from that cloud ....
>>
>> /l
>
>
> Can anything be creative
> even if it is not human?
Wilson
Apr 18, 2012, 7:48:18 AM4/18/12
to
On 4/17/2012 8:20 AM, leebert wrote:
> On Apr 17, 7:55 am, oxtail<oxt...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>>
>> Is your god ever mysterious?
>>
>
> On Apr 17, 7:55 am, oxtail<oxt...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>>
>> Is your god ever mysterious?
>>
>
> That's not my god.
Oh wait, sorry! That must be mine. Always laying It down and
forgetting where I put It.
--
Wilson
oxtail
Apr 18, 2012, 9:22:11 AM4/18/12
to
--
oxtail
oxtail
Apr 18, 2012, 9:25:28 AM4/18/12
to
--
oxtail
oxtail
Apr 18, 2012, 9:27:47 AM4/18/12
to
--
oxtail
leebert
Apr 18, 2012, 9:30:47 AM4/18/12
to
/l
oxtail
Apr 18, 2012, 9:32:37 AM4/18/12
to
Any idea what God is?
--
oxtail
leebert
Apr 18, 2012, 9:29:14 AM4/18/12
to
/l
pS
"I thought you said your god doesn't bite!"
Tang Huyen
Apr 18, 2012, 11:08:34 AM4/18/12
to
On 4/18/2012 8:48 AM, Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> I think I have an explanation of what the
> thing about being an octopus armed with
> ninja stars is all about. It's simply
> sarcasm or irony directed at all those
> (yours truly included) who have, over the
> years, accused Tang of doing harm with
> his words. He doesn't really see himself
> as an armed attack-octopus, and he finds
> such a distorted view of him ridiculous.
> I don't think he actually thinks that
> anyone thinks of him as an actual armed
> monster, that part is an exaggeration he
> just put in for effect.
>
> So what he's saying is really "You wimps
> seem to think I'm some kind of ninja
> octopus and that my writings may cause
> some kind of horrible damage to people's
> brains, can't you see how ridiculous that
> is?"
>
> Why he's repeating himself I don't know.
> For emphasis, perhaps?
Thank you very much, Sevenhundred Elves,
for working up my image just the way I
want.
As to "doing harm with his words",
please play that up all the way, and
repeat it like mad, so that everybody
knows. That way, people who are fragile
or loose upstairs know to avoid my
posts (or replies to my posts). I don't
see any fading violets around, but I
may misjudge some people, who to me are
bulls barging around to make their
presence known, without any shadow of
doubt left about it.
As to the possibility that "my writings
may cause some kind of horrible damage
to people's brains", it is ridiculous
to me, but again please broadcast it as
much as you can, so that people who are
susceptible to such possibility know to
avoid my posts (or replies to my
posts). As I keep saying, I play with
people's mind, not their brain, and
even my ninja stars are cast into
people's mind, not their brain. What
harm can be caused by my playing with
people's mind, is open to inquiry,
even as I say explicitly that I play
with their mind, over and over again.
It is not hidden, it is not occult, but
it is widely broadcasted and amplified
at every opportunity. You are welcomed
to help make it known to the public
even more, to warn the unsuspecting
(though I can't imagine anybody
falling into such category, given that
I overtly claim to play with people's
mind for years -- planting thoughts,
snatching minds, swapping parts,
declaring people "crashed", etc.).
Is there any possibility of me hiring
you as my PR agent? You seem perfect
for the job, the paragon of virtue
that you are. After such (hoped for)
hiring, nobody can claim to not know
my rampant evil intentions.
Tang Huyen
> I think I have an explanation of what the
> thing about being an octopus armed with
> ninja stars is all about. It's simply
> sarcasm or irony directed at all those
> (yours truly included) who have, over the
> years, accused Tang of doing harm with
> his words. He doesn't really see himself
> as an armed attack-octopus, and he finds
> such a distorted view of him ridiculous.
> I don't think he actually thinks that
> anyone thinks of him as an actual armed
> monster, that part is an exaggeration he
> just put in for effect.
>
> So what he's saying is really "You wimps
> seem to think I'm some kind of ninja
> octopus and that my writings may cause
> some kind of horrible damage to people's
> brains, can't you see how ridiculous that
> is?"
>
> Why he's repeating himself I don't know.
> For emphasis, perhaps?
Thank you very much, Sevenhundred Elves,
for working up my image just the way I
want.
As to "doing harm with his words",
please play that up all the way, and
repeat it like mad, so that everybody
knows. That way, people who are fragile
or loose upstairs know to avoid my
posts (or replies to my posts). I don't
see any fading violets around, but I
may misjudge some people, who to me are
bulls barging around to make their
presence known, without any shadow of
doubt left about it.
As to the possibility that "my writings
may cause some kind of horrible damage
to people's brains", it is ridiculous
to me, but again please broadcast it as
much as you can, so that people who are
susceptible to such possibility know to
avoid my posts (or replies to my
posts). As I keep saying, I play with
people's mind, not their brain, and
even my ninja stars are cast into
people's mind, not their brain. What
harm can be caused by my playing with
people's mind, is open to inquiry,
even as I say explicitly that I play
with their mind, over and over again.
It is not hidden, it is not occult, but
it is widely broadcasted and amplified
at every opportunity. You are welcomed
to help make it known to the public
even more, to warn the unsuspecting
(though I can't imagine anybody
falling into such category, given that
I overtly claim to play with people's
mind for years -- planting thoughts,
snatching minds, swapping parts,
declaring people "crashed", etc.).
Is there any possibility of me hiring
you as my PR agent? You seem perfect
for the job, the paragon of virtue
that you are. After such (hoped for)
hiring, nobody can claim to not know
my rampant evil intentions.
Tang Huyen
d...@x.org
Apr 18, 2012, 11:17:53 AM4/18/12
to
Kitty P
Apr 18, 2012, 11:47:42 AM4/18/12
to
news:WbOdneMilJ1tRRPS...@supernews.com...
I agree with 700e. You have a very unusual sense of humor that is quite
different, and your posts have made me pause to rethink on occasion. You
notice that people don't killfile you, but wait to see what you will say.
That in itself is pretty interesting. You have denigrated the tradition I
practice to mush and twitched my personal distaste for playing games with
people's minds - which pretty much negates me turning into one of your sock
puppets. But I find it more interesting than appalling that you mesh the
past into the present in regard to people you think have crashed and the
Japanese. Obsessively, year after year. It's like a mystery with an answer
just out of sight.
Kitty
different, and your posts have made me pause to rethink on occasion. You
notice that people don't killfile you, but wait to see what you will say.
That in itself is pretty interesting. You have denigrated the tradition I
practice to mush and twitched my personal distaste for playing games with
people's minds - which pretty much negates me turning into one of your sock
puppets. But I find it more interesting than appalling that you mesh the
past into the present in regard to people you think have crashed and the
Japanese. Obsessively, year after year. It's like a mystery with an answer
just out of sight.
Kitty
d...@x.org
Apr 18, 2012, 12:15:19 PM4/18/12
to
oxtail
Apr 18, 2012, 2:09:01 PM4/18/12
to
--
oxtail
noname
Apr 18, 2012, 2:55:36 PM4/18/12
to
it though, most people do. That's a big part of their suffering, not
understanding how things work, going forward based on popularly accepted
belief. Science is wonderful, even if it does play second fiddle.
noname
Apr 18, 2012, 2:56:22 PM4/18/12
to
oxtail
Apr 18, 2012, 5:18:48 PM4/18/12
to
--
oxtail
Tang Huyen
Apr 18, 2012, 7:14:33 PM4/18/12
to
On 4/18/2012 5:26 PM, Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> I do disagree with your views vis-a-vis
> the potential dangers of words on the
> screen, however.
Now that you and Kitty have kindly
warned everybody about the potential
dangers of my mere words on the
screen, I can uninhibit myself about
what I say on these boards. Nobody
who reads my posts (or the replies
to them) is going to be a fragile
oldster who cannot take mere words
on the screen or a "crashed" person
who is loose upstairs. Such people,
if they exist, have been fully
warned to stay away from my posts
(or the replies to them) and I am
not responsible for them, if they
still read my posts (or the replies
to them). But whatever they do or
do not do, they act in full
freedom. Nothing can be forced on
anybody, surely not by mere words
on the screen.
That much cleared away, let me
address what you say above. I do
not deny that there can be dangers
to mere words on the screen, from
me or anybody else, but what I keep
saying is that people who are
susceptible to such dangers should
not be here. It is to be hoped that
people who renounce their
traditional religion and adopt a
foreign one, taught by exotic
masters from faraway countries who
look funny, dress funny and talk
funny, should rightfully expect
some returns on such (presumably
serious) investments, like some
fruits of the mental culture
inculcated by such foreign
religions, for example detachment
and equability, which would enable
them to take mere word on the
screen. If they have no such
fruits to show, after years and
decades invested, they should
follow Evelyn's wise advice and go
to a local Christian church and
ask to be saved by the Lord. Iow,
cut the losses and run.
But of course I ardently hope that
people who renounce their
traditional religion and adopt a
foreign one, taught by exotic
masters from faraway countries who
look funny, dress funny and talk
funny, *do* get some rewards for
their investment, be they spiritual
and not physical.
Tang Huyen
> I do disagree with your views vis-a-vis
> the potential dangers of words on the
> screen, however.
Now that you and Kitty have kindly
warned everybody about the potential
dangers of my mere words on the
screen, I can uninhibit myself about
what I say on these boards. Nobody
who reads my posts (or the replies
to them) is going to be a fragile
oldster who cannot take mere words
on the screen or a "crashed" person
who is loose upstairs. Such people,
if they exist, have been fully
warned to stay away from my posts
(or the replies to them) and I am
not responsible for them, if they
still read my posts (or the replies
to them). But whatever they do or
do not do, they act in full
freedom. Nothing can be forced on
anybody, surely not by mere words
on the screen.
That much cleared away, let me
address what you say above. I do
not deny that there can be dangers
to mere words on the screen, from
me or anybody else, but what I keep
saying is that people who are
susceptible to such dangers should
not be here. It is to be hoped that
people who renounce their
traditional religion and adopt a
foreign one, taught by exotic
masters from faraway countries who
look funny, dress funny and talk
funny, should rightfully expect
some returns on such (presumably
serious) investments, like some
fruits of the mental culture
inculcated by such foreign
religions, for example detachment
and equability, which would enable
them to take mere word on the
screen. If they have no such
fruits to show, after years and
decades invested, they should
follow Evelyn's wise advice and go
to a local Christian church and
ask to be saved by the Lord. Iow,
cut the losses and run.
But of course I ardently hope that
people who renounce their
traditional religion and adopt a
foreign one, taught by exotic
masters from faraway countries who
look funny, dress funny and talk
funny, *do* get some rewards for
their investment, be they spiritual
and not physical.
Tang Huyen
beerlet dhiblang
Apr 18, 2012, 9:42:05 PM4/18/12
to
The self-appointed pontificus maximus of Buddhist usenet did thusly
screed:
700e hath priorly writ in brief:
> > So what he's saying is really "You wimps
> > seem to think I'm some kind of ninja
> > octopus and that my writings may cause
> > some kind of horrible damage to people's
> > brains, can't you see how ridiculous that
> > is?"
Oh, sure.
Exculpatory evidence of this abounds.
Pixels don't excite neuroses, people do.
Um.
Wait, that's not what I meant.
Or wuzzit?
> > Why he's repeating himself I don't know.
> > For emphasis, perhaps?
Yes. Emphasis. That's a good reason!
> Thank you very much, Sevenhundred Elves,
> for working up my image just the way I
> want.
Tang waxing satiric, one of his better modes ....
> As to the possibility that "my writings
> may cause some kind of horrible damage
> to people's brains", it is ridiculous
> to me,
> but
BUT continuing to fuck with people who start show stress?
People who aren't really inviting opprobria, are only reacting
defensively?
Sorry. Out of bounds.
> As I keep saying, I play with
> people's mind, not their brain, and
[ snip 3 column inches of self justification ]
Gee. This is really your new rationale.
Same as the old rationale.
> Is there any possibility of me hiring
> you as my PR agent? You seem perfect
> for the job, the paragon of virtue
> that you are. After such (hoped for)
> hiring, nobody can claim to not know
> my rampant evil intentions.
Funny. Hilarious.
To quote the inimitable Wynton Marsalis,
"Blow it out your ass, Howard."
/l
screed:
700e hath priorly writ in brief:
> > So what he's saying is really "You wimps
> > seem to think I'm some kind of ninja
> > octopus and that my writings may cause
> > some kind of horrible damage to people's
> > brains, can't you see how ridiculous that
> > is?"
Exculpatory evidence of this abounds.
Pixels don't excite neuroses, people do.
Um.
Wait, that's not what I meant.
Or wuzzit?
> > Why he's repeating himself I don't know.
> > For emphasis, perhaps?
> Thank you very much, Sevenhundred Elves,
> for working up my image just the way I
> want.
> As to the possibility that "my writings
> may cause some kind of horrible damage
> to people's brains", it is ridiculous
> to me,
> but
People who aren't really inviting opprobria, are only reacting
defensively?
Sorry. Out of bounds.
> As I keep saying, I play with
> people's mind, not their brain, and
Gee. This is really your new rationale.
Same as the old rationale.
> Is there any possibility of me hiring
> you as my PR agent? You seem perfect
> for the job, the paragon of virtue
> that you are. After such (hoped for)
> hiring, nobody can claim to not know
> my rampant evil intentions.
To quote the inimitable Wynton Marsalis,
"Blow it out your ass, Howard."
/l
beerlet dhiblang
Apr 18, 2012, 9:54:53 PM4/18/12
to
On Apr 17, 10:26 am, oxtail <oxt...@nowhere.org> wrote:
> leebert wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 7:55 am, oxtail <oxt...@nowhere.org> wrote:
> leebert wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 7:55 am, oxtail <oxt...@nowhere.org> wrote:
> >> Is your god ever mysterious?
>
> >> --
>
> >> oxtail
>
> > That's not my god.
>
> > /l
> > That's not my god.
>
>
> Is anything mysterious in your worldview?
>
> --
> oxtail
All my life, I've always wondered what my naked middle back looks like
in a mirror. I suppose if I tried I could penetrate the veil of bare-
backed reflection by not wearing a shirt in an apparel dept.
And, OK, a deeper mystery?
I've always wondered what the inside view of the entire length of my
GI tract would be like. Additionally that view rendered contiguous
with the entirety of my epidermal skin in a sort of Klein-bottle-meets-
dymaxion-globe kind of projection, so I can see myself inside-out and
outside-in simultaneously. I accept that this may remain a mystery til
my dying day.
/l
beerlet dhiblang
Apr 18, 2012, 9:56:30 PM4/18/12
to
On Apr 17, 10:01 am, SG <sgman0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > /l
>
> So I've heard eard ard rd d.
Some people when they ring in the New Year, they really ring in the
New Year ....
/l
> On Apr 16, 12:32 pm, beerlet dhiblang <dodecapus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 3:23 pm, "Ned Ludd" <nedl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > "beerlet dhiblang" <dodecapus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:24c3b0b6-57d6-4c34...@h20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 3:23 pm, "Ned Ludd" <nedl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > "beerlet dhiblang" <dodecapus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > > >>> I like the title of this thread.
> > > >>> Not caring about becoming the leader in the religion market,
> > > >>> caring only about liberation, "what *is* wrong with Buddhism?"
>
> > > >> It's so easily misunderstood.
>
> > > > Where is Buddhism?
> > > > That's the problem, it's where it's being kept.
> > > > /l
>
> > > In the temple.
>
> > Or between them.
> > > >>> I like the title of this thread.
> > > >>> Not caring about becoming the leader in the religion market,
> > > >>> caring only about liberation, "what *is* wrong with Buddhism?"
>
> > > >> It's so easily misunderstood.
>
> > > > Where is Buddhism?
> > > > That's the problem, it's where it's being kept.
> > > > /l
>
> > > In the temple.
>
>
> > > Ned
>
> > > (Is there an echo in here?)
>
> > Echocephaly can be cured.
> > > Ned
>
> > > (Is there an echo in here?)
>
>
> > /l
>
> So I've heard eard ard rd d.
Some people when they ring in the New Year, they really ring in the
New Year ....
/l
Nobody in Particular
Apr 18, 2012, 9:56:13 PM4/18/12
to
> "Tang Huyen" wrote in message
> news:PradnUADz4NF1xLS...@supernews.com...
After investing years and decades taunting people who do not measure up to
your ideal, and blaming them for not measuring up, has this helped you at
all?
Is your ego still gloating serenely, but completely unchanged after all this
time?
Do you sometimes wish, maybe just a little, that you might be able to
replace gloating with compassion?
Or does your ego derive just too much joy from being stuck in this gloating
mode forever and ever?
Is this gloating the only reward you ever hope to get?
> news:PradnUADz4NF1xLS...@supernews.com...
your ideal, and blaming them for not measuring up, has this helped you at
all?
Is your ego still gloating serenely, but completely unchanged after all this
time?
Do you sometimes wish, maybe just a little, that you might be able to
replace gloating with compassion?
Or does your ego derive just too much joy from being stuck in this gloating
mode forever and ever?
Is this gloating the only reward you ever hope to get?
Nobody in Particular
Apr 18, 2012, 9:57:48 PM4/18/12
to
> "Tang Huyen" wrote in message
> news:PradnUADz4NF1xLS...@supernews.com...
> news:PradnUADz4NF1xLS...@supernews.com...
beerlet dhiblang
Apr 18, 2012, 10:06:45 PM4/18/12
to
out on these fora in a rough parallel for at least the better part of
a decade, and you're asking *ME* about God? I thought it more or less
evident I was kinda putting you on (not toying with you, just
mimicking deo voce...)
Just to clarify then, God: An interesting concept, archetype. As an
atheist who likes god, I have LOTS of ideas what "God is." And they
all boil down to an idea of an idea.
Humanity has invented God so that we can have a concerned universe
that depends upon us to wonder why He invented us.
I mean ... that *is* the sum of it, right? I'm afraid that's all the
help I can give you there, other than the old saw about "turtles all
the way down" and ol' Sphere's rejoinder that "the concept existence
is broken."
/l
beerlet dhiblang
Apr 19, 2012, 12:00:45 AM4/19/12
to
one must also have Dao. Seemed to part of the ritual of being sent to
the back of the Sunday School class.
It got even more confusing after the ear doctor put tubes in my
eardrums. I could hear everything people said in church then, and it
just 'bout drove me freakin' bats!!!
/l
noname
Apr 19, 2012, 3:29:08 AM4/19/12
to
workbench then turn around it will remain a socket wrench, which is
somewhat different than the constancy of Tao or the reliability of
gravity. You're fishing oxtail, it would probably be more filling if
you just ate the bait; "faith" is desire-based "knowledge" and if
there's anything I have no use for it's religion pandered by profiteers.
noname
Apr 19, 2012, 3:59:04 AM4/19/12
to
On 04/18/2012 08:06 PM, beerlet dhiblang wrote:
> Humanity has invented God so that we can have a concerned universe
> that depends upon us to wonder why He invented us.
The infinite number of ideas about "God" seem to be comprised of those
> Humanity has invented God so that we can have a concerned universe
> that depends upon us to wonder why He invented us.
that are self-contradictory and those that are not.
The last thing any human with half a brain should want is for an
omnipotent and omniscient being to be "concerned" in his direction,
that's about as sensible as cockroaches parading around with megaphones
screaming "hey lookit me shitting on the rug!"
Then there's the concept of perfection combined with omnipotence and
omniscience, a concept that would guarantee each of us instant access to
whatever s/he needs/deserves at the moment whether we like it or not.
That's even more nightmarish than being butt naked on the podium saying
"who, me?" while the spotlight gives you sunburn; however, at least it
doesn't seem self-contradictory, either inherently or in comparison with
the world as it is.
I tend to avoid the inherently self-contradictory, fuck all that
nonsense about it just being a paradox if you have faith enough to
believe whatever the cat's dragged in.
Follow the money, it's printed desire.
Tang Huyen
Apr 19, 2012, 6:58:58 AM4/19/12
to
On 4/18/2012 11:56 PM, beerlet dhiblang wrote:
>> Love:
>>> Sanford Manley:
>>>> This borders on narcissistic personality
>>>> disorder.
>>> I think we're still safely within the
>>> bounds of vainglory with a self-conscious
>>> twist of competition, glib indifference
>>> and self-mockery mixed with self-promotion.
>>> That's all good& fun, until ...
>> Kitty puts her pony whip away?
> Howizit it's always BDSM with you people?
>
> Cant' we just harp about neuroses and
> complices, the intellectual equivalent
> thereof?
Love/Daryl likes, or at least allows,
insults. People on these boards throw
insults all the time. Robbie
(halfawake) points out that Peter,
normally calm and polite, threw an
insult at dr x (web head):
<<And possibly a little bit pregnant?>>
Robbie replied to Peter:
<<Any reason for being that mean,
Olcott?>>
The normal people, who don't bash
others and don't make claims, can
just harp about neuroses and
complices, in peace and quiet.
The blowhards, who play biggies and
meanies and who make claims, are
subject to testing by means of their
own claims, in their own self-stated
words.
One example: Jan/possum from the UK
has been around over ten years, and
is liked by everybody. She plays
nice and little, doesn't bash
others, and doesn't make claims. She
can just harp about neuroses and
complices, in peace and quiet.
Nobody bothers her, because she is
modest and pleasant, and doesn't try
to impose herself on others.
Another example: dr x (web head)
with his deadly one-liners flips
the fakes with grace and style. He
deserves to get tested, because he
bashes others and flips them. I
like him, but have to admit that
he puts himself on the line by
flipping the fakes. And he takes
aggravation like nothing. Have fun
with him.
To people who like BDSM: go ahead
and try to flip Love/Daryl and dr x
(web head). They are unflappable.
You can get flipped back.
Tang Huyen
>> Love:
>>> Sanford Manley:
>>>> This borders on narcissistic personality
>>>> disorder.
>>> I think we're still safely within the
>>> bounds of vainglory with a self-conscious
>>> twist of competition, glib indifference
>>> and self-mockery mixed with self-promotion.
>>> That's all good& fun, until ...
>> Kitty puts her pony whip away?
> Howizit it's always BDSM with you people?
>
> Cant' we just harp about neuroses and
> complices, the intellectual equivalent
> thereof?
Love/Daryl likes, or at least allows,
insults. People on these boards throw
insults all the time. Robbie
(halfawake) points out that Peter,
normally calm and polite, threw an
insult at dr x (web head):
<<And possibly a little bit pregnant?>>
Robbie replied to Peter:
<<Any reason for being that mean,
Olcott?>>
The normal people, who don't bash
others and don't make claims, can
just harp about neuroses and
complices, in peace and quiet.
The blowhards, who play biggies and
meanies and who make claims, are
subject to testing by means of their
own claims, in their own self-stated
words.
One example: Jan/possum from the UK
has been around over ten years, and
is liked by everybody. She plays
nice and little, doesn't bash
others, and doesn't make claims. She
can just harp about neuroses and
complices, in peace and quiet.
Nobody bothers her, because she is
modest and pleasant, and doesn't try
to impose herself on others.
Another example: dr x (web head)
with his deadly one-liners flips
the fakes with grace and style. He
deserves to get tested, because he
bashes others and flips them. I
like him, but have to admit that
he puts himself on the line by
flipping the fakes. And he takes
aggravation like nothing. Have fun
with him.
To people who like BDSM: go ahead
and try to flip Love/Daryl and dr x
(web head). They are unflappable.
You can get flipped back.
Tang Huyen
beerlet dhiblang
Apr 19, 2012, 7:11:02 AM4/19/12
to
On Apr 19, 3:59 am, noname <non...@no.email> wrote:
> On 04/18/2012 08:06 PM, beerlet dhiblang wrote:
>
> > Humanity has invented God so that we can have a concerned universe
> > that depends upon us to wonder why He invented us.
>
> The infinite number of ideas about "God" seem to be comprised of those
> that are self-contradictory and those that are not.
>
> The last thing any human with half a brain should want is for an
> omnipotent and omniscient being to be "concerned" in his direction,
> that's about as sensible as cockroaches parading around with megaphones
> screaming "hey lookit me shitting on the rug!"
And what? You expect us cockroaches to have any sense?
> On 04/18/2012 08:06 PM, beerlet dhiblang wrote:
>
> > Humanity has invented God so that we can have a concerned universe
> > that depends upon us to wonder why He invented us.
>
> The infinite number of ideas about "God" seem to be comprised of those
> that are self-contradictory and those that are not.
>
> The last thing any human with half a brain should want is for an
> omnipotent and omniscient being to be "concerned" in his direction,
> that's about as sensible as cockroaches parading around with megaphones
> screaming "hey lookit me shitting on the rug!"
"The idea of an incarnation of God is absurd: why should the human
race think itself so superior to bees, ants, and elephants as to be
put in this unique relation to its maker? . . Christians are like a
council of frogs in a marsh or a synod of worms on a dung-hill
croaking and squeaking "for our sakes was the world created."" --
Julian the Apostate, Roman Emperor and nephew of Constantine;
temporarily restored paganism as the official religion of the Roman
Empire, destroyed Christian temples, but his edict was was reversed
after his death.
> Then there's the concept of perfection combined with omnipotence and
> omniscience, a concept that would guarantee each of us instant access to
> whatever s/he needs/deserves at the moment whether we like it or not.
>
> That's even more nightmarish than being butt naked on the podium saying
> "who, me?" while the spotlight gives you sunburn; however, at least it
> doesn't seem self-contradictory, either inherently or in comparison with
> the world as it is.
>
> I tend to avoid the inherently self-contradictory, fuck all that
> nonsense about it just being a paradox if you have faith enough to
> believe whatever the cat's dragged in.
>
> Follow the money, it's printed desire.
disposition of the votary employing it, and the various declensions of
culture and mind.
That culture evolved around rallying minds to an orthodox image of
gods is a long series of discussions.
That modern culture has seen a last gasp in defense of caricature
godforms should come as no surprise.
That charlatans have found opportunity in riding this dialectic may
seem pathetic and disgusting, but their power to ignore science and
reason will prove fleeting.
/l
beerlet dhiblang
Apr 19, 2012, 7:21:51 AM4/19/12
to
/l
Lee Rudolph
Apr 19, 2012, 7:30:50 AM4/19/12
to
"Nobody in Particular" writes:
>"Tang Huyen" wrote in message
>news:PradnUADz4NF1xLS...@supernews.com...
...
>"Tang Huyen" wrote in message
>news:PradnUADz4NF1xLS...@supernews.com...
>> Is this gloating the only reward you ever hope to get?
Insofar as Tang is a Stoic (as he describes Stoics:
I have not made any study of Stoicism, other than
reading Tang's posts), to "hope to get" (implicitly,
in the future) a "reward" (for present action) would
not--I think--be right action on his part.
Of course he might be *bad* at Stoicism.
Leaving Tang aside for a moment, I ask you, what
"reward" do you "hope to get" for your posts (in
general) and the quoted post (in particular), and
when do you hope to get it?
Lee Rudolph
noname
Apr 19, 2012, 7:56:24 AM4/19/12
to
Which is to say, science and reason are both reasonable and scientific,
but not necessarily entirely correct.
The science we have seems to work most of the time... but it doesn't
include everything (and at the rate they're discovering new particles
and sub-particles and what-have-you it may never include everything),
and it doesn't always work as theory predicts because of that "random
chance" fiction-of-convenience thingy.
And reason is eminently reasonable, but it fails to encompass the really
important bits, which are the very ones that manifest as "random chance"
and give science the finger.
Tang Huyen
Apr 19, 2012, 7:58:51 AM4/19/12
to
On 4/19/2012 7:17 AM, beerlet dhiblang wrote:
> Sevenhundred Elves:
>> I do disagree with your views vis-a-vis
>> the potential dangers of words on the
>> screen, however.
> Tender souls abound.
>
> Even those who veil themselves behind
> seemingly callous positions may do so
> out of defense or compensation for their
> own pain.
People are responsible for themselves,
including their defence and their
unconscious. If they put up a fierce
facade as compensation or whatever,
they are responsible for actions
consequent to it. Buddhist training,
especially mindfulness, is to put all
our baggage in consideration and
arrive at balance and perspective.
People with tender soul may do well to
admit to their vulnerability, even
publicly, and accept themselves,
wholesale, "as is". That is the single
biggest panacea that we can ever
bestow on ourselves. It comes free.
No guru can give it to us, but we have
to work on it for ourselves. It is the
*best* thing we can do for ourselves.
Tang Huyen
> Sevenhundred Elves:
>> I do disagree with your views vis-a-vis
>> the potential dangers of words on the
>> screen, however.
>
> Even those who veil themselves behind
> seemingly callous positions may do so
> out of defense or compensation for their
> own pain.
People are responsible for themselves,
including their defence and their
unconscious. If they put up a fierce
facade as compensation or whatever,
they are responsible for actions
consequent to it. Buddhist training,
especially mindfulness, is to put all
our baggage in consideration and
arrive at balance and perspective.
People with tender soul may do well to
admit to their vulnerability, even
publicly, and accept themselves,
wholesale, "as is". That is the single
biggest panacea that we can ever
bestow on ourselves. It comes free.
No guru can give it to us, but we have
to work on it for ourselves. It is the
*best* thing we can do for ourselves.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Apr 19, 2012, 8:00:30 AM4/19/12
to
On 4/19/2012 7:30 AM, Lee Rudolph wrote:
> "Nobody in Particular":
>> Is this gloating the only reward you ever hope to
>> get?
> Insofar as Tang is a Stoic (as he describes Stoics:
> I have not made any study of Stoicism, other than
> reading Tang's posts), to "hope to get" (implicitly,
> in the future) a "reward" (for present action)
> would not--I think--be right action on his part.
>
> Of course he might be *bad* at Stoicism.
>
> Leaving Tang aside for a moment, I ask you, what
> "reward" do you "hope to get" for your posts (in
> general) and the quoted post (in particular), and
> when do you hope to get it?
Hey, I can look forward to much reward
for my intelligence and scholarship.
My project on pure reason is going to
be a big hit, on a world scale.
That aside, even in the present, I can
enjoy peace and harmony, like a Stoic
should.
Testing the fakes is mere peanuts in my
scheme of things.
Tang Huyen
> "Nobody in Particular":
>> Is this gloating the only reward you ever hope to
>> get?
> Insofar as Tang is a Stoic (as he describes Stoics:
> I have not made any study of Stoicism, other than
> reading Tang's posts), to "hope to get" (implicitly,
> in the future) a "reward" (for present action)
> would not--I think--be right action on his part.
>
> Of course he might be *bad* at Stoicism.
>
> Leaving Tang aside for a moment, I ask you, what
> "reward" do you "hope to get" for your posts (in
> general) and the quoted post (in particular), and
> when do you hope to get it?
for my intelligence and scholarship.
My project on pure reason is going to
be a big hit, on a world scale.
That aside, even in the present, I can
enjoy peace and harmony, like a Stoic
should.
Testing the fakes is mere peanuts in my
scheme of things.
Tang Huyen
Rosie Lea
Apr 19, 2012, 8:06:32 AM4/19/12
to
any advantage to it...
oxtail
Apr 19, 2012, 9:26:58 AM4/19/12
to
beerlet dhiblang wrote:
> On Apr 17, 10:26 am, oxtail <oxt...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>>
>> Is anything mysterious in your worldview?
>>
>
> On Apr 17, 10:26 am, oxtail <oxt...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>>
>> Is anything mysterious in your worldview?
>>
>
> All my life, I've always wondered what my naked middle back looks like
> in a mirror. I suppose if I tried I could penetrate the veil of bare-
> backed reflection by not wearing a shirt in an apparel dept.
>
> And, OK, a deeper mystery?
>
> I've always wondered what the inside view of the entire length of my GI
> tract would be like. Additionally that view rendered contiguous with the
> entirety of my epidermal skin in a sort of Klein-bottle-meets-
> dymaxion-globe kind of projection, so I can see myself inside-out and
> outside-in simultaneously. I accept that this may remain a mystery til
> my dying day.
>
> /l
Ready to die yet?
> in a mirror. I suppose if I tried I could penetrate the veil of bare-
> backed reflection by not wearing a shirt in an apparel dept.
>
> And, OK, a deeper mystery?
>
> I've always wondered what the inside view of the entire length of my GI
> tract would be like. Additionally that view rendered contiguous with the
> entirety of my epidermal skin in a sort of Klein-bottle-meets-
> dymaxion-globe kind of projection, so I can see myself inside-out and
> outside-in simultaneously. I accept that this may remain a mystery til
> my dying day.
>
> /l
--
oxtail
oxtail
Apr 19, 2012, 9:29:22 AM4/19/12
to
--
oxtail
oxtail
Apr 19, 2012, 9:36:24 AM4/19/12
to
--
oxtail
oxtail
Apr 19, 2012, 9:38:36 AM4/19/12
to
Can there be change without time?
--
oxtail
Tsukino Usagi
Apr 19, 2012, 9:39:53 AM4/19/12
to
On 4/19/2012 7:58 PM, Tang Huyen wrote:
>
>
> Another example: dr x (web head)
> with his deadly one-liners flips
> the fakes with grace and style. He
> deserves to get tested, because he
> bashes others and flips them. I
> like him, but have to admit that
> he puts himself on the line by
> flipping the fakes. And he takes
> aggravation like nothing. Have fun
> with him.
Just curious, are you making this up as you go along? I mean really, dr
>
>
> Another example: dr x (web head)
> with his deadly one-liners flips
> the fakes with grace and style. He
> deserves to get tested, because he
> bashes others and flips them. I
> like him, but have to admit that
> he puts himself on the line by
> flipping the fakes. And he takes
> aggravation like nothing. Have fun
> with him.
x? Him? Where have you been for the last 2 years Tang?
Does anyone out there really take Tang seriously anymore? He seems to
have deteriorated recently....
oxtail
Apr 19, 2012, 9:45:21 AM4/19/12
to
that humans invented Dao?
--
oxtail
beerlet dhiblang
Apr 19, 2012, 9:51:21 AM4/19/12
to
/l
d...@x.org
Apr 19, 2012, 9:55:45 AM4/19/12
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages