It is not possible to derive the truth from one religion
Peter Olcott
multifaceted point of view of many different religions.
Until one has the first-hand direct experience that every
different religion is saying the same thing, one has not yet
attained the actual truth.
Noah Sombrero
"Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com>,
On what basis can you choose one religious idea and reject another?
Noah Sombrero
Hollywood Lee
Not sure in any definitive way - though I have found personally that
setting aside religions that prominently feature blood sacrifice as a
central idea, either real or symbolic, has been useful.
Julian
Uh-oh...
The Return Peter Occult!!!!
Some low life cheapskate must have used
an EPNS bullet rather than Sterling Silver...
(...reaches for wooden stake and garlic.)
dkots...@yahoo.com
Why just religion? Why not art, poetry, music, sports and science
too?
Glad to see you posting.
-DaveK
Julian
> "Peter Occult" :
>> It is only possible to derive this truth from the
>> multifaceted point of view of many different religions.
>> Until one has the first-hand direct experience that every
>> different religion is saying the same thing, one has not yet
>> attained the actual truth.
>
> Why just religion? Why not art, poetry, music, sports and science
> too?
And women...
better try them all first before settling on one.
dkots...@yahoo.com
I think most religious ideas aren't so much worthy of rejection as
just putting aside as irrelevent.
>
> Noah Sombrero
Evelyn Ruut
news:rbdBi.11797$L_7....@newsfe16.phx...
Not sure I totally agree with you.
I think if you really and truly understand one religion well, you can
understand them all.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Evelyn Ruut
news:fb3stv$acs$1...@news.datemas.de...
That was helpful to me as well.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Evelyn Ruut
"Julian" <Julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6v2dnXZBALTwLEjb...@bt.com...
That might not work out too well. Many women are otherwise connected,....
also many who don't like such heavily traveled goods, and then there are
probably many who aren't interested in you in any case.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Peter Olcott
"Noah Sombrero" <somb...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:lqoad3paor03rpj4q...@4ax.com...
You question comes from the incorrect basis of duality. Try
re-reading what I said.
Peter Olcott
Every religion is saying the same thing, until you directly
experience this you haven't got it.
Peter Olcott
<dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188409289.4...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
That would be like finger painting saying the same thing as
racial bigotry, some things are not homogenous.
Peter Olcott
<dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188414111....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
The key central truth of enlightenment forms the core
foundation of most every religion.
Peter Olcott
"Evelyn Ruut" <evely...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46d5d75a$0$32540$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Although that may be true, the degree of this understanding
is measured by the degree to which one can directly
experience that they are all saying the same thing, and
derived from the same single essence. You can focus on one
religion, and then look at others, or you can look at them
all equally. What you can not do is restrict your focus to
the narrow point of view of any one of them. If you do this
then there is no possible way to realize the actual truth,
in the place of actual truth will be the mere presumption of
truth.
Peter Olcott
Setting aside their misconceptions is helpful, yet, no more
helpful than setting aside any other misconception. Some
truth is more literal, and some truth is more metaphorical.
One can not correctly judge Christianity by the
misconceptions held by its adherents.
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Evelyn
Noel Friesen
"Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com> wrote in message
Thank you kindly for disproving your own assertion.
Peter Olcott
"Noel Friesen" <noel.*remove*fri...@shaw.ca> wrote in
message news:xenBi.106079$rX4.93528@pd7urf2no...
All religion is directly involved with the single precisely
focused subject of determining the true nature of reality.
Because of this precise focus, it is possible that they
could all be saying the same thing, if one could get past
the differences in terminology and correctly distinguish the
shades of metaphor. The generic subject of finger painting
and racial bigotry can not be saying the same thing because
they are inherently dissimilar.
Mixing racial bigotry and finger painting is like mixing
euphemisms and ball bearings.
If one mixes apples and oranges at least one could make a
fruit salad.
Déjà Fu
>> Thank you kindly for disproving your own assertion.
>
> All religion is directly involved with the single precisely
> focused subject of determining the true nature of reality.
Wow! Let us know when they find it, eh?
We're waiting with bated breath (that's a
zen thing, don'tcha know?).
dkots...@yahoo.com
> <dkotsch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I'm not suggesting including "everything," but expanding into
territories beyond religion. I find my guitar teacher saying things
a zen master might say. I find people who run ultra marathons say
things my guitar teacher might say. I often feel that no matter what
discipline I take up, I'm getting the same lesson. But the teachers
can never explain it any literal way, so it takes years of "training"
and lessons to get it across.
BTW, Racial Bigotry is a religion for some people.
-DaveK
Peter Olcott
"Déją Fu" <cha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3PadnYEKccyMkkvb...@adelphia.com...
Western religion proposes that God exists, does it not? If
God exists this would derive a reality of a completely
different nature then if God did not exist wouldn't it?
One will never be able to fully grasp non-duality from an
atheistic point of view, the essential meaning of
non-duality can not exist entirely apart from some form of
theism. NonDuality itself is essentially a form of wordless
theism.
Peter Olcott
<dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188438072.3...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Yes this could be a subtle experience of non duality.
Evelyn Ruut
"Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com> wrote in message
I prefer to give them all up, but to bear the lesson in mind.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Evelyn Ruut
"Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com> wrote in message
You can say that about anything..... leaving yourself as the final judge of
everyone elses truth, which is rather egocentric to say the least.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
dkots...@yahoo.com
> "Déjà Fu" <cha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3PadnYEKccyMkkvb...@adelphia.com...
>
> > Peter Olcott wrote:
> > ...
> >>> Thank you kindly for disproving your own assertion.
>
> >> All religion is directly involved with the single
> >> precisely focused subject of determining the true nature
> >> of reality.
> > ...
>
> > Wow! Let us know when they find it, eh?
> > We're waiting with bated breath (that's a
> > zen thing, don'tcha know?).
>
> Western religion proposes that God exists, does it not? If
> God exists this would derive a reality of a completely
> different nature then if God did not exist wouldn't it?
>
> One will never be able to fully grasp non-duality from an
> atheistic point of view, the essential meaning of
> non-duality can not exist entirely apart from some form of
> theism. NonDuality itself is essentially a form of wordless
> theism.
The western God is a walking, talking caricature or human beings.
It's existence can be easily denied on the basis of innumerable
probles that result from a supernatural being separate from humans yet
with it's qualities and needs. It looks like us, so it must have the
same body parts. So it must eat and defecate. Does it's poop stink?
Why not?
If God is just a metaphor for "that which transcends intellectual
thought" (per Joseph Campbell) then I can't deny it, becuase such a
thing is exempt from any argument of existence and non-existence.
Atheists can deny it, if they like, but "it" can't care, becuase
neither is it capable of taking it personally (it has no person) nor
is it subject to dualistic perspectives of "theism" and "atheism."
If the statement "non-duality can not exist entirely apart from some
form of theism" is true, it also follows that that "non-duality can
not exist entirely apart from some form of atheism." It is also a
"wordless atheism" as much as it is a "wordless theism." Neither of
which matter, becuase once you take away the words you take away the
ideas.
In this sense there is no use with bothering with atheism or theism,
and there's no point in bothering with God, since I'm God myself. (I
can't be separate from that which is non-dual) Every action I take is
already god-action. I can't deny or affirm my own existence becuase I
myself am exempt from those dualities.
{sigh}
So I end up back where I started with the God thing. God is
irrelevant and so am I.
-DaveK
Peter Olcott
Giving them all up can either be a path to the truth, or a
permanent wall between you and the truth. I myself found it
much easier to see the truth when I began my truth seeking
process with a mind that was completely open and free of
belief systems (and disbelief systems). Only when I could
see that every religion in the world is saying the same
thing did I know that I had the actual truth. It was the
actual first-hand direct experience of this truth that was
the ultimate proof.
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Evelyn
Peter Olcott
To paraphrase what Christ said, "the Truth proves itself".
If it did not prove itself, then it is not the Truth.
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Evelyn
>
Peter Olcott
<dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188475924.1...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 29, 9:25 pm, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com>
wrote:
No it does not follow, that would be like saying that
ignorance is a component part of wisdom.
"wordless atheism" as much as it is a "wordless theism."
Neither of
which matter, becuase once you take away the words you take
away the
ideas.
Buddhism only lacks theistic terminology it does not
actually lack theism itself.
In this sense there is no use with bothering with atheism or
theism,
and there's no point in bothering with God, since I'm God
myself. (I
can't be separate from that which is non-dual) Every action
I take is
already god-action. I can't deny or affirm my own existence
becuase I
myself am exempt from those dualities.
This may be my point.
dkots...@yahoo.com
> Buddhism only lacks theistic terminology it does not
> actually lack theism itself.
By leaving out the terminology you merely put the subject aside as not
relevant to the topic. Buddhism has a clearly defined goal which
doesn't require theism or atheism as part of it's strategy, any more
than a plumber doesn't require it to do his job. (Get the shit out of
the pipes.)
-DaveK
Evelyn Ruut
"Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com> wrote in message
>
> "Evelyn Ruut" <evely...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46d6ac33$0$32519$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>> Although that may be true, the degree of this understanding is measured
>>> by the degree to which one can directly experience that they are all
>>> saying the same thing, and derived from the same single essence. You can
>>> focus on one religion, and then look at others, or you can look at them
>>> all equally. What you can not do is restrict your focus to the narrow
>>> point of view of any one of them. If you do this then there is no
>>> possible way to realize the actual truth, in the place of actual truth
>>> will be the mere presumption of truth.
>>
>>
>>
>> I prefer to give them all up, but to bear the lesson in mind.
>>
>
> Giving them all up can either be a path to the truth, or a permanent wall
> between you and the truth. I myself found it much easier to see the truth
> when I began my truth seeking process with a mind that was completely open
> and free of belief systems (and disbelief systems). Only when I could see
> that every religion in the world is saying the same thing did I know that
> I had the actual truth. It was the actual first-hand direct experience of
> this truth that was the ultimate proof.
I am not so sure they are all saying the same thing, although they may all
be seeking the same thing (seeking to know the unknowable). Some make
assumptions..... assumptions that are totally unwarranted in many cases, and
some put outright obstacles in the path of the seeker.
Here is a quote I saved long ago from John Blofeld's book "The Wheel of
Life" which I think will say it more clearly than either of us are doing.
I think you will like it.
********** (begin quoted material)
ZEN and VAJRAYANA BUDDHISM
The Venerable Neng Hai,
Abbot of Kuangchi Moup'ang Monastery near the Sacred Mountain of Wu T'ai
Excerpted from THE WHEEL OF LIFE by John Blofeld pg 137
Shambhala publications, 2nd edition 1978
.................One day I asked him: 'Your Reverence, will you tell me why
you, brought up as a master of Zen, now prefer to instruct your disciples
through the medium of the Vajrayana? Such cases must be very rare.'
'Yes, rare,' he replied, 'for few of our Chinese monks know enough of the
Vajrayana to appreciate its great value. As for your question, I can answer
it best in symbolic language. Regardless of sect, or even religion, we must
symbolize the Ultimate Perfection as a calm and shining void, whereas
Sangsara is a vast whirlpool of shifting forms. Some regard them as
separate and seek to pass from the 'lower'into the 'higher'; others,
accepting their oneness in theory, strive to realize it in fact.
Symbolically, we may imagine an enormous circle, pure and motionless in the
centre, turgid and violently disturbed at the outer rim, but without any
definite boundary line between the stillness at the heart and the violent
motion at the circumference. There are, so to speak, various intervening
states.
As the Taoists have said, the One becomes two (positive and negative); the
two, eight; the eight, sixty four; the sixty four, myriads of transient
entities. Visualize, therefore, pure spirit at the centre, from which
spring certain major forces of tremendous power; visualize these forces as
dividing and subdividing towards the circumference, and subdividing yet
again and again until the myriads of 'separate'objects result. Visualize
these main, secondary, tertiary and lesser forces as the Transformers which,
mutually interacting, produce all that is ---myriads and myriads of ever
changing entities. You may, for reasons I shall not go into now, visualize
the centre as pure white; from this radiate the four main transformers in
the forms of flames--- green, yellow, blue and red respectively; and with
smaller flames issuing in turn from them, colored in intermediate hues. As
we go towards the circumference, the flames get ever more numerous by
subdivision, and of course, smaller and less clearly defined, until at last
they merge into the outer whirling chaos--- mud-colored, smoke-colored,
unclear, murky.
'Now, a Zen adept (and some of the other sects, other faiths) seeks to leap
from the muddy whirlpool straight into the pure white, radiant stillness at
the centre. This can be done and has been done, but it is an extraordinary
feat of which few are capable. Most of us do well to aim first at a more
moderate result. The Sages of the Vajrayana have, through Enlightenment,
been able to make a detailed study of the intermediate forces and the Main
Transformers nearer the heart of the circle. (With patience, faith and
pertinacity, you may discover them for yourself.) They have even learnt to
harness these transforming forces and they have handed down to their
disciples methods for harnessing the force or forces suited to each one
individually. By concentrating a force selected by your teacher and
harnessing it according to his instructions, you will gain much power---
power which all to many adepts foolishly misuse to perform vain "miracles".
But you must use this power to penetrate more deeply into the circle, to
come in contact with the secondary and even the primary forces; these, being
Transformers of tremendous power, will sweep you towards the Centre; in this
very life they will transform your Sangsaric surroundings into Nirvana
itself. Thus you will achieve what you may not be strong enough to achieve
by the more direct method of Zen, unless you are one of those for whom Zen
is the best way of all.
Ás evidence of the truth of all this, consider how many men of different
faiths have wrought marvels and achieved sainthood through the power of
their God or gods, all attained through fervent prayer and contemplation.
What is that God but another name for the Centre, those gods but other names
for the Transformers? Names are unimportant. Have you not met Buddhists
groping in the outer darkness and Musselmans or Christians whose faces shine
with Truth? Just as many Mongols here regard Manjusri as a god, rather than
the personification of Divine Wisdom, so do Christians mistake the Divine
Forces for angels, the Centre for God; yet what does it matter? All
prayers, rites and methods of concentration which open up the inner man must
bring forth the inner Light, whereon their purpose is achieved. I am a
Vajrayanist only because I conceive, rightly or wrongly, that the Vajrayana
Sages have mapped the road more completely and better understood the methods
of harnessing the Transformers than people of most other sects and faiths.
I have met Christian missionaries at Kokonor who are laughable in their
ignorance; I have also met two missionaries of the Heavenly Lord (Catholic)
sect who are fully Enlightened Bodhisattvas! Let those Buddhists who are
still lost in darkness kneel before them in all humility.
Truth, as you have known for a long, long time, resides only in the
innermost depths of your own being; but there are many layers of truth and
many paths to approach Ultimate Truth. The Vajrayana possesses knowledge of
more than a thousand of those paths (which are yet the One Path). Other
teachers know of one, two or three. So it is to the Vajrayana Sage you must
go, if you would learn which of those many paths is exactly suited to you.
If you prove worthy, such a teacher will render up to you the keys for
unlocking each of the great gates of brass which bar the way to Everlasting
Truth.'
(end quoted material)
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Evelyn Ruut
<dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188475924.1...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 29, 9:25 pm, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com> wrote:
> "Déją Fu" <cha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
{sigh}
-DaveK
Well said, Dave.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Evelyn Ruut
"Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com> wrote in message
Getting on the bandwagon of "truth" can really twist you in knots.
Everyone perceives truth differently. All you can ever really know and
truly relate to is your own version of it.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Julian
> "Noah Sombrero"
>>>multifaceted point of view of many different religions.
>>>Until one has the first-hand direct experience that every
>>>different religion is saying the same thing, one has not
>>>yet
>>>attained the actual truth.
>>
>> On what basis can you choose one religious idea and reject
>> another?
>>
>> Noah Sombrero
>
> You question comes from the incorrect basis of duality. Try
> re-reading what I said.
I re-read what you said...
""That will be disclosed some time around June 2006.
It provides significant productivity improvements to
graphical user interface operating systems."
Where's the beef?
Hollywood Lee
I don't know. Every time I try to do plumbing or electrical work around
the house, I tend to pray a lot to the house gods.
dkots...@yahoo.com
Julian
<dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@gmail.com>
>> dkotsch...@yahoo.com
>> > "Peter Occult"
>> >> Buddhism only lacks theistic terminology it does not
>> >> actually lack theism itself.
>>
>> > By leaving out the terminology you merely put the subject aside as not
>> > relevant to the topic. Buddhism has a clearly defined goal which
>> > doesn't require theism or atheism as part of it's strategy, any more
>> > than a plumber doesn't require it to do his job. (Get the shit out of
>> > the pipes.)
>>
>> I don't know. Every time I try to do plumbing or electrical work around
>> the house, I tend to pray a lot to the house gods.
>
> Hire a zen plumber.
Flakes! Flakes!
They don't do no good
They never be workin'
When they oughta should
They waste your time
They're wastin' mine
California's got the most of them
Boy, they got a host of them
Swear t'God they got the most
At every business on the coast
Swear t'God they got the most
At every business on the coast
They got the Flakes
Flakes! Flakes!
They can't fix yer brakes
You ask 'em, "Where's my motor?"
"Well it was eaten by snakes . . ."
You can stab 'n' shoot 'n' spit
But they won't be fixin' it
They're lyin' an' lazy
They can be drivin' you crazy
Swear t'God they got the most
At every business on the coast
Swear t'God they got the most
At every business on the coast
[Take it away, Bob. . .]
I asked as nice as I could
If my job would
Somehow be finished by Friday
Well, the whole damn weekend
Came 'n' went, Frankie
[Wanna buy some mandies, Bob?]
'N'they didn't do nothin'
But they charged me double for Sunday
You know, no matter what you do
They gonna cheat 'n' rob you
Then they'll send you a bill
That'll get your senses reelin'
And if you do not pay
They got computer collectors
That'll get you so crazy
Til your head'll go through th' ceilin'
Yes it will!
I'm a moron 'n' this is my wife
She's frosting a cake
With a paper knife
All what we got here's
American made
It's a little bit cheesey,
But it's nicely displayed
Well we don't get excited when it
Crumbles 'n' breaks
We just get on the phone
And call up some Flakes
They rush on over
'N' wreck it some more
'N' we are so dumb
They're linin' up at our door
Well, the toilet went crazy
Yesterday afternoon
The plumber he says
"Never flush a lampoon!"
This great information
Cost me half a week's pay
And the toilet blew up
Later on the next day ay-eee-ay
Blew up the next day WOO-OOO
We are millions 'n' millions
We're coming to get you
We're protected by unions
So don't let it upset you
Can't escape the conclusion
It's probably God's Will
That civilization
Will grind to a standstill
And we are the people
Who will make it all happen
While yer children is sleepin',
Yer puppy is crappin'
You might call us Flakes
Or something else you might coin us
But we know you're so greedy
That you'll probably join us
We're comin' to get you, we're comin' to get you
Peter Olcott
<dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188478537.3...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
using theistic terminology. If you take the theism from
Buddhism there is nothing left.
>
> -DaveK
>
Peter Olcott
Its not at all unknowable, and its the same essence across
every religion.
Zen expresses it as non duality, Western religion calls this
exact same thing union with God.
Peter Olcott
It is far more than the mere conception of non-duality, it
is the first-hand direct experience of non duality that
ultimately proves the point. If NonDuality is neither a
metaphor nor any form of figure-of-speech, but, an
completely literal statement of fact, then changing someone
else's mind should be possible by merely deciding within
your own mind that their mind will change, since your mind
and their mind are literally one and the same single mind.
The duality of subject (you) and object (them) is gone---
which is called the seeing into Self-nature.
D.T. Suzuki, the ZEN doctrine of no-mind, Samuel Weiser
1991, page 79
Peter Olcott
Thus from some valid points of view circles are square...
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Evelyn
>
Peter Olcott
"Julian" <Julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:j--dna4Vh4X...@bt.com...
> "Peter Occult" wrote ..
>> "Noah Sombrero"
>>>>It is only possible to derive this truth from the
>>>>multifaceted point of view of many different religions.
>>>>Until one has the first-hand direct experience that
>>>>every
>>>>different religion is saying the same thing, one has not
>>>>yet
>>>>attained the actual truth.
>>>
>>> On what basis can you choose one religious idea and
>>> reject another?
>>>
>>> Noah Sombrero
>>
>> You question comes from the incorrect basis of duality.
>> Try re-reading what I said.
>
> I re-read what you said...
You question was backwards.
Julian
"Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com> wrote in message
news:tFIBi.11872$L_7....@newsfe16.phx...
>
> "Julian" <Julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:j--dna4Vh4X...@bt.com...
>> "Peter Occult" wrote ..
>>> "Noah Sombrero"
>>>>>It is only possible to derive this truth from the
>>>>>multifaceted point of view of many different religions.
>>>>>Until one has the first-hand direct experience that every
>>>>>different religion is saying the same thing, one has not yet
>>>>>attained the actual truth.
>>>>
>>>> On what basis can you choose one religious idea and reject another?
>>>>
>>>> Noah Sombrero
>>>
>>> You question comes from the incorrect basis of duality. Try re-reading
>>> what I said.
>>
>> I re-read what you said...
>
> You question was backwards.
Yes. dear.
Déjà Fu
Good.
That was the whole idea in the first place.
Déjà Fu
...
> If NonDuality is neither a
> metaphor nor any form of figure-of-speech, but, an
> completely literal statement of fact, then changing someone
> else's mind should be possible by merely deciding within
> your own mind that their mind will change, since your mind
> and their mind are literally one and the same single mind.
Change your mind.
Déjà Fu
> "Julian" <Julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:j--dna4Vh4X...@bt.com...
>> "Peter Occult" wrote ..
>>> "Noah Sombrero"
>>>>> It is only possible to derive this truth from the
>>>>> multifaceted point of view of many different religions.
>>>>> Until one has the first-hand direct experience that
>>>>> every
>>>>> different religion is saying the same thing, one has not
>>>>> yet
>>>>> attained the actual truth.
>>>> On what basis can you choose one religious idea and
>>>> reject another?
>>>>
>>>> Noah Sombrero
>>> You question comes from the incorrect basis of duality.
>>> Try re-reading what I said.
>> I re-read what you said...
>
> You question was backwards.
A bell arrives without a cow
One wonders whether, but, or how,
that matters 'fore or now. And then,
the cow arrives without a bell.
And that, itself, explains the smell.
Julian
>>>
>>>> Buddhism only lacks theistic terminology it does not
>>>> actually lack theism itself.
>>> By leaving out the terminology you merely put the subject aside as not
>>> relevant to the topic. Buddhism has a clearly defined goal which
>>> doesn't require theism or atheism as part of it's strategy, any more
>>> than a plumber doesn't require it to do his job. (Get the shit out of
>>> the pipes.)
>>>
>> Buddhism is fundamentally theistic, and merely refrains from using
>> theistic terminology. If you take the theism from Buddhism there is
>> nothing left.
>
> Good.
> That was the whole idea in the first place.
Bloody Zen plumbers.... worse than useless!
APZ's leaking in to TRB now!
Déjà Fu
Top a' th' mornin', mate.
Just did 3 sets of St.Anne's reel,
trying to get the taps straight.
Glowin' like a coal in the dark.
It's no wonder the Irish drop dead
when they stop dancin'. Whew!
Déjà Fu
Leaking? Hell, it's been rechanneled into
the bloody Seine! A mile up, they piss
in it; a mile down, they drink from it.
Déjà Fu
> Bloody Zen plumbers.... worse than useless!
>
> APZ's leaking in to TRB now!
Needed filling - tub running dry, etc.
Julian
> Julian :
>
>> Bloody Zen plumbers.... worse than useless!
>>
>> APZ's leaking in to TRB now!
>
> Needed filling - tub running dry, etc.
Go stick something in the dyke.
Déjà Fu
Not *my* something, mate!
Occult's is already in there.
dkots...@yahoo.com
> <dkotsch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1188478537.3...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 30, 8:29 am, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Buddhism only lacks theistic terminology it does not
> >> actually lack theism itself.
>
> > By leaving out the terminology you merely put the subject
> > aside as not
> > relevant to the topic. Buddhism has a clearly defined
> > goal which
> > doesn't require theism or atheism as part of it's
> > strategy, any more
> > than a plumber doesn't require it to do his job. (Get the
> > shit out of
> > the pipes.)
>
> Buddhism is fundamentally theistic,
The Buddha said he taught "only suffering and it's cessation." God is
entirely irrelevant in this framework. He also disregarded any
speculation about the "existence or non existence of things" as being
idle discussion (i.e. not relevant).
> and merely refrains from
> using theistic terminology. If you take the theism from
> Buddhism there is nothing left.
The disguised Buddhism you're implying exists in the Buddha's
teachings isn't there. You can put it there if you want, and that's
ok, as long as it doesn't alter the course. All he really does is
talk about how we screw up our lives and how to stop screwing them
up.
You might be confusing Buddhism with the Buddha himself, who had a
possible relationship with the mythos of his time. But he did not
make this a part of his teachings.
>From Karen Armstrongs "A History of God:"
"The Buddha believed implicitly in the existence of the gods since
they were a part of his cultural baggage, but he did not believe them
to be much use to mankind. They too were caught up in the realm of
pain and flux; they had not helped him to acheive enlightenment; they
were involved in the cycle of rebirth like all other beings and
eventualy they would disappear. Yet at crucial moments of his life -
as when he made the decision to preach his message - he imaged the
gods inflluencing him and playing an active role. The Buddha did not
deny the gods, therefore, but believed that the ultimate Reality of
nirvanna was higher than the gods."
So, there's theism in the life of the Buddha, but it's mostly your run
of the mill polytheism. When you take the God Stuff out of the pali
canon you still have the same teachings, and all you really miss is a
bit of his life story. (And even some of the names may have been
changed to protect the guilty).
-DaveK
Peter Olcott
there is no basis to choose one religious idea and reject
another. There is no basis because they are all the same
idea.
Julian
>>>>>>>It is only possible to derive this truth from the
>>>>>>>multifaceted point of view of many different
>>>>>>>religions.
>>>>>>>Until one has the first-hand direct experience that
>>>>>>>every
>>>>>>>different religion is saying the same thing, one has
>>>>>>>not yet
>>>>>>>attained the actual truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On what basis can you choose one religious idea and
>>>>>> reject another?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Noah Sombrero
>>>>>
>>>>> You question comes from the incorrect basis of duality.
>>>>> Try re-reading what I said.
>>>>
>>>> I re-read what you said...
>>>
>>> You question was backwards.
>>
>> Yes. dear.
>>>>>> On what basis can you choose one religious idea and
>>>>>> reject another?
> If they are all saying the same thing (as I have said) then
> there is no basis to choose one religious idea and reject
> another. There is no basis because they are all the same
> idea.
>
Try not to post when you're drunk.
Julian
Do you not remember the last time Occult
was released and targeted Buddhist Usenet?
Peter Olcott
<dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188523227....@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
NonDuality from an atheistic point of view is a false view.
NonDuality is inherently theistic. God is far more than a
conceptual hypothetical abstraction, and also far too big to
fit inside any single religion.
Peter Olcott
If I am Occult, then you are ignoramus.
Noah Sombrero
>> Not sure in any definitive way - though I have found
>> personally that setting aside religions that prominently
>> feature blood sacrifice as a central idea, either real or
>> symbolic, has been useful.
>
>Every religion is saying the same thing, until you directly
>experience this you haven't got it.
So, when Islam says that Judaism is peopled by infidels, and Judaism
says that Islam is peopled by heathen, they are both saying the same
thing? Yes, in a sense.
It sounds to me like they all claim to be the only only genuine,
authentic followers of the one true god. The fact that this amounts
to them all saying the same thing leaves the contradiction unresolved
in my mind.
It might be easier to disregard such claims if they were peripheral
rather than intrinsic to their respective beliefs.
Noah Sombrero
Noah Sombrero
>
>"Noah Sombrero" <somb...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
>news:lqoad3paor03rpj4q...@4ax.com...
>>
>> "Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com>,
>>>It is only possible to derive this truth from the
>>>multifaceted point of view of many different religions.
>>>Until one has the first-hand direct experience that every
>>>different religion is saying the same thing, one has not
>>>yet
>>>attained the actual truth.
>>
>> On what basis can you choose one religious idea and reject
>> another?
>>
>> Noah Sombrero
>
>You question comes from the incorrect basis of duality. Try
>re-reading what I said.
Duality is intrinsic to most religious systems. Evil/good. God/man.
Noah Sombrero
Noah Sombrero
>>>>>> On what basis can you choose one religious idea and
>>>>>> reject another?
>If they are all saying the same thing (as I have said) then
>there is no basis to choose one religious idea and reject
>another. There is no basis because they are all the same
>idea.
Yes, of course. Your definition insists on itself. However, my hunch
is that a person could discover irreconcilable conflict between them
if a person looked in the right place.
Noah Sombrero
Déjà Fu
You should have capitalized it, to be fair.
That said, you're still mad as a drawer full of Daily-Mail
clippings. Face up, and all will go well in court.
Peter Olcott
> "Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com>,
>
>>> Not sure in any definitive way - though I have found
>>> personally that setting aside religions that prominently
>>> feature blood sacrifice as a central idea, either real
>>> or
>>> symbolic, has been useful.
>>
>>Every religion is saying the same thing, until you
>>directly
>>experience this you haven't got it.
>
> So, when Islam says that Judaism is peopled by infidels,
> and Judaism
> says that Islam is peopled by heathen, they are both
> saying the same
> thing?
People can and most often do get the message of their own
religion incorrectly. I am not saying the combined
misconceptions of every follower of every religion are all
in agreement.
I am saying that the essential message of every religion is
identical. Mostly everyone misses this point because they
only focus on the single dimension of a single religion,
whereas the multifaceted truth can only been seen from the
much broader perspective of every religion at once.
> Yes, in a sense.
>
> It sounds to me like they all claim to be the only only
> genuine,
> authentic followers of the one true god. The fact that
> this amounts
> to them all saying the same thing leaves the contradiction
> unresolved
> in my mind.
The direct (first-hand) experience of NonDuality brings this
all into sharp focus.
Peter Olcott
Apart from Duality, NonDuality can have no possible
existence, Duality and NonDuality
mutually define each other and thus mutually bring each
other into being. NonDuality is fundamental, Duality is
artificially contrived from NonDuality.
Déjà Fu
> Apart from Duality, NonDuality can have no possible
> existence...
So we're done with those bits, then?
It's on to old Monty skits and such?
Julian
> "Julian" .
Someone ring 911.. a lifeboat's needed in Egypt!
Oh yes... I forgot... you're..
a Zen Buddhist Christian from a Hindu point of view.
Peter Olcott
This is reconciled by simply tuning the dial from literal to
metaphorical intended meaning. In a very literal sense
physical reality itself is most entirely fictional, in other
words reality is not really real. If reality itself is not
real, then there can not possibly exist any firm foundation
for diametrically opposed opinions, these diametrically
opposed opinions are merely the scripted dialogue of actors
in a play.
Peter Olcott
Déjà Fu
Better than what, exactly?
You have three choices...
Julian
I don't believe you anyway.
You're one for Robert... Over'n'out.
Peter Olcott
"Déją Fu" <cha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eq-dnZH8fojm4krb...@adelphia.com...
A Zen Buddhist Christian from a Hindu point of view
accurately represents my view, this leaves me with a nearly
infinite set of choices.
Déjà Fu
It's not up to you.
Peter Olcott
That is good that you don't believe me, yet you should also
not disbelieve me, because all belief and disbelief form
erroneous and fallacious reasoning. The eschewing of belief
systems is Zen's crown jewel.
Peter Olcott
"Déjà Fu" <cha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nsednUmtvfhRHErb...@adelphia.com...
> Peter Olcott wrote:
>> "Déjà Fu" <cha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
It sure seems like my choices are up to me. I have never
been the slightest bit aware of anyone else making my own
choices.
Julian
No...
Just another two bit proseletising doom merchant.
one more in a long line around these parts,
who believes he knows what is best for other people...
"To help "others" to more deeply realize self-nature."
Hey! Preacher! Leave us kids alone!
Seek your own salvation with diligence. old man..
Peter Olcott
Why else would you think that I am here? Talking here, and
seeing the reflections of my words helps me seek my own
salvation. The "others" that are here are far more helpful
than from any Zen center. Our local Zen center spend all of
their time sitting on pillows staring at blank walls.
Julian
You have mentioned that you feel yourself to be a qualified,
fit and proper person to direct people on their paths....
A self appointed spiritual traffic cop.
>Talking here, and
> seeing the reflections of my words helps me seek my own
> salvation. The "others" that are here are far more helpful
> than from any Zen center. Our local Zen center spend all of
> their time sitting on pillows staring at blank walls.
Perhaps someone here can help you free your elf
from all those sticky labels, even though you have
failed so often in the past. Good luck.
buddhapest
"Déją Fu" <cha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e-udnRrsJeN4x0rb...@adelphia.com...
>>> On Aug 30, 8:29 am, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> actually lack theism itself.
>>> By leaving out the terminology you merely put the subject aside as not
>>> relevant to the topic. Buddhism has a clearly defined goal which
>>> doesn't require theism or atheism as part of it's strategy, any more
>>> than a plumber doesn't require it to do his job. (Get the shit out of
>>> the pipes.)
>>>
>> nothing left.
>
> That was the whole idea in the first place.
no no no. salting down the bones,
the ways that the dust went, you got
dirt in my light, no you got light in
my dirt.......i could go on.....
buddhapest
"Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com> wrote in message
> This is reconciled by simply tuning the dial from literal to metaphorical
> intended meaning.
is this dial between your fingers only?
> In a very literal sense physical reality itself is most entirely
> fictional, in other words reality is not really real.
then i could conclude that the words
"not really real" also have no meaning.
> If reality itself is not real,
if? you first stated that it is unreal
and now you're getting iffy on us?
>then there can not possibly exist any firm foundation for diametrically
>opposed opinions,
trouble here is that you began backsliding
with iffyness and now you're basing subsequent
claims on that very iffyness.
> these diametrically opposed opinions are merely the scripted dialogue of
> actors in a play.
or maybe the reality of it all scares
you so much subconsciously that you need
this buffering comfort zone interface in order
just to deal with it all. for someone who claims
an intended meaning dialing control addiction
and then drifts into blatant iffyness from there,
i'd reckon a wild stabbing guess that you're
gonna have a helluva time selling your
*enlightened viewpoint* around here.
Julian
>
> If I am Occult, then you are ignoramus.
>
Far be it from me to deny that
that I am ignorant and especially of
your self proclaimed "enlightenment,"
which, being unapparent to anyone else,
is epitomically occult.
Evelyn Ruut
"Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com> wrote in message
news:elIBi.121649$xx1....@newsfe09.phx...
>
> <dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1188478537.3...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 30, 8:29 am, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Buddhism only lacks theistic terminology it does not
>>> actually lack theism itself.
>>
>> By leaving out the terminology you merely put the subject aside as not
>> relevant to the topic. Buddhism has a clearly defined goal which
>> doesn't require theism or atheism as part of it's strategy, any more
>> than a plumber doesn't require it to do his job. (Get the shit out of
>> the pipes.)
>>
> Buddhism is fundamentally theistic, and merely refrains from using
> theistic terminology. If you take the theism from Buddhism there is
> nothing left.
You are completely incorrect. There is no God in buddhist teachings at
all. There are beings called "deities" which are not gods, they are
mentally created meditation focii, who do not exist from their own side, but
are mentally generated by the meditator for a purpose. They are dispersed
at the end of the meditation practice by the same person who generated the
image. Furthermore that only exists in certain kinds of buddhism, not all.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Evelyn Ruut
I notice that you never read or commented upon the long quoted piece I
included in my reply to you. Apparently you are either not serious about
the subject, or you are just out to spew your own stuff, not interested in a
real dialogue with anyone.
If you can't be bothered to read the replies, or the quoted material offered
for your benefit, of what use is it, to attempt to converse with you? I
don't have time for that sort of thing, only for real and genuine
conversation.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
"Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com> wrote in message
news:mpIBi.121650$xx1....@newsfe09.phx...
>
> "Evelyn Ruut" <evely...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46d6c432$0$4052$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com> wrote in message
>> news:aFyBi.11842$L_7...@newsfe16.phx...
>>>
>>> "Evelyn Ruut" <evely...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:46d6ac33$0$32519$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>>>>> Although that may be true, the degree of this understanding is
>>>>> measured by the degree to which one can directly experience that they
>>>>> are all saying the same thing, and derived from the same single
>>>>> essence. You can focus on one religion, and then look at others, or
>>>>> you can look at them all equally. What you can not do is restrict your
>>>>> focus to the narrow point of view of any one of them. If you do this
>>>>> then there is no possible way to realize the actual truth, in the
>>>>> place of actual truth will be the mere presumption of truth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I prefer to give them all up, but to bear the lesson in mind.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Giving them all up can either be a path to the truth, or a permanent
>>> wall between you and the truth. I myself found it much easier to see the
>>> truth when I began my truth seeking process with a mind that was
>>> completely open and free of belief systems (and disbelief systems). Only
>>> when I could see that every religion in the world is saying the same
>>> thing did I know that I had the actual truth. It was the actual
>>> first-hand direct experience of this truth that was the ultimate proof.
>>
>>
>> I am not so sure they are all saying the same thing, although they may
>> all be seeking the same thing (seeking to know the unknowable). Some
>> make
>
> Its not at all unknowable, and its the same essence across every religion.
> Zen expresses it as non duality, Western religion calls this exact same
> thing union with God.
>
>> assumptions..... assumptions that are totally unwarranted in many cases,
>> and some put outright obstacles in the path of the seeker.
>>
>> Here is a quote I saved long ago from John Blofeld's book "The Wheel of
>> Life" which I think will say it more clearly than either of us are doing.
>> I think you will like it.
>>
>> ********** (begin quoted material)
>>
>> ZEN and VAJRAYANA BUDDHISM
>>
>> The Venerable Neng Hai,
>>
>> Abbot of Kuangchi Moup'ang Monastery near the Sacred Mountain of Wu T'ai
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Excerpted from THE WHEEL OF LIFE by John Blofeld pg 137
>>
>> Shambhala publications, 2nd edition 1978
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> .................One day I asked him: 'Your Reverence, will you tell me
>> why you, brought up as a master of Zen, now prefer to instruct your
>> disciples through the medium of the Vajrayana? Such cases must be very
>> rare.'
>>
>>
>>
>> 'Yes, rare,' he replied, 'for few of our Chinese monks know enough of the
>> Vajrayana to appreciate its great value. As for your question, I can
>> answer it best in symbolic language. Regardless of sect, or even
>> religion, we must symbolize the Ultimate Perfection as a calm and shining
>> void, whereas Sangsara is a vast whirlpool of shifting forms. Some
>> regard them as separate and seek to pass from the 'lower'into the
>> 'higher'; others, accepting their oneness in theory, strive to realize it
>> in fact. Symbolically, we may imagine an enormous circle, pure and
>> motionless in the centre, turgid and violently disturbed at the outer
>> rim, but without any definite boundary line between the stillness at the
>> heart and the violent motion at the circumference. There are, so to
>> speak, various intervening states.
>>
>>
>>
>> As the Taoists have said, the One becomes two (positive and negative);
>> the two, eight; the eight, sixty four; the sixty four, myriads of
>> transient entities. Visualize, therefore, pure spirit at the centre,
>> from which spring certain major forces of tremendous power; visualize
>> these forces as dividing and subdividing towards the circumference, and
>> subdividing yet again and again until the myriads of 'separate'objects
>> result. Visualize these main, secondary, tertiary and lesser forces as
>> the Transformers which, mutually interacting, produce all that
>> is ---myriads and myriads of ever changing entities. You may, for
>> reasons I shall not go into now, visualize the centre as pure white; from
>> this radiate the four main transformers in the forms of flames--- green,
>> yellow, blue and red respectively; and with smaller flames issuing in
>> turn from them, colored in intermediate hues. As we go towards the
>> circumference, the flames get ever more numerous by subdivision, and of
>> course, smaller and less clearly defined, until at last they merge into
>> the outer whirling chaos--- mud-colored, smoke-colored, unclear, murky.
>>
>>
>>
>> 'Now, a Zen adept (and some of the other sects, other faiths) seeks to
>> leap from the muddy whirlpool straight into the pure white, radiant
>> stillness at the centre. This can be done and has been done, but it is an
>> extraordinary feat of which few are capable. Most of us do well to aim
>> first at a more moderate result. The Sages of the Vajrayana have,
>> through Enlightenment, been able to make a detailed study of the
>> intermediate forces and the Main Transformers nearer the heart of the
>> circle. (With patience, faith and pertinacity, you may discover them for
>> yourself.) They have even learnt to harness these transforming forces
>> and they have handed down to their disciples methods for harnessing the
>> force or forces suited to each one individually. By concentrating a
>> force selected by your teacher and harnessing it according to his
>> instructions, you will gain much power--- power which all to many adepts
>> foolishly misuse to perform vain "miracles". But you must use this power
>> to penetrate more deeply into the circle, to come in contact with the
>> secondary and even the primary forces; these, being Transformers of
>> tremendous power, will sweep you towards the Centre; in this very life
>> they will transform your Sangsaric surroundings into Nirvana itself.
>> Thus you will achieve what you may not be strong enough to achieve by the
>> more direct method of Zen, unless you are one of those for whom Zen is
>> the best way of all.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ás evidence of the truth of all this, consider how many men of different
>> faiths have wrought marvels and achieved sainthood through the power of
>> their God or gods, all attained through fervent prayer and contemplation.
>> What is that God but another name for the Centre, those gods but other
>> names for the Transformers? Names are unimportant. Have you not met
>> Buddhists groping in the outer darkness and Musselmans or Christians
>> whose faces shine with Truth? Just as many Mongols here regard Manjusri
>> as a god, rather than the personification of Divine Wisdom, so do
>> Christians mistake the Divine Forces for angels, the Centre for God; yet
>> what does it matter? All prayers, rites and methods of concentration
>> which open up the inner man must bring forth the inner Light, whereon
>> their purpose is achieved. I am a Vajrayanist only because I conceive,
>> rightly or wrongly, that the Vajrayana Sages have mapped the road more
>> completely and better understood the methods of harnessing the
>> Transformers than people of most other sects and faiths. I have met
>> Christian missionaries at Kokonor who are laughable in their ignorance;
>> I have also met two missionaries of the Heavenly Lord (Catholic) sect who
>> are fully Enlightened Bodhisattvas! Let those Buddhists who are still
>> lost in darkness kneel before them in all humility.
>>
>>
>>
>> Truth, as you have known for a long, long time, resides only in the
>> innermost depths of your own being; but there are many layers of truth
>> and many paths to approach Ultimate Truth. The Vajrayana possesses
>> knowledge of more than a thousand of those paths (which are yet the One
>> Path). Other teachers know of one, two or three. So it is to the
>> Vajrayana Sage you must go, if you would learn which of those many paths
>> is exactly suited to you. If you prove worthy, such a teacher will render
>> up to you the keys for unlocking each of the great gates of brass which
>> bar the way to Everlasting Truth.'
>>
>>
>>
>> (end quoted material)
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Evelyn
>
>
Evelyn Ruut
"Julian" <Julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hZOdnb0j8-QRHErb...@bt.com...
I think you have it right, Julian. And come to mention it, I think he has
been around these groups before in the past sometime with the same results.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Evelyn Ruut
"Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com> wrote in message
That is how Buddha did it, and you might benefit better from that, than
coming here to preach and not to read.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Evelyn Ruut
"Julian" <Julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k7qdnbz3X6QMGUrb...@bt.com...
Well said, Julian.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
dkots...@yahoo.com
> <dkotsch...@yahoo.com>
Pete's harmless.
-DaveK
Julian
>> was released and targeted Buddhist Usenet?
>
> Pete's harmless.
Don't kick him when he's already down and out!
dkots...@yahoo.com
> <dkotsch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1188523227....@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 30, 7:24 pm, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...@SeeScreen.com>
> > wrote:
> >> <dkotsch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1188478537.3...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Aug 30, 8:29 am, "Peter Olcott"
> >> > <NoS...@SeeScreen.com>
> >> > wrote:
>
>
> NonDuality from an atheistic point of view is a false view.
> NonDuality is inherently theistic. God is far more than a
> conceptual hypothetical abstraction, and also far too big to
> fit inside any single religion.
Nobody has proposed atheism here.
Scenario 1: Dualistic theism. Commonly known as "Personal God."
Inherently dualistic. This God is by necessity an idea, a fairy
tale, a troll under a bridge. Easily dismissable as fantastical
nonsense. We have no problem here.
Scenario 2: Nondualistic theism. "transcendent god." God is
everywhere, in everything, and completely unavoidable. Nothing
separates man from God. "Enlightenment" amounts in theistic terms to
a union with God, or a realization of an already existent union.
You keep trying to hang up a sign over there in "No-dualism-ville"
that says "no atheists allowed." In scenario 2 neither atheism nor
theism have any real meaning, which is why either view is false.
What you're trying ot tell us is that you've "realized" that scenario
2 is the same as nonduality. This is not terribly original. I'd say
it's better then the firt scenario, but according to Buddhism this is
still not quite right. If it was, Buddhism would never have arisen
because the Hindus were already doing this sort of thing with the
whole atman/brahman business.
The Buddha warned against "Doctrines of the self." That's still what
you've got. Union with a transcendent God might be a nice kind of
realization, but you will get stuck there as the Hindus do. It's not
Buddhism. All you've done is make 2 into 1. Nonduality is "not one,
not two."
No matter how much you try to "trancendalize" (new word) this god into
something as "more than a conceptual hypothetical abstraction" you're
still stuck. There's nothing to see here. Leave Jesus back at the
pearly gates and move on.
-DaveK
dkots...@yahoo.com
> <dkotsch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Ok. "mostly harmless."
-DaveK
Julian
snip on public health grounds.
> No matter how much you try to "trancendalize" (new word) this god into
> something as "more than a conceptual hypothetical abstraction" you're
> still stuck. There's nothing to see here. Leave Jesus back at the
> pearly gates and move on.
You are implying there is harm to be done even if only to himself.
Julian
>> >> was released and targeted Buddhist Usenet?
>>
>> > Pete's harmless.
>>
>> Don't kick him when he's already down and out!
>
> Ok. "mostly harmless."
In other words... not harmless.
You occultistas just can't resist calling a spade
a terrain amendment utensil, can you?
dkots...@yahoo.com
> <dkotsch...@yahoo.com> wrote
Group's been quiet the last couple of days.
You need somebody to call names and I like somebody to politely argue
with who doesn't sound like a fortune cookie.
-DaveK
Julian
> "Julian" wrote
>>
>> >> >> Do you not remember the last time Occult
>> >> >> was released and targeted Buddhist Usenet?
>>
>> >> > Pete's harmless.
>>
>> >> Don't kick him when he's already down and out!
>>
>> > Ok. "mostly harmless."
>>
>> In other words... not harmless.
>>
>> You occultistas just can't resist calling a spade
>> a terrain amendment utensil, can you?
>
> Group's been quiet the last couple of days.
>
> You need somebody to call names and I like somebody to politely argue
> with who doesn't sound like a fortune cookie.
I beg to differ... you twerp!
Mutual satisfaction.
dkots...@yahoo.com
> <dkotsch...@yahoo.com> wrote
Kum fuckin' baya, all is well.
-Reverend Twerp
brian mitchell
> "Peter Olcott"
> **epitomically** occult.
Can I see your language-driving licence, please Sir?
Julian
> "Julian"
>
>> >
>> > If I am Occult, then you are ignoramus.
>> >
>
>> Far be it from me to deny that
>> that I am ignorant and especially of
>> your self proclaimed "enlightenment,"
>> which, being unapparent to anyone else,
>> is
>> **epitomically** occult.
>
> Can I see your language-driving licence, please Sir?
Est-ce que je peux voir votre permis de langue-conduite, svp monsieur?
Would be more appropriate for such stuckism.