Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Not at all. You are coming on just like a Christian or Islamic fundamentalist, and I’m getting bored.
Stuka is pretty liberal with the bitch slapping I’ll give you that but it really is you who is arguing like a theist. When confronted with evidence that your beliefs don’t match actual you make excuses and rationalize why it’s OK. Just saying.
Oh shit. Now we are going to have an argument about what Zen means. This is like arguing about what “brown” means. But wait - shit IS brown! Or is it????!!! What if shit is not really brown, but tan? Oh shit, everything I’ve ever thought about shit is going down the toilet!! Shit happens, but what is the sound of the shit happening? Now I don’t know shit from Shinola! I wonder what the manufacturers of Shinola shoe polish think about that saying! They probably think it’s all a bunch of shit, but then they are all practitioners of Zen, whatever that is.
Oh shit. Now we are going to have an argument about what Zen means. This is like arguing about what “brown” means. But wait - shit IS brown! Or is it????!!! What if shit is not really brown, but tan? Oh shit, everything I’ve ever thought about shit is going down the toilet!! Shit happens, but what is the sound of the shit happening? Now I don’t know shit from Shinola! I wonder what the manufacturers of Shinola shoe polish think about that saying! They probably think it’s all a bunch of shit, but then they are all practitioners of Zen, whatever that is.
Bruce. It is a simple question. The answer is simple, too. Don’t be an ass.
Oh shit. Now we are going to have an argument about what Zen means. This is like arguing about what “brown” means. But wait - shit IS brown! Or is it????!!! What if shit is not really brown, but tan? Oh shit, everything I’ve ever thought about shit is going down the toilet!! Shit happens, but what is the sound of the shit happening? Now I don’t know shit from Shinola! I wonder what the manufacturers of Shinola shoe polish think about that saying! They probably think it’s all a bunch of shit, but then they are all practitioners of Zen, whatever that is.
Bruce. It is a simple question. The answer is simple, too. Don’t be an ass.
I can’t help it. Actually, if I understand where you are coming from (which is NEVER simple when the issue is Buddhism), I agree with you that Buddhism is bullshit.
If you think that mind is something material that can be shown, that’s a bit strange.
I didn’t say I did. You are speculating about “permanent, unchanging mind” that you “experience”, and claiming that it is not speculation. I am calling your bluff.
No, you’re asking for something that is almost impossible in an internet forum. It would be possible under two conditions: (a) face to face, and (b) the capacity on your part to recognize it. The first isn’t likely to happen, and I doubt that you have the second since you have not been able to go beyond the words I post to the reality they can only indicate..
The Courtier’s Reply again. The Buddha presented his liberative teachings, every bit of them, using words to describe the practice, all the way to the end. “Mind-to-mind transmission” of your “permanent, unchanging mind” is smoke and mirrors.
Not at all. I could prescribe a system of study for you and if you followed it with some degree of fidelity you would get the result. But you wouldn’t follow it even if I wrote it out in detail. I can’t show you something that you are too prejudiced to accept as possibly existing just by speaking from the state I describe because you will not hear what I say. You are being pretty closed minded for somebody who claims to follow “liberative” teachings. You know the saying, it’s not paranoid if somebody really is out to get you; well, it isn’t a courtier’s reply if the person you are responding to really is incapable of grasping your point, and you have demonstrated that incapacity to my complete satisfaction.
stuka - 30 October 2010 07:06 PM
stuka - 30 October 2010 08:24 AM
You have to infer from signs and indications, but the catch (for all of us) is that we infer according to the conceptual frameworks that we have and so always run the risk of missing the point, or of automatically dismissing something as irrelevant or useless because it doesn’t fit our way of thinking.
You speak of conceptual frameworks as if they were fixed and absolute, as if we are total slaves to them. Sort of a conceptual determinism. But that has nothing to do with your claim of an “‘Absolute(TM)’, permanent, unchanging mind”.
It points to the fact that you have not gotten my point because of your own limitations of understanding. Sorry about that, but I can’t help out there.
Oh, I got your point, alright. I just don’t buy the woo. Again you are employing the Courtier’s Reply.
See above, you haven’t gotten it because to get it you have to have more that a prejudiced and dismissive attitude. I say again: so long as your attitude is one of ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity you will be incapable of understanding what I say. You can protest all you want, that fact remains.
The onus is on two people who want to communicate to discover a common framework of reference. Since you insist that only yours is correct, we are not communicating.
That simply does not follow. We have been communicating the whole time here. Your accusation of “only yours is correct” is extremely simplistic, and completely false. I have said nothing of the kind. I’d much rather be happy than right…..
No, we have been talking past one another. I do understand where you are coming from. It is a rather restricted, dingy, limited place. You don’t understand what I’ve been saying because your blinkers and prejudices and pride get in the way. I doubt that you are either happy or right here.
stuka - 30 October 2010 07:06 PM
stuka - 30 October 2010 08:24 AM
BTW, just to be clear, I have greatest respect for the Buddha, and the form of Buddhism you practice. But I also respect other forms (Zen, etc.) and the masters who have developed them in accord with the conditions of their time and place. But in a real sense, all developmental systems are just tools and something else is necessary to bring them to fruition; a jump or flash of insight or surrender. Then it’s back to chopping wood and carrying water.
Begging the mahayana revisionist question.
No, that’s your prejudice speaking again. It leads you to a lack of respect for other human beings, something I would think is the antithesis of the Buddhism you worship ( and I say worship specifically because that is the attitude that your posts here indicate).
stuka - 30 October 2010 07:06 PM
Not at all. You are coming on just like a Christian or Islamic fundamentalist, and I’m getting bored.
stuka - 30 October 2010 07:06 PM
Not at all. A christian or islamic fundamentalist has twisted and perverted the teachings of his religion’s namesake to suit his own ends, and turned the teachings of each of these men into a travesty. Life is only as boring as you make it. I suggest that you are getting bored because you are being a tremendous and insufferable bore yourself.
Your fundamentalism is showing, your posts reek of it.
BTW, I do not intend to reply to any further of your posts, there are many better ways to use my time and energy. You can feel good because this allows you to have the last word.
Not at all. You are coming on just like a Christian or Islamic fundamentalist, and I’m getting bored.
Stuka is pretty liberal with the bitch slapping I’ll give you that but it really is you who is arguing like a theist. When confronted with evidence that your beliefs don’t match actual you make excuses and rationalize why it’s OK. Just saying.
He gives no evidence, just rhetoric. So I figure sauce for the goose and all that.
Not at all. You are coming on just like a Christian or Islamic fundamentalist, and I’m getting bored.
Stuka is pretty liberal with the bitch slapping I’ll give you that but it really is you who is arguing like a theist. When confronted with evidence that your beliefs don’t match actual you make excuses and rationalize why it’s OK. Just saying.
He gives no evidence, just rhetoric. So I figure sauce for the goose and all that.
Horseshit. Was someone else posting under your name in the thread about the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta, in which I presented evidence of the Buddha’s reliance on rational empiricism in his own liberative teachings?
The Courtier’s Reply again. The Buddha presented his liberative teachings, every bit of them, using words to describe the practice, all the way to the end. “Mind-to-mind transmission” of your “permanent, unchanging mind” is smoke and mirrors.
Not at all. I could prescribe a system of study for you and if you followed it with some degree of fidelity you would get the result. But you wouldn’t follow it even if I wrote it out in detail. I can’t show you something that you are too prejudiced to accept as possibly existing just by speaking from the state I describe because you will not hear what I say.
The reason you can’t show me anything is because I have seen enough out of you to know that you have nothing to offer me.
You are being pretty closed minded for somebody who claims to follow “liberative” teachings.
My mind is pretty closed to woo. When I talk about the “liberative” teachings of the Buddha, I am referring to what he called his “Noble” teachings, those that liberate one from greed, hostility, and ignorance, and, through cutting off those roots, suffering.
You know the saying, it’s not paranoid if somebody really is out to get you; well, it isn’t a courtier’s reply if the person you are responding to really is incapable of grasping your point
And I already acknowledged that I did.
, and you have demonstrated that incapacity to my complete satisfaction.
Horseshit.
stuka - 30 October 2010 07:06 PM
stuka - 30 October 2010 08:24 AM
You have to infer from signs and indications, but the catch (for all of us) is that we infer according to the conceptual frameworks that we have and so always run the risk of missing the point, or of automatically dismissing something as irrelevant or useless because it doesn’t fit our way of thinking.
You speak of conceptual frameworks as if they were fixed and absolute, as if we are total slaves to them. Sort of a conceptual determinism. But that has nothing to do with your claim of an “‘Absolute(TM)’, permanent, unchanging mind”.
It points to the fact that you have not gotten my point because of your own limitations of understanding. Sorry about that, but I can’t help out there.
Oh, I got your point, alright. I just don’t buy the woo. Again you are employing the Courtier’s Reply.
See above, you haven’t gotten it because to get it you have to have more that a prejudiced and dismissive attitude. I say again: so long as your attitude is one of ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity you will be incapable of understanding what I say. You can protest all you want, that fact remains.
“See above. You don’t see the Emperor’s New Clothes because to get it you have to have more that a prejudiced and dismissive attitude. I say again: so long as your attitude is one of ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity you will be incapable of seeing The Emperor’s New Clothes. You can protest all you want, that fact remains.”
