The Universe Speaks [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

Cody

01-11-2003, 11:08 AM

eulerfan, you seem like a nice person. I have gone thru times when I have thought some of the things you are considering.
The "conclusions" which I work with now are that while I do strongly believe in the possibility of reincarnation, I regard that as unknowable. I have no religion or belief in a diety, and am not comfortable with deterministic philosophies.

On the other hand, there are instances when we are approached or meet with a person or situation that almost seems set up by something outside us. I think that our deepest wishes might guide us, even unconsciously to the closest approximation of them, as an act of personal will. I think this view has validity, but is far from complete. (It's important to remember that we function with others who exercise their wills in this world. It is from them that at least some of the external force might be originating.) Sometimes our proximity to them is a dream come true, and sometimes it makes no sense or is a "ho hum" yawning interaction; some exchanges can appear as random acts of kindness or of violence.
It might be as if the universe smiles down one minute and does the opposite the next. I attribute nothing to a universal will, which I don't believe in to begin with. There can be other wills which can be very strong, wills of people, even one person, which can drive others, one by one or by the thousands.

When one is young and "stumbling" thru options which abound, there can be this feeling of discovery of what was meant to be. Yet, it can be, in my view, a stumbling into what one wanted (a positive feeling about the subject, the place, people) without consciously knowing its roots, or even a random occurrence.

When one finds the "right" people or the "right" activities, it can feel like a bonding on the molecular level. It fits. By "right," I mean that which makes one feel alive. I see that feeling of rightness as a mutual fitting of compatible interests and needs. Whether it might be also a reunion of spirits who have known each other in previous lives is open to question. Besides, live for now. I hope you never run out of fulfilling options, for that is a sad place to be.

Keep going.

Cody

eulerfan

01-11-2003, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
But really, Eulerfan, no offense, but your response was both circular, non-sensical, and frankly egotistical. Get over it. There are no 'sages' hanging out here.

If it didn't make sense, how did you figure out it was circular?;)

I wasn't really offended, I found one of your remarks patronizing. True. So I retorted. But my whole response wasn't angry. Just that one retort.

The rest of the response was my honest opinion. To which you respond with insults and running away. You seem like the one with the panties in a twist, to be quite honest.

I'm still not really all that bothered. Seriously. If you really found my response that nonsensical, tell me why and I'll try to be clearer.

If it peeves you that much, I'll just ignore remarks that rub me the wrong way. I can do that.

dezhen2001

01-11-2003, 11:22 AM

hi kung lek :)

im trying to not really go there so others can jump on the bandwagon about my beliefs again as it will inevitably happen.

for me sometimes things can happen because we made a mistake and dug our own hole, other times things happen unexpectedly and from outside our control.

In my experience really it can be difficult to deal with them in the correct way, and learn the lesson from them. thats what i mean when i say i think they happen for a reason. not neccessarily cause and effect.

if i dont know depression and sadness, how can i truly know happiness? if i have never been angry and irrational, how can i underestand how to remain calm and centred?

this is just what i think at this time from my own experience :)

dawood

eulerfan

01-11-2003, 11:32 AM

Cody,

I absolutely agree that the reason things seem that way could be that a great deal of our decision making goes on on the subconscious level.

I definitely do a lot of thinking subconsciously. Lots of times, I'll be stuck on a math problem and just get away from it. Then the answer just comes to me. Magic? Probably not. The only reasonable explanation is that I was thinking about it on some level I wasn't directly aware of.

Our biggest choices are being made on a level we're not aware of. Hmmmm. It would sort of make sense that I put myself in this predicament where I have to leave my school. It is not something I would have consciously chosen to do.

Good point.

Very nice.

Cody

01-11-2003, 12:47 PM

eulerfan,
Yes. Subconscious problem solving and, making more permeable the boundaries between states of consciousness (Especially those most on the surface) is part of my way of life. Besides, it works.

I think that the getting into predicaments can be one big mixed up mess.

Okay. Yes, it is possible to sabotage your own efforts. This can happen with people who have poor self image, and don't feel they deserve to succeed. They make sure they don't too. That's one example. I don't think that's where you are.

Then, there's the situation where you're really bored, but it's easier to stay where you are, but you really do want to go. So, you unconsciously set up a situation where you have to go. Maybe you're there, maybe you're not.

There's more, having to do with effects of other people's severe deficits, or cruelty. This is tangential, but I'm including it cause I wish to caution regarding times when our will is direct and clear to us, and is not compromised by subconscious needs or conflict, but by conflict with people around us. And, in fact, they will wish us to believe that we are at fault for their problems as well when that is not so.

There are times when we are truly happy where we are and want to stay and grow there. This very happiness might give rise to jealousy in others, who fear for their own positions. They might seek to undermine your standing. One can be set up. The same qualities which make you a good student, a good friend, a defender of the weak in mind or body, are used to put you in a bad light. A central player's flaws, along with jealousy on the part of an associate of that person can lead to ruination for a follower. Poor judgment calls (based on inadequate info, and double signals in opposite directions from a leader) can lead even the most determined student or friend to failure.

So, what I wish to communicate to you is that I respect your introspection. I share that quality. Yet, the complexity of how people move on or are uprooted from where they planned to stay with total commitment, without reservation, can also be determined, even on a small scale, by how one's will interacts with those of others.

It is wise not to assume sanity in anyone. ha. Would you believe that I thought for a long time that at the last possible moment almost anyone would find the goodness (honesty, compassion, love, tolerance, fair play....) to behave rightly?

This has gone off topic. Yet, I thought it was relevant as a tangent. how people get where they're going as affected by other people getting where they're going. It's like a dance.

take care,
Cody
______________________________
dezhen2001,

If one is in joy and happiness, then one will know that state of being. It is not necessary, imo, to compare opposites. The knowledge of joy can be knowable in its own right, separate from comparison to misery.

My drive to live is to be completely what I am. This concept came alive for me in martial arts. Your second paragraph makes sense and works for me. Sometimes we are encouraged to dig that hole and then are pushed in. It's like thinking that you are digging a hole to plant a tree, when it is a grave that is being dug. something along those lines.

Cody

mantis108

01-11-2003, 12:51 PM

It is all part of the human experience. Viva la vita loca. Trying to control this crazy life or let this crazy life to control you is going to drive you as crazy. But that's normal to most emotional beings. Just let it be and live. That already is Buddhism. If Buddhism is really about classic scriptures, rituals, etc, it would have died long ago. There is a different between actively becoming the awaken one and academically or rather religiously studying the awaken one. The latter definitely takes forever. BTW, you are not the only one that feels life works in mysterious way. As far as I am concern things that happen in my life usually have reasons and connections. That includes join KFO. It is always a pleasure to see them unfold and enjoy even when it is bitter.

Mantis108

The Willow Sword

01-11-2003, 01:12 PM

quoted by Monkeyslaptoo

But really, Eulerfan, no offense, but your response was both circular, non-sensical, and frankly egotistical. Get over it. There are no 'sages' hanging out here

Yeah like you would know who or what a sage really is with your all american anti-everything but you attitude:rolleyes:

Eulerfan: check your private mesages again.

Many respects,,,The Willow Sword

Radhnoti

01-11-2003, 01:44 PM

...ok...maybe I missed it. MS2 mentioned the 9/11 terrorists in passing as something no "universal power" would condone, right? I think we would all agree with that...or is this spill-over from a thread I refused to spend hours plowing through? :p

I think it's human nature to look for patterns or reasons. When we look back we say, "Well, that's a pattern my life fell into and so a higher power must be at work."

I've decided it's all chance, infinite monkeys banging on infinite typewriters producing multiple Shakespearian masterpieces.

Bleak, I'll admit...I think it's up to us to provide the "magic".
Kindness, Love, Honor, Courage, and our own concept of Goodness to name a few. It's an awesome responsibility to be the order in the chaos.

dezhen2001

01-11-2003, 01:56 PM

Cody: after my last post i actually thought more about it and agree with you :D

What im more interested in now, is understanding how and why things can go in a downward spiral or upwards... thats interesting to me right now as i just have come out of a long depression.

A few days ago i just decided that i am sick of being in the mind numbing position i am in and have decided to do something about it. of course i still have the problems and pressure, but my attitude is now slowly changing. thats whats interesting to me, as now even with the problems i have, i am happier than i can remember :)

mantis108: for sure i agree there buddy :) even me joining kfo was random, and form it i met my current partner and even learned more about islam fomr it... life is strange eh? :)

Radhnoti: think it was a spill over as well as what you said.

dawood

eulerfan

01-11-2003, 02:13 PM

Rad,

I would definitely call that a fishing trip. The fish, quite SAGELY, said, "That's a suck @ss worm and I ain't hungry, anyway."

Xebsball

01-11-2003, 02:16 PM

Ok peoples, is it fate? or not? does it matter?

Heres a thing, how i got into MA:
In 2000 i was studying physics on uni and i remember seing on tv this anime (japanese cartoon) called Rurouni Kenshin, its basicly about a rurouni (free samurai that serves no one) that hangs out and fights and all and has a sword with the sharp part being the inside as oposed to the outside on a normal katana. Reason for it being so that when he fought he didnt kill his oponents, he used to be a killer (Hitokiri Battousai) in the past and now he let go of his old ways...
So i quit physics, and moved back to my city to study computer science. The cool thing here, the critical point: the building where we live at is just by the side of a guns/ammo/weapons store. One day i take a look at whats displayed there and i find 2 katanas. I think katanas are so cool, what are they made off? are these the good stuff? is the price right?
Answer -> look on the internet. And i do, A LOT. Enough to get information on swords and their respective japanese arts Kendo, Iaido, Kenjutsu... i researched for more than a month. Decided to look for a Kendo school, there are none here though. One time im talking to my bro he goes like, if it was me i wouldnt do that stuff id try that chinese kung fu thing.
And then i found a kung fu place, did a lot of research about it on the internet too, thats also the very time i end up here on KFO. Eventually joined the school in town. The rest is history and evolution into finding out what i really wanted and if the place truly offered me that. And at last somehow, gladly finding on the internet my current teacher and being really happy with my training.

Had i not quit physics and moved back home would i ever get into MA?
I prefer and choose not to care :)
Either way, here we all are, ENJOY :cool:

dezhen2001

01-11-2003, 02:16 PM

you have such a unique way of putting things eulerfan :D

dawood

neptunesfall

01-11-2003, 03:11 PM

well. here goes my opinion.
whether or not we find something to be joyous or tragic, it is a product of the universe. every single thing that happens has a reason, known or unknown. if anything, it's up to a person to find their own reason for it, their own lesson from it.
there is a balance between everything (both known and unknown).
there is yin, there is yang.
even in imbalance, there is balance. as an example, some people are too yin. other people are too yang. some races of people are too yang ( too abundant), some races of people are too yin (declining). i feel it goes for everything.

whatever. i can't explain my own thoughts.

Sharky

01-11-2003, 03:15 PM

Who stole dezehns eyebrows

dezhen2001

01-11-2003, 03:19 PM

you can even see the avatar clearly enough? wow :D they are actually there man dont worry :D

dawood

eulerfan

01-11-2003, 03:19 PM

I didn't steal them, I'm borrowing them.

dezhen2001

01-11-2003, 03:24 PM

any chance of me getting them back when you are done? :confused:

dawood

Sharky

01-11-2003, 03:25 PM

I don't know if you'd want them back after she's 'finished' with them.

dezhen2001

01-11-2003, 03:27 PM

:eek:

Chang Style Novice

01-11-2003, 03:28 PM

Sharky - is that "Airborne" rhyme yours? It's pretty fresh.</fogey school slang>

dezhen2001

01-11-2003, 03:31 PM

recognized at last :D

Merryprankster

01-11-2003, 03:36 PM

Euler--to borrow a cheesy line from T2 "There is no fate except that which we make for ourselves." :D

Ok, that's not entirely accurate, but it's close enough. You clearly can't control it if a safe falls out of the sky and lands on your head.

I am a big believer in making things happen for yourself. More than a few people have done well with "The harder I work, the luckier I get." The idea that we are to sit somewhat impassively and move through life or allow it to move around us is anathematic to both my tastes and my observations. No deeds of reknown--either grand or small--were ever made by those who did not strive. I don't believe in things happenning for a reason. None of us are important or interesting enough, in the grand scheme of things, for the universe to care. In short, I reject the idea that individuals are special enough to be worthy of attention in any particular way, as far as the universe is concerned.

As Radhnoti pointed out, the only magic there is is that you create for yourself.

Dezhen, congratulations on your first small steps towards health. Been there! It's not a whole lot of fun, but as I think I mentioned, I found that the best thing for a little drive was success. The small little victories count a lot when you consider how much they keep you going. And making the decision not to be miserable is a really great victory!

Sharky

01-11-2003, 03:41 PM

Nah it's not mine man :eek: It's by another UK rapper called 'Jehst'. He's messy, i love all his ****. Type that into kazaa and get some of his stuff if you can. He manages to be deep but spit raw at the same time.

but i've got this new 'thing' of changing that line(s) in my signature pretty frequently, so i'll put some of mine up occationally. Won't tell you when though *heh*

Even though i have exams i wrote an abstract piece (needs finishing off) last night, not what i usually do, i dunno how good it is or if it's too abstract in that i am the only person who will 'get it' or see the double meanings (maybe too vague).

It's only 2min 14 i'll post it up as soon as it's recorded, although i can't record until the 22nd...

dezhen2001

01-11-2003, 03:42 PM

MP: thanks a lot! u know i stretched these last few days and feel really cr@ppy coz i have lost a lot. even when doing techniques its so sloppy... actually im disappointed with myself for letting the depression/pressure control me, but like i said above i am striving to get out of this hole now.

Mainly i am starting to train again slowly instead of just being an 'intellectual' Martial Artist, and already feel a bit better. Hopefully soon my brain will be back to full capacity and i can actually get some quality study done :p

I think these kinda situations make your real character shine thru - it just took me a long time to shine!

dawood

Merryprankster

01-11-2003, 03:46 PM

Not that you need my .02$, but IMO, I found that it was better to focus on what I wanted to accomplish, rather than not being depressed, or doing something so I could conquer depression.

Trying to use your depression as a reason to drive yourself to do something so you aren't depressed any more, seemed kind of counterproductive :D

Anyhoo, cheers!

dezhen2001

01-11-2003, 03:51 PM

lol no problem...

well i have a test in between easter and summer so im gonna try and train up for that. hopefully i can make this one :) also gotta finish my degree so i can go to australia... etc. so plenty to focus on :D

dawood

eulerfan

01-11-2003, 04:40 PM

Guys,

The fate thing is not really the question anymore.

Cody hit the nail on the head getting me off the track I was on. I don't respond well to the, "I declare that there is not such thing as fate. You are responsible for your own destiny" thing quite as well as, "I have a better explanation for why things have come together in such an unlikely manner."

Which he did. And now it's okay.

Move along.

Nothing to see here.

Except for my spiffy new eyebrows.:)

dezhen2001

01-11-2003, 04:44 PM

r u saying u like the eyebrows? ;)

dawood

eulerfan

01-11-2003, 04:45 PM

best I've ever tried. Do you use conditioner on them or something. So soft. So supple.

dezhen2001

01-11-2003, 04:48 PM

lol! actually most people say my hair is soft and fine... :eek: what the heck were u doing to find out they are supple?

dawood

KC Elbows

01-11-2003, 05:46 PM

Why would a universal power take sides on people getting in planes to kill other people? Why would one necessarily be against it? If it's really universal, doesn't that mean that all sides of all issues are encapsulated in it, from enlightenment to madness? Wouldn't that include equally well the actions of Mother Theresa to the actions of a terrorist?

I'm not condoning heinous actions, but isn't their heinousness a human judgement, based on the minimum of information? When we refer to a hijacker crashing a plane into a building, we don't really know much more than that he was a hijacker. So we judge the situation based on that, and act based on that. But when it's all said and done, and we're talking about whether there was a reason or rationale in a funky cosmic philo sense, how could we possibly judge? I mean, Adolph Hitler's actions essentially brought the east and west together in a greater way than they had been before, as did the cold war. Did Mother Theresa have an equal impact? Kind of hard to say. Certainly debatable, which makes me think human judgement isn't worth a whole lot, since progress does not always bear a pretty face, and we often give props to 'nice' events that don't shape our world much or improve people in any real way, and chaff at the horrible ones that end up being for the best.

I've read in one book about an idea that Hitler was a buddha who chose the life of Hitler so that no other would have to accept the karma of being Hitler. Crazy Tibetan stuff, I have no idea if that is indicative of Tibetan Buddhism, but i thought it was interesting. The idea is that what Hitler did was clearly atrocity, but that that side of humanity had to be seen at some point in a vast and profound way, as humans now had great power to use or misuse.

Needless to say, I believe that it's a crapshoot. However, believe is definitely the operant term here, because I can't guarantee with any assurance that Hitler was not an enlightened being acting like a total jagoff so that we'd figure out what nitwits we were before we developed nukes. I don't think he was. But it will always bug me, the concept. Clever tibetan *******s.:D

Despite this, the real question, to me, is whether Dezhen actually has eyebrows at all anymore, and what the answer tells us about which anatomical part of the Voltron QeysDezhenAponator Dezhen is.

Xebsball

01-11-2003, 05:48 PM

i knew there was head hair transplant, but now eyebrows transplants :eek:

i wonder: whats next? whats next? :eek:

KC Elbows

01-11-2003, 06:12 PM

I'm growing dreadlocks on my arse.

I'm sorry, it's not sharing time, is it?

dezhen2001

01-11-2003, 06:14 PM

Despite this, the real question, to me, is whether Dezhen actually has eyebrows at all anymore, and what the answer tells us about which anatomical part of the Voltron QeysDezhenAponator Dezhen is.

hey, well i guess my eyebrows ARE a microcosm of the whole 'place' (according to some schools of thought), so its pretty important :D they sure seem to have travelled everywhere - even to the east/mid US! im obviously not a part that of the QeysDezhenAponator that needs eyebrows thats for sure (heck even hair!).

the real question, to me, is - what the heck did eulerfan need my eyebrows for?:eek:

dawood

cha kuen

01-11-2003, 06:17 PM

I'm guessing SD is southern dragon?

**kung fu books** (http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&include=0&userid=taichimaster06&sort=3&rows=25&since=-1)

dezhen2001

01-11-2003, 06:21 PM

guessed wrong :) Shaolin-Do

KC; u been doing a lot of real long posts lately man - lucky u dont have to rhyme anymore! :D

dawood

KC Elbows

01-11-2003, 07:04 PM

Usually when I'm posting at night like now, I'm writing at the same time. I've noticed I babble a lot more now that I'm writing a lot. I think it comes from writing my fiction on the fly, and then heavily revising it later. Once I get typing, it seems like I'm always heading for 4500 words or something.

If I had to rhyme this much, I'm pretty sure Sharky would pay eWallace to find me and kill me.

Radhnoti

01-11-2003, 09:02 PM

eulerfan, you're giving me too much credit...or thinking too much, I'm not sure which. I wasn't looking for the story, just stating my opinion that MS2 got slammed for ...well...nothing I could spot. Anyway, glad Cody could give you that which you sought. :D

KC, love the Hitler as a buddah thing. Any idea where that story originated?

dezhen, glad you're climbing up and out. If you think positive thoughts/wishes are any help, rest assured you have them. :)

Braden

01-11-2003, 09:41 PM

I thought traditional thought on karmic debts had more to do with what growth was sought, rather than the popular notion of a barter economy of karma. From the former point of view, it's not clear why a buddha would choose to be Hitler. Besides which, he wasn't just an unfortunate persona in cultural history, in even the loosest sense; rather, he handled even whatever role the cosmos may have given him in an utterly ungracefull fashion... surely? I'm not sure how much worth there is generally in this kind of thinking to begin with; relativism is allready a horrible plague on mankind, moral relativism particularly. I suppose there's some value in not simply dismissing Hitler et al. as 'evil' meaning 'inhuman', as this way of thinking makes us forget the very human errors these people made; errors we all could of easily made, and indeed do make, albeit in more benevolent contexts (which is no feat of our own). However, there's much better approaches at making this point.

Regarding the initial topic of the thread, if you're going to intellectualize about the cosmos, it's important to finely cleave your intellectualizing from the honest conception of your soul/truest mind. In the latter context, we have to remember none of us are on some kind of government board assembled to detemine what we must believe in and what we must not. In other words, to truly understand that you do not need to stake a belief is good; implementing this is liberation.

P.S. Every time you read one of Xebsball's posts, domokun kills a kitten.

diego

01-11-2003, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too

Dezhen, I really am sorry if bringing up the complete and total disregard your fellow muslims have for non-muslim life. Sorry.

riiighht and how isnt this a troll?...kinda non-sensical comment i think spock would have thought!.
havent read the rest of the thread so im sure you have been sh*tted on but this is one of the most retarded statements especially by one who is suppossed to be spitting about logic and socrates:rolleyes: :p

prana

01-12-2003, 01:42 AM

I dont know you so well, neither do you me I am guessing. But here is my useless opinion.

In every house is a window. Some houses more than others. Out of every window is a view. Although we look into the same neighbouring environment, the view is slightly different. Is his view more truthful or real than yours, or yours more than his ? Neither is true, neither is false. Even if one sees the view from the same window, neither is it same nor different.

We all see things the way we do because something we did in the past made us. Maybe because I bought a house, right there, or rented an apartment 2 floors up from you. Or maybe I just live in a different counry and the only "same same but different" view is that of KFO :D

On the subject of subconscious thinking.

U R always thinking sunconsciously. Film yourself sleeping. Better still, just watch your monkey mind and let it drift. If you come across a day when you know how to control it, do let me know.

Buddha said, one of the small path of reaction is that of sensation. None more the truth as when we become angered, where heat overwhelmes, or when we feel loved and the heart sparkles, to more subtle sensations such as an itch, and of course, much much much subtler.

As to what the monk had to say, it is so profound.

If you discover the meaning behind his words, again, let us know :) One thing I have noticed is this, when a sangha gives a sentence, if you examine it at different times of your life, it reveals itself differently.

Ok enough spitting from me, now get back to analysing yourself :D

dezhen2001

01-12-2003, 01:54 AM

karma, if your not busy r u on icq? :)

dawood

David Jamieson

01-12-2003, 08:49 AM

In the Lotus sutra there is a section that deals with the teaching of the law / The nature of life.

To paraphrase -

Life comes in the form of a cloud filled with rain, the rain falls and all creatures sentient and non sentient are nourished from the rain. The moisture gives life to all and it gives it from the same source. What the Large need they get and what the small need they get.

cheers

KC Elbows

01-12-2003, 09:14 AM

I thought traditional thought on karmic debts had more to do with what growth was sought, rather than the popular notion of a barter economy of karma. From the former point of view, it's not clear why a buddha would choose to be Hitler.

Well, I have very limited understanding of tibetan buddhism, but it's my understanding that there is a heavy emphasis on history in tibetan buddhism, and a belief that humanity is heading towards something. In this view, then, even mao tze tung has an important role, because, from my understanding, in the end, all will be buddhas, and thus, all were buddhas all along living roles and accepting karmas so that all could come to awareness as one great humanity, or some such thing. So, a buddha would theoretically choose to be Hitler not because they solely want to take that karma, but because of the historical importance of Hitler being exactly what he was. In this idea, the growth sought was not for Hitler, but for a larger segment of humanity. I suppose one could go a step forward and say that all the iconic sort of figures we see come out of WWII could be buddhas making a stage for humanity to come to an understanding, but there is little question that, were this the case, the buddha making one of the greatest sacrifices would be the one who played Hitler, assuming, of course, that this were true.

The reason I sort of like the concept is because, in the end, if you look at everyone as buddhas living a lesson, you can find much more wisdom than if you get stuck on one teacher's words, and you can see more clearly the good traits of the bad, and the bad traits of the good, and what they mean for life, and why they exist, instead of getting on the bandwagon of thinking that some things should not be when quite clearly, they are.

I'm all over the place with this post. So sue me. I have to write cohesive stuff all week, so you guys get the rants.

Of course, I am no expert on this, it's just a concept that I read that intrigued me. However, I think too often, people think of karma in terms of 'how is this advantageous/disadvantageous to me', wereas in reality, karma's not about them alone(IMO), but about a wider arena that includes budgee birds and marmets and yellow rocks and wadded up pieces of paper and rogue stars and Tiger Schulman and microorganisms that feed off underwater volcanic activity and, of course, Royce Gracie. I don't see any reason to believe that I take any precedence in the process of karma over Tiger Schulman or the marmet or the wadded up piece of paper. The wadded up piece of paper might later trigger my enlightenment. Which of us is more important then, me or the wadded up piece of paper? Maybe it was a buddha who wadded it up in the first place. Maybe it was Royce Gracie. What's my point? Should I have one? Are points beneficial to me at this stage in the game? Is anyone reading this? Will anyone answer these questions? Should they?

As for the barter economy idea, I'm not sure how that relates to what I was saying. Hitler, in buddhism, would surely exact some heavy karma, not in the idea of punishment, but more the concept of 'really heavy getting over it time', if that makes any sense. A buddha accepting a karma that must happen regardless, however, would ostensibly see that karmic recovery time for what it is, and not perceive it as punishment.

dezhen2001

01-12-2003, 09:57 AM

nothing wise to say here :p

just that it would be interestingt o gather yup your recent posts KC - u could make a book out of them pretty easy! im actually impressed :)

dawood

KC Elbows

01-12-2003, 10:21 AM

I could call it Elbow Room: A Collection of Responses to Statements You've Never Read.

Or perhaps Stupidity for Dummies.

Actually, I would be interested to read a book of Braden's philosophy/spirituality. His concepts tend to be much more thought out than mine. Perhaps Nitpics from the Nether Reaches or something. It could be the next Celestine Prophecies.:D

However, I'm glad my writing is something people can apparently follow. Forums have, oddly enough, helped the process a lot, because there's always someone there to give me a hard time when my spelling, diction, or concepts are out of whack.

[Dez, when the first of my stories is up, I'll send you a link. I'd be interested to hear your feedback, if you have the time.]

KC Elbows

01-12-2003, 11:07 AM

"Besides which, he wasn't just an unfortunate persona in cultural history, in even the loosest sense; rather, he handled even whatever role the cosmos may have given him in an utterly ungracefull fashion... surely?"

I did not mean to infer that he was just an unfortunate person. I believe that it's fairly clear that the concept of a buddha assuming the role of a Hitler is meaningless unless Hitler is a horrible person, in the sense that he had horrible intentions and did horrible things.

"I'm not sure how much worth there is generally in this kind of thinking to begin with; relativism is allready a horrible plague on mankind, moral relativism particularly."

No moral relativism. Hitler did horrible things. Immoral things. It's meaningless for a buddha to take such a role if this were not true. However, the end effect of these horrible things is intrinsic to our world, and is impossible to call intrinsically bad or good. Meaning that Hitler's moral character and his historical importance can't be judged by the same criterion. The worth of this kind of thinking is to show that there are deeper meanings than surface morality. Hitler contributed more to the present than Mother Theresa, whether his intention was to do so or not. That was his effect. He drove some change in peoples from all over the world. Evil people have a role in the world. Evil can cut to the quick in a way that good cannot, and this can be shown to have often been a necessary phenomenon for human advancement, an advancement which makes it easier for more people to come to understand each other because more people are in contact with each other.

"I suppose there's some value in not simply dismissing Hitler et al. as 'evil' meaning 'inhuman', as this way of thinking makes us forget the very human errors these people made; errors we all could of easily made, and indeed do make, albeit in more benevolent contexts (which is no feat of our own)."

Still, that's not, by my understanding, the point of the referrence I was talking about. The point was that, in this view, Hitler was necessary, vital, of such importance to mankind that his very existence could change the face of society worldwide, regardless of his moral character, or more correctly, because of it.

"However, there's much better approaches at making this point."

That's not the only point that can be found in that belief, nor the only point I was discussing. It could be used to say that a universal entity, if one exists, seems to find equal utility in evil as it does in good, and so wouldn't it stand to reason that evil doers serve the universal entity as much as good people do, and wouldn't it stand to reason that some good people could see this and take up the mantle of evil when it must be done?

Of course, now we're discussing politics.:D

Radhnoti,

I'll find the book I read it in, it was at the biginning of a book i read on Tibetan buddhism. As I said, they're really big on understanding how history moves them in a direction, and understanding what they are to do with the direction they are given. Even the occupation of Tibet is explained in these terms. Without it, what struggle would the Dalai Lama have that would hold the world's interest and, in effect, teach some small measure of buddhism throughout the world, to at least make people understand how they are not too different from the Tibetans?

dezhen2001

01-12-2003, 11:38 AM

KC: for sure if i can help in any way let me know :) im a student so of course i have plenty of time on my hands lol

dawood

dezhen2001

01-12-2003, 11:39 AM

ps. i think Nitpics from the Nether Regions sounds more *you* :D

dawood

eulerfan

01-12-2003, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Radhnoti
eulerfan, you're giving me too much credit...or thinking too much, I'm not sure which. I wasn't looking for the story, just stating my opinion that MS2 got slammed for ...well...nothing I could spot. Anyway, glad Cody could give you that which you sought. :D

Well, I wasn't then but now I am thinking too much. I didn't actually think all of this at the time. I'm just trying to describe my reaction, which was pretty quick, to what happened there.

I figured there was some history that I didn't understand when dez said that he wasn't goint to get into it with MS2 because it was useless. When MS2 responded to that with, "so, are you saying you support terrorism?" And you have to keep in mind that the topic at hand was fate, terrorism was ONE example MS2 used to make a point about fate. So that response doesn't even really flow. When I read it, I thought to myself, "history or not, good call, dez."

I didn't catch that it was a bait at first, either. But that response could have no real purpose other than to get dez so defensive that he comes out swinging.

I mean, how would you feel if somebody asked you that question? Now pretend you're muslim. You can either get into a long, heated religious debate or ignore it.

When your only options are a) heated debate or b) ignore, you are being baited. That's pretty much how I define that term.

And, we were just discussing fate. That's a broad topic. But dez can't join in without it turning into a muslim-terrorism debate? That is telling him quite clearly that any time he mentions his religion, in ANY capacity, the sh!t is going to hit the fan. Sort of the way ya'll have SD people afraid to mention SD.

And, I'll be the first to say that, if he falls victim to that, it will be a petty and pitiless turn of events.

That is opression by attrition. That's all that is.

dezhen2001

01-12-2003, 03:38 PM

d@mn u thought about that a lot eulerfan :D i just remembered the threads i DID participlate in a few weeks ago, so decided best to avoid it, but now u got me thinking more - and apart frm the fact i dunno what attrition means, it would indeed be a sad case if that happened :(

dawood

fa_jing

01-12-2003, 03:46 PM

I think that there are, as Jung put it "meaningful coincidences," but I think it is unclear what meaning is behind these - i.e. shared consciousness, subconcience, etc. Maybe it is simply that we have a limited knowledge of the future, due to our awareness not being entirely localized in the present.

WTF knows? ;)

But, we have all had similar experiences. For some reason. I think.

:confused:
:D

eulerfan

01-12-2003, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by dezhen2001
d@mn u thought about that a lot eulerfan :D i just remembered the threads i DID participlate in a few weeks ago, so decided best to avoid it, but now u got me thinking more - and apart frm the fact i dunno what attrition means, it would indeed be a sad case if that happened :(

dawood

It just means that you wear something down. I just meant that it would make you shut up because you would be, quite understandably, tired of having to fight about it.

fa_jing

01-12-2003, 03:59 PM

Just because this deals with the subject:

http://www.friesian.com/jung.htm

Merryprankster

01-12-2003, 04:06 PM

Man, I always come into these things late.

You know that juiceman guy? THAT guy's got some eyebrows.

Dez, I'm going to PM you soonish. I have some questions to ask you about your personal experience with Islam, and I don't want to ask them here. In the current political environment, it's likely to let in a beast of an argument that will just mess the rug.

scotty1

01-12-2003, 04:12 PM

Dez I think you've got some heart for standing up for your beliefs in this sort of environment.

No reply neccessary, just thought I'd mention it.

Braden

01-12-2003, 04:13 PM

I think the Tibetan idea of history shouldn't be taken as strict determinism. In a deterministic moral system, you can accept anything that happens as being part of the big, deterministic scheme - as you have reasoned. In a way, this takes the onus off of people striving to overcome moral weakness. This is a system of anti-morals: there are no standards of what is good or bad, but only an acceptance of everything according to the grand scheme. I don't believe this is a good interpretation of the Tibetan concept of history. Rather, that history and existance itself evolves, and that we have a role in the evolution of all of existance, is all the more reason to strive to overcome moral weakness. The system isn't strictly deterministic: everything isn't excused according to the grand scheme; rather, much holds back the grand scheme. Good is, more good because it is good for everyone and it contributes to the entire evolution of the cosmos. Evil, along the same logic, is more evil; rather than being more acceptable.

Certainly, there are lessons to be learned from this general kind of reasoning; such as the goodness and evilness of all people, the different messages of different people and circumstances, and the mistakes and triumphs we all can make. I believe we have both alluded to these ideas.

There is also academic merit to considering the good consequences of terrible events, such as the globalization aroused by the Crusades, or the economic and technological benefits of the Cold War. But are these the same thing as big scheme moral/spiritual/religious/cosmic evolutionary/whatever goals? Alot of people are now claiming globalization is a terrible thing. Certainly, economic benefit must be quite low in the scheme of spiritual importance.

Does the globalization trend following the Crusades mean that the horrendous slaughter of the Children's Crusade was a good thing? This suggests moral relativism, as I alluded to. The butchering of innocence must be wrong, no matter how much money it generates, and how much it makes east meet west. How truly important are these things? Who is more spiritually evolved, the ignorant and poor man who brings only happiness to all he meets, or the worldy and rich man who became so through the suffering of others? Apply this principle to the grand scheme.

When you describe the hypothetical Buddha-Hitler's accumulation of some negative element which would take a long time to get rid of - this is what I meant by a barter economy of karma; that through evil deeds one accumulates a negative element (and the contrary). The other interpretation of karma I alluded to suggests that it describes rather the growth that an individual and a collective must make to evolve. For instance, one could argue that in being Hitler the soul learned those valuable lessons which it required to evolve. In this way, there is no debt incurred - rather, the soul has greatly benefitted from this. Another take on this is the Tibetan idea that being born into a world of the Gods, far from being some kind of reward, is in many ways unfortunate, as it is very difficult to find spiritual evolution in this world.

dezhen2001

01-12-2003, 04:27 PM

MP: message me anytime you like, i will do my best to answer your questions :)

dawood

nospam

01-12-2003, 04:29 PM

kung lek queried...cause and effect?

This is a fundamental movement of Life.

I recall one time I went to an event to meet a particular person. This person wasn't there, but I met another.

The interesting aspect that often is out of our control/manipulation is the effect.

nospam.
:cool:

diego

01-12-2003, 04:35 PM

braden speaking from a bhuddist sence about hitler, instead of seeing bhudda as hitler and analyzing said bhuddas karma. I think, said bhudda would gain greater karma as siad bhudda lowering his wheels to a lower evolutionary platform as bieng hitler, would inspire many to become bhuddas, and through this (similar to the concept of jesus died for our sins) said bhudda would up his karmic hitpoints for the many he inspired to righteously fight him as hitler.

okay i didnt read page two and three nor most of 4 so ima read those and figure out what the freeg yall talking about.:)

diego

01-12-2003, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Braden
I thought traditional thought on karmic debts had more to do with what growth was sought, rather than the popular notion of a barter economy of karma.

im not fully educated in bhuddist thought so im really asking questions more then commenting, but on thing i was reading lastnight is in the bhuddist jatakas wich tell about guatamas pastlifes leading upto his final life as guatama; it talks about each life builds to the next and eventually he becomes a bhudda when he is born as guatama.

Now tradition says one thing, but history reads differant usually in these type of topics.

So, scientifically speaking one could look at each of guatamas socalled pastlifes were not actually his own, but lives lived by those whos deeds influenced the next person born, and the way this person played out the practises of perfections and imperfections would influence the social climate surrounding the next one born...so one dude thought positive then he told his son and his son had a kid and learnt positive thought, and eventually as you point out or it may have been cody pointed out its like a dance of wills...for aeons all these deeds were committed wich by the time guatama was born he was blessed by all the pastlife-charachters ways of living wich led him to think the thoughts wich made him to start meditating and to go on his pilgrimage "this make sence?.

i think this has todo with the mahaayana
sp? sect of thought were we all can become bhuddas right now!.

So, from this hitler as bhudda would be a blessing from the universe as it would spark the deed in minds of those agianst hitler to become more endowed with bhuddist principal's.

So how i see it is,
in the process of fulfilling your own karmic growth you influence the karmic growth of the universe, just as it influences your growth as obviously you are of the universe, and so my brain has just shut off as ive been up all night, but, am i off topic with what your saying?.

diego

01-12-2003, 05:35 PM

Abit more of what im saying

monkeyslap2 said if a family loses thier head then becomes destitute is the universe proud of this, generally no one would think, but the universe is good and bad and obviously the universe is a big boy he doesnt need his mommy so one death wouldnt worry it. Now we could say life is gods plan or the order of the universe everything else is death or retardation or really not even death just lack of life for the moment from a human perspect, until those atoms break up and reform as something else.

So, the universe only likes expansion or evolution from the bigbang, and what we call death, really its just life on pause to use a gross analogy. From death comes life, so from death we as humans become aware of life...and what seperates us from the monkeys is bhuddist thought however yall want to debate what that is, i will put it inline with civilized thought, or of whatever realization led monkeyman to start drawing and building.

gonna finish this in a minute, but will post now incase computer freezes.

Braden

01-12-2003, 05:36 PM

I understand what you're saying, and agree that it has some logic to it. Going back to the idea of the world of Gods; one could argue, for instance, that spiritual evolution is easier in the world of man because of things like Hitler causing obstacles which provide for growth; and thus, by being Hitler, one has contributed to the growth of many others, which ends up being a good thing, even for themselves. I believe this is more or less what you're suggesting. I don't actually agree with this line of logic, as I believe the true obstacles of this world are inherent in it, and utterly independant of the presence or absence of a Hitler; thus, that Hitler is not an example of the potential for spiritual growth in this world, but rather an example of failing to take example of that potential in a most unfortunate and contagious manner.

Regarding the comparison of Hitler and Jesus, I believe it to be inappropriate. Jesus' sacrifice was one of undergoing suffering, not giving it. I understand you could mean that the Hitler-Buddha is making this same sacrifice, of undergoing karmic suffering himself by taking on the role of Hitler. As I have argued, I don't accept this as a legitimate interpretation.

There's an interesting comparison of conclusions that one can draw from this. If you follow my argument, you must conclude that primacy is given to our actions here and now. If you follow the other argument, you must conclude that our here and now can by ignored for sake of some 'other' kind of reality where everything is going to make sense. One of my principles for spiritual thought is to give primacy to here and now, and reject reasoning which causes us to ignore it. So this comparison of conclusions, for me, strengthens my position.

P.S. "but the universe is good and bad and obviously the universe is a big boy he doesnt need his mommy so one death wouldnt worry it...." If you're going to discuss concepts of the mechanics of the 'universe', it's important to distinguish between 'universe' meaning the collection of matter/energy and 'universe' meaning the ultimate machinery of reality. Depending on your stance, these could be two very different things.

ZIM

01-12-2003, 06:21 PM

Regarding the comparison of Hitler and Jesus, I believe it to be inappropriate. Jesus' sacrifice was one of undergoing suffering, not giving it. I understand you could mean that the Hitler-Buddha is making this same sacrifice, of undergoing karmic suffering himself by taking on the role of Hitler.

Just using the quote :)

The Idea of a comparison between the two is faulty on first premise: it ignores the role of Dharma, which is inextricably bound to Karma. Ie, Jesus acted in accord with the Dharma, Hitler did not. Thus, Hitler cannot possibly be a Bhudda.

Just a friendly reminder...:)

TaoBoy

01-12-2003, 06:41 PM

I don't believe in fate per se.

But I do believe everything happens for a reason.
That said, there are many times when I have no idea what the reason is.

Aaaah, the mysteries of life. It would be boring any other way.

Staying pretty much on topic - how do you peeps see life after death? What do you believe?

Hey Dez, what does Islam teach regarding the 'afterlife'?

My thoughts later...

:)

dezhen2001

01-12-2003, 06:49 PM

Taoboy: r u sure u wanna open up this can of worms? :D

Do you think its important to know the reaosn why things happen? Or just find something you can learn from the experience?

On to afterlife: As far as i understand it, Islam tells us that once we die, we die. As in go to the ground and decompose. Then on judgement day we will ALL be judged according to what good and bad deeds we have done here. of course its all up to God, as He can be merciful or not... so really doing good deeds is no sure guarantee that u will go to paradise (heaven). Also Quran tells us that having faith in God is not enough to kinda 'secure' a place in the heaven (some Hadith contradict that). Some people have the idea that it does... Hmmm... im kinda hazy on the exact details to be honest, but thats what i know. im not a scholar, only a beginner :cool:

So basically its up to God what happens to everything :)

dawood

TaoBoy

01-12-2003, 06:54 PM

All pretty interesting Dez.

And yes it is a can of worms but it's a very interesting area regarding belief and faith and even disbelief and maybe scepticism.

dezhen2001

01-12-2003, 06:58 PM

one of the reasons i dont know so much personally is due to the fact that i am happy that God decides everything. The rest are just details. Im more interested in understanding how i can apply Islam to my life and live it in a more practical sense here.

for sure its interesting and i dont mind what others think at all, it all helps me to understand clearly what i think and develop myself more :)

dawood

TaoBoy

01-12-2003, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by dezhen2001
one of the reasons i dont know so much personally is due to the fact that i am happy that God decides everything. The rest are just details. Im more interested in understanding how i can apply Islam to my life and live it in a more practical sense here.

for sure its interesting and i dont mind what others think at all, it all helps me to understand clearly what i think and develop myself more :)

dawood

Sounds like you get a certain clarity from that belief structure. That's all cool. I just don't go for the big external control thing. Each to their own. As far as I am concerned if everyone is content with their beliefs it's all good.

Braden

01-12-2003, 07:09 PM

"Sounds like you get a certain clarity from that belief structure. That's all cool. I just don't go for the big external control thing."

How does professing ignorance and ultimate acceptance equate to belief structure and external control?

TaoBoy

01-12-2003, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Braden
"Sounds like you get a certain clarity from that belief structure. That's all cool. I just don't go for the big external control thing."

How does professing ignorance and ultimate acceptance equate to belief structure and external control?

Who is professing ignorance?

External control: "i am happy that God decides everything".

Is that what you were asking?

:)

Braden

01-12-2003, 07:25 PM

"i dont know so much" sounds like professing ignorance to me. Do you disagree?

How is "i am happy that God decides everything" external control? God isn't a guy who lives down the street, but rather the fundamental principle of reality.

eg. Do you know the old story of people arguing how many teeth are in a horse's mouth? If someone replies, "I'm not sure, I guess we'd just have to go to the horse and looks in it's mouth and count them" would you claim they are relying on the method of authority (belief systems and external control) for their knowledge? This is the same idea.

diego

01-12-2003, 07:45 PM

Braden and Zim, afterschool tommorrow i would like to pay more attention to the points you guys have raised, but for now would like to conclude with: I believe western science fairly states what the bhuddists state, except unfortunatly we can not prove other universes as we are limited to our little time in this one. Logic in my mind states, the big bang is correct, and we are told eventually once the universe has expanded enough it will condense back into itself....Then what. Is this a fluke...just you typing....if everything was just energy and a vacuum of space, plus intrinsically the atom bieng just energy and something like 99.9% empty space, then why is thier so much artistic design to creation!?. Why are we not just a bunch of circles and squares if the universe is chaos...from that why would we even have defined geometry, wouldnt we all just be abstract globs of energy. Thats just the make up of space and the gasses, why are parrotts so pretty in thier differant color makeups, and why do dinosaurs look so cool...What im saying is, This is a pretty big fluke.

So, personnally i do believ thier is some sort of artistic designer behind what we call life, and since the universe is expanding after the big bang, to eventually compress, Then it stands to reason another big bang would happen soon after...& thats not even taking into account the webbed-dimension theorys or the superstring theory or whatever it is called.

So, from a scientific\bhuddist perspective, i belive life is infinite, and really its all just a story, i dont believe thier is defined goals wich we must move with certian morals towards...the universe truely is good and bad, but thier is cause and effect, and the law you attract energy kin to yours...so if you are a murder, most likely you talk like an a$$hole and eventually some one will kill you because of the shamefull way you hold yourself, or the obvious effect of if you murder someone thier peeps will take revenge or the law will throw you in jail.

So i truely believe do whatever you want to yourself just dont harm those innocent...you wanna shoot heroin and sleep under a rock by all means neccassery go enjoy yourself...just make sure you dont have any little brothers looking upto you as they might start doing it, and then you have created bad karma by spreading negativity...however the universe could care less if your a crackhead....mans ego created that mess...he thought he was so unique that the universe would care for his ways more then dinosaurs. Wich ties in with the idiocy of the christian god putting his own creations in hell for bieng negative or sinning wich is a trait within gods bieng as he created the universe "offtopic, but truely the christian god is syko or just like a brat who delights in melting ants with a magnifying glass...how you gon create evil and good then tempt-sp? your creations with it..and if they fail you gon burn them well forever...how sick is these peoples thinking and this is who they pray to!!?"

So from this ramble, i deduce the universe itself reincarnates, and the point behind a universe bieng about life or growth, i would state its all just a play, or gods bored so he invented reality games just like we invent videogames and virtual realitygames, and he's just watching his plays.

So, it all bieng just another story, this world and universe within the infinity of time, Jesus acting in accord with the dharma is only one timezones perspective, as good and bad is mans concepts...but true dharma would be in accordance with growth of the universe, so from our perspect hitler almost destroyed the world so his life couldnt be looked at as positive, but to the universe it would be seen as essential, as we cant know life without death...and hitlers life would have stimulated the game pieces into further growth or evolution, wich since from this, patterns would be set for further evolution within our universe, that may had not been brought forth if ww2 did not occur.

So, from a mans perspect things didnt have to be like that, but universally speaking these things indeed do happen, and by fluke or a twisted god bored, ripping the heads off his gijoes to rearange them into new ones. The fight with hitler woke up further humanitys internal bhuddist concepts, wich most likly wouldnt have been lit if that "match" wasnt set.
So, in the bhuddist jatakas they talk about certian pastlives were thier was no bhudda in the world, but say in one of those lives guatama was a dog, and something would happen like a farmer would save him, or he would save the farmer on some old yeller scenario or lassie or whatnot, and from this they describe how these to normal charachters acted in accordance with the dharma...agian i think this is mans way of looking at things, and truely whatever karmas the world had for a hitler to wake up, i think dharma was still in play not from a personnal effect of karma-workings, but possibbly at a societal level of perspective, basically meaning hitler out of accord with the dharma, brought many of the masses closer to it, and to the "play" of the universe's this would be positive from a mans perspect or just inline with the total universes nature of expansion.

this was a long rant, but i think i came off clearly, and Braden thats basically what i mean by universal: The Total

Hopefully i will have more to add to this tommorrow...shouldnt be a prob as i have been reseatching these things all week, so yaknow!.:cool:

eulerfan

01-12-2003, 07:47 PM

I just wanted to know the meaning of life. I didn't know everybody would have so much to say about it.;)

Serpent

01-12-2003, 07:51 PM

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned thisone before:

"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear."

Or,

"When eulerfan's done with them, Dezhen's eyebrows will reappear." ;)

What about the concept of the collective/global subconscious?

Oso

01-12-2003, 08:02 PM

you'll know soon enough.

make yourself happy without hurting others.

Serpent: oh, you mean the all-mind? that's different;)

Braden

01-12-2003, 08:15 PM

diego

"I believe western science fairly states what the bhuddists state..."

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here, nor how it intersects with our discussion.

"except unfortunatly we can not prove other universes as we are limited to our little time in this one."

That depends what you mean by universe. If universe means 'all of the energy and matter that is', then by very definition there are no others.

If, like you said, you mean 'universe' to mean 'the Total', then by definition again there are no others.

"Logic in my mind states, the big bang is correct, and we are told eventually once the universe has expanded enough it will condense back into itself."

I'm not sure that the inevitable retration is the most common belief of science, nor that the big bang exactly is a buddhist belief.

As an aside, I do not believe logic can accept the big bang, but I do believe the universe will retract; indeed, that it is currently retracting in many possible individual systems (such as taking the earth itself as a system).

"This is a pretty big fluke."

That would probably be the common belief of science. ;)

"Then it stands to reason another big bang would happen soon after."

Or that the universe will simply expand and contract within reasonable parameters that do not necessitate big bangs, cold deaths, or heat deaths. Or that expansion and contraction is such a complex and variable issue that to talk about the net expansion of all matter/energy becomes meaningless.

As an aside, I find a mixture of these two possibilties much more reasonable than what you suggest.

"i belive life is infinite"

What do you mean by life? If you mean anything like the standard definition, you cannot believe both in the big bang and in the above.

"the universe truely is good and bad, but thier is cause and effect"

Do you mean 'all the matter/energy' or 'the fundamental reality' here?

If you mean 'the fundamental reality' I would disagree with you, as I suspect would Buddhists [assuming the word 'ultimately' after your 'truely is']. For instance, if you can concieve of a fundamental unity, the processes which generate the concepts of good and bad, as well as cause and effect, no longer exist. Cause and effect, I would argue, are allready very slippery concepts in the reality we know; in that we're not sure what quite what, or if, they are. You have argued the same for 'good and bad,' it seems.

"and the law you attract energy kin to yours...so if you are a murder, most likely...some one will kill you"

Observation doesn't seem to support this.

"you wanna shoot heroin and sleep under a rock"

For sake of being contrary... :D What's wrong with shooting heroin and sleeping under a rock?

"Wich ties in with the idiocy of the christian god putting his own creations in hell for bieng negative or sinning wich is a trait within gods bieng as he created the universe..offtopic, but truely the christian god is syko or just like a brat who delights in melting ants with a magnifying glass...how you gon create evil and good then tempt-sp? your creations with it..and if they fail you gon burn them well forever...how sick is these peoples thinking and this is who they pray to!!?"

I'm not sure how much you wanted to discuss this, as you specified it was off topic. So suffice to say for now that I believe you falsely describe the christian conception of god.

"as good and bad is mans concepts...but true dharma would be in accordance with growth of the universe"

This sounds alot like moral relativity and dismissing the here and now to believe in some other reality where everything makes sense. Do you disagree, or do you believe these two ideas are commendable?

"so from our perspect hitler almost destroyed the world"

I'm simply being contrary again, but, no he didn't. :D This certainly wasn't his goal.

"The fight with hitler woke up further humanitys internal bhuddist concepts..."

How so? What concepts? What evidence do you suggest for this? In general, could you elaborate here, as it doesn't seem generally true to me.

Serpent

01-12-2003, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Oso
Serpent: oh, you mean the all-mind?

Do I?

Oso

01-13-2003, 04:15 AM

i was being facetious :rolleyes:

dezhen2001

01-13-2003, 04:26 AM

I just wanted to know the meaning of life. I didn't know everybody would have so much to say about it;)

hey im gonna keep talking till u give me my eyebrows back:eek:

dawood

Radhnoti

01-13-2003, 07:33 AM

eulerfan - "Sort of the way ya'll have SD people afraid to mention SD."

LOL

I'm going for my black in March. A cosmic coincidence...or? :D

ZIM

01-13-2003, 07:41 AM

I'm going to go light with this thread as it can get real confusing going with a three way convo. Besides, Braden is having fun, here. ;)

Some notes, though-
It seems like you're looking for a dialog between science and religion, maybe philosophy, too. I can applaud that. It also seems like you're going with popular notions of Buddhist thought, which is not as cool.

F'rinstance: one of the things said alot is that everyone has a Buddha nature. This is true. But it doesn't follow that everyone IS a Buddha. What is meant is that everyone has that potential to become one, provided they take that road. Thats the role of the Dharma.

Secondly, you need to leave behind the concept that Buddhas are subject somehow to this reality. This, everything you see about is illusion, yet also the whole of reality. There is no duality in this conception. As Braden points out, this makes a Buddha not subject to the whims of gods, as gods are still subject to illusion. In no way can I do this justice here.

Thirdly: why only one universe? Why only one time stream? I envision the universe as similar to a glass of soda...each bubble forming and popping like a universe. This, I believe, is like the H-space/M-space theory in physics? Could be wrong. Someone better at this should comment.

Last, just to complain- you're being relativist when you say it doesn't matter if you do drugs and stuff. Everything matters, I think, even if not in a cosmic sense. I do not believe in good and evil as a kind of force, but I do believe in both as an action. FWIW.
---------------------

"Wich ties in with the idiocy of the christian god putting his own creations in hell for bieng negative or sinning" -d.

Didja ever notice that in Genesis He creates He11 in one of the seven days, THEN creates Man? Before there was even a concept of Sin? Before there was a Devil? Why? Its just a story. :D

Dezhen- what you're saying, re: afterlife in Islam, etc. is all the same in Christianity, at least in Orthodoxy rather than popular faith. Which just goes to show that Isalm is a Western Religion, not alien to those who've grown up jewish or christian.

As I understand it, what is good, what is evil, in Islam is equal to how well one fulfills God's Will, rather than making choices, no matter how "good", in opposition to that. Thats kind of what makes Iblis evil- he went by what God had said previously, not by His Will when He ordered it. What is Fate/Kismet is what God has in mind for you. Is that correct?

Merryprankster

01-13-2003, 07:55 AM

Braden, diego, whoever else cares... :)

My limited understanding of cosmology suggests that....

1. As Braden suggests, a retraction is not inevitable. They're still working on that. Most models at this point, as I understand it, believe in an inflationary universe. I think there are some superstring/p-brane theories that suggest you can only put so much tension on these things, like bungee cords, and they might come flying back. But I don't know, and I'm not sure about that.

2. Actually, modern science doesn't really regard the current state of affairs as a big fluke. In the first place, when you calculate the possible histories of the universe, the LEAST probable appear to be roughly spherical/ellipsoid (finite, but without bound in 3 spatial dimensions, just as the earth is finite but without bound in 2-d), with bumps and lumps of uneven matter distribution. However, these least probable histories are the most numerous. So while the chance of any individual lumpy spheroid arrising are relatively low, the a lumpy spheroid is most probable, so the universe developing this way isn't so flukey. (Thank you Richard Feynmann). Neither really, is our presence. FWIW, observational data, in the form of temperature differences in recorded background cosmic microwave radiation supports the argument that we had our origins in a lumpy sphere.

On the other hand, it might be turtles, all the way down :D

Braden, why can logic not accept the big bang? Is it because of infinite regression?

eulerfan

01-13-2003, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Radhnoti
eulerfan - "Sort of the way ya'll have SD people afraid to mention SD."

LOL

I'm going for my black in March. A cosmic coincidence...or? :D

HAH! Yes! You are in that school and on this board so that your soul could understand what it's like to be afraid to talk about something because, if you do, it's going to start a big fight.

Seriously, though.....Good luck!

apoweyn

01-13-2003, 08:03 AM

monkeyslap,

I'm not going there again Dezhen, are you saying your religion approves of those terrorists?

this is out of line. clearly, you are trying to go there again. and that's unfortunate.

stuart b.

apoweyn

01-13-2003, 08:05 AM

merryprankster,

On the other hand, it might be turtles, all the way down

did i tell you that story? or is that just a really odd coincidence?

stuart b.

Merryprankster

01-13-2003, 08:18 AM

Just an odd coincidence.

I'm in starkville, mississippi. I fly back today. Starkville is something like the armpit of limbo.

eulerfan

01-13-2003, 08:26 AM

Frankly, the thought of the universe continuing to expand until the end of time, is too much for me. 'Cuz, ultimately, it's just going to be empty space and the cold, dead remains of stars getting further and further from one another.

So bleak.

But, even if the universe is flat, the space in which it is expanding might not be infinite. It could hit a wall, be forced to retract. If it is infinite, there could be an infinite amount of other universes out there. An infinite amount of infinitely expanding universes with infinte monkey on infinite typewriters all, for a reason nobody knows, happening to write "Are you there god? It's me, Margaret."

Oso

01-13-2003, 08:59 AM

apoweyn--would that be a discworld reference? i.e. turtles

dezhen2001

01-13-2003, 09:42 AM

Dezhen- what you're saying, re: afterlife in Islam, etc. is all the same in Christianity, at least in Orthodoxy rather than popular faith. Which just goes to show that Isalm is a Western Religion, not alien to those who've grown up jewish or christian.

For sure, they are all from the same source after all :) I just wish more people would recognise this and find out for themselves.

As I understand it, what is good, what is evil, in Islam is equal to how well one fulfills God's Will, rather than making choices, no matter how "good", in opposition to that. Thats kind of what makes Iblis evil- he went by what God had said previously, not by His Will when He ordered it. What is Fate/Kismet is what God has in mind for you. Is that correct?

As far as i understand things right now... basically Psalms, Torah, Injeel (Gospel) and the Quran all explain to us Gods will. ie. the 10 commandments, and other clear instructions on what is halal (lawful and clear) and what is haram (unlawful), as well as such things as what we should be doing here etc.

i dont know much about any of these yet, as i am looking in Quran and hopefully the others once i have a firmer foundation.

As for fate, yup thats pretty much correct. As far as i know and understand like i said, im happy that its in Gods hands. BUT that doesnt mean that i wont actively seek to accomplish the goals i think are worthwhile for me (and are halal).

Oso - i thought exactly the same thing :D

dawood

KC Elbows

01-13-2003, 09:46 AM

Braden,

In a deterministic moral system, you can accept anything that happens as being part of the big, deterministic scheme - as you have reasoned. In a way, this takes the onus off of people striving to overcome moral weakness.

Only if they are a buddha, and even then, they would be accepting the consequences for their actions. And that’s assuming that the segment of tibettan buddhism that we’re discussing is a moral system as opposed to a system of some sort of ‘awareness engineering’ to move society toward a moral system, if that makes any sense.

This is a system of anti-morals: there are no standards of what is good or bad, but only an acceptance of everything according to the grand scheme.

Again, the actions are bad. There still is a standard, but it is not held to be the only standard, i.e. Hitler’s evil is still evil, but the end effect was needed(in this view of history at that time). I think part of the problem is the idea that tibetan buddhism is strictly a moral system when everything I read seems to suggest that divination has a major role in it as well. The segment of tibetan buddhism we’re talking about seems more in keeping with the moving of humanity toward a goal than it is about defining the goal itself. To the tibetan who wrote that(and I’m desparately trying to find where my wife put the book this comes from), doing what Hitler did would be the last thing on earth he’d want to do, ever. It did not seem to become okay for him, the actions themselves. They were still wrong, even if done by a buddha.

I don't believe this is a good interpretation of the Tibetan concept of history. Rather, that history and existance itself evolves, and that we have a role in the evolution of all of existance, is all the more reason to strive to overcome moral weakness. The system isn't strictly deterministic: everything isn't excused according to the grand scheme; rather, much holds back the grand scheme. Good is, more good because it is good for everyone and it contributes to the entire evolution of the cosmos. Evil, along the same logic, is more evil; rather than being more acceptable.

As for it’s merit as an interpretation, I can’t say, as I know far too little about tibetan buddhism to put this in such a context. However, to a buddhist, understanding that humans have a role in hisotry, and that buddhas are supposed to help in the world, one must assume that someone, somewhere is a buddha. That being the case, for the forms buddhas take to always be beneficial would, IMO, be far more prone to the difficulties you’re describing than the idea that buddhas sometimes come as bad people as well. After all, according to tibetan tradition, there are tons of enlightened folks reincarnating into the world, which would suddenly make it seem like all good is actually caused almost directly by enlightened folk, and that us non-enlightened folk hardly do a thing to help. If buddhas come as Hitler and people like that as well, at least then there is some distribution, and more room for people to act good on their own, though I understand your point.

As for more good and more evil, I don’t agree with that part. I don’t think you can show evil to consistently resist the evolution of the cosmos. I don’t think anything moves against the evolution of the cosmos. Replace cosmos with society and individual harmony, and then I can agree. However, that’s mostly a semantics issue: I can agree in part with what you are saying.

Certainly, there are lessons to be learned from this general kind of reasoning; such as the goodness and evilness of all people, the different messages of different people and circumstances, and the mistakes and triumphs we all can make. I believe we have both alluded to these ideas.

I think, in the sense that I read it in, it wasn’t meant as a lesson as much as an example of one view of the history of mankind and the role of buddhas within it. However, I’d be surprised if the lessons weren’t meant to be inferred in what I read it in. By that view, I have similar disagreements with it as you do. However, if viewed as not being primarily a lesson, it intrigues me. Kind of sci fi. It’s Michael Moor****, with samsarra instead of brooding.

Certainly, economic benefit must be quite low in the scheme of spiritual importance.

Of an individual, yes. However, the side effects of it certainly make spiritual concepts more accessible to a far greater number of people. I’d put it above Roseanne on the Spiritual Importance Index, but well below The Simpsons.

Does the globalization trend following the Crusades mean that the horrendous slaughter of the Children's Crusade was a good thing? This suggests moral relativism, as I alluded to. The butchering of innocence must be wrong, no matter how much money it generates, and how much it makes east meet west. How truly important are these things? Who is more spiritually evolved, the ignorant and poor man who brings only happiness to all he meets, or the worldy and rich man who became so through the suffering of others? Apply this principle to the grand scheme.

Children’s Crusade hater.

The Children’s Crusade was clearly bad, but intrinsic to the lessons one can learn from the crusades. Am I saying that’s why they happened? Sort of. That was the mind set at the time, so something like it was likely to happen. Not the tibettan view here, just my own. I suppose the Tibettan view might be the same, or that the note that one kid got saying to start a crusade was written by some buddha, or maybe that kid was lying, and was a buddha, or maybe a buddha called off the last one because the lesson was historically clear enough at that point.

However, I’m somewhat cold this way. People die. Would it make everyone happier if only the evil people died? Probably. But then, wouldn’t that be sort of an evil happiness? Just babbling, no real point here, other than death is death, everyone will die, including innocents. I think that’s awful, but I don’t think the universe should be arranged based on my feelings of awfulness. Don’t know what that means, just my thoughts at the moment.

When you describe the hypothetical Buddha-Hitler's accumulation of some negative element which would take a long time to get rid of - this is what I meant by a barter economy of karma; that through evil deeds one accumulates a negative element (and the contrary). The other interpretation of karma I alluded to suggests that it describes rather the growth that an individual and a collective must make to evolve. For instance, one could argue that in being Hitler the soul learned those valuable lessons which it required to evolve. In this way, there is no debt incurred - rather, the soul has greatly benefitted from this.

I follow now. Very intriguing. The concept that being Hitler could be an awakening experience for a soul. Thank you for explaining further. I hadn’t thought of that. Is there a character in buddhism that places souls into their next incarnation, or is it just an automatic process?

Now that idea intrigues me more than the buddha as Hitler idea. Because it would be better to place someone who could gain from the experience than someone for whom the experience would be a task.

Of course, what if Hitler had reached samsarra? What would this do to all of the plans of those busy tibetan buddhas? What if he achieved samsarra, became a buddha, and then realized that he had to continue the perception of evil, because otherwise, he would mess up all the tibetan buddhas good work? BTW, there’s a story in this, but it would probably never sell, The Enlightened Hitler Chronicles.

Another take on this is the Tibetan idea that being born into a world of the Gods, far from being some kind of reward, is in many ways unfortunate, as it is very difficult to find spiritual evolution in this world.

I’ve always loved this idea as well. This is my problem with the concept of heaven and hell as it was taught to me in Catholic school. People go to hell, and just roast forever. Couldn’t someone become good in hell? Wouldn’t such a person be better than most in heaven?

And what’s to keep someone from going bad in heaven? And what if all the denizens of hell become more goodly than all the denizens of heaven? It just seems a funky system for an almighty being to cook up. Of course, then we get into the whole ‘is the old testament god actually god’, and we already know the answer to all that. Jk

KC Elbows

01-13-2003, 09:50 AM

Braden,

and thus, by being Hitler, one has contributed to the growth of many others, which ends up being a good thing, even for themselves. I believe this is more or less what you're suggesting. I don't actually agree with this line of logic, as I believe the true obstacles of this world are inherent in it, and utterly independant of the presence or absence of a Hitler; thus, that Hitler is not an example of the potential for spiritual growth in this world, but rather an example of failing to take example of that potential in a most unfortunate and contagious manner.—emphasis mine

Hitler, being intrinsic to this world, could be an intrinsic obstacle in your view, correct?

Also, the Buddha as Hitler argument is not an example of spiritual growth, but of history in the tibettan buddhist tradition I was paraphrasing.

If you follow the other argument, you must conclude that our here and now can by ignored for sake of some 'other' kind of reality where everything is going to make sense.

I disagree. You assume that the buddha ignored the here and now to be Hilter, but in reality, he would merely be Hitler in the here and now, including the consequences of being Hitler, and others could not merely decide ‘I must be a Hitler’ without doing the same. People will live in the here and now regardless of philosophy. Whether they accept this is another matter. It seems like you are making a case where people could choose to be Hitler’s using this model, and find some sort of advantage. I don’t think there are many who could willingly choose to ‘spend a honeymoon in a ditch covered in petrol’, as Eddy Izzard said of Hitler. However, I recognize the point you’re making. It just doesn’t hold if the one being Hitler is being in the here and now, and being Hitler as some sort of ritual/sand sculpture sort of thing.

ZIM,

The Idea of a comparison between the two is faulty on first premise: it ignores the role of Dharma, which is inextricably bound to Karma. Ie, Jesus acted in accord with the Dharma, Hitler did not. Thus, Hitler cannot possibly be a Bhudda.

Just a friendly reminder...

Assuming that your view of buddhism is the only one, or that your understanding of Dharma is without flaw. Not saying you’re wrong, which I can no more prove than I could prove you are right. Just mentioning that there are other views, and that it’s not my observation, but something I read in a book that intrigued me, and that it was written by a buddhist, which doesn’t necessarily give it any more primacy over the nature of the dharma than you have.

From my meager understanding, the particular tibetan approach was that each vehicle of buddhism had it’s purpose historically speaking, but that purpose was not to allow a few people to become buddhas, but for all buddhas to become awakened. As part of this, the buddhas had roles that some might think of as evil, but, because all were buddhas merely waiting to be awakened, the illusion of the suffering caused by ones such as the Hitler Buddha would be understood in it’s proper context(a dangerous supposition, I recognize).

F'rinstance: one of the things said alot is that everyone has a Buddha nature. This is true. But it doesn't follow that everyone IS a Buddha. What is meant is that everyone has that potential to become one, provided they take that road. Thats the role of the Dharma.

I’m not sure if I quoted wrong somewhere, but I understood that to be the belief, that everyone has a buddha nature they can achieve. The suggestion I read was not that Hitler achieved this, but was a buddha already having achieved this, and that Mao tze tung was also such a buddha, which, coming from a tibetan writer, is an interesting statement.

Further, the suggestion seemed to be that the belief was that souls were, in a general sense, moving to buddahood, and that some souls were just moving there at their own speed.

Secondly, you need to leave behind the concept that Buddhas are subject somehow to this reality. This, everything you see about is illusion, yet also the whole of reality. There is no duality in this conception. As Braden points out, this makes a Buddha not subject to the whims of gods, as gods are still subject to illusion. In no way can I do this justice here.

I’m not sure if I suggested they were subject to this reality. I am referring to a theoretical buddha choosing to act in this world. Is that not a standard idea in buddhism? As for gods, I find the concept of buddhas far more plausible than the idea of gods, and I really have avoided referring to any gods here.

Perhaps I’m not understanding.

Thirdly: why only one universe? Why only one time stream? I envision the universe as similar to a glass of soda...each bubble forming and popping like a universe. This, I believe, is like the H-space/M-space theory in physics? Could be wrong. Someone better at this should comment.

Actually, what I’ve read of tibetan buddhism suggests that there are manifold realities full of beings, some who have become buddhas, some still becoming.

Everyone,
I think it is comparing apples and oranges, comparing the concept of Jesus to the concept of the Hitler Buddha. It’s sort of pointless. In the personal sense, one can easily say which one gives the warm fuzzy feeling, but in the historical sense? Whose impact was better? Well, can we accept that all evils done in Hitler’s name are his karma, and, if so, does Jesus work under the same idea? They were both leaders. They both put forward thoughts they had every intention to outlive themselves. The end results of those thoughts, both good and bad, they are ultimately responsible for.

I am such a troll. I should be banned. Right now. Someone alert the moderators!
:D

Braden

01-13-2003, 10:25 AM

MerryPrankster

"Actually, modern science doesn't really regard the current state of affairs as a big fluke."

I meant the fluke to apply to his remarks about consciousness, not cosmology.

"Braden, why can logic not accept the big bang?"

Because steady states don't spontaneously change.

KC Elbows

"Only if they are a buddha, and even then, they would be accepting the consequences for their actions. And that’s assuming that the segment of tibettan buddhism that we’re discussing is a moral system as opposed to a system of some sort of ‘awareness engineering’ to move society toward a moral system, if that makes any sense."

I don't follow.

"There still is a standard, but it is not held to be the only standard, i.e. Hitler’s evil is still evil, but the end effect was needed...more in keeping with the moving of humanity toward a goal than it is about defining the goal itself"

This sounds like you're saying the system describes evolution towards any goal; surely you don't believe this to be true? I'm not sure what else you could mean here.

I still haven't heard anyone suggest even remotely how Hitler's end effect was needed. The only reasoning so far provided is the above - that any goal is the desired result. This is a non-statement though - it predicts nothing, declares nothing, concludes nothing, describes every possible incidence of anything.

"That being the case, for the forms buddhas take to always be beneficial would, IMO, be far more prone to the difficulties you’re describing than the idea that buddhas sometimes come as bad people as well...If buddhas come as Hitler and people like that as well, at least then there is some distribution, and more room for people to act good on their own, though I understand your point."

I don't follow.

"I don’t think you can show evil to consistently resist the evolution of the cosmos. I don’t think anything moves against the evolution of the cosmos."

This is my point though, the same as above. You're taking 'evolution of the cosmos' to mean 'any possible change the cosmos could possible make.' This is non-statement though; it's utterly meaningless.

"However, the side effects of it certainly make spiritual concepts more accessible to a far greater number of people."

How so?

"The Children’s Crusade was clearly bad, but intrinsic to the lessons one can learn from the crusades...the note that one kid got saying to start a crusade was written by some buddha, or maybe that kid was lying, and was a buddha, or maybe a buddha called off the last one because the lesson was historically clear enough at that point."

I don't follow.

"However, I’m somewhat cold this way. People die."

My criticism of, for instance, the Children's Crusade isn't that people died, but rather how they lived.

"Is there a character in buddhism that places souls into their next incarnation, or is it just an automatic process?"

Zim sounds like he knows more about this than us, so maybe he can clarify. If I recall correctly, this varies according to the branch of Buddhism you're asking about. If I recall correctly, in Tibetan Buddhism, your incarnation will depend on your actions in the in-between state, which will depend on how you respond psychologically to the illusions there, which will depend on the lessons you still need to learn. I seem to recall other Buddhists believe the in-between state comes with a lucid recollection of your past incarnations, thus enabling a reasonable self-judgement.

"Because it would be better to place someone who could gain from the experience than someone for whom the experience would be a task."

Note that I don't agree with concluding that Hitler was an enlightened soul. I just used this example to explain a different idea of spiritual evolution.

"Hitler, being intrinsic to this world, could be an intrinsic obstacle in your view, correct?"

No. Hitler isn't intrinsic to this world.

"You assume that the buddha ignored the here and now to be Hilter..."

No, I'm not talking about the Buddha's speculations. I'm talking about your speculations.

fa_jing

01-13-2003, 10:27 AM

Why do you keep using this term, "Death"
I prefer to call it "Life as a Neutron"

:p

guohuen

01-13-2003, 11:07 AM

Funny how many forget that there had to be something before the big bang.

Merryprankster

01-13-2003, 11:09 AM

The universe is not steady state. Particles at zero-energy have "zero point fluctuations." There is no such thing as a steady state. There is only a probability distribution of possible outcomes.

A singularity is also not a steady state. They evaporate over time. We don't really know what goes on inside one anyway, since the laws of physics break down at the event horizon....

W/regards to conciousness--Science also doesn't regard this as a fluke. To some extent "the universe is the way it is, because we are here to observe it." The weak anthropomorphic principle--basically, if the universe had, say, developed as a spheroid with a uniform distribution of matter, we wouldn't be here to ask these questions as it never would have coalesced into anything. In other words, given that the universe is the way it is, it is not entirely unlikely that concious life would evolve--lots of worlds, lots of stars, lots of time. Some bit of matter is bound to get it right. Not that flukey... not too probable, but again, with as many stars and planets are there are out there, concious life isn't all that flukey.

Merryprankster

01-13-2003, 11:21 AM

Actually guohen, no there doesn't.

Time is not a line. The only way you can have a "before," is if time existed independantly of the Big Bang. But it doesn't. Time started with the Big Bang, and will end if there is a crunch and will not if it continues on expanding. There is a strong possibility that "before the big bang," has no meaning.

So there doesn't actually have to be "anything before the big bang."

KC Elbows

01-13-2003, 12:11 PM

Braden,
A lot of good points.

Your first two questions are both basically in regards to the same thing. I was stating that, from what I recall of what I read, the Hitler Buddha concept was used to illustrate the idea of guided evolution towards mass enlightenment, not to illustrate the way to live. You were responding to it as a moral code of some sort, I was saying that I did not think the author meant it to be one. In other words, it's not a moral code, as far as I know. It's a mythological explanation for an idea that there are buddhas helping guide humans toward enlightenment. It explains the process of guidance, not the morality that is the end goal. It describes a theoretical tool, not the 'fixed' state of what that tool is used for. Theoretically, as you say, it could be towards any goal, but the belief is that it is toward a specific goal, the enlightenment of mankind, as far as I understood it. Since only buddhas could make use of it, the only use for them would be enlightening more people.

I still haven't heard anyone suggest even remotely how Hitler's end effect was needed. The only reasoning so far provided is the above - that any goal is the desired result. This is a non-statement though - it predicts nothing, declares nothing, concludes nothing, describes every possible incidence of anything.

I don't know anywhere near enough to answer that. For me, this is where it starts making me ask if everything is to be determined, or if there is free choice. I think it's all a given, that each person will respond as is in their nature to respond, and so this is not hard for me to accept, though I don't think it's all that important to accept. To me, everything and everyone is intrinsic to things, whereas to you, not everything is. Hitler is intrinsic to the world I live in in the same way that a hair follicle is important to a beard. It's just part of it. No amount of talking seems able to untangle him from it.

In essence, anything that happens, in my world view, is the spoken will of the cosmos, be it evil or good. As are the consequences of it, and the bad or good that lead to it.

I'm fairly certain you'll tear into that one. However, it is what I believe, and I'll be first to suggest that my belief system is a paltry thing, just like every other human I've ever met.

In otherwords, I'd imagine that a Hitler Buddha wasn't needed, but simply was, in that world view. You are correct, it does seem somewhat superfluous. Maybe buddhas in that tradition are fooling themselves? Maybe I'm right, and it's just what they do because that is their nature in that tradition, and so, they wouldn't do anything else. Maybe there's no such thing as the hitler buddha. A whole bunch of maybes.

The next point you said you didn't follow was just me babbling that I thought mainstream buddhism, with it's bhodisatvas[sp] coming back into life to help, had the exact same problems, because you still would have to show a reason they were needed to suggest such a thing(returning to life to help others) was useful. It was just a tangent, and off the cuff.

This is my point though, the same as above. You're taking 'evolution of the cosmos' to mean 'any possible change the cosmos could possible make.' This is non-statement though; it's utterly meaningless.

A description of the cosmos could very well include the word meaningless.

I can agree, the idea that history is guided, is totally going on belief, and based on an idea that everything is going a certain way when it might not be. However, I would say that this belief is not peculiar to the buddhism we're talking about, or to any specific religion. I'd say it's universal to religion- the idea that things are a certain way that practitioners cannot, with any assurance, show to be true.

The next part, you asked how economic stability and growth made spiritual concepts more accessible to more people. I believe the internet would be a good example. It is easier to find info because of the economics surrounding technology and technological growth. And to find people with more background in such areas to banter meaninglessly with.;)

The first statement I made about the Children's Crusades was idle speculation, preceded by a statement that people, possibly children, were likely to do something dumb during the fervor of the crusades. Again, my worldview showing through. I was saying it was gonna happen.

As for your criticism of how the people then lived, had no one lived that way, would you be alive to criticize it?

In otherwords, if you're part of a history of humans, there's morons in your past doing stupid things. It's a given.

However, I agree with your ability to criticize them. I also think it's good to learn a lesson from their stupidity. I'll bet tibetan buddhas wouldn't be against that either.

You still didn't answer. Do you think evil is counter to evolution of the cosmos?

And I never meant to say with any authority that Hitler was an enlightened soul. I suggested the possibility, because it was interesting to me. Then I suggested a fiction in which the possibility of his becoming one would complicate things, but I never meant to say, and I'm pretty sure I never said that he was one. You misunderstood my response. I was saying that you were right, it would be better if someone who could grow from the experience became Hitler. I didn't say an enlightened person. I'm really not sure where you got this from. I was agreeing with your assessment, and then offhandedly mentioned that the only problem I could see with an unenlightened soul becoming Hitler, assuming that Hitler was essential to history, was that that sould might become enlightened, which was just me being fanciful, as I'm prone to do.

How is Hitler not intrinsic to this world? You state this as an absolute. Are you saying no one is intrinsic to this world? He was from this world, his influence is on this world, everything about him is from here, and nowhere else. If he in not intrinsic, none of us are. I don't buy that.

As for the last comment, the 'buddha's speculation/your speculation' comment, so I forgot to say 'in this hypothetical'. You knew that's what I meant. In this hypothetical, a buddha lived in the moment as Hitler, in order to give mankind something to rise up and be more rightious, and yet also giving mankind something to think about regarding the nature of power, authority, etc, just at the time nuclear power was developed. The buddha might not have been necessary, but in the tradition I am referring to, they seemed to think that the buddha knew that he was necessary, and in religion, that's sort of the way it goes. I can't justify it, but this does not mean that some people don't believe it, nor that it's better or worse than other unreasonable beliefs and practices that people take with their religion. Is it necessary that Christ be the son of god, as opposed to just a wonderful person? I don't think so. Nor do I think Hitler had to be a buddha. However, if I can accept one of those two statements to be true, I can accept both. I probably won't, but I could.

Of course, given your love of gnosticism and such, there's another can of worms. Fun worms, though.

Frankly, it's something I read that someone believed. I thought it was intriguing, you brought up some good points, certain of which I agreed with(it would be better to have an unenlightened soul benefit from the experience). I think to expect a tool of the buddhas in a religious story to hold the morals of that school to be asking a bit much, especially when it's the sort of tool only the buddhas can use anyway, like Zeus' lightning. However, I will admit it seems counter to the buddha nature to do this sort of thing. Which raises all sorts of questions about whether a buddha could do such things or not, or would never choose to do such things, even in the hypothetical that some horrible thing must be done.

It's my understanding that a shaolin arhat has certain options that one might not normally seem like something an arhat can or should do. Idle speculation here, but if the arhat had to do something terrible, but did not relish it, or become un arhat like because of it, but wore a face, for whatever reason, as if he enjoyed it, even if that face was merely an illusion, and not indicative of the reality of his spirit, could he still be an arhat? Tough hypothetical to set, but not completely impossible.

KC Elbows

01-13-2003, 12:48 PM

One member has sent me an email suggesting I might have offended quite a few people.

I hope everyone on here is familiar enough with me to know that, in mentioning the whole Hitler Buddha thing, that I am not condoning in any way Adolph Hitler, or any of his conduct.

I'm relating something I read that apparently, some Tibetan buddhist thought enough of to write in a book. I'm probably not conveying it particularly well, but I am also not sanitizing it. I found it interesting, not because I believe in Hitler, but because it's an intriguing idea from an unexpected source. As soon as I find the book, I'll mention the title, this is hardly a large part of the particular book I'm mentioning.

It is my opinion that, as soon as we restrict ourselves from looking at an issue from all angles, we have lost sight of that issue, and will be blindsided by it. I find placing certain historical characters, Hitler included, in different light to be a useful exercise. If people disagree, that is understandable, but the fact is that, to suggest that a numinous icon like a holy person became a another person in order to become a monster in order to give men something to rise up against and show their mettle is not, to me, in the least offensive. I meant no disrespect towards buddhism, and frankly, have done no evil in its name, and have, all along, categorized Hitler's behavior as heinous.

No offense meant, this isn't an apology, just trying to make it clear that I am not discrediting anyone's buddhism or glorifying Hitler, just following a hypothetical. I reserve for myself the right to do so while maintaining respect of other's beliefs. I am not a buddhist, a tibetan buddhist, or a nazi. My papers say so.

For the stick in the mud who sent me the hate mail, lose my email address, you crappy, crappy buddhist.:p :D

fa_jing

01-13-2003, 01:52 PM

Well, I think that it is understandable to speak of the things that you speak, KC, because this is something that has come up in many people's conversations. It is basically a problem in Axiology (theory of morality). Here is the conundrum - if Hitler never existed, then neither would any of us. Because of the whole butterfly flapping his wings on this side of the earth, causes a tornado in China kind of thing. The way that we usually think of things, if there never was a WWII, then our parents or grandparents would never have met, or maybe they would have conceived on another day with different genes. To use another example from my own life, if Jews in Russia weren't brutally oppressed in the early 20th century, then my great-grandfather would not have taken his family to the United States and my father never would have met my mother. So I wouldn't exist, at least as we understand things. Does that mean I should be thankful that Jews were oppressed viciously in Russia in the early 20th century? There are a number of ways of looking at this issue, and a number of responses. One would like to create an Axiology and justify it. The verbage put forth so far regarding Tibetan Buddhism, is one approach. Personally, I think that asking from the present time the question "What would have happened if (such-and-such) an event had occurred/not-occurred" is a very flawed question, because in my mind, things that happened in the past are not subject to change, and my birth can never be taken away. So such conjectures do not affect or serve as a basis for my personal axiology. This is quite convenient for me as I can safely call an evil thing evil according to my natural response to it. However, of course if one wants to assume another axiology and can justify it, they are free to do so. Of course I will want to associate more with people that share a similar outlook to mine, etc.

eulerfan

01-13-2003, 02:04 PM

I have to chime in here because I lifted a quote from this conversation. I don't think the quote is really all that great if you understand the context from which it was taken.

As a disembodied statement, I think it is one of the most hilarious things I've read on here, to date.

KC Elbows

01-13-2003, 02:29 PM

I thought it was funny too, Euler. I love when the strangest things get said on accident, with no intention of them being hilarious.

Fa_Jing,
The trick is, this hypothetical really changes none of the events whatsoever. According to it, Hitler was Hitler, and Hitler was a Buddha, taking the karmic plunge in order to guide humanity a certain way. Now, Braden is right, there is absolutely no way to show that this is an improvement, and you are right, we cannot go back and change these things, but given that nothing was changed eventwise, the major problem is still proving an improvement or a direction that things have moved in that suggest a move toward enlightenment, and only a buddha could really say, which brings this back into the realm of the spirit, which brings us back to the unprovable.

For what it's worth, I'm glad that you're here, but I'm not glad that your ancestors had to go through suffering. I'm also glad I'm here, and that my ancestors left Germany at the time they did, so that they would not have been the cause of the kind of suffering that your ancestors went through. I think suffering is an important phenomenon, but it would be nice if it was spread a little thinner than it sometimes is, as opposed to all at once on a few people.

Also, I don't really think there are buddhas or sons of god or Zeus or what have you. However, I do believe in the belief in those things. And I believe in good and evil. I just think both exist for a reason.

Okay, I'll leave Hitler and the buddhas in their separate pots. When I find the book, I'll post the name and author. Then maybe someone more knowledgeable on this can tell us if there's a different context.

TaoBoy

01-13-2003, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Braden
"i dont know so much" sounds like professing ignorance to me. Do you disagree?

How is "i am happy that God decides everything" external control? God isn't a guy who lives down the street, but rather the fundamental principle of reality.

eg. Do you know the old story of people arguing how many teeth are in a horse's mouth? If someone replies, "I'm not sure, I guess we'd just have to go to the horse and looks in it's mouth and count them" would you claim they are relying on the method of authority (belief systems and external control) for their knowledge? This is the same idea.

I see your point.

I was just putting forward my opinion. And as far as 'external control' - I simply believe many people leave/trust/etc their fate/life/etc to any external entity/higher power/etc. I see that an a external locus of control. And that's just not my bag (baby).

Peace.

:)

Oh and by the way eulerfan - the answer you are looking for is 42. Now, what was the question again?

:D

Serpent

01-13-2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by KC Elbows
For the stick in the mud who sent me the hate mail, lose my email address, you crappy, crappy buddhist.:p :D

Now that's a keeper!

:D

Water Dragon

01-13-2003, 04:29 PM

2 thoughts

1. $hit happens

2. There is a difference between a violent religion and a violent culture. A violent culture will introduce that violence to any religion it fosters. The hate breeds itself into every part of said culture, religion included. Take the same religion and put it into a non-violent (in comparison) culture, and it becomes a religion of love.

prana

01-13-2003, 04:32 PM

Buddha nature ?

All this talk about Buddha natures and everyone being Buddhas.

Like a jewel burried under a ton of soil. The practise of dharma is like removing the soil. Like the lotus flower that grows from the dirtiest of lakes.

Although you reactions are very much non-Buddha like, we all carry the Buddha nature inside us. But realising this dharkamakaya is what the historical Buddha and all his enlightened followers come to achieve...

edit : Oh yeah, Hitler, although carries Buddha Nature like all living beings, he is bound by his reactions of greed and hatred or whatever, hence his actions are not of Buddha nature (but the soil that surrounds it). How he fits in this world and why his reactions, remains un-realised by me and most of us out there. But whatever it is, we are stuck in samsara, and greatly bound by our own defilements, so saying Hitlers actions are Buddha Nature is ... er um ... probably not what the source meant.

diego

01-13-2003, 06:04 PM

okay, for the original topic, i will except the logik of a dance of wills relating to thinking the perfect school you found was set forth by the universe, as i have nothing to counter that with!.

But what does science have to say about real psychic experiances...many times we have thought of a song and then it comes on the radio...But what does science have to say about this doozie: canadian rapcity had rza the guy in one of the banners at the top of some of kfo's pages on the show months before.
Now im downstairs and realize oh snap rapcity is about to start. Now, as im walking up the stairs my intuition or jiminy cricket says rza is going to be on...a minute later after walking through the kitchen, into the living room, turn on the tv, the intro starts, whos on the screan saying hello...It's the Rza, and it's a the rerun from months ago!.

thier was no commercials saying they would re-air it etc, so explian that for me!?.

i do things like this all the time, and many have said they thought of a song then it was on, so that doesnt really bug me...But a whole halfhour show does!.

Explanations???...besides the obvious im psychic:eek:

KC Elbows

01-13-2003, 06:14 PM

Okay found the book. Perhaps not a good one, perhaps so.

One point: I was wrong, the author was not a tibetan.

Essential Tibetan Buddhism by Robert A.F. Thurman.

Haven't found the Hitler bit, here is the related phrase I could find, in relation to tibetan theories of the occupation:

The most compelling one, if somewhat dramatic, is that Vajrapani emanated himself as Mao Tse-tung and took upon himself the heinous sin of destroying the buddha darma's institutions, along with many beings, for three main reasons: to prevent other, ordinarily human, materialists from reaping the consequences of such terrible acts, to challenge the Tibetan Buddhists to let go of the trappings of their religion and philosophy and force themselves to achieve the ability to embody once again in this terrible era their teachings of detachment, compassion, and wisdom, and to scatter the Indo-Tibetan Buddhist teachers and disseminate their teachings throughout the planet among all th people, whether religious or secular, at this apocalyptic time when humanity must make a quantum leap from violence to peacefulness in order to preserve all life on earth.

The book goes along to describe the idea that shamballa will rise, a hidden city of the future, and eclipse an unenlightened empire that precedes it, so that the world will be in an enlightened state for some time.

All in all, very 'Book of Revelation' in it's own way.

Another pertinent quote from the book:

Tibetan Buddhist society therefore is perhaps unique among Buddhist societies in that the people live within a consciously articulated myth of historical progress...

As for the comment re:Unbuddhalike: I would imagine that that is the sort of judgement that is beyond acolytes, and beneath buddhas.

This source could be inaccurate. I don't know. The only term that I question is his 'emanating' mao. However, the above example seems no different than my comment about Hitler, except the changes and their virtues are different, and people in the west get their dander up more about Hitler than mao, as I've learned today.

diego

01-13-2003, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Braden
diego

"I believe western science fairly states what the bhuddists state..."

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here, nor how it intersects with our discussion.

"except unfortunatly we can not prove other universes as we are limited to our little time in this one."

That depends what you mean by universe. If universe means 'all of the energy and matter that is', then by very definition there are no others.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''What i meant is, i understand that scientists claim to have calculated almost to the smallest point how old our universe is, or they got to like two minutes "figure of speach" after the big bang...So i meant whenever thier calculations end and it retracts, thats one universe...bang/expand/retract, thats one, and the next ones laws such as gravity etc, may be differant then ours:)""""""""""""""""""""

If, like you said, you mean 'universe' to mean 'the Total', then by definition again there are no others.

"Logic in my mind states, the big bang is correct, and we are told eventually once the universe has expanded enough it will condense back into itself."

I'm not sure that the inevitable retration is the most common belief of science, nor that the big bang exactly is a buddhist belief.

As an aside, I do not believe logic can accept the big bang, but I do believe the universe will retract; indeed, that it is currently retracting in many possible individual systems (such as taking the earth itself as a system)."""""""""""""""""""i used the bhuddists theory of LIFE bieng endless cycles to bridge my spiritual belief with my scientific understanding...wheras christians say god made it....bhuddists say its all energy just as the quantum physiisists do...just using differant english""""""""""""""""""

"This is a pretty big fluke."

That would probably be the common belief of science. ;)

"Then it stands to reason another big bang would happen soon after."

Or that the universe will simply expand and contract within reasonable parameters that do not necessitate big bangs, cold deaths, or heat deaths. Or that expansion and contraction is such a complex and variable issue that to talk about the net expansion of all matter/energy becomes meaningless.

As an aside, I find a mixture of these two possibilties much more reasonable than what you suggest."""""""""""""""""""abit confused on this one, would you define cold and heat deaths please:)""""""""""""""""""""""""""

"i belive life is infinite"

What do you mean by life? If you mean anything like the standard definition, you cannot believe both in the big bang and in the above.""""""""""""""""""agian life as in the standard definition, but also if thier is multiple bigbangs as i suggest, then i also refer to life as the backward universes defined definition...so in thier universe life would be death and what we call death would be life or some backward shiat:)""""""""""""""""""""""

"the universe truely is good and bad, but thier is cause and effect"

Do you mean 'all the matter/energy' or 'the fundamental reality' here?

If you mean 'the fundamental reality' I would disagree with you, as I suspect would Buddhists [assuming the word 'ultimately' after your 'truely is']. For instance, if you can concieve of a fundamental unity, the processes which generate the concepts of good and bad, as well as cause and effect, no longer exist. Cause and effect, I would argue, are allready very slippery concepts in the reality we know; in that we're not sure what quite what, or if, they are. You have argued the same for 'good and bad,' it seems.""""""""""""kinda sleepy right now so this ones abit unclear also...wouldnt all matter and energy be the blueprint for fundamental reality?. like how the atom interacted with itself throughout time would be why we see reality as we do?. Kinda ignorant on the term fundamental reality:)""""""""""""

"and the law you attract energy kin to yours...so if you are a murder, most likely...some one will kill you"

Observation doesn't seem to support this.""""""""""""what do you mean, whos observation?.""""""""""

"you wanna shoot heroin and sleep under a rock"

For sake of being contrary... :D What's wrong with shooting heroin and sleeping under a rock?

"Wich ties in with the idiocy of the christian god putting his own creations in hell for bieng negative or sinning wich is a trait within gods bieng as he created the universe..offtopic, but truely the christian god is syko or just like a brat who delights in melting ants with a magnifying glass...how you gon create evil and good then tempt-sp? your creations with it..and if they fail you gon burn them well forever...how sick is these peoples thinking and this is who they pray to!!?"

I'm not sure how much you wanted to discuss this, as you specified it was off topic. So suffice to say for now that I believe you falsely describe the christian conception of god. """""""""""no i described perfectly:)...they say you give all to god or you go to hell, and i say how backward is the ideas and concepts of thier fairytail god!."""""""""""""""""""""

"as good and bad is mans concepts...but true dharma would be in accordance with growth of the universe"

This sounds alot like moral relativity and dismissing the here and now to believe in some other reality where everything makes sense. Do you disagree, or do you believe these two ideas are commendable?"""""""""""""""hear it how you were trained to, but what i am saying is good and bad are neccassary for what we call life set by the rules/laws of this universe...so what we call a bad situation may have actually had greater cause then if nothing happenned; example multiculturalism and the fight to end segragation wich prolly wouldnt have sparked off if ww2 didnt happen...before ww2 it was all the depression era etc, after its the 50s and microwave dinners and white picket fences....will go into more detial on my reasoning if needed:)""""""""""""""""""""""

"so from our perspect hitler almost destroyed the world"

I'm simply being contrary again, but, no he didn't. :D This certainly wasn't his goal.

"The fight with hitler woke up further humanitys internal bhuddist concepts..."

How so? What concepts? What evidence do you suggest for this? In general, could you elaborate here, as it doesn't seem generally true to me.

diego

01-13-2003, 06:46 PM

so, going through the scriptures thier def is alot of myth in bhuddism, for instance how monks renounce the world and just wonder and bum off peeps for spiritual advice....i think this was like a holiday event that they took to far.

bhudda didnt have to wonder and bum, i mean his pops was the king...he was onsome fuc this world peeps are stupid ima travel and tell them that, and since he was so charismatic many listened.

he says all life is sufferring...that is because man hasnt come up with a system based on godloving principals.

you are the richest man in the world and think your not sufferring but someone is broke and he is going to rob your kid tommorrow so yes all life is sufferring

now if we all practised the deeds of perfections everyone took a hobo or a junkie home and put them through college...mathematical logic states eventually everyone would be bhuddas and then no life is sufferring cuz we chilln

thats the only logic in bhuddism everything else is storyboards written hundereds if not thousand years after guatamas death.

everything i wrote about bhuddism is based on siddarthas pilgrimage and the spark that set him on it, from a logical perspective...wich i already did with my explanation of his socalled pastlives....they say each life made him grow more and more into bhuddahood...i say the worlds history led this prince who was loved by all, never knew sufferring then all of a sudden sees the three signs buggs out and goes on a mission....after he formulated his mathematical logic relating to whatever social studies he meditated on before becoming a socalled bhudda

really he got his shiat right, and went on a mission...since he was so strong in his convictions peeps became inspired from his words just as they did the man called jesus....place divinity titles over trhem all you want, the facts remain...dudes had charisma, they wanted peace, so they wrote a book on why they are so dope and how you two can be

why is jesus and bhudda doper then me or you

can you write a how to live right book and have peeps talking about it on the net two thousand years later, etcetc:cool:

diego

01-13-2003, 06:52 PM

"The fight with hitler woke up further humanitys internal bhuddist concepts..."

How so? What concepts? What evidence do you suggest for this? In general, could you elaborate here, as it doesn't seem generally true to me.

the concepts of perfections....life is the only logic...raise the farm teach the seeds...these are in accordance with gods principals...death and envy and all the sins are not...because they subtract from life, but obviously they are a part of life.

science backs this up: thier is no death only the infinite changes, and since the universe is all about expanding it goes to reason growth based ideologies are the only thing that makes sence......so by the physical laws of the universe a criminal is incorrect but not wrong....saying many have changed criminals through religion, im saying mathematically speaking if a criminal saw true logic he would realize stealing is incorrect as it only subtracts from life, and its wrong only because eventually the murderer by how he thinks will set himself into a routine where he will be of surrounded by those of his kind and one day they may flip and kill him.

prana

01-13-2003, 06:52 PM

From the movement of Islam and overcoming large communities of former Buddhist countries, to the rising of Shambala and its warriors, all these have been written and prophecised even before Mohammed came to land.

However, I must admit, I have never come across anything that states that Mao is the emanation of Vajrapani.

The only term that I question is his 'emanating' mao. However, the above example seems no different than my comment about Hitler

Vajrapani does symbolise the compassion that emanates as the quality of wrathfulness. Could this be what Thurman is emphasizing ? Perhaps he is saying that Mao being a activity of karma coming into fruition due to our own sins, retribution by wrathfulness.

As for the comment re:Unbuddhalike: I would imagine that that is the sort of judgement that is beyond acolytes, and beneath buddhas.

Yes, I am no way qualified to judge wether it is right or wrong. As I had written myself in the past, we look at life from differing windows.

Although you reactions are very much non-Buddha like, we all carry the Buddha nature inside us
HOwever, I just realised that this might have caused you some grief. It was supposed to say "Although the reactions are very much non-Buddha like" as in HITLER and not YOU personally or anything...

My apologies for the bad language.

I have to admit, Robert Thurman has interpreted many Tibetan sacred texts to English. And the way he has translated is very candid and direct. Without the understanding of Buddhism such as those in Tibet and Nortern India, some notions related to acts might seem misplaced, or even acts of sin.

But you must understand, whilst we Westerners live in the age of computers and information, Tibetans live in a world of prayers and Buddhas.

Originally posted by KC Elbows

Essential Tibetan Buddhism by Robert A.F. Thurman.

Haven't found the Hitler bit, here is the related phrase I could find, in relation to tibetan theories of the occupation:

The book goes along to describe the idea that shamballa will rise, a hidden city of the future, and eclipse an unenlightened empire that precedes it, so that the world will be in an enlightened state for some time.

All in all, very 'Book of Revelation' in it's own way.

Another pertinent quote from the book:

As for the comment re:Unbuddhalike: I would imagine that that is the sort of judgement that is beyond acolytes, and beneath buddhas.

This source could be inaccurate. I don't know. The only term that I question is his 'emanating' mao. However, the above example seems no different than my comment about Hitler, except the changes and their virtues are different, and people in the west get their dander up more about Hitler than mao, as I've learned today.

David Jamieson

01-13-2003, 06:54 PM

Isn't it a precept of Buddhism that everyone of us has the tathagata womb? The buddha nature that becomes with the birth of realization from the womb.

womb=potential

nature=result

If the buddha nature is never born from the buddha womb, it does not mean it doesn't exist, it means the potential has not produced results concurrent with the actions that result from application of the buddha nature.

cheers

Kasyapa said to the Buddha: "O World-honoured One! Is there any self in the twenty-five existences or not?" The Buddha said: "O good man! 'Self' means 'tathagatagarbha.' Every being has the Buddha Nature. This is self. Such a self is, since the very beginning, under cover of innumerable illusions. That is why man cannot see it. O good man! There is here a poor woman. Sha has in her house the true gold hidden. But none of the people of the house, big or small, know it. But there is a stranger, who, by expediency, speaks to the poor woman: 'I shall employ you. You now weed the land!' The woman answers: 'I cannot do it now. If you let my son see where the gold is hidden, I will soon work for you.' The man says, 'I know the way. I will show it to your son.' The woman says again: 'No people of my house, big or small, know. How can you?' The man says: 'I will now make it clear.' The woman says again: 'I desire to see. Pray let me.' The man digs out the gold that lay hidden. The woman sees it, is glad, and begins to respect the person. O good man! The same is the case with the Buddha Nature that man has. Nobody can see it. This is as in the case of the gold the poor woman possessed and yet could not see. O good man! I now let persons see the Buddha Nature that they possess, which is overspread by illusions. This is as in the case of the poor woman who cannot see the gold, even possessing it. The Tathagata now shows all beings the storehouse of enlightenment, which is the so-called Buddha Nature. If all beings see this, they are glad and will take refuge in the Tathagata. The good expediency is the Tathagata and the poor woman is all the innumerable beings, and the cask of true gold is the Buddha Nature.

dezhen2001

01-13-2003, 07:08 PM

hey prana, would be interested to hear what your prophesies say about Islam... contact me off list if u like? :)

dawood

diego

01-13-2003, 07:21 PM

exactly kung lek. Just as animals have hardwired in thier brain how to live, we to have it...however somewhere along the lines we became civilized socalled and became imbedded with such concepts of the caste system wich i believe keeps the womb hidden, as many grow up in confusion living throughout history under Man's Laws, and not gods!.
cheers

ZIM

01-13-2003, 07:26 PM

Yur, Robt. Thurman is a good source. He's pally with HH Dalai Lama, and the dad of Uma, IIRC the first westerner to be ordained in Tibetan Buddhism. Hes kind of rabid, but i like him.

I'm getting your point now, re: emanations, etc.
[Note to Braden: this is similar to the Gnostic ideas of emanations, spirit bodies, angelic 'devolution', etc. Found in one of the gospels...wait one, i'll look it up]
IIRC, there are 3 Buddha 'bodies'; a material, a Dharmic vehicle, and a Buddha vehicle [in Tibetan cosmology]. The 'lowest'/material one can manifest as violent- a kind of impatience....the idea portrayed by 'Tenzin' Thurman is that Demons in He11, if viewed as spiritual teachers, become vehicles for growth.
It is possible that Thurman was seeing the bright side in all this misery, but I've not read about this particular notion b4.

Hitler just has to recognise that the Demons torturing him are his teachers then. :D I did not take offense to this, BTW, altho I think it is a little misquoted.

why is jesus and bhudda doper then me or you

They gotz da GIRLZ! :D

Xebsball

01-13-2003, 07:29 PM

LOL, i couldnt resist:

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/tshirt.php?sku=a127

prana

01-13-2003, 07:34 PM

no David, that is a topic I cannot go into. I hope you understand.

dezhen2001

01-13-2003, 07:35 PM

no problem my friend :)

dawood

ZIM

01-13-2003, 07:39 PM

LOL at Xebby...looks like hes got WOOD! :eek: :D

Say, is Brazil going socialista or what???? We're gonna INVADE! :mad: :p

diego

01-13-2003, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Merryprankster
The universe is not steady state. Particles at zero-energy have "zero point fluctuations." There is no such thing as a steady state. There is only a probability distribution of possible outcomes.

A singularity is also not a steady state. They evaporate over time. We don't really know what goes on inside one anyway, since the laws of physics break down at the event horizon....

W/regards to conciousness--Science also doesn't regard this as a fluke. To some extent "the universe is the way it is, because we are here to observe it." The weak anthropomorphic principle--basically, if the universe had, say, developed as a spheroid with a uniform distribution of matter, we wouldn't be here to ask these questions as it never would have coalesced into anything. In other words, given that the universe is the way it is, it is not entirely unlikely that concious life would evolve--lots of worlds, lots of stars, lots of time. Some bit of matter is bound to get it right. Not that flukey... not too probable, but again, with as many stars and planets are there are out there, concious life isn't all that flukey.

:) see this is what i love about science, they can break everything down to two minutes but they have no idea/proof why everything is....its kind of like the cliche god argument

godlovers always win

a scientist says i cant see god prove him, a GL would say thats because your blind...prove to me he doesnt exist

godlovers can feel him and scientists only cannot see him...how they know they aint blind:).

diego

01-13-2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Actually guohen, no there doesn't.

Time is not a line. The only way you can have a "before," is if time existed independantly of the Big Bang. But it doesn't. Time started with the Big Bang, and will end if there is a crunch and will not if it continues on expanding. There is a strong possibility that "before the big bang," has no meaning.

So there doesn't actually have to be "anything before the big bang."

so scientists are basically theorizing that a magician pulled a universe out of his hat with the aid of pyrotechnic stage props "bigbang:)"

oh wait, isnt that what christians say

how we get something from nothing?....how does something always just be something without something wich was nothing making it something...and im looking at you in partyicular to describe my rapcity experiance, as you always come with the logic in your posts...like a good lil american;) no disrespect on the "lil" term usage!.
peace

Xebsball

01-13-2003, 07:55 PM

nah man, Lula now is "light" (tis how they say) on his leftism.
You should see my family, all right wingers ****ed off becouse he won, i just laugh :D

diego

01-13-2003, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Braden

"Hitler, being intrinsic to this world, could be an intrinsic obstacle in your view, correct?"

No. Hitler isn't intrinsic to this world.

[/B]

no he isnt a neccassary feature when the magician tryed to book his shtick in vegas "see my comments to merryp:)" but the way the world was going a hitler was bound to pop up, just like the magicians hattricks:).

fa_jing

01-13-2003, 08:04 PM

Regarding the karma thing:

I see the fact that good things sometimes result from bad things and/or bad intentions as a factor of Mercy in the Universe.

KC Elbows

01-13-2003, 08:13 PM

Prana, your mistake was one of language, mine was one of anger. I apologize, and you were correct even if you did not mean to be, I was not being buddhalike.

That is interesting, the comment about wrathfulness. Does emanation mean that vajrapani[sp] was mao, according to that interpretation? It seems to, since it involves vajrapani taking the karma for the ensuing actions of mao.

Zim,
I'm glad my sources weren't all messed up, as I found the book interesting. However, I'm starting to wonder, as I cannot find a Hitler referrence, if that was a jump in topic on my part, and only the mao reference was made in the book. However, if one could be true, the other most certainly wouldn't be out of the question, would it?

Did I misquote you, or were you talking to Diego?

Diego,
but once Hitler existed, didn't he become intrinsic?

EDIT: I would like to now mention how glad I am to have found the book and realized that I wasn't entirely talking out of my arse, especially after receiving 'buddhist hate mail'. I was sort of like "I'm quoting someone's beliefs here, no one I know, but still someone's." Would the same posts have been viewed that way if it was posted by a member who professed to be a beginning buddhist, and read it in a book? I sort of wonder. Ah well, lesson learned, Hitler and buddhism do not mix. Or do they?:D

prana

01-13-2003, 08:28 PM

That is interesting, the comment about wrathfulness. Does emanation mean that vajrapani[sp] was mao, according to that interpretation? It seems to, since it involves vajrapani taking the karma for the ensuing actions of mao.

Vajrapani is the heart of Mahakala, the protector deity of Tibet and His Holinest the Dalai Lama. Mahakala is the wrathful aspect of the 1000 armed Chenrezig. According to teachings, Mahakala is emanated when the activities of the Bodhisattva Chenrezig is not enough to pacify evil... and such times could be what Thurman is suggesting.

Although I am unsure and not qualified on what Thurman is trying to suggest, in this case, when somoene is showing compassion towards another being our of completely selflessness, it is said that The nature of Avalokitasvara is showing from a person. When this compassion comes out wrathfully, such as when a mother pulls her child wratfully from oncoming traffic, or ... heheh when a monk beats up a young meditator because he falls asleep, it is an act of the wrathful aspect of Chenrezig.

But usually, emanation is used to describe an enlightened beings ability to "become", such as, His Holiness The Dalai Lama's and Karmapa's are emanations of Buddha Avalokitasvara (Chenrezig) ...

so basically, I dont know which context Thurman is suggesting. But really, it doesnt matter. Right or wrong, unless we both become enlightened, we cant understand what is truly meant by enlightened beings. Thurman included...

:D

Braden

01-13-2003, 11:10 PM

MerryP

"Particles at zero-energy have 'zero point fluctuations.' There is no such thing as a steady state. There is only a probability distribution of possible outcomes."

Good spherical horses here. ;) I would personally agree there's no such thing as a steady state, except in the absolute and net sense, in which case there's no such thing as not a steady state; either way it becomes meaningless. However, I don't believe this is consistent with what you have argued.

My objection to the big bang is as a creation theory, not as a cosmic event. I'm aware of the speculations now of radiation fluxes before the big bang which would inevitably result in the big bang. As you noted yourself in a later post, however, this is absurd - there is no "before the big bang."

If you mean 'probability distribution of possible outcomes' in the ontological sense - as in an uncollapsed simultaneous reality of all possible states, then I don't accept this to be valid.

"Some bit of matter is bound to get it right...concious life isn't all that flukey"

Don't these two statements contradict each other? You seem to clarify the exact definition of a fluke, and then simply state it wasn't a fluke.

And even had this not been the case, you didn't address the problem of consciousness at all, but only life.

KC Elbows

"the Hitler Buddha concept was used to illustrate the idea of guided evolution towards mass enlightenment...You were responding to it as a moral code of some sort"

No, my point was how these two things related to one another. My critique was that the argument accepts anything as being part of the cosmic scheme. This becomes a moral code, as it eliminates morals - everything is acceptable.

One of my big disagreements here is that Buddhism doesn't teach you "Hey, you know what... whatever dude. Everything is allready determined, so like... whatever man." Quite the contrary, Buddhist texts go to great lengths to expound on ways for you to be.

The Tibetan concept of history is not "Man, the cosmos is doing what the cosmos does, so whatever man." Rather, it's "How you choose to be effects the entire cosmos, these effects contribute to a constant and continuous shift in the nature of the cosmos."

These are very different ideas. The former is consistent with what you've outlined. It doesn't seem consistent with what Buddhism outlines though.

"To me, everything and everyone is intrinsic to things, whereas to you, not everything is. Hitler is intrinsic to the world I live in"

Hitler is intrinsic to the world we live in now, because it's in the past. However, this is not the same as saying Hitler is intrinsic in the world; and it causes us to draw very different conclusions.

"The next part, you asked how economic stability and growth made spiritual concepts more accessible to more people."

No, I asked how it contributed to spiritual growth.

"In otherwords, if you're part of a history of humans, there's morons in your past doing stupid things. It's a given."

I've never disagreed with this.

"You still didn't answer. Do you think evil is counter to evolution of the cosmos?"

What do you mean by evolution? If you mean 'any change whatsoever, or perhaps no change', then you don't mean anything at all, and nothing is counter to it. If you mean 'a change in a specific direction', then by very definition, there are things which are counter to it. And if you define evil as those things which are contrary to cosmic evolution, then you have your answer. These are all just statements of definition.

"I didn't say an enlightened person. I'm really not sure where you got this from."

From the original concept that Hitler was a Buddha. Isn't that what we were discussing?

"How is Hitler not intrinsic to this world?"

Because by 'Hitler' we mean, what a specific person chose to do with their life. By definition, this means he could have chosen to do something else. So by definition this means the former is not intrinsic.

"Is it necessary that Christ be the son of god, as opposed to just a wonderful person?"

Necessary for what?

"One member has sent me an email suggesting I might have offended quite a few people."

I'm not offended, and don't think anyone else should be.

P.S. I was really sick when I replied before and couldn't think straight. Lets just talk about gnosticism. :D

Taoboy

"I simply believe many people leave/trust/etc their fate/life/etc to any external entity/higher power/etc. I see that an a external locus of control."

So you do believe the person who goes and counts the teeth in a horses mouth to find out how many there are is relying on 'an external locus of control' and that's not your bag? What method do you advocate instead?

Braden

01-13-2003, 11:32 PM

diego

"i understand that scientists claim to have calculated almost to the smallest point how old our universe is"

I don't believe they have.

"thats one universe...bang/expand/retract, thats one, and the next ones laws such as gravity etc, may be differant then ours"

Ok. That makes sense. I don't see any reason to believe it needs to contract all the way to a big crunch, rather than expand and contract within parameters that include it's own existance, as well as varying in expansion and contraction throughout it's non-****genous and complex structure.

You're right though that fundamental laws are likely to change. Even a contracting universe, let alone a brand new one, would change the laws of thermodynamics, upon which our understanding of fundamental laws are based.

"wheras christians say god made it....bhuddists say its all energy just as the quantum physiisists do"

I disagree with both of these statements. There is alot of rich Christian thought regarding the difference between emanation and creation of the universe. And as for Buddhism, it's ontology I believe is neutral monism whereas quantum physics' ontology is materialism. While both monistic beliefs, they are not the same.

"abit confused on this one, would you define cold and heat deaths please"

I meant expanding and contracting to extremes. Cold death is extreme expansion of the universe: energy/matter is spread so thin as to be meaningless. Heat death is extreme contraction of the universe: energy/matter is collected so dense as to be meaningless.

"wouldnt all matter and energy be the blueprint for fundamental reality?"

No. This is the difference between materialism and neutral monism. Materialism says matter/energy is the basic unit for reality. Neutral monism says, yes, there is one basic unit for reality, but it's not matter/energy; matter/energy is but a facet of the one basic unit.

"what do you mean, whos observation?"

Mine and everyone else's I've ever met and read commenting on the topic. People doing bad things don't tend to get more punishment than the rest of us, and people doing good things don't tend to get more rewards. Indeed, quite often the opposite is true. Nice guys finish last, right?

"no i described perfectly...they say you give all to god or you go to hell, and i say how backward is the ideas and concepts of thier fairytail god!"

Where do they say this?

"what i am saying is good and bad are neccassary for what we call life set by the rules/laws of this universe"

Actually, what you said is "good and bad is mans concepts" which seems to be the exact opposite of the above.

"the concepts of perfections....life is the only logic...raise the farm teach the seeds...these are in accordance with gods principals...death and envy and all the sins are not...because they subtract from life, but obviously they are a part of life."

You didn't suggest at all how the fight with Hitler woke up these concepts, which is what I asked.

"and since the universe is all about expanding it goes to reason growth based ideologies are the only thing that makes sence"

Actually, if the universe is all about expanding, then energy/matter concentration is all about decreasing, then complexity is all about decreasing. This is antithetical to growth-based ideologies, and not the opposite. That is, if you buy that logic at all, which I don't.

"and its wrong only because eventually the murderer by how he thinks will set himself into a routine where he will be of surrounded by those of his kind and one day they may flip and kill him."

Again, while a nice idea, experience shows this to be untrue.

ZIM

01-14-2003, 02:26 AM

I was looking for the gnostic reference to emanations...AKA Aeons, but stumbled through this at the internet ency. of philosophy:

"Definition and Distinctions

The concept of emanation is that all derived or secondary things proceed or flow from the more primary. It is distinguished from the doctrine of creation by its elimination of a definite will in the first cause, from which all things are made to emanate according to natural laws and without conscious volition. It differs from the theory of formation at the hands of a supreme artisan who finds his matter ready to his hand, in teaching that all things, whether actually or only apparently material, flow from the primal principle. Unlike evolution, again, which includes the entire principle of the world, material and spiritual, in the process of development, emanation holds to the immutability of the first principle as to both quality and quantity, and also in the tendency of the development evolution implying one which goes from less to more perfect, while emanation involves a series of descending stages. "

There's apparently 3 things going on here, at minimum. I kind of like it, really- i'm going for the emanation thang. Uh, with evolution to keep it real...
:D

Braden

01-14-2003, 02:46 AM

Emanationism is tha bomb. IEP has some great info. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/emanatio.htm The gnostic and neoplatonist pages there are also great.

I mentioned in a previous post this idea is in Christianity. The IEP pages discuss some aspects of this. You can also consider the Nicene Creed: "...eternally begotten of the Father...begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father..."

Merryprankster

01-14-2003, 04:05 AM

Um, no diego. Scientists (God forbid) admit they DON'T KNOW what came before the big bang because predictability breaks down at the event horizon of a singularity. And also because time as we know it started with the Big Bang. The idea of Scientific Determinism died with Quantum Mechanics. As such modern Cosmology and a Creator are not inconsistent. If a Cosmologist happens not to believe in a creator, it's got nothing to do with an inherent contradiction between Creation and Cosmology.

Is that too complicated for you?

Braden--thanks for clarifying. I use Big Bang in the sense that you do--it's a start point for the universe we live in. Nothing more, nothing less.

And I do not necessarily believe in steady state in the net sense. I'd have to be persuaded otherwise (not an invitation. Too busy. Print it out and send it by snail mail...)

As far as the evolution of concious life, I don't know if we're just disagreeing or if I didn't make myself clear. I was trying to say that while it is true that concious life is a highly improbable outcome when individually compared with other possible histories, there are enough "roles of the dice," that it's not so unforeseeable that concious life would develop somewhere... and possibly in other somewheres. So, in the cosmic scope, it's not that unlikely.

So, is it flukey? Yes in the sense that it is unlikely for any individual place/time/thing. No in the sense that if you have a gazillion roles of the dice, eventually the right combo comes up (Infinite Monkeys, works of shakespeare, all that.)

KC Elbows

01-14-2003, 06:48 AM

Braden, hope you're feeling better.:)

My critique was that the argument accepts anything as being part of the cosmic scheme. This becomes a moral code, as it eliminates morals - everything is acceptable.

One of my big disagreements here is that Buddhism doesn't teach you "Hey, you know what... whatever dude. Everything is allready determined, so like... whatever man." Quite the contrary, Buddhist texts go to great lengths to expound on ways for you to be.

I didn't say that in surfer speak!:D

First, the buddhists hate me, now you've turned me into a surfer.

I would imagine, because the particular buddhist that wrote that also stated that all mankind is moving toward spiritual evolution, that the idea is that the evolution will be there, and so can be found if looked for. I know that this is still open to the criticisms you've put forward.

Of course, my view of this is also colored by my own beliefs, which is that nothing can really be changed, because no one who actually wants to change their actions wants to change them at the moment they're doing them, because that's who they, like, are, dude.

Hitler is intrinsic to the world we live in now, because it's in the past. However, this is not the same as saying Hitler is intrinsic in the world; and it causes us to draw very different conclusions.

But Hitler is intrinsic also because of events before him that led up to him. Now, you could say that Hitler could have not happened, but you cannot show this to be true, because you can only suggest a hypothetical in which those events didn't lead up to him, not actually make that happen, which of course doesn't mean you're wrong, but that you probably can't show you're right.

Again, my world view shows through. Because Hitler had no other option he was gonna take or could take, he was Hitler as we know him. Everything else is a what if, which is great for comic books and stories, but not for reality.

You got me on the economics leading to spiritual growth thing. Although I know a lot more buddhists in the US than I probably would have without monks on planes, on the internet, etc. However, I cannot show this as spiritual growth. They might have been great mormons. Touche.

"And if you define evil as those things which are contrary to cosmic evolution, then you have your answer. These are all just statements of definition."

I don't really accept that definition of evil. I don't think an evil can be put forward that can be shown to be contrary to cosmic evolution. It's as meaningless as my 'everything is evolution, brother man' theory.

I think evil is a human condition that is integral to cosmic evolution. As long as there are humans. Or something like them.

I know, that's meaningless as well.

Oh, on the confusion about what we were talking about, you made a comment that you were not suggesting that hitler was an enlightened person, this disclaimer confused the heck out of me, as anyone reading your posts would have seen that.

Because by 'Hitler' we mean, what a specific person chose to do with their life. By definition, this means he could have chosen to do something else. So by definition this means the former is not intrinsic.

Assuming that people choose to do things that are not things they would do, as, by definition, Hitler chose to kill jews and try to take over as much land as possible. Hitler is thoroughly defined at this point. No free choice left for him, and he used his free choice to do exactly what he did, which he was going to do anyway.

BTW, I've been meaning to ask you a rather obscure question. Has there been any philosophers/theologians who spoke regarding free will and fate not being mutually exclusive?

As for my Christ relation, I was saying, if being a buddha would be unnecessary for Hitler to have the end effect he did, doesn't the same hold for Christ being a son of god? Then, I realized the question became somewhat fuzzy, as the gnostic approach, which I know you are familiar with, seems to suggest that the question is irrelevant, because, as a person, he would be a child of god. However, in mainstream christianity, there's a shuffling of the afterlife, and that shouldn't change how people live in the here and now, because they should try to be good people on goods own merits, without the need for added motivation.

I don't think I explained that well. Wouldn't be the first time.;) :D

Prana,
Thanks for the explanation re: vajrapani. I got the idea from the reading that the mao-vajrapani bit wasn't his idea, but Thurman never directly states so. What if a buddha told him? What if it was vajrapani up to his tricks?;) :D

This tibetan buddhism thing is a complicated business.

Braden

01-14-2003, 07:55 AM

"...all mankind is moving toward spiritual evolution, that the idea is that the evolution will be there, and so can be found if looked for."

But this is exactly the point I find completely unreasonable.

"nothing can really be changed"

Then you clearly disagree with him as much as I do.

"because no one who actually wants to change their actions wants to change them at the moment they're doing them, because that's who they, like, are, dude."

Are you sure? Even if this is true, it doesn't follow that 'nothing can be changed', as this doesn't discount changing future actions.

"But Hitler is intrinsic also because of events before him that led up to him."

Not unless we live in a purely deterministic universe, which isn't the conception of any widely help science or philosophy, nor of Buddhism.

"Now, you could say that Hitler could have not happened, but you cannot show this to be true"

I can illustrate beyond a doubt that you cannot provide any deterministic system to explain the actions of men. We conclude from that there is no deterministic system. By analogy, imagine we were arguing if gravity caused things to fall up or down. By the reasoning you use above, you would say that I am unable to prove to you that things never fall up, so therefore it's just as likely that gravity makes things fall up as down. Of course, this isn't at all how logic works.

"I don't really accept that definition of evil."

You don't have to, it follows naturally from definitions. The teachings of Buddhism exhibit value judgements. Positive cosmic evolution is that which fulfills these value judgements. This teaching lays the foundation for my statement of the definition of evil. You may well reject all of this, but in doing so you would also be rejecting the argument about Buddhism which I claimed was faulty - so you'd be agreeing with me. The only other option, it seems to me, would be for you to disagree with me that the teachings of Buddhism include value judgements. I'm assuming you don't.

"I think evil is a human condition that is integral to cosmic evolution. As long as there are humans. Or something like them."

This isn't contrary to what I said.

"made a comment that you were not suggesting that hitler was an enlightened person, this disclaimer confused the heck out of me"

I constucted an argument whereby one could argue Hitler was an enlightened being, and clarified I disagreed with it but made it only to elaborate upon an interpretation of karma. I'm not sure where the confusion is.

"he used his free choice to do exactly what he did, which he was going to do anyway."

Of course he used his free choice to do what he did. We're looking back in time. Before he did it, he didn't do it (obviously). This left only his free choice to do something, something which as of yet wasn't done - which means it could have been anything (obviously).

"Has there been any philosophers/theologians who spoke regarding free will and fate not being mutually exclusive?"

Yeah, me. :D

Determinism and non-determinism ultimately are two words for the same thing. This is a whole other beast though. I think it has something to do with causality not actually existing.

"if being a buddha would be unnecessary for Hitler to have the end effect he did, doesn't the same hold for Christ being a son of god?"

I mean, what do you mean by unnecessary? For a Christian, it's very necessary for Christ to be the son of God. If you're not a Christian, you may have a different concept as to what the contribution of Christ was, which may facilitate the non-necessity.

"as the gnostic approach, which I know you are familiar with, seems to suggest that the question is irrelevant, because, as a person, he would be a child of god."

Not exactly. While we are all Christ; for us, this means a signification towards God; for Jesus this meant literally God, not a signification but an equality. The cleave in our existential state I'm describing by signifier-signified is a result of Adam's Fall.

eulerfan

01-14-2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Merryprankster
As far as the evolution of concious life, I don't know if we're just disagreeing or if I didn't make myself clear. I was trying to say that while it is true that concious life is a highly improbable outcome when individually compared with other possible histories, there are enough "roles of the dice," that it's not so unforeseeable that concious life would develop somewhere... and possibly in other somewheres. So, in the cosmic scope, it's not that unlikely.
.)

I haven't been following so please excuse me if ya'll have already discussed this or agreed to this or whatever.

I think the evolution of conscious life is viewed as really quite probable. Interstellar gas clouds are mostly composed of the carbonaceous compounds necccessary for the creation of life. After that, you just need heat and water.

So, the ingredients for life are abundant in the universe. And, once you have life, conscious life is to follow.

Unless you mean intelligent(relatively) life.

Here on earth, we had two species crop up with the ability to become highly intelligent beings. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Neanderthals have even bigger brains than us? So there are plethora theories on how we beat them in the evolutionary struggle?

red5angel

01-14-2003, 08:47 AM

I for one believe there is life throughout the universe, and therefore believe conscious life, isn't as difficult to arrive at. Our universe is set up well for it so why not? I have yet to hear a good argument on why life would not develope elsewhere.

KC Elbows

01-14-2003, 08:58 AM

But this is exactly the point I find completely unreasonable.

I know.:D

"nothing can really be changed"

Then you clearly disagree with him as much as I do.

No, I just think it's exactly the sort of thing that buddha would do. :D After all, just because I can't make sense of the world doesn't mean there's sense to be made of it. I'm just a surfer, after all.

"because no one who actually wants to change their actions wants to change them at the moment they're doing them, because that's who they, like, are, dude."

Are you sure? Even if this is true, it doesn't follow that 'nothing can be changed', as this doesn't discount changing future actions.

As for future actions, the present shapes the character of those making actions in the future in keeping with their characters shaped in the present, so they will respond in the predictable manner. As for being sure, no.

"But Hitler is intrinsic also because of events before him that led up to him."

Not unless we live in a purely deterministic universe, which isn't the conception of any widely help science or philosophy, nor of Buddhism.

Doesn't the whole vajrapani-mao story sort of infer a deterministic universe? And isn't that buddhism?

Heck, the book goes on to say that shambhalla will rule for 1800 years. That seems fairly deterministic to me, and it's also buddhism.

I can illustrate beyond a doubt that you cannot provide any deterministic system to explain the actions of men. We conclude from that there is no deterministic system. By analogy, imagine we were arguing if gravity caused things to fall up or down. By the reasoning you use above, you would say that I am unable to prove to you that things never fall up, so therefore it's just as likely that gravity makes things fall up as down. Of course, this isn't at all how logic works.

Well, you've got me there. At some point, I'm gonna have to read up on the problems with determinism.

You don't have to, it follows naturally from definitions. The teachings of Buddhism exhibit value judgements. Positive cosmic evolution is that which fulfills these value judgements. This teaching lays the foundation for my statement of the definition of evil. You may well reject all of this, but in doing so you would also be rejecting the argument about Buddhism which I claimed was faulty - so you'd be agreeing with me. The only other option, it seems to me, would be for you to disagree with me that the teachings of Buddhism include value judgements. I'm assuming you don't.

But those value judgements are initially meaningless without evil/suffering. How could something be counter to cosmic evolution when it points directly to it by aversion?

"I think evil is a human condition that is integral to cosmic evolution. As long as there are humans. Or something like them."

This isn't contrary to what I said.

In one sense it is, because you said 'contrary', which is much more limiting than 'integral'. Your statement is correct, but I don't think it is an adequate definition, though I've been wrong before.

"made a comment that you were not suggesting that hitler was an enlightened person, this disclaimer confused the heck out of me"

I constucted an argument whereby one could argue Hitler was an enlightened being, and clarified I disagreed with it but made it only to elaborate upon an interpretation of karma. I'm not sure where the confusion is.

I didn't think you constructed such an argument, but instead found the weaknesses in the one put forward. I thought you constructed an argument in which the most logical course would be to put someone in the role of Hitler who could likely find growth from it, which assumes non-enlightened. 'Likely' being my way of not letting determinism confuse the issue on this one.

Thus the confusion.

Of course he used his free choice to do what he did. We're looking back in time. Before he did it, he didn't do it (obviously). This left only his free choice to do something, something which as of yet wasn't done - which means it could have been anything (obviously).

This is why I asked if there was anyone who didn't find fate and free choice irreconcilable concepts. I believe that we have free choice, but that our choices are utterly predictable. However, I am not sufficiently educated to expound or see all the strengths or weaknesses of my belief, and so I'm seeking more info.

"Has there been any philosophers/theologians who spoke regarding free will and fate not being mutually exclusive?"

Yeah, me.

And the title of your book is?

I mean, what do you mean by unnecessary? For a Christian, it's very necessary for Christ to be the son of God. If you're not a Christian, you may have a different concept as to what the contribution of Christ was, which may facilitate the non-necessity.

How does it make a christian a better person that christ was the only son of god? Doesn't that belittle his sacrifice, and make it sort of asking a lot for people to try to live up to him, considering the 'soiled virtue' of most mothers and the total inability of most of us to heal the blind and such, much less the fact that, like millions of people the world over, my dad cannot flood the world?

It just seems to me that it is more meaningful if he is just an ordinary human being doing extraordinary things. And I am willing to agree, as far as I understand it, it is more meaningful if Hitler was just a human being gone horribly wrong.

This also relates to what you're saying about Jesus being god, and us being a signification of god. I can't place my finger on this, but the whole thing always has this ghost in the machine sort of ending that suggests to me that this is the result of the writing more than the idea. And this just wrecks my suspension of disbelief. I have this sneaking suspicion that the flesh and blood Jesus would be kind of annoyed to find that all of his hard work was summed up by making him less human than others, and making others less capable of divinity than him.

But then again, that's probably why I follow no specific religion. There's always ghosts in the machines.

eulerfan

01-14-2003, 09:05 AM

I think it's a pretty common thought in the scientific community that the Universe is teeming with life.

I think a lot of people have a hard time understanding how this could happen and yet we would be so completely unable to contact them. Even just with radio, where you are going the fastest possible speed, speed of light, it's not really fast enough. It could still take hundreds of years to hear back from a close neighbor. If we could find them. Because, the sky is real big, ya know. Where do you send the signal?

And we haven't had radio that long. Relative to human existance. As soon as we discovered and figured out how to use radio waves, we were also able to wipe out life on the planet. So, the question of how long intelligent life is able to survive after the discovery of radio waves remains to be exemplified by us. And it doesn't look good.

Ryu

01-14-2003, 09:23 AM

Man, KC, Buddhists hate you? You must be a devious character indeed.. :D (kidding of course)

Braden, man you're talking about many of the ideas I constantly think and speak about. Can you send me a private message and include your email address? I'd like to see a list of your sources, influences, etc. share ideas. That is, if you don't mind.

Ryu

Braden

01-14-2003, 09:23 AM

"And the title of your book is?"

Nitpicks from the Nether Reaches.

"How does it make a christian a better person that christ was the only son of god?"

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

"Doesn't that belittle his sacrifice..."

His sacrifice was God as man. If he's not God, there's no sacrifice to belittle.

"and make it sort of asking a lot for people to try to live up to him"

No. I will always have all sorts of faults; this fact is not reason to stop trying to better myself.

"considering the 'soiled virtue' of most mothers"

If you mean original sin, I'm not sure what the alternative could be.

"and the total inability of most of us to heal the blind and such"

This isn't what a Christian is asked to live up to.

"my dad cannot flood the world"

Neither could Joseph.

"It just seems to me that it is more meaningful if he is just an ordinary human being doing extraordinary things."

He was an ordinary man doing extraordinary things.

"all of his hard work was summed up by making him less human than others"

How is he made less human than others? He was a man.

"and making others less capable of divinity than him."

How are others less capable of divinity than him? Leaving aside the ascension, for sake of argument. We are Christ.

Ryu

My email's in my profile here. little_spotted_dog@hotmail.com Feel free to drop me a line. I'm really quite nice, but probably less helpfull than one would expect.

red5angel

01-14-2003, 09:37 AM

eulerfan, I wouldn't use us as the yardstick for survivability, someone out there may have more common sense ;)

The big question isn't if they are out there, but if they have been here and if so, was it 'they' who put this chip in my neck?

Braden

01-14-2003, 09:51 AM

Hey sign, you haunted?

What about you tire, any ghosts?

Chinese food! You a ghost?

IT'S THE GHOST OF GENERAL TAO!

eulerfan

01-14-2003, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by red5angel
eulerfan, I wouldn't use us as the yardstick for survivability, someone out there may have more common sense ;)

Cr@p as it may be, it's the only one we've got.;)

fa_jing

01-14-2003, 01:59 PM

OK, I will first state that I believe in evolution. However, I don't believe it to be a complete theory, for several reasons which I don't want to get into. But here's something for you all to ponder: one of the most basic premises of evolution is that living matter was created in chemicals reactions involving purely inanimate matter. Yet, no scientist in the lab has been able to duplicate this, despite many attempts. In other words, no one has gone into the laboratory and made inorganic material come to life. Secondly, of all of the amino acids essential for life, only 25% of these can be created in the laboratory under anything resembling the conditions that were found on Primordial Earth. This has caused some scientists to speculate that life, in fact came from outside the planet earth, perhaps coming from another planet where the conditions were more favorable. Of course, this explaination raises more questions than it answers. So, for this and many other reasons, I think that the common version of the theory of evolution is missing something - what some would call a supernatural hand of intellegence, what I might say is some intrinsic quality of organization or a virtual "groping towards intelligence" quality in matter itself, but really just two different ways of describing the same unknown.

Furthermore, even a Grand Unified Theory of Physics and Evolutionary Biology still wouldn't address one of the four fundamental anguishes: the Anguish before the Here and Now. Why am I typing this to you right now - - why am I not a leper, begging in the outskirts of the city of Minsk, in the year 1630? Why am I not an ant, etc. Because if at some point in the life of the Universe there was no living matter, one thinks that there was no subjectivity - so how did subjectivity come into being, not just universal subjectivity but individual subjectivity? Can any of you think of a reason that "you" would come into being as one human being, and not another, or a rock or something? Without knowing what makes us us, this is impossible. So our being is contingent w/respect to the hear and now - not explainable, it simply is. Food for thought, my friends.

red5angel

01-14-2003, 02:13 PM

fa_jing
"Why am I typing this to you right now - - why am I not a leper, begging in the outskirts of the city of Minsk, in the year 1630? Why am I not an ant, etc. Because if at some point in the life of the Universe there was no living matter, one thinks that there was no subjectivity - so how did subjectivity come into being, not just universal subjectivity but individual subjectivity? "

that sort of argument is ridiculous. Why is subjectivity necessary for existance? Might as well fall back on if a tree falls in the woods, a tree has no conciousness that we can tell, so how does it do anything without an observer? Better yet, how did "you" come to be? Unless you believe in God, you couldn't if this were a true argument.

"Can any of you think of a reason that "you" would come into being as one human being, and not another, or a rock or something? Without knowing what makes us us, this is impossible. So our being is contingent w/respect to the hear and now - not explainable, it simply is. Food for thought, my friends."

Can you think of a reason why not? I don't think there needs to be any reason at all. Sometimes things just happen with no real reason. For example I don't live with purpose other then to procreate and at the basic level continue the replication of complex carbon chains. No real reason. I make purpose.

fa_jing

01-14-2003, 02:31 PM

Your missing the point, Red. The point is that we are here and we are subjective and particular individuals, but we don't know why. Even appeals to God, or theoretical physics, cannot answer the question.

Your twisting things around and asking me to disprove the negative is not helpful.

red5angel

01-14-2003, 03:15 PM

Actually I was just discussing for the sake of it, I wasn't quite sure what your stand is.

Does there have to be a why?

I am actually not asking you to prove a negative but to back up the negative you presented. By the reasoning in your post above, there would have to be someone at the beginning of it all. I just got done reading a book on this sort of logic and while itmakes for interesting discussion, its like you said, you can't prove or disprove a negative.

fa_jing

01-14-2003, 03:55 PM

Hi Red - didn't mean to be curt. Well, you said "Why is subjectivity necessary for existance?"

Let's restrict ourselves to individual subjectivity, rather than universal subjectivity, which is another point of discussion altogether. Individual subjectivity is part of our existence, but whether or not you believe it existed prior to the human race, or organic matter, will vary from person to person. I happen to believe that it has always existed in a sense, maybe as an ideal, maybe as a potentiality, but I'm not sure about the details. You see, for us to be self-aware, is the nature of our self. So we know that there is an "us," but we don't know why. I would say that individual subjectivity does exist, and because of our tendencies to look for causes, one tends to ask themselves why? To me, it is a question with no answer - as you say, there does not have to be a reason. Thus, the anguish - because this conflicts with our natural desire for an answer to every question we can imagine. I think of the anguishes as sort of philosophical singularities, places where human thought breaks down - so they are a sort of variable in the equations of life, that reveal certain profundities. This singularities are such that as you contemplate them, you start to think on unusual levels and come to unusual conclusions. Vague enough for ya? :)

The anguishes are: the angusih of being (why is there anything, rather than nothing at all?), the anguish before the here and now, which I explained before, the anguish of freedom ("How do I make an arbitrary decision between equally valid/unknown options - yet I must decide") and one more, which I can't remember now.

diego

01-14-2003, 06:56 PM

Personnally i have about a billion thoughts running through my head about this thread...But, noone has come up with a logical reason about my rapcity experiance...wich does take this thread back to the original post.

eulerfan wondered if you bump into things is predetermined...well i predetermined the upcoming tv show without any concious thought. now the only thing i can come up with is...they air reruns at an exact count of days from its original airing, and i watched a show sometime in the past, and then saw the rerun...now my subconcious since im such a huge fan of rza...counted the days until the time was up from the aired on exactly this many days from the first airing, and then it told me it would be on two minutes before the show started:(

or im just halfa$$ed psychic as i can tell myself what show on, but i mean its not like im gonna win the lotto, and the shows on in two minutes so whats the point!?.

anyone care to put thier powers of speculation into this, its been bugging me and i havent found a logical answer, tho i could be right about they play reruns always so many days from the opriginal airing...wich i highly doubt, but one could contact the station to find that out.

whatchathink?.

eulerfan

01-14-2003, 07:15 PM

Simple, you make little predictions like that all the time. When you are wrong, it's nothing and you completely forget about it. However, when you are right, and the law of averages says you will be at some point, you remember it vividly. So it seems like your correct predictions are the only predictions you make. But they are a few amoung MAAANY.

Spotlighting effect.

diego

01-14-2003, 08:19 PM

riiiiiiight

:D i love that word "right" its the perfect toaist word can be used for fuqoff or i agree:)

seriously tho man...a whole half hour tv show wich i saw prolly about half a year before, and hadnt thought about since i saw it...just at that moment my mind was bored and decided to make a completely accurratte prediction?.

thats like walking down the street on xmas and suddenly thinking as soon as i turn the corner the sallyann santa who is a mexican dude in santa gear, will be hit by a yellowschool bus after a monkey in ghana jaywalks in front of a public transit one!.:)

rrrrrrrrrrright....Not saying i agree;) :p

what about dreaming about events then they happen, do that all the time, especiially dreaming abouit someone then you meet them, and you have never seen them in your life...how you predict that one without the aid of Igon from ghostbusters research tools:confused: :D
peace

diego

01-14-2003, 08:26 PM

eulerfan have you ever been changing the radio dials and think of a say rocksong then you get to the rock station and its playing...for real i must have done that 7-23 times in my life, i would guess. Plus, almost all my friends when asked have said they have done that to, but never a tv show...u ever done that with the radio?. Anyopne else have that happen on occassion...i also find these things happen when im living in peace, and find they dont happen when thier is something major going on in the local or world news, like 911 thierby bringing me down from the joyous occasion of bieng part of the collective conscious/subconcious--no idea?:).

eulerfan

01-14-2003, 08:46 PM

"seriously tho man...a whole half hour tv show wich i saw prolly about half a year before, and hadnt thought about since i saw it...just at that moment my mind was bored and decided to make a completely accurratte prediction?."

Well, now, it's not really a prediction. You just thought of that show.

Do this. Any time you think of a television show, any television show, in any way, write it down. It'll be a pretty hurculean task. Thousands of errant thoughts are flying through your head all the time.

When you are about to watch a show, chances are some past episode of that show flits through your head. This probably happens with EVERY SHOW YOU WATCH. Think about it. One time, that episode happened to be the one airing.

You are a huge fan of RZA so, even though that episode was a long time ago, it was a special episode to you. It's not like you thought of some totally inconsequential episode that aired over a year ago. You thought of one that was significant to you. Doesn't matter that it was a long time ago.

Serpent

01-14-2003, 09:16 PM

And there the lines between psycology, coincidence and the supernatural blur. That's something that is always going to be an issue, depending on your personal perspective.

fa_jing

01-15-2003, 09:20 AM

I've had so many similar experiences. I do think we have certain indications of events, but that they are very difficult to read correctly - so much so that they'll not show up in any scientific study, no one can predict lottery incomes, etc. The thing is, and I found this out when immersed in another language - the easiest way to misinterpret a sentence for a non-native speaker, is to think they're saying completely the opposite. Because you tend to miss 20% of the words, so you never know whether their saying something in the negative or the positive. I'll take an example, that happened a few months ago: my brother lives in Spain, and I don't hear from him much - I've probably spoken to him twice on the phone in the last 9 months. So it's early Sunday afternoon, and I hear the phone ring. Now, my wife gets phone calls from her friends all of the time, so there's not much reason to be surprised at a phone call. But this time, I just have this sensation that the call is something important, like a gut feeling. However, I have no idea what - in fact, I don't answer, because I think it's a bill collector! I had some bill collectors calling, and I think, hmm, there goes my gut, better play it safe and not answer! Then the phone rings again 30 minutes later and I answer - it's my brother, of course, and it was he that had called earlier. I'm sure I had the thought "maybe it was my brother" in the intervening time, which is why I answered the second time. "I thought it was you, " I tell him, and tell him the rest of the story. But the whole point is, you have these feelings, but interpreting them is mostly impossible, except in retrospect, when you finally understand why you had a certain feeling. I feel this happens alot, in fact so much so that I think any philosophy should make an attempt to account for it. It's not unusual to think this way - Sartre noted that when someone walks in the room and looks at you, even if this person is behind you and you cannot see them, even if there are others walking around the room, as soon as this person fixes his/her attention on you you feel something, and may turn around to see what is happening. From this he concluded that our relation to the Other is immediate and direct. So here's an example of a philosopher that didn't believe in hocus-pocus, but still came up with a conclusion not based on materalism and our limited knowledge of physics, etc.

Cody

01-15-2003, 11:49 AM

Strong precognition, or less defined feelings about events. Events which one cannot think of as having a connection with each other at that moment. Events for which one might feel a momentary expectation, strong or almost imperceptible. This remains a mystery to me. For one thing, I don't think all such experiences are part of the same ballgame!

Fact is, you can have something float up from the subconscious mind to give expectation based on a greater possibility of it happening. That possibility is alive and kicking. I think phone call predictions are a good example of this, and of other similarly appearing phenomena with different dynamics.

There are theories which modern science has played around with. It matters little to me that some researchers have made a study of telepathy based on getting people to turn around, etc., on the basis of thought projection. Some people can do that. The fact that you can't doesn't mean that you can't project and/or receive in other ways. I don't regard this as hocus pocus, except by those who fake it, and by those who want us to believe that such connections do not exist so they can do what they d*mned well please. I think it's a matter of sensitivity, aptitude, and often, training.

As far as what I will regard as true precognition, based on a situation in which there is no reason why one would come up with a scenario or thought at that time, I have no explanation. I considered it might have to do, in part, with previous lives. Don't know. There's a lot of "electricity" out there, and contact (i.e., pheromones) which don't make it to the conscious mind.

I've had some precog. experiences, and have had predictions made for me. I can think of one off hand which really came out of the blue. Whatever, I have no explanation. I know some of these people think they are getting their info from a divine source, and I do not believe that. I also know that a trained human mind can interfer with these predictions, even by a "professional" and can get into other people's heads as well under very ordinary circumstances. proof? The proof for me is in my experience, and contact with others. validation is generally not a public event.

Projections between people. How to begin to figure this out, at a rudimentary level. Requires delving into the self, and also separating self from others mentally as totally as possible.
One's identity needs to be firm. One way of approach is to work on what you would and would not do in certain situations. Something in which a physical reaction is demanded would work best because of the eventual impossibility of intellectualizing yourself in or out of decisions. A basis for self knowledge is, imo, INTENT. You become your intent.
Indeed, further practical application also requires experience with the specific energy of another person in order to recognize it as foreign to the self. This might happen by accident, at a time when your focus and inner development find a common ground. The first moment of this "enlightenment" can be when you realize that your teacher has just released a blockage of energy, or, on a different level, enabled you to feel or perform a small section of martial form or application such that you recognize that another's energy drove your action, not yours. This can easily be confused with "It" doing an action, with the spiritual energy of the body in full glorious performance, which feels very different from the mundane. This can be replicated. It gets complicated. And, it's not appreciated if you figure it out. sometimes you suffer a great deal to learn just a little. I can understand if someone would disagree with me, but no ridicule please.

I need to catch up on this thread. I got out of it when the bent changed to topics that were out of my area and time ran out.

Cody

diego

01-15-2003, 09:09 PM

the last three posts keep making me think about what sunlutang wrote about mysterious energy "i think its called that"...where you sense your opponnents intent before he does anything.
Its in his hsingyi book, i will find the qoute!.

eulerfan, i came up with another possibble logical explanation: halucination...possibbly i was watching the news or didnt even turn the tv on, and in someway finelytuned through select hipnosis my subconcious onto the tv screan..........I WISH:)

can you imagine if you could do that, everything your teacher ever showed you, even what he was doing that your subconcious caught out the corner of your eye while doing your solo sets, and he was doing his...2be able to project that onto a tv screan "wich only you will see, as its your hallucination" would be dope!.

Serpent

01-15-2003, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by diego
can you imagine if you could do that, everything your teacher ever showed you, even what he was doing that your subconcious caught out the corner of your eye while doing your solo sets, and he was doing his...2be able to project that onto a tv screan "wich only you will see, as its your hallucination" would be dope!.

:eek: Talking of dope....!

diego

01-15-2003, 09:14 PM

serpie, u dissn or conferrn?.:)

Serpent

01-15-2003, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by diego
serpie, u dissn or conferrn?.:)

A little from column A, a little from column B. ;)

diego

01-15-2003, 09:19 PM

look you waffleheaded mahhukkn huk "looks at serps avatar" dont be treating me like i got a flowerpot on my head or something.:confused:

Serpent

01-15-2003, 09:23 PM

:confused:

;)

diego

01-15-2003, 09:44 PM

:mad: BACDAFUQUP..........ITZA THE MADFACE INVASIIONN....IT$ DA MMMADFACE

:D BLOODY NERDS EH:p

librarys closing in ten min, gonna stop by mommys and use her computer before i head home, and will continue to shiat on you from thier!.
peace

Serpent

01-15-2003, 10:03 PM

Shiat away, my brother. Get more dope on your way! ;)

prana

01-16-2003, 12:15 AM

muahahah too funny too funny :D

For the stick in the mud who sent me the hate mail, lose my email address, you crappy, crappy buddhist." - KC Elbows

dezhen2001

01-16-2003, 12:28 AM

:mad: BACDAFUQUP..........ITZA THE MADFACE INVASIIONN....IT$ DA MMMADFACE

i almost fell off my chair!!!! LMAO :D thanks diego u brightened my gloomy day here :)

dawood

diego

01-16-2003, 08:31 PM

dezhen: "puts on goodfella voice" WHAT YOU FIND ME FUNNY........IM HERE TO MAKE YOU LAUGH:D

when that album "ONYX:BACDAFUCUP" CAME OUT IN LIKE 93, i used to always trip off that when we'd get drunk and stir up crap!...that and the whole attack of the baldheads "as i had my headshaved" used to always rile me up...so it made me laugh when i wrote that to!!:)

uno THE ONYX, or you just found my comment funny?....WHAT IM A WISEGUY;) :p

dezhen2001

01-16-2003, 08:48 PM

i remember onyx buddy - just was surprised to see them here! :D man that was the good ole days when Street shiat was Real... like Big L and wutang 36 chambers andall that. nowadays its just wrong :(:mad:

dawood

diego

01-16-2003, 08:53 PM

:(

:(

:(

:cool: """""""""""'KEEP IT REAL"""""""""'............no f'n doubt!!!...

Sharky

01-16-2003, 08:53 PM

there's nothing wrong with hiphop today

it's healthier than ever. people can actually live off it, just like any other form of music, in the usa at least.

there are many good artists out you jus thave to know where to look

the lack of big pun, big l, and the fact that the wutang clan are staying quiet is a shame though.

Serpent

01-16-2003, 08:58 PM

:confused:

I have no idea what you lot are on about.

Do you all like Eminem?

dezhen2001

01-16-2003, 08:59 PM

agreed sharky mate, but im talking mainstream... back in the day (lol) it would be big pun, big l, ditc crew etc. but now its just ja-rule, jay-z and all those which stink :mad:

just a thought - the universe speaks and it all comes down to the hiphop :cool:

dawood

Sharky

01-16-2003, 09:00 PM

who is eminememem?

Serpent

01-16-2003, 09:02 PM

You know, the most successful hip hop artist the world has ever seen.

dezhen2001

01-16-2003, 09:02 PM

will the real slim shady pulllease stand up?

lmao... to answer your question serpent... as pop music its ok but not really :)

dawood

Sharky

01-16-2003, 09:03 PM

yeah i like eminem

Serpent

01-16-2003, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by dezhen2001
will the real slim shady pulllease stand up?

lmao... to answer your question serpent... as pop music its ok but not really :)

dawood

Oh, it's not really pop music. He raises a lot of valid issues, he's hip hop, yet he's commercially successful.

Sharky

01-16-2003, 09:07 PM

He's adapted his style immensely to sell more records, which is totally understandable.

His new stuff is pretty poor, in comparison to the stuff he was doing before slimshady lp

dezhen2001

01-16-2003, 09:07 PM

disagree there mate... there are lots of well known hiphop artists who have major $$$ - p.diddy and his junior mafia people (:(), jay-z and his people (:(), wutang (nowadays :(), cash-money... nuff said man. success doesnt really mean they are good. Also remember 2pac and Biggie as well...

yet people like Guru, a tribe called quest, pharcyde and all those are not so well known, yet infinately better imo.

dawood

dezhen2001

01-16-2003, 09:09 PM

sharky: agreed.

serpent: pop=popular music, which can be good and raise issues or not. there are plenty of bands out there who do, they just sound naff.

dawood

Serpent

01-16-2003, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by Sharky
He's adapted his style immensely to sell more records, which is totally understandable.

His new stuff is pretty poor, in comparison to the stuff he was doing before slimshady lp

Fair enough. I actually thought you guys would bite a lot harder than that. Oh well! ;)

I actually really like Eminem, but the quality of what he does certainly fluctuates.

Are you gonna watch 8 Mile?

Serpent

01-16-2003, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by dezhen2001
disagree there mate... there are lots of well known hiphop artists who have major $$$ - p.diddy and his junior mafia people (:(), jay-z and his people (:(), wutang (nowadays :(), cash-money... nuff said man. success doesnt really mean they are good. Also remember 2pac and Biggie as well...

yet people like Guru, a tribe called quest, pharcyde and all those are not so well known, yet infinately better imo.

dawood

I don't really know any of those people, but I'll take your word for it. Hip hop really isn't my thing. There are a few more commercial things that I hear that I like, but not much.

Then again, I bet you guys have never heard of Children Of Bodom or ever felt the rage at a Morbid Angel gig! ;) Each to their own.

Sharky

01-16-2003, 09:12 PM

Yes it comes out soon. I'll definately see it - over the net i've heard the battle at the end, it's got some funny lines and sound spretty realistic.

I hate to think how many 14 year old rappers rapping with american accents there are gonna be after that film comes out :(

dezhen2001

01-16-2003, 09:13 PM

Fair enough. I actually thought you guys would bite a lot harder than that. Oh well!

lol, well i could be but im trying to be nice! Actually i like his music for what it is, but hiphop wise i dont rate it.

the universe comes down to hiphop - this will make eulerfan proud :D

dawood

Serpent

01-16-2003, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by Sharky
I hate to think how many 14 year old rappers rapping with american accents there are gonna be after that film comes out :(

To quote Eminem himself:

"20,000 more white rappers emerge!"

diego

01-16-2003, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by Sharky

I hate to think how many 14 year old rappers rapping with american accents there are gonna be after that film comes out :(

L'sOL, then starts crying after the realization hitz!.

dezhen2001

01-16-2003, 09:22 PM

lol :(

dawood

Sharky

01-16-2003, 09:26 PM

they'll be wearing bandana's too

but the trouble is

so many people don't know how to wear, and tie a bandana, it makes me sick it really does.

dezhen2001

01-16-2003, 09:28 PM

how should u wear one? :confused:

dawood

Serpent

01-16-2003, 09:35 PM

Don't you tie it round your knee like Jon Bon Jovi?

SevenStar

01-16-2003, 09:57 PM

yes, they go well with tight jeans and old t shirts

Serpent

01-16-2003, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by SevenStar
yes, they go well with tight jeans and old t shirts

Haha! I can just imagine you all glammed up! Have you got a cut-off, acid washed denim jacket too?

SevenStar

01-16-2003, 10:09 PM

actually...

SevenStar

01-16-2003, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Sharky
there's nothing wrong with hiphop today

it's healthier than ever. people can actually live off it, just like any other form of music, in the usa at least.

there are many good artists out you jus thave to know where to look

the lack of big pun, big l, and the fact that the wutang clan are staying quiet is a shame though.

Agreed.

SevenStar

01-16-2003, 10:13 PM

dezhen2001

01-17-2003, 02:39 AM

7* agreed... he used to be part of Big L's group... along with 'killa Cam' - Camron, who also used to be pretty good.

Even people like Mobb Deep r selling out - their last album isnothing like the Infamous or even Murda Muzik :(

dawood

prana

01-17-2003, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Sharky
yeah i like eminem

I like the blue ones best. :D

dezhen2001

01-17-2003, 05:05 AM

peanut, crispy, chocolate... doesnt matter to me mate :D

dawood

Oso

01-17-2003, 06:48 AM

didn't see a point in starting a new thread for this mild vent
about my truly screwed up thursday afternoon and maybe
it wasn't the universe speaking but something sure was....

so, here we had this ominous winter storm approaching from the
west. People were freaking out and closing schools early (which
rocked for me as I work at a school) and I called my girlfriend to
make arrangements about who would make what stops on the
way home so we would have all the essentials for a snow day
at home. You know, liquor, new Magic cards, bread, milk etc..
So, Having gone to the game store already and had the little punk
there tell me he was closed due to the weather and no, even
though he was still there he wasn't going to sell me anything
(dumb, dumb move on any retailers part) I recieved a call from
my girl friend saying she was leaving work and heading to the
grocery store. I said I was going to get gas, hit the liquor store
and meet her at home for some snuggling in front of the fireplace
(insert 'Awww, how sweet' here). But, fuming because of the
black trenchcoat/combat boot wearing punk at the gamestore, I
forgot about the need for gas. (so, ya see where this is going)
By now it is finally starting to snow and coming down pretty good.
As I was getting off of the interstate to stop at a gas station I
ran out of gas. So, knowing that my girl is about to be home and
home is only about 2 miles away, I call the house and tell her
what's up and where I am and sit back to meditate on the
universe and sh it. About 10 minutes later the phone rings and
it's my girl calling to tell me she was in a wreck !!!! She was fine
but her car (a '71 Fiat Spider) was pretty much toast. She has
to wait for the cops which could be a while since all he ll was
breaking loose in the Asheville Metro area as the snow continued
to fall. So, I tell her to sit tight and I'll get gas and be there as
soon as possible. So, I proceed to start walking to the house to
get the gas can. To sum up, I ended up renting a car to get to
the house and back to my truck quicker and then went to pick
her up and all is well.

but, ****..............................

so, anyone want to buy a 71 fiat spider with a slightly crunched
front end???

red5angel

01-17-2003, 07:00 AM

Sorry to hear about your accident Oso. Glad to hear everyone is ok!
It cracks me up how snow storms can be a big deal in the south. I remember we got an inch of snow in Louisiana once and schools were closed, businesses closed, etc... Living in minnesota really jades you to the experience!

Oso

01-17-2003, 07:07 AM

thanks man, it's all ok and she'd been thinking about getting a
new one and this is the second accident in 2 months where the
size of the Fiat meant that she couldn't be seen very well.
Especially a white Fiat in a snowstorm.

I just made a move from the NW NC mountains to the SW NC
mountains and there is a big difference even in the 90 mile
difference. I was up there for 11 years and snow was a reg
thing and you just kept going. Schools still closed but everyone
else kept going.

Now that I work for a school I'm praying for it all the time now
:)

thanks again,

Matt

dezhen2001

01-17-2003, 07:13 AM

glad everyone is ok!

i remember back home we didnt used to get snow much as we are on the coast, but when we did the schools and stuff closed as it was usually at least 5 inches or more. thats on the coast not inland, so all the people from our school who lived inland were stuck at their homes :D

dawood

Oso

01-17-2003, 07:28 AM

thanks dezhen.

It's really beautiful right now. We live on about an acre that's
mostly wooded with an apple orchard immediately in front of
the house which is all glass on the front wall. There's about
3 inches on the ground and it's still falling.

matt

red5angel

01-17-2003, 07:31 AM

I would kill for a real snow fall right now!!! Minnesota, land of cold and snow and we haven't had more then a total of about 6 inches this year so far! >:(

dezhen2001

01-17-2003, 07:50 AM

we just have rain nowadays :( im in a way glad its not -10C and ice/snow everywhere, but i do like winter :)

dawood

morbicid

01-17-2003, 08:30 AM

Some things are meant to happen, but some people MAKE THINGS HAPPEN. I all happens when people confuse orgasm with smashing privates with hammer. Both cause mess, but both are not meant to happen!!!

Xebsball

01-17-2003, 09:36 AM

its a beautiful sunny day, think im gonna go for a walk then buy some cd or whatever.

Sharky

01-17-2003, 09:39 AM

"its a beautiful sunny day"

Yes, that makes a change in effing BRASIL doesn't it?!??!?!!!

Oh look it's raining here.

dezhen2001

01-17-2003, 09:41 AM

enjoy rubbing it in Xebs? mwahahaha :D

dawood

Oso

01-17-2003, 12:38 PM

the sun is out now and it's really fugging BRIGHT!!!!!!

just got back from car shopping with the girl.

had to turn things back up....

diego

01-17-2003, 04:23 PM

lol @ this thread: nazi's hanging with bhuddas, fluctuating weather patterns and ofcourse THE ONYX:mad:

:cool: I love the varied flavors of this forum:cool:

dezhen2001

01-17-2003, 04:53 PM

life, the universe and everything:cool:

dawood

diego

01-17-2003, 07:19 PM

HIPHOP:D

Everything else is offtopic ****az...maybe peeps can discuss abit about martial art, besides that tho... peeps is gettn banned!!;) .

MonkeyBoy

01-17-2003, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by dezhen2001
life, the universe and everything:cool:

dawood

But wasn't the answer wrong?

SevenStar

01-17-2003, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by Xebsball
its a beautiful sunny day, think im gonna go for a walk then buy some cd or whatever.

which cd did you end up getting?

Oso

01-17-2003, 08:40 PM

sevenstar, what's you avatar now?

and I second the motion somebody made a while back for
bigger avatars.

even just 60x60 would make a diff...

dezhen2001

01-18-2003, 04:51 AM

But wasn't the answer wrong?

what answer?:confused:

dawood

Xebsball

01-18-2003, 11:14 AM

My brother told me to buy Sepulturas new albulm, Revolusongs. But i didnt feel like giving him the pleasure :D
I was actually looking for a Daft Punk cd but didnt find it.

FatherDog

01-19-2003, 04:28 AM

Cripes, I go to San Francisco for a week, and come back to 16 pages of philosophy.

Okay, some disclaimers:

1) I am not a Buddhist, so I am not going to even try to remark on Hitler as a Buddha.

2) I am not a follower of the Cross, Crescent or Star, so I'm not gonna try to remark on the divine status of Jesus. KC and Braden can argue that out as they see fit.

3) I split my college courses evenly between Computer courses and Philosophy courses and avoided hard science like the plague, so I'm not going to try to get involved in discussions of physics and the Big Bang, either.

eulerfan: Personally, I've found that things often find me when I stop looking for them.

This is not to say that you should stop working hard or putting effort into things. I've rarely, if ever, found anything if I just laid around and did nothing.

But I've gotten girlfriends, as if by magic, when I completely removed myself from the dating game and concentrated on my training. I found my current instructor when I was doing a web search for something totally unrelated. I found my current job when I'd determined to not think about work and devote myself entirely to my college courseload.

I've also had dreams that accurately predicted things that happened to me, and acted upon them with success. So I'm a bit more hippy-dippy than many folks who'll advise you, I'm sure.

Anyone and everyone can argue about the structure of the universe, how you should act, how things work, etc. I don't know, and I don't claim to know. I just describe what I've witnessed take place.

Morally, I don't really believe in anything being absolutely "right" or "wrong". Rather, existentially, you should act consistently with the type of person you wish to be. That's sheerly my opinion, though.

oh, and 4) I've gone through a liter of rum tonight. Please look on typos kindly.

UK folks; check out a local Scottish band called Disco Volante. Y'might like 'em. Funky.