TheSongsofDistantEarth

OK, then, tell me how there will be fresh water supply for 250 billion?

Marblehead, ye are a traitor for saying that.

Dogs rule, anyway. I don't understand all these cat people.

What's all the fus about?

Before this thread is over, I predict Gerard Durkhrod will be moving on again...

OMG! Scotty!!!!

Woof!!!!

Why can't he start his own Buddhist thread and all his followers and he can live it up as much as possible without invading other threads and we can always peek n to see how much fun y'all are having? he can post appropriately in all other threads and save the hardcore Buddhist manifestoes for the Buddhist corner? Hey Vaj, are ye listening? Whaddya think??????

5- I'm not saying his posts are a waste of time, but he invades and derails many threads, and touts the superiority of his path and states that others are inferior, over and over= obnoxious

If you've ever looked at Emoto's stuff closely, it's really bad "science". It's actually not science at all, and I look at it in a very suspect way.

Ah, the heights of Buddhist twirpitude!

I agree! I hear my wise liberal friends say this all the time!

That's not being reactive. This is feedback for you, bro, from a lot of us here. Why can't you shift your message? Your many! supporters here are all silent because of...? Why do they not just say so. Nobody will attack them for saying they support you. Your behavior here is obnoxious. You could probably make some Buddhist points if you weren't so dense about this. Is this too much for many of us here to ask? I keep noticing there are many more here who find you obnoxious ("look in the mirror" "you're projecting" etc., is your typical response.) This is getting old, man. Who are your supporters? Your refusal to say makes me call into question that there is not that many. You speak life and experience through Buddhist terminology, "that's all"? I find that others, including mikaelz are able to do this in a way that is not preachy and superior anymore. CowTao is respectful and circumspect in his postings. The reason we are reacting to you is your repetitive, boorish behavior, invading many topics--like this one!--over and over again and ruining many discussions. So while I appreciate Mr Cow's points, it's not for us to keep asking why your obnoxiousness bothers us all so much, but for you to check your own insufferable compulsions!

Verry elegant post!! But, of course Byron owned both Yeats and Shelley, but this after all is not TheByronBums, so I shall refrain from preaching here inappropriately.

Vajra, are you totally incapable of changing your style to not preaching Buddhist superiority, or are you just unwilling?

I used to remember a lurid joke whose punchline was, "he's blowing Bubbles", but I can't remember how it went. I think you get the picture.

Vaj, are you keeping track of the number of people who claim to 'enjoy' your posts vs. the number of people who you have annoyed and otherwise pissed off by your cheerfully passive-aggressive style? I think the annoyed and irked are leading by quite a margin at this point. Although, one has to admire your 'preach n' dis' style before following up with the "what, who me?" and "Look in the mirror".

I'll have to sit with that and let it percolate. I'm not sure that I can buy into that. Is that more a personal interpretation or a pretty universal one?

That's all you have to say? "Read the suttas"? This from a guy who whips out pages and pages. I wonder what you think that means? Does it mean that there is no longer a shadow or dark side in the enlightened person? Or is it simply that the light is shone and illuminates the shadows in the world? You stated that Buddha said that "enlightenment is freedom all shadows" How do you take this statement? What shadows was he referring to? Inner, outer, or both?

Can you talk more about this 'freedom from all shadows or dark sides'? What exactly is the Buddha's teaching on this?

That fits my definition of closed-minded. And how is it that Buddhist insight is your standard of reference? Some beliefs you have about the way things are, based on what some Buddhists have stated about the way things are, plus some of your transcendent experiences you have had at age 10 and 14 and later, that apparently fit into the Buddhist model once you encountered it. But what is it about this stuff that makes you believe in the Buddhist reality? Someone who is a physical materialist can argue that all of your transcendent meditational insights are merely an epiphenomenon arising from the local electrophysiological content of your brain. She would argue that consciousness is non-local, and you would not be able to logically refute that, and you would not be able to convince her. So, in essence, what is the point of debating these finer points about the correct view of the nature of reality, because your "experiential level" is the subjectivity that you bring to the table that can't be refuted. So no one is ever going to be able to provide that "valid argument that makes sense to you on an experiential level" to "prove" you wrong. You can't be proven wrong, and neither can they. Which is why it is so tiresome to go 'round and 'round about this issue endlessly on this forum. Your view of reality will remain intact, you have it sewn up airtight, and I don't think you have converted any Taoists to your "superior" Buddhist version (and it is just a version) of the Nature of Reality, so why not give it a rest and discuss things from a less preacherly/fundamentalist place?

I assumed Sloppy was being facetious. What are you saying, Paul?

I imagine that silence pertains to shutting of influx of information (like the internet), as well as posting a lot of commentary on the internet.

Jack Schwarz was amazing with his ability to control his bodily functions. It was disturbing and puzzling to me that he died in his 70's of cancer.