Tao99

Rocks and Space are very real, and due to their intrinsic nature they will have their effect on me, whether I believe it, know it, am aware of it, or not, i.e., regardless of my mind's awareness of it. Rocks versus Space - it's all in their intrinsic nature, regardless of my mental state. Here's a great way to get back in logical/intuitive touch with this reality: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> If you feel those rock's solidity/existence/intrinsic nature is all in your mind, then put your body where your mind says is an empty illusion with no substance, and fly into those rocks. The external world exists in its own right and you best get real about it, and heed its warnings. Such is the nature of Reality.

Well, you can get to the point of the Taoist "indestructible diamond body", and indeed for Buddhists, in their doctrine, this would be getting "stuck" and becoming subject to unconscious, consequences. However for the Taoist this is not getting "stuck" IAW the Taoist doctrine. But maybe you didn't mean specifically the emptiness doctrine. I believe that reality is what it is, and so it makes no difference what you know about it. There will or will not be afterlife, etc., and this is unrelated to ontological beliefs. Thus the African jungle child who knows nothing of the Buddhist predicted empty nature of his reality, and worships a rock, still is a part of the Tao and its way just as anyone else. So I really see it as an immaterial difference between the two.

Yes tai chi is great - congrats on making a commitment. Stillness in movement, physical exercise and meditation, and a deep theory as well. When the muscle memory kicks in and you can just flow you begin your inner work. If your mind is racing and you are thinking about problems or daily events while doing tai chi then no spiritual benefit. If you have relaxed muscles, deepened breath, and quieted mind then you have some spiritual benefit. If you get into the underlying doctrine of tai chi then you get even more spiritual benefit. I always do a short form before bed to wind down, and when I get up to energize. How paradoxical!

You are calling simple differing opinions on an issue or debate point an "attack", and the real personal attacks go right over your head and you miss it. So you have it backwards. Here are the issues in red and green in a forum debate (or any other kind): I. debating - criticizing or supporting an issue or debate point, based on the provided or available evidence. II. ad hominem (abusive) - attacking the person who is making the debate point, instead of the debate point evidence. So it's all green until that first red which then sets the tone for what follows, meaning ad homs are now allowed, and will be offered as "evidence" for debate point falsity. (see wiki quote above) [so The part to Ralis by V, as you found it, in red and green] V: "Depends on your perspective. I was born with the karma of having a yogically inclined mother, so this was a great help for me in my life. At the same time I grew up quite poor so I didn't have many of the monetary advantages. So, both are due to the response of past lives. Your view only works if one were to think one was just born. I know that I was born many, many times in different circumstances. I was never really born per say, I just go through different manifestations of the cause and effect chain. To me, it seems that you have decided to look at it in this way, so you experience the information in that way. But, I don't see it like this at all. I don't find this perspective very helpful. It doesn't answer why bad things happen to good people and why good people sometimes do bad things. Why good things happen to bad people, and why people are born in the situations they are born into. If you want to accept chaotic nihilism, that's your choice. I don't find this helpful at all. Nor do I find this the truth through both introspection and consideration of life as a whole, I see that everyone reaps what they sow in a complicated manor. Rinpoche talks about this, how a circumstance can leave seeds of primary conditions that don't come to fruition until the appropriate secondary conditions are ripe for the primary condition to manifest it's fruit. Tainted existence is merely a perspective. Yes, there are positive and negative polarities, there is night and day, yes our body can get hurt or feel pleasure, it's a paradox. We are born into this world due to causes and conditions. If you see things as inherently liberated, that's on a deeper dimension of vision through Rigpa. But, this is merely the non-dual vision, that does not take away the facts of duality. From a certain perspective Ralis... if your body is so pure, why does it get hurt? There are realms that you can take birth in where your body cannot get hurt, where you can manifest your thoughts desire instantaneously without having to put forth the work and effort that you have to in this realm. If you have no taints in your body or mind karma, why are you born in this realm? Why do you suffer? Your teacher believes in karma and see's that yes, for the most part, we are born with dualistic vision, because we are reaping the fruits of past lives. How do you see this teaching? It seems to me that you are interpreting things in very simplistic black and white ways. Your not seeing the grey." Once one goes red, it sets the tone - ad homs allowed as evidence - and the respondant naturally responds with some observations of his own. This is quite natural and justified as it is out of bounds and a fallacious argument as wiki quote above shows. So really it's the red initator who set the tone (and his supporters), who needs to have a thick skin, and expect that he will get respondants who rightfully respond, and now feel justified in now using ad homs on him. That's really the point I'm making. I hope you can now see the difference between legitimate debate counterpoints and ad homs against the debater, which are then offered as why the debater's debate point/belief/insight is false (see wiki above). Thus ends my counterpoint to your debate point, based on the provided/available evidence. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ However, I could go the other way with it. I could implement the Way of Ad Homs as he has been doing since his first post. He can't help himself because it's sort of built into his doctrine what with ignorance, delusion, "shitty projecting", anger being serious primal causes for why someone's debate point/belief/insight is false. Now isn't that interesting from an academic point of view! (see wiki quote above) And so it went, ebb and flow of red lines all begun by V's doctrine itself. I could implement the Ad Hom Way and simply say: Nobody should believe capital's V/ralis debate point because capital is a simpleton with very simplistic, black and white ways. Now don't lose your thick skin, and roar back at me that I am ignorant = an idiot, so therefore obviously wrong! And don't get me wrong, I'm not making a big deal out of this; I'm just pointing out what is academically out of bounds and bad form. I totally understand that it's a part of V doctrine and hard to avoid and apply. And I also understand that respondents will naturally and justifiably respond. have a good one

Hi Capital, Your assertions made me curious, and I re-read this thread from the beginning to see if its true. Actually if you read it again you will see: 1. ralis made his first comment to someone else - not V, and V then went after ralis specifically and directly, and simply because "his opinion differed" (but that being allowed on a forum right?) 2. They debated the karma point back and forth, until it was V - not ralis - who then launched a personal "attack" or as Stig calls it an insult or what debate/logic rules call an ad hominem, and specifically an Ad hominem abusive (see below) 3. ralis quite naturally responded directly back to V that this was out of bounds, a "condescending statement" against the person not against the debate point (as was true), and did so in quite a moderate way. 4. Then V responded to that and it descended in that tone - first set by himself - from there. Here's the ad hominem in red: QUOTE(Vajrahridaya @ Oct 23 2009, 03:37 PM) "It seems to me that you are interpreting things in very simplistic black and white ways. Your not seeing the grey." ralis: "I make a statement and I receive a lecture on the Buddhist ideology of karma as a universal absolute. My views are not simplistic. Will you ever stop framing condescending statements?" You see how that is going after the person not the debate evidence? That is going after the person instead of debating the karma point evidence itself. It is basically saying he is a simpleton and so he is wrong. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Types of ad hominems Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions. Examples: * "You can't believe Jack when he says God exists. He doesn't even have a job." * "Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003." Or our example here: * "You can't believe ralis on his karma point because he interprets things in "very simplistic ... ways." I hope you will reconsider your opinion, as I think it's unfair as proven above. have a good one.

On another forum having fun there? lol

Ok. Never mind then. I guess I mis-understood you on DO.

V, maybe you forget. Please don't accuse me of making things up. Here is your exact post using an ad hominen (in red) on me: Here is my true paraphrase of it: I'm "shitty projecting" through "brown colored glasses". This is an ad hominen. I have never attacked your person instead of some point you are making. I don't say those kinds of ad hominens to you. Thus you are the Initiating Poster, and I am the Responding Poster. But why do you take that personally? It's in your Buddhist Doctrine to do so, and so no surprise. I see you as a walking Buddhist Encyclopedia, dutifully outputting the Buddhist Doctrine as it applies to various situations. You are only applying the Buddhist Doctrine as a faithful repository, and I totally understand that, so it's really no big deal or anything personal with you. But please don't say your "shitty projecting" comments aren't initiating ad hominens. I make this solemn promise to you -- You will be the next one to use an ad hominen, not me. Beyond that, thanks for providing the Buddhist info you have provided. take care Because otherwise the ad homs will never end without resolution. And what's the point in having a forum if you don't put your own 2 cents in? Especially when it comes to ad hominens - the well-known bane of any web forum, ask any moderator. The debate points and tactics must be brought out into the open and discussed, or the forum will lose all sense of balance and give and take. That's healthy and important and no big deal on an open-ended, free for all forum. I really don't see this ad hominen discussion to be a big deal on such a forum, but if it is I will gladly retire the issue right here.

LOL. That exactly what I was thinking. (I've been keeping a list I'm going to consider it a tier 2 code word for "angry" )

QUOTE(Tao99 @ Oct 23 2009, 09:10 AM) * But throughout these posts, initiated from the beginning, there is ALWAYS an ad hominen or 2 or 4. You will virtually always find these personal affronts or personal criticisms in his posts such as: 'you are shitty projecting, ignorant, deluded, ego subjective, angry, getting bent out of shape. All these have been said by him to me. So let's be real about what he's doing as the initiater here. See V? You just did it twice again right there (in red) as predicted. It's just a part of your belief system to use ad hominens as a debate point. My mental state and my psychological shape are not an issue to my debate point of what is the essence of what you are saying. They are attacking the person instead of the point ie ad hominens. My assertion (point) is that your posts with their karma references and veiled warnings of afterlife planes no Buddha would call heaven, if DO is not actualized, along with your reasons for not getting it (the ad hominens), add up to my paraphrase of what you are saying. Since Buddha wouldn't call it heaven and anything less then heavenly is hellish, then to put it poetically its being assigned to a Buddhist hell relatively speaking. Not a bad point. To offer a rebuttal you simply attack the point, which is the Evidence offered to support the point. That is all that can be legitimately countered in a debate. The mental state or pscychological shape of Einstein is NEVER the issue of whether his theories are true or not in academic circles. So you see V this is all I am really trying to tell you, and I think as a future scholar you will think it interesting and relevant to your field (not trivial). You see the irony is that in a way Buddhism employs in its doctrine ad hominens as reasons for certain things. Thus you hear about ignorance and delusions, and afflictions, and subjectivity, and ego projecting, and anger, etc and NONE of it is relevant to to the truth of Einstein's theories (or any natural world theories like it). Now if that isn't funny what is? That is the extremely amusing irony that you have - that by your own doctrine - to open your mouth was to launch ad hominens by the Buddhist doctrine itself indeed! And so you became the Initiating Poster at this multi-cultural debate hall forum you enter. So it's nothing personal for me V and no big deal, and a part of Buddhist doctrine as you say. But you have to admit, from an academic standpoint (Einsteins Theory Proofs) it is very interesting and amusing? I assure you, if it wasn't for your lead-in ad hominen "shitty projections through "brown-stained glasses", I would not be bothering and this wouldn't be happening; but it does make me think. Anyway have a good one.

LOL. I don't know why but that reminded me of Stewy on Family Guy.

How is that a flame war? He made a post in this thread making a big deal about how he doesn't use "heavy" on/off linear thinking and scorned it as black energy, and I retorted that he was being inconsistent, and showed his post proving my point. That isn't a flame war but talking about exactly what that thread was about: heavy(his dark energy densies) versus light!!!! It was about your OP!! Whatever. Who cares. I guess it doesn't matter. But it certainly isn't surprising or unjustified. anyway onward with heavy versus light.

Densies, black energy LOL. Damn you sure have a knack for putting the "stank" on what you consider inferior. It's just using the scientific method you know. Do they deserve such scorn? Your compassion is touching! And you said on another thread that black/white or on/off linearity in thinking is Buddhism, and how it is distinguished from Taoism is based on it. So that means it is a part of Buddhism and so can't be all that bad can it? QUOTE ME: All that is saying is I should convert and I will be saved. Anyone can re-write their way and do that. This is not good news and no help. It is not an open ended response/option but an on (DO) / off (not-DO) mind set. VH: "Ok, well that's Buddhism. ... That's Buddhism and this is why it's different from Taoism."

But YOU are... That's just the truth as I see it, so it's relative to my interpretation and not an absolute, this is what you are doing according to me. You are taking my posts and re-defining them according to your own conditioning. Please read my posts more carefully and see what I say from it's own side instead of pre-defining everything without seeing the larger context. Or not. You can continue this if you wish.

Like I said - I DON"T WANT IT FLAGGED. (Please read my posts more carefully, what you would say to me.) But once you start claiming a poster is doing "shitty projections" through "brown-stained glasses", you have set the tone. And you can expect that some will object to this haphazard affront, and will say "right back at you, the shitty projections are all yours."

What I said your Buddhist Doctrine is: "You do not recognize/actualize/realize DO thus you are going to die unliberated and unconscious into a Buddhist hell, and the reason is because you yourself are ignorant/deluded/ego-ridden subjective/angry/ ego projecting/ a believer in God/or a believer in spirit-self." You just did in that post. Just as I said. But you are not flagged for it. And so you have set the tone for the debate, and so it goes. And you have said the other things to me to: subjective, ignorant, deluded, angry. And if I believe in God or a spirit-self then of course I have not actualized Do (co-dependent arising), and so I miss the liberation, as you stated once again above: VH: "It's just Buddhism is specific about what liberation means, and the Buddha said it means seeing co-dependent arising on a personal and simultaneously, on a universal level." Put it all together, and you get the VH Buddhist Doctrine, as I paraphrased it. VH: "I've said that you might take rebirth into a blissful formless realm after death if you hold strongly and focus very intensely on a mysterious formless essence to all things. This is not at all a Buddhist hell, this is a formless bliss realm, a level of bliss that is far greater than some of the higher heavens. It's in fact the highest bliss one can experience outside of actually realizing the dharmakaya." A "formless realm" IS a hell for a Taoist and it is not even the ultimate for the Buddhist as you said. This is no good news for a Taoist, and no help. It's a subtle lessening due to un-actualization of DO as you say. VH: "I've even said that it's possible for a Taoist to become a Buddha if he or she see's the Tao as referencing mutual co-dependence or inter-dependent co-arising rather than an ontological and mysterious universal essence." All that is saying is I should convert and I will be saved. Anyone can re-write their way and do that. But then one would not be a Taoist, and there is no way I know of to get around the "indestructible diamond-body" (spirit-self) and the Heavenly Realms of Form. This is not good news and no help. It is not an open ended response/option but an on (DO) / off (not-DO) mind set. Let me be clear - I AM NOT ARGUING AGAINST YOUR RIGHT TO SAY YOUR BELIEFS ON THIS OPEN FORUM. I'm simply saying let's be clear about your Buddhist doctrine, because others have other ideas on this big multi-cultural forum and will naturally want to respond with how they see things.

There's the problem. If you see an infraction then you DO throw the flag. You can't just make veiled comments that people don't know who or what you have a problem with. Is it ralis or that new guy you were referring to? I don't see them saying anything ANY HARSHER then what VH has accused everyone here of repeatedly. If it is VH you were referring to you need to say so, as he is never going to pick up on that. Everyone is going to think you are referring to people picking on poor VH. But here's the truth: Nobody here has said anything harsher then he has from his first day. (and its all a response to his attacks, not someone starting attacks on him.) In fact he has set the Standard for the Limits of Debate. That's why I find him such a fascinating case from a debate rules standpoint. His Buddhist beliefs allows him to get away with ad hominens!! That's hilarious THE VH STANDARD FOR THE LIMITS OF DEBATE ON TTB "You do not recognize/actualize/realize DO thus you are going to die unliberated and unconscious into a Buddhist hell, and the reason is because you yourself are ignorant/deluded/ego-ridden subjective/angry/ ego projecting/ a believer in God/or a believer in spirit-self." That's what's going on on this multi-cultural website, and it will take great contemplation and the Wisdom of Solomon to get it right.

Sorry. But I don't buy that shit. If there is an infraction then throw the bloody flag and name the poster and infraction. Otherwise, PLAY ON. It isn't a mods job to to avoid people's unhappiness. The job is the same as a football ref - to identify infractions and throw the flag on the poster and infraction. Period. Otherwise they are to stay out of the way and let the players play on. If they did anything else they would be fired. (And football would suck). It should be the same on a forum IMO. I still don't know who you are referring to or what their infraction was. Is it VH's personal slurs and insults, or is it someone's response to his input with personal slurs and insults of him? What we have here now is nothing but confusion.

Being a debate umpire (mod) is such a hard job. One thing in football refereeing is the rule is either confidently throw the red flag and state clearly the player infraction, or in no way throw or threaten to throw the flag - let them play on, as no infraction has been caused. On or Off. The behavior is either an infraction so throw the flag or it is not an infraction so play on (no flag thrown/waved/threatened). This might be the best way to mod a forum. I don't know - something to think about. I'm curious what statement you were responding to SB. It all seems pretty standard for around here. After all can it ever be "civil" for a Buddhist to tell a Taoist that because he does not recognize/actualize/realize DO then he is going to die unliberated and unconscious into a Buddhist hell, and the reason is because the Taoist is himself ignorant/deluded/ego-ridden subjective/angry/ ego projecting/ a believer in God/or a believer in spirit-self? And if you allow that, then you have to allow the response that points out personal problems a Buddhist might have. Tough questions! A lot to think about due to the nature of a multi-religious/cultural forum. Yikes!