Pero

My point was that it's completely irrelevant. You were replying to a Hindu, about a Hindu text. Not also important, indispensible. Hindu text, followed by Hindus. It's a HINDU text. Perhaps it is heretical but so what? You're not a Hindu to my knowledge so you don't have to concern yourself so much with it. In any case it was my understanding that the text was linked to as an example. As the person giving the link is a Hindu, he linked a Hindu text as an example. But perhaps I misunderstood. How do you know this?

I don't agree that ignorance = unwise. One may have made an unwise decision but it wasn't because one was ignorant of the situation.

I disagree. For me, in the first it's a willful ignorance, which can have many reasons. For the second I guess you could say it's innocence. I see ignorance too.

Ah thanks, sure. Though personally I think fault goes both ways and perhaps who is at fault more varies.

How so in this case? I got the feeling that here innocence was talked about more like that of a baby or small child. They're ignorant. Of course if we're talking about adult people then it's not the same, like I might be innocent in that I haven't killed anyone but I'm not ignorant about what killing does/is. So here innocent ≠ ignorant. But if a child pushes his granny down the stairs for fun he'd be considered innocent because he's ignorant as to what consequences that has. So here innocent = ignorant.

I'm really sorry Hardyg but I still don't quite understand what point you're trying to make.

I don't understand.

Innocent = Ignorant. It's good to evaluate a teacher before fully comitting to him, and to learn a bit about the teachings from scriptures so you can see whether or not he is teaching accordingly. Teachers can use their own words, but the meaning shouldn't be different than scriptures. Also for example, in Tibetan Buddhism there are texts describing which qualities a teacher worthy of following should have and which the student worthy of teaching should have. Not examining the teacher is like drinking poison, Not examining the disciple is like jumping off a cliff. - Padmasambhava

Who is trying to justify manipulation?

Well I guess "stupid" is just a kind of flashy word. Innocence, ignorance, naivete, neediness, confusion and maybe more can come into play.

Oh actually I agree 100% with that, there are "suckers" and abusers everywhere, east and west.

Thanks!

Where do you live? Perhaps the more west you go the dumber the people are.

?

Who cares if you personally don't like Hindu scriptures? I don't see how like or dislike of Hindu scriptures has anything to do with anything. If someone wants to teach then he should be well versed in what he wants to teach. Otherwise how could he teach? After that he should also have some experience of what he is teaching, and also have an ability to convey all this to other people. I only glanced at that text but apparently you glanced less than I because I seem to remember it also says knowing scriptures isn't enough.

Well of course, it's not the Guru's fault this guy had no brains in his head. Responsibility goes both ways really. Teachers shouldn't use their students (although this could be used as a lesson), and students shouldn't dump their brains when they start to follow a teacher.

What are grammatical quibbles? And who's Derrida?

I know you're joking, but I don't find her website flashy at all, just well made.

Are you kidding? You think that it doesn't matter if a Hindu Guru is or is not versed in Hindu scriptures? You point to Berzin but Buddhist teachers also have to be well versed in Buddhist scriptures. And it's like that everywhere, religion or more worldly life. That is common sense.

I read that Crowley had a perverse sense of humour and he showed it in his books by purposefully writing incorrect instructions in some parts.

I think he did talk about it somewhere here, but I can't remember what he said.

The Crystal And The Way Of Light - Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche Zurchungpa's Testament - Zurchungpa, Shechen Gyaltsab, Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche

Well that isn't saying much considering most of us are really really screwed up.

1-5 yes, 6-10 no. This just comparing the precepts themselves, otherwise I think also 7-10 could be found in Buddhism in similar fashion. Yes, I heard so too.

Jane, I'm not surprised that you thought the 10 precepts were too ascetic, after all, they are meant for monks. For lay people there are the 5 precepts, not killing, stealing, lying, doing sexual misconduct and alcohol. And much to my surprise I found that Taoism (or at least one branch of it) has their 10 precepts... 10 Taoist Precepts Do not kill but always be mindful of the host of living beings. Do not be lascivious or think depraved thoughts. Do not steal or receive unrighteous wealth. Do not cheat or misrepresent good and evil. Do not get intoxicated but always think of pure conduct. I will maintain harmony with my ancestors and family and never disregard my kin. When I see someone do a good deed, I will support him with joy and delight. When I see someone unfortunate, I will support him with dignity to recover good fortune. When someone comes to do me harm, I will not harbor thoughts of revenge. As long as all beings have not attained the Tao, I will not expect to do so myself.