Apech

Mine went to school also but it was always behind me in class.

Well if you are serious .... I suppose the answer is Sean who owns the site, gives mod privs and set the general tone. It's his site and he can do with it what he wants in the end.

Does your anus count? Did it go to school?

Please ... no points on my anus! And don't point at it either ....

Buddhists don't believe gods are sources of refuge or the worship of them can lead to liberation ... but certainly the world view includes not only gods but other entities. Our ancient world view .... which mankind has probably held for 99% of its existence is that the universe includes deities and that these deities inhabit and are vital part of nature. Look at any ancient civilisation for confirmation. This is not a mistaken world view just one that has to be treated properly by understanding what is meant by the term god. What we have been confused by is the equation God = Absolute ... which is a product and a defect of monotheism.

I didn't mean you by 'the fuss' ... I meant the fact that we have this thread at all. Anyway I suppose its healthy to discuss these things from time to time .. but I for one don't see anything drastically wrong.

If you hate to dig up the past don't do it. Moderation works in the way I described. There is no conscious attempt to be partial or preferential. People do their best on a voluntary basis and I'm guessing that if you went back through all the decisions made you'll find some that could be questioned. It would be a bit freakish if that wasn't the case. Time to get over all that and look at the board now. I think it works well. I think generally we all get on and can contribute. What's the fuss about?

A mods gotta do what a mods gotta do

Someone called me a canute once ... but I let it go ...

Putting it out there for what purpose other suggesting or hinting that it may be true? Generally mods look at reports ... and then decide whether to act. Reports 90% come from other non-mod members. If no-one reports certain members then they are unlikely to acted on unless a mod stumbles upon it and reports it - though there's always the issue of hot threads which are going critical. Mod actions are the result of discussions in the mod team. If a particular mod has some kind of link to one of the members reported they are more likely to back off from making the decision than to intervene to keep impartial. Its not always perfect of course but at the end of the day the referee blows the whistle and that's that - a decision perfect or no. (I made this point before and was told to fuck off on a personal basis but I still think its true.) Someone ... and in this case someone chosen by Sean has to bite the bullet and make the call. That's how it is.

You are clearly a terrible judge of character:

Authoritarianism on here!!! I had to read that three times to make sure that's what you meant. This place has the lightest moderation of any board I am familiar with. So I don't know where you got that from. Misogyny ... I thought maybe we had got past that. I don't see that now. Actually today the mod team is all female members. No-one has been banned for spirited debate. For a start you weren't banned you were suspended from posting for a few days. Insults and ad hominem attack that's what gets people suspended.

No I think comparison and debate should be encouraged. But I would exclude the "only buddhists know anything and vedanta is for low-life scum" kind of stuff ... if you know what I mean. There has been some of that. generally I still see modding as very light touch ...

Yes I think that's a possibility .... especially as most of it would be removing threads which start '**** sucks and doesn't work' or similar and also pruning threads which contain valuable content but then descend into bitching (yes it really does happen ha ha!). Very little would be deleted mostly moved .

Socialism! ... hey don't use that word in Off Topic you'll be lynched I agree that there is an underlying unity in the message of all those different religions ... but they are not the same either in philosophy or practice ... I would not be able to mod what is ok or not in Taoism for instance ... so ok its not easy ... but I still think it's an interesting idea to try to build up some kind of resource or resource directory ... maybe a better search facility might do it ... not sure ...

I think the 'no insult' policy has worked well for this place. It's too easy to just start hurling insults and because people can't they think more about what to post. So I like the fact that it's a bit more civilised than it used to be. I don't ever want to see anyone controlling content as in censorship even if it's benign. I like the idea that people feel free to make a joke or add a tangential idea. I like the way threads go off on different directions cos it makes them lively like a real conversation. the trouble is when you have a few of the most active threads turning into an argument between certain members. Then it gets boring and dull. Going over the same ground again and again ... noooooo! (to quote the late demented Sinfest) Paradoxically while liking the banter I'd like to see more serious structured resource material on here. The interview with Bruce Frantzis is one example where people can find out about a teacher/teaching in some depth .... I think this is good because for me TTBs has been a fantastic source of info on all kinds of systems and teachers who I'd never heard of ... e.g. Max, Jenny Lamb, Wang Liping and so on ... but instead of directing people to links you could have some more info on here as well as possibly an opportunity to ask questions of a teacher if they are willing to come on here. I think maybe that the sub forums could be stricter in this sense. So if you post in Buddhist sub it should be about Buddhism and not anything personal or attacking or off subject ... if so it should be moved to General .. which should be left alone to roam widely around our subconscious. Just as the TTC sub worked by sticking strictly to the chapters of the TTC.

TBs more or less my home page ... I've learned so much from here .... so much information and some great chat.

I'm not sure if this is a typo but I was saying I should not accept these things not that I should accept them. It was a the righteous word that I was most uncomfortable in your 'righteous intolerance' phrase. It's just not a phrase I would use. It means I have good wishes towards everyone ... even those who might harm me ... because I would like to see them gain enlightenment and so stop doing harm. Happiness also to them. This does not mean I have to like them, trust them, have anything to do with them ... By sentience do you mean sense perception? or do you mean essential sentience i.e. the capacity to be aware? I don't see how you dissolve the latter. Its attachment to self .... craving and ignorance which prevent happiness I think. The world would be nirvana on the extinguishing of these obscurations. Although you could argue if 'world' means 'whirled' i.e. cyclical and therefore samsara. I haven't watched this vid because my internet is too slow.

I would not use that phrase. It sounds a little high minded for me. So it depends what you mean I suppose.

I would suggest that the next step intellectually at least is to examine phenomena to say ... ok they are not what my senses say they are then what are they? This would lead to the idea of emptiness (in Buddhism) or an idea of an underlying voidic substance (in most other systems). Then you have to examine what is it that allows me to know this or think this (or gnow this if you're going to be picky) and such examination leads to ideas of consciousness or mind or spirit as a self-luminous awareness. Then after that its a matter of reconciling, unifying or 'not-twoing' the spirit/substance, void/consciousness, appearance/emptiness apparent duality. Simple as that ...

We could argue about that!

Just to say still enjoying the flowers

I think this is an important issue. Milarepa seemed to need to move to a higher cave (i.e. one more remote from people) frequently when involved in deep practices. However for most of us this is not possible. We have to live in proximity with other people. Some places are better than others for practice but I don't think there are any earthly utopias. So the thought of moving on ... well it might be frying pan and fire. There's a saying 'the way through is the way in' ... so usually if you want a situation to change you have to work on what you have now instead of thinking out some other place where everything will be different. I don't think acceptance is the thing. It might be for some but for me I don't see why I should accept jealousy, greed, anger, bullying, stupidity and so on. Why should I? I think its more about seeing everything as part of the 'work'. And generating good will to others even in the face of their behaviour while protecting your own space/freedom. People affect you on a number of levels - not just the obvious social interaction - but also their thoughts and opinions are like a sticky glue which gets attached to you and you have to wash it and burn it out otherwise it will infect your energy. I know this sounds a bit strong but this is what I have found empirically from cultivation/spiritual work ... I would have it otherwise and I wish everyone happiness and enlightenment without reserve but I take people as I find them.

Banana skin is a slippery word ... it means one thing to the banana and another to you.