Apech

Make a post which gets the most downvotes ever.

There’s a nugget of truth in that.

If I win bigly!

The thwarting downvote always wins.

You guys are just not trying hard enough.

This is a rather self effacing life account by this English Lama - he makes light of his own achievements but is actually a great scholar and meditator. It struck me that he could easily be a DaoBum with his background. If you are in England or Europe or Cali then I would recommend seeking him out if you are interested in Tibetan Buddhism. www.dechen.org

Nungas have I ever told you how I feel about you …. ?

Define toast Define jam

I posted this pic in 'Cool Pictures' but then was struck by a detail: The staff itself : A few things to note: 1. The serpents are knotted. 2. They have beards. 3. They are twisted round each other and are staring at each other. So first the knot ... this is actually an Egyptian motif: you can see the knot in the middle of this image. There are also snakes with beards in Egyptian art: ... anyway this is just to suggest that this is ancient symbolism going ... way back. Why are the snakes looking at each other? and what does that mean? Suggestions please. (Dear mods I posted this in general and not Eso so I would get more hits - but move it if you want).

@Mark Foote Hi, Yes those are interesting pics. They are from so-called 'Mythological Papyri' which were produced in 21st Dynasty Thebes as short/condensed versions of the Book of the Dead with very little text being mostly in picture form. They are very helpful for getting at the underlying patterns of meaning in Egyptian beliefs. The shape with the writing on it on the left and the object being offered to the snake are the heart symbol 'ab'. The heart was the seat of consciousness which was weighed against truth in the famous judgement scene. The text on the heart symbol on the left is Chapter 30b from the Book of the Dead - which begins 'My heart, my mother, my heart, my mother, ka in my body ...' - so the heart was a part of your being which allowed you life and 'ka' which is something like an energy body had a close relation to the heart. They were not so much talking about the physical heart but more perhaps like the heart-centre or chakra (?) which was the location for the creation of a being (hence your mother). Chapter 30b was usually carved on a stone scarab beetle symbol - the link being the scarab beetle god Khepera 'stood' on his own heart in order to create the cosmos. So there is a strong link between th eheart and Khepera (whose name is derived from the verb khpr = to be, to become.) The serpent's name Neheb-kau means 'uniter of kas' or 'joiner of kas'. This god had a strong relation to the inundation of the Nile - so bringing fertility - and also with the seven neck vertebrae. There is a sense here of that which connects the expressions of energy together - like a field or continuum - hence the many coiled serpent imagery sometimes used. The beard is interesting perhaps because if you imagine having a plaited beard like this - if you arched your neck it would touch you sternum - in front of the heart centre. The Bennu bird is the Egyptian phoenix and is about life emerging from the pre-creational void. The ma'at figure represent 'order' in the universe. This picture would be part of a longer sequence which would place it in the context of a series of events or transformations undergone in the afterlife (or in this life when doing certain practices).

Of all the human virtues, the most effective and widely used is that of dull stupidity. The force of ignorance once fully invoked into the mind and body is like a seemingly unstoppable bulldozer which removes obstacles, satiates appetites and delivers one to a place of such supreme unknowing that it is certainly the peak experience for almost every person. It is true that the completed state can sometimes be contaminated by vague feelings of unrest, such as thinking that one is not getting all that one wants in every moment. But with enough obstinate commitment these fleeting clouds of dissatisfaction can be shovelled to the side and put away. In dealing with others, the consummately ignorant has always the upper hand, while sensitive and intelligent types worry and dither, the army of the stupid moves on without even a momentary glance at the list of 'issues' which those lesser folk eat up time considering. In being completely unaware and ignorant one is empowered to know that one is always right, no matter what. You will hear no hesitation in the voice of they that cast aside the petty matter of information. If mankind has made an evolutionary misstep it is that it developed from the apes and forgot its true ancestor the pig. Apes, with their fingers and thumbs and bloated brains, have made much trouble in the world - roaming here and there in search of knowledge. They opened the door to a disturbing light. A light which it is a human being's duty to extinguish forever.

What bells does it ring for you?

Mark's picture is of the sun disk being lifted up by 'life' = ankh from the eastern horizon (or sometimes confusingly 'out of the west'). The two goddesses are Isis and Nepthys who represent various things including the two mountains who form the horizon, the two towers of the temple gateway (which also represents the horizon) - the cycling of energy (up into the light with Isis and down into the dark with Nepthys) - which is a kind of gestation of the new sun. The apes, sacred to Thoth, adore the rising sun ... which suggests the intellect adoring the 'real' if you like. Or you could say the joy of the mind awakened by the rising sun.

Mine was a joke also.

Y?

IDK

Why is Christianity such a strange religion? When you are confronted by it there are several things you are expected to accept: - there is a supreme being who created the universe - this being impregnated a virgin - the child grew up to perform miracles and so on - he was crucified, died and then rose from the dead Now, other religions have people who perform miracles (siddhis) and so on. And some have creator Gods also. But if you approach these religions and ask about siddhis and so on - the usual response will be 'forget about it, its not important'. But with Christianity it is central that not only these things happened but you believe that they did. You have to accept. These factual assertions provoke questioning. Because they are given as facts then they require proof. Can a virgin get pregnant without having sex with a man? Can a man perform miracles? Can someone rise from the dead? It flies in the face of our normal experience. Hence the opposing position - atheism which refutes all these things, mostly on the basis that they are outside the experience of all of us. We have never witnessed any of these things. So why would we believe them? You don't get anything called Abuddhism, or Adaoism ... why? Because although there are many people who are not Buddhist or Daoist the upfront claims made by Buddhism and Daoism do not provoke refutation. Whether or not there was a historical Buddha is actually unimportant to the dharma - as with Lao Tzu ... they do not hinge on stated historical facts in the way Christianity does. ?

I think that the role of religion in social cohesion and the creation of high trust societies is an interesting one. But surely it is secondary to questions of faith or truth. After all there are cohesive Buddhist societies and so on - so it would seem that social stability depends more on the shared nature of belief and the social enforcement of a moral code. For instance if eveyone thinks it is wrong to steal then the levels of theft in society will be lower simply because of the social stigma of the act of stealing and not because of policing. In fact as the Dao would point out 'justice only exists because of injustice' etc. But is this really very interesting - no matter how pressing a debate it might be at the present because of the instability we are currently experiencing (for reasons known to all)? I would like to return to the actual 'truth-claims' made by Christianity - such as the virgin birth and the resurrection - and ask a) are they believable and b ) why does Christianity depend on them or emphasise them so highly. This is the sticking point for me. It is as if there is a guardian at the door saying 'believe these things or you cannot enter' - whereas I do not see this in any other religion (except perhaps Islam - a subject which I have feelings about which I will pass over in silence).

I met some Ishmaili Muslims once who were very pleasant - but then too are mystical Christians. The exceptions don't really make the rule.

Exactly how clairvoyant are you Sir Darius?

Yes I see what you mean. Perhaps the only answer is human nature?

I only downvoted this to say I think almost every point is incorrect. Nothing personal you are free to hold your own views. But I would suggest you study more history.

The conception of God in Abrahamic religions is different to that in pagan religions. In pagan religions there is understood to be a numinous 'realm' or 'space' from and in which the gods appear as expressions of it. It is rather like an energy field in which circles can be drawn which may over lap and even contain each other. The gods are dynamics of this field and actually form the basis for the form and structure of the cosmos. And while 'high' gods may stand in sometimes for the absolute there is always a sense that they are not the absolute themselves. In Abrahamic religions there is only God who has in a sense absorbed this numinous field into his own nature. There is for them, nothing other than God. So pagan gods would be false idols - just statues of stone or wood expressing man's vanity. Obviously for the pagan the whole pantheon has reality and the gods interplay on all levels of the cosmos.

This is an unscripted discussion between scholars about the Frankish/Pagan interactions in the 'Dark Ages' which I mentioned above. It explains a lot of detail and is worth the effort of the long listen.

I think you could answer that question in a number of ways - I don't think there was one simple reason, either over time or at all. It is true in a Machiavellian sense that any power cannot tolerate a rival 'castle' or power structure to stand. This is just basic power dynamics which you can see in all areas of life. Also despite St. Paul saying 'there is no Greek or Jew ...' etc , tolerance was never really a Christian virtue - although these days they pretend that it is. They are confused about what tolerance might mean. But I would say this true of all religions, that behind the outer smiling face there is a belief that 'we are right and you are wrong'. There were also, for the Church, and especially the early church some important doctrinal issues around Christology (mostly) - in other words 'who was Jesus and what was his nature'. Was he God? Was he human - or some other interpretation. That's mostly what the heresies are about. It is not really possible for a Church which regards itself to be universal and 'catholic' i.e. for everyone to accept that there are other possible interpretations than their own. They held, they thought, the one true apostolic succession (a lineage if you like) directly from Jesus and Peter. And so the preservation of this was (to them) necessary to the salvation of the faithful and ultimately to what would be at the end of times (which was in some periods thought to be imminent) . As they are essentially dualists, they believe that there is a Devil as well as a God who works in the world to 'tempt' and draw people into wrong ways. If you sincerely believe that the Devil or evil is an active force in the world and a constant danger it would not take much to convince you to take arms against it. From the Dark Ages on, there was also a tension between who held true power, was it the spiritual leader, the Pope or was it the True Christian King - the Holy Roman Emperor. Was it the spiritual or the secular power who would hold sway? In selling Christianity to the Germanic tribes the type of Jesus as a warrior with sword in hand had been developed. The truth being like a sharp sword distinguishing truth from lies and falsehood. Along with this comes the Chivalric tradition of Arthurian myth and so on. I think you are right that the accumulation of wealth was also a motive. And wealth in those days was largely counted in land possession and martial power. Things changed noticeably when we entered the mercantile era of early stage capitalism and this coincided with the rise of Protestantism and the splintering of the Church in the West into many churches. In some ways it was this perhaps that broke the Catholic Church as much as rebellious princes (e.g. Henry VIII). Some ideas I hope - if not a complete picture