contrivedname!

exactly. i love the section in ecce homo where he is thankful for his shitty eyesight and constant migraines because they were an impetus for growth.

i was also thinking along the lines of the mentality you 'heard'. i think some folk are a bit hard on nietzche because he comes off as being extremely bitter and pesimistic; whereas zhuangzi makes people laugh (actually nietzche make me laugh too but im a weirdo, lol)

great play on words; herd vs. heard (if it was intentional:)) i find nietzche fascinating and while i dont disagree with a lot of his thoughts; hmmm they are poignant. i guess from my viewpoint i see these quotes as similar in that they use simlilar anaglogies to direct at a certain point. it is hard for one who is considered "elite" to understand.. - really - the mentality of the masses.

we thinks alike. part of my point in poasting was a matter of perspective. i like getting multiple viewpoints on the same subject; it helps the brain flow lol

my friend, i thank you for your candor. my laziness aside, i believe you have hit a nail on a head regarding my thoughts. Indeed- these two passages fall in conflict. the similarity i see is due to the metaphor; though there is more beyond that! this is a dichotomy between negativity and positivity to me. "stating" the "will to power" or whatever you wish to call it has a certain "sense". Am I optimistic or pesimistic, etc.? ... Ian Johnston trans. geneaology of morals nietzche Burton Watson trans. Chuang Chou many apologies for being remiss...

long time no see. thanx for the response. exactly; no sane person finds what is detrimental to them to be positive... or is that the case? i havent really thought about chuang tzu for some time; i'm glad to just have an opportunity to hit up daoist philosophy.

double-meaning? stairs to a basement are, on the other hand, also stairs out of a basement. TzuJan, you have just got profound on me (or am i projecting profundity onto you )

good point. "peyote" is their top 2 "best seller", behind "Orgasm", and to be frank (not bill) if this really induced a full-blown peyote experience, i doubt it would be so popular. if these beats hyper-stimulate the broca's area and neocortex, perhaps there is some analogy (in regards to, say, "LSD"). and "Adrenochrome"? have folks been watching too much clockwork orange and fear and loathing in las vegas? and DMT under prescriptions? DMT is a naturally occuring indole plant psychadellic. and as far as the addictive stuff goes, i do agree in principle with Kate that it probably isn't a good idea to do something that mimics the effects of crack, though i doubt this is possible solely through beats.

That is a wonderful statement cow. this reminds me of a saying attributed to bodhidharma "Ordinary mortals are the teachers of buddhas; buddhas are the teachers of ordinary mortals" or something to that effect. "where ever you go, there's a buddha" says the same thing. further along those lines you can precieve the strengths and wisdom that others have developed through their life experience in learning to deal with their own frailties and imperfections and be instructed thereby. they lean on you, you lean on them. Why did a novice monk take his seat by buddha? Vajra - Just a bit more: if someone is very 'attached' to their own path or if someone finds compassionate action through another teaching, might it be possible, if they take your words to heart, that you have just compounded their suffering or opened a door to it where none may have been before? i dont see why you insist that one path is the highest catch-all realization for everyone. What if someone was brought up in a buddhist paradigm and they have formed all sorts of attachments and fixations based on this? Would another dose of buddhism necessarily be the right thing for them?

thunderheart, if non-attachment is a basis of practice why do you attach so much value to the paradigm that buddhadharma is the only true path to liberation, blah, blah, blah? did you ever think that there is the chance that these are perhaps A) dogmatic interpolations encouragement for students already on the buddha path not to swerve and lose their focus and not to start creating a nest of views (i.e. they haven't 'left home' yet; or they are creating a new one through the buddhadharma)? think for yourself. eliteism is ignorant. mind structures vary. when one turns their back on delusion and stands before themself what the fuck does it matter how they did it? when one respects other traditions, their tradition shines. when one slanders others traditions it is as slandering their own and submerging it in darkness. "The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!" "Good friends, what are meditation and wisdom like? They're like a lamp and its light. When there is a lamp there is light. When there is no lamp there is no light. The lamp is the light's body, and light is the lamps function. They have two names but not two bodies. The teaching concerning meditation and wisdom is also like this." It seems in this comparison that Jesus and a zen buddhist have just given a very similar (not the same) description of wisdom. instead of slandering others paths and propelling yours above all others, why not try to find points of similarity and agreement and encourage comraderie among human spirituality. how many wars have been fought over dogmatism? how much suffering does war cause? isnt a buddhist supposed to have compassion for the suffering of any being? it is just because our views vary (as humans) that bodhisaatva's are instructed to develop skillful means: A student asked a zen master: why do you teach mind is buddha? to stop a baby from crying. when the baby has stopped crying, what then? then i teach, "not mind, not buddha" what about when someone is attached to neither? then i teach not beings what about when someone has no attachments, what would you say then? then i would let him be to experience reality the zen master realizes that the various teachings are not what is important, it is the outcome of such teachings. i have a theme song for you vajraji: Unction - 1. The act of anointing as part of a religious, ceremonial, or healing ritual. 2. An ointment or oil; a salve. 3. Something that serves to soothe; a balm. 4. Affected or exaggerated earnestness, especially in choice and use of language. G'Day!

Apep, that was a good definition. it seems reasonable and as you said it explains interconnection well without mystifying it, but drew off of an example from nature.

Hi Marb, The way i have read the "constant" when it has been referred to as such is exactly the state of change you refer to. Nothing is constant; this is exactly the constancy spoke of (in my view). To me this also points at a non-dual perception; also related to the talk of life and death being similar, inseparable states. So more simply stated "constant" means the function of dao, the interplay of all things (and non-things). In a sense, since we are human beings, restricted to our "passing of time" and structured to use our sense organs in tandem with our mind to precieve a fraction of reality... "How do i not know that in hating death i am not like a man, whom has left home and cannot find his way back"? thats the general idea from a zhuangzi parable, anyway. That says to me that the process of dao is inseparable and death is much your "home" as life. laozi mentions something about folks whom so full-heartedly embrace life, to the point of the denial of death, that they actually affirm death to the extreme, i.e. they cling to life so tightly, the fear of death is always looming over them. Just so you know marb, i am really glad you decide to keep posting discussion of daoist texts, these type of threads are the ones i enjoy the most.

Interesting. However, why is whore used as a negative example? because one is aware of the general malign in which prostitutes are held, so painting the view in opposition to yours as whore's makeup is holding in contempt the other style of view, by using negative examples about a group of people whom have been victimized, to a large degree. Fleeing desire? This smacks of another desire. Rather i feel it is important to "move towards" your desire if you truly wish to see its transience. to me, fleeing desire implies fleeing your essential nature. desire is born of your mind, where can you take refuge from your own thoughts?

This statement appears to betray his contempt for prostitutes. Those adultorous sinners; lets forget about the female trafficking and the exploitation that many of these individuals go through; for many whoring isnt a choice, it is done under duress and coercion. Knowledge of discriminations is boundless Proscribed constantly by those with rigid agendas What knowledge is required to posit unknowledge? Divinity denied, malice subliminated, is this compassion? The soul is constantly freed, by means of the steed After all, with what has intuition to breed? A slew of views Ends up being "knowledge" through and through

i personally like zen, but many take the anti-intellectual trip way too far. i find it very funny when people condemn threads as "intellectual masturbation" or some such thing. gang members also share the ideal that intellectual pursuit is worthless. to come from a different angle; it is good to break up fixation on intellectual thought as supreme above all others and the only good way to go about relating with reality, but is just as foolish to fixate in the other direction, the anti-intellectual. to say that intellectualism "wont bring you closer to the way" or some such is only correct from a certain stand point. this creates two poles of thought (and hence dualism). intellectual and intuitive (i guess thats what anti-intellectuals champion?) states of mind originate from the same field, so why put them in competitive cognitive divison? to ignore intellectual pursuits and only head toward the intuitive is like planting a plant and saying "i only care about the roots!" or on the other side of the spectrum, is like planting a plant and saying "i only care about the flowers!" a flower isnt a flower without both roots and petals, and likewise a mind isnt a mind without intuition and intellect. Our original nature is neither intellectual nor intuitive by focusing on one to eliminate delusion dualism is constantly created Mind-streams have various modes of structure Insisting on structuring the unstructured, what absurdity!

targeting my credibility again eh? thats okay. maybe you will understand that doesn't give credence to your argument. i wont go with the title communist or marxist, but i will give a quote from marx: "Let us now take wage labor. The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer. What, therefore, the wage laborer appropriates by means of his labor merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labor, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labor of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the laborer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it. In bourgeois society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor. In communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer. In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society, capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality. And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at. By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying. But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other "brave words" of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the communist abolition of buying and selling, or the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself. You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society. In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend. From the moment when labor can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes. You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible. Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations. It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us. According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: There can no longer be any wage labor when there is no longer any capital. All objections urged against the communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture. That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine. But don't wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class. The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason the social forms stringing from your present mode of production and form of property -- historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production -- this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property. Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among proletarians, and in public prostitution. The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social. And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class. The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor." So since nearly all products and services are corporatized the movement of capital is from one service/mode of production to another. Meaning that the movement of the majority of capital, is in essence, restricted to the upper-class, or in marx's terms, bourgeois. when a wage laborer acquires recompense for their labor, this money is then returned, in most cases, to the resources of the same small elite. This creates a crowding out effect wherein there is actually extremely static class mobility. When mass production coupled with mass media proliferation is required in order to enter the larger consumer market; how is this accessible by small business? The level of capital required to start up and sustain competitive corporate business is insurmountable to the majority of the population, working class and middle class alike.

dont know why your blaming me of downplaying an atrocity, never did that. your also not taking into account difference in era. larger populations werent sustainable for natives given their tech level. you keep bringing "140 million dead" into a discussion that was originally about, well an interview with a tibetan monk, so get off the high horse of "you are off topic"; following your style of argumentation slavery as an economic basis and the mistreatment of its own citizens are very pertinent to this discussion.

right that has no correlation to your constant name calling. every one who argues against you is a neo-commie. neo-commie out, chris

ahh yes of course. How did i miss this excellent point? the Amish are perfect examples of the way an average american lives. this group represents a large cross section of the diversity inherent in our society... wake up homie.

oh no! please dont hijack this thread to lay foundation for the reptilian invasion! ahhh! run for your lives; the emotional vampires are just around the corner! they've joined forces with the reptiles to make the hybrid emotionile reptires, twice as deadly in the art of energy sucking! :lol:

right, start off with an ad hominem argumentation, attacking my credibility instead of arguing the point from the get. i think the atrocities done to native americans are what one would call "household knowledge" that is, it is common knowledge, i dont feel a need to cite sources for that, just as you arent always citing your sources for hitler's regieme or stalin's. your next points are just insulting to intelligence: why does this get the quotes "by capitalism" as though it is absurd, but it is completely unabsurd (by your mentality) to blame other said atrocities on a political system? good point about smallpox; guess intentionally passing out infected blankets doesnt count as germ warfare. no, i dont have sources for that either, if you are so interested in refuting knowledges i gathered years ago in school or my own studies and dont remember the sources to cite, look them up yourself and refute my statements. why dont you make a new point? and while your at it stop using ad hominem argumentation. most of the people here who have refuted you have intentionally distanced themselves from being communist. so nobody is a neo-comie. but good job at the name calling when your argument is falling apart at the seems. what does goldisheavy or his life have to do with my points about native americans? (which you sort of glossed over yourself, as you blame the "commies" doing about the atrocities you keep throwing out numbers for.) you also didnt address my points about slavery as an economic base, nor did you address japanese interment camps of WWII, you simply marginalized the native americans suffering because, numerically, not as many died. the DDJ says "Were I possessed of the least knowledge, I would, when walking on the great way, fear only paths that lead astray. The great way is easy, yet people prefer by-paths. The court is corrupt, The fields are overgrown with weeds, The granaries are empty; Yet there are those dressed in fineries, With swords at their sides, Filled with food and drink, And possessed of too much wealth. This is known as taking the lead in robbery. Far indeed is this from the way." this sounds like an criticism of wealth disparity. yes i talked about the coal miners because they were mentioned before... what supremely logical reasoning can you give me for the reason a coal miner should make less in a whole year as a person who literally produces nothing can make in a couple transactions (think real estate agent). is the american bureaucratic system "the great way [which] is easy"?; please list all of the laws regulating business. chris

in particular i am glad you made this point in light of reading the whole thread. one of the primary arguments you make for the primacy of capitalism is to continually point out the amount of people killed by communist regiemes... well, going with the direction of the above quote, what about all of the native american peoples wiped out by capitalist expansion? complete genocide of entire tribes; whole cultures? forced relocation to reservations? how about an economic foundation based on slavery? forced relocation of japanese americans during world war 2? capitalism and communism are both pretty old ideas based on factors at the time, i think it is best to critique the system as it is currently functioning, so as not to miss as many facets (capitalism and communism/socialism are good to use theoretically to help frame critiques but shouldnt be taken absolutely). it seems the result of both capitalism and communism is essentially oligarchy. Mikaelz said "How can you pretend to understand Buddhism and see capitalism as something good that works? Half of this country are on anti-depressants and divorce rates are through the roof. People aren't happy. There is something fundamentally wrong with how this country is operated and its expressed in the psyche of its people. If capitalism worked here, as you say, then people would be happy. Instead the people are hooked on drugs, legal or illegal, to cope with their slavish existence." exactly. social dysfunction doesnt just creep up on a well functioning society and stab it in the back; And then prisons appear as helpful adjuncts to a well functioning society. not only are prison populations used as practically slave labor, the prisons themselves condition many people in the opposite direction of what could be called "rehabilatory". oh and by the way for all who argue capitalism is good, etc. you should consider not using examples of the "freedoms we enjoy" as debating fuel. for one it excludes the lower classes and for two what is the basis of your middle class standard of living? but the most important point is that it implies that tyranny is a given and that we should be thankful to have these 'rights'. kind of like the slave who should be thankful because his master doesnt beat him, but still forces servitude. who actually enjoys these rights? people in innercity projects? coal miners in virginia? consistently accepting the lesser of two evils paradigm, one admits defeat (ie accepts the inevitability) before entertaining what political process could be.

thats a pretty funny site, thanks for sharing. ?, that last part really makes no sense, its a forum, why dont the "anti-vampires" go vehemently oppose something like child labor, class opression, female genital mutilation, or some other large cause of suffering instead of emotionally attaching to someones piddly words in a forum? i have noticed that people are far too quick to label someone as a "troll" and proceed to ignore them from thereon out. isnt any topic started, in essence, fishing for responses? so by the definition on the joke site above, just about everyone is a troll.

to me this "emotional vampirism" trip seems to be something akin to this mentality: you believe something different than i do and it is unsettling to my emotions so i will blame it (the emotions) on you. or, your style of communication perturbs my sentiments and sensibilities, therefore my emotional state is your fault, not mine, and i am absolved of personal responsibilities for my own emotions. i suppose gold's definition is a bit more reasonable; it seems to me, however, he is more or less describing the "enlightened master" (heavy use of quotes here) vs. the "deluded little egoic being" paradigm that we see in operation in spiritual arenas. i will refrain from pointing out the folks here with 'groupies'. i guess i agree with the stoics in this situation, "let us attribute our aversion/desire, to our own actions/principles", hell, i will just quote some: "Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions. The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered. You will lament, you will be disturbed, and you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you. Further, you will find fault with no one or accuse no one. You will do nothing against your will. No one will hurt you, you will have no enemies, and you not be harmed. " -epictetus i suppose because he is talking in a way that "puts down/cuts through" an aspect of people's potential mentality he should be ignored as an "emotional vampire".