Stosh

Meps meps, .. For some reason I cant superimpose any interp on this whatsoever. Ooh and it makes me wonder if thats not due to fine craftsmanship , or , some cultural barrier. Im just drawing a blank. I cant even tell whos speaking .

Lovely song Karl, I never caught even half the lyrics,, which wouldve enriched my singing along,,, perhaps. But I have no idea what its supposed to mean. Can you break it down for a simple man?

.

Agreed, but since I cant help but expect a catch, Im covering all the bases. Even just the beach is concept , as I examine it, a preconscious assemblage, if you will, ... but I think there really is a beach that Mh might stroll on.

.

I'd say all of them are real too. ( as well as each chosen perception , would be real as well .. if one could actually see multiple things all at the same time .. which one can't.. thats to say .I dont think one can )

Maybe.

Yessir It would , Well said.

You cant make up your mind?

He is a little evasive , but its his style , I cant tease him out of it ! Maybe you'll have better luck.

Fair, but I cant either yeild the point or defend it without an example of a group I might have mis-attributed , a sentiment to. (excepting of course, I dont care about addressing the oddball position that makes no sense) RE: needing 100% proof , I dont ,, its too crippling to require it , if it even exists. I once was on the other side of the fence so , I cant judge folks on that side very harshly , for it would reflect on me too. Nor should I judge very harshly Jains or Hindus , since I don't have a frame of reference really to understand what I'd be objecting to.

Youre probably right as usual Mh, but youre going more by brians definition of suffering and Im going more by Tibetan Ices. Im no sage and cant just say 'so what' If I was responsible. But yeah, everyone else is certainly one less thing to worry about , in any case.

By actually being wrong and finding out later by suffering the material consequences, or causing suffering to others you dont want suffering so much.

Sometimes we are forced to make assumptions, trying to make sense of it all, ,, like... Im not sure what you are indicating there. So , I think we should go ahead, and do so, but keep the final verdict suspended. To me theres no reason to figure some being is the creator. But I do understand its natural to make that assumption since all the creators we are familiar with are sentient ,,to a degree. Or it could be a couched declaration that its my fault youre angry. Or it could be both ,or it could be neither. BUt without my prompt , you put a blame on God for withholding joy, for a believer in a good god, thats pretty negative. For a non believer , its hocus pocus. And SO, without needing to come to an absolutely convicted position on the existance of the aforementioned superhuman, I can cover both bases and proceed anyway. If you want to hold to an idea of an evil creator , which intentionally causes misery for the universe, and only yeilds joy to a few folks out of millions, you may. But I see no possible benefit to that for anyone.

We can only hope Brian joins the club....but I suppose at this time of day he is playing with the kids a game of solve the quadratic equasion.

God gave us math so we learn to hate living.

Interesting,,, it directly suggests God is actually the cause of suffering by witholding joy in the universe of his own creation. Nice!

No that doesnt appear murky at all , it looks like yaddah yaddah yaddah.. .. you subdue the internal dialog, look for your own internal unity, and realistic assessment of the situation of the moment.

Its just so ominous Its kind of like ,Wait till your father gets home... dum da dumm dumm,, Then I had to wait until I heard my given name,,, Jesus Christ !..Get in here!.

I'm in the other , the ,,,external reality is inferred , group. But I still don't see where unity comes in, (but don't think you're delusional. )

Ok , by the definition that you are using for suffering,, you're basically saying , I paraphrase ,you don't dwell on stuff making it worse, (because you aren't ignoring unity). Yes, the definition makes a big difference. I have no idea what you mean by 'ignoring unity' though.

I have similar issues with this sizing issue on another site, 1000 pixels along the horizontal is still a pretty big pic for insertion into these posting boxes though. as Mh suggested , maybe 800 or 600 on the horizontal will fit without resizing further. the file size will probably be somewhere less than a megabyte even minimally compressed as JPEG . PNG is falling out of use as a standard compression and I wouldn't use it (or store anything in png.) , I dont think PNG worked on flickr last time I tried it, they really work best with plain JPEG , and really do a nice job handling any size of it.

We havent always seen from the same window, but even I know you have more to offer than pix of cats ,,when youre rested. Politics, geography , empires, theyre really not important,, though Im sure youve soaked up a lot even just casually glancing at these things,, theyre remote.. theres a thousand differing views to contend with , and all the sources are subjective. Someone elses subjective projects. Approaching stuff like that tends to be an energetic drain ( to borrow some conceptry I don't usually entertain ) and while one might not begrudge sharing on that material,, one can forget their own restorative sources. Trilobites?

The one you have is just fine, keep it.

In making the definition you chose, did you not examine to see how it held up against real world phenomena? If you did , you were seeking the truth of this little snip of the human condition... and in doing thus, you weren't creating a bias you already had, you were challenging it. If it stood up , great! if it modified the degree to which you understand , or apply , or your level of conviction , that's great too. There's really no downside. Buddha is reputed to have suggested that folks examine , that they not take things as handed down, even his own teachings ,,, ESpecially his own teachings. ( and none of you need me to explain why)