Stosh

I think Id just say 'conscious'.

Both Carlin and Benny hill certainly had their mainstream fans (in their heyday) , I liked Benny Hill too, as a kid , (Lenny Bruce I dont know at all). I wouldnt be surprised at all If Carlin's fans leaned toward folks of a similar bent , educated liberal, probably young males, anti establishment etc. ( Oh ,and sacred means youre supposed to be scared of offending it , which is why its almost spelled the same )

Im guessing one would get more minerals from a french-fry then a gallon of water. ( and the fats would help solublize them for absorbtion)

Flippant has generally a negative connotation , should he have gravely said that there is no sanctity of life? At least with comedy it gives the audience a chance to preserve the sense that they arent being contested directly. Its gentler. If the audience laughs , they some truth in the point, they may not , in the end, take his extreme position , but at least its an exposure which renders things approachable rather than alien-taboo. Humour sits at the delicate balancing point between what a person deems proper-true , and that which they deem improper-true. Push that balance too far in one direction, and it flops.. you dont feel his point is funny ,, and so Id guess you deem it too far from what you deem proper-true,, or it pushes a button which you dont want pressed. I watched a Monty Python skit last night , it was about a joke so funny that everyone who heard it , keeled over. Certainly this isnt a true existant thing , because that balance point lies at different places for different folks, and so , it is forever subjective. Either that- or you brits just dont have any sense of humor

I loved the guys humor , and he is making sound points at the same time. More than just the idea of 'sanctity-of life' has no basis other than communal whim.

If water has a memory, its memory goes back before the formation of the earth itself. A chemical or toxin remains, it is present , and if it doesnt , it isnt ,,I like the simplicity of these ideas, they simplify me. ( rather than my water) The water is whatever it is. I grew up in NYC where the water is reputed to be good, coming from the Adirondacks, now in Florida , much of the water is recycled on a much shorter term basis. The various cleansing techniques all have there strengths and flaws, in the earth the water may pass through a radioactive sulfurous high heavy metal content bed of prehistoric coal , or trickle down from the bladder of a big eared bat ,through a thin bed of plain sand. Fact is , despite reputations, the glass you drink is not certain of it content from any bottler or faucet, and basing ones choice on taste can be misleading. But regardless of that , I trust my body to handle what I provide it , so long as I give that some level of consideration.. Im not made of glass, and I dont want to foster fear by embracing what I consider extreme levels of concern in an attempt to flatter myself. When I buy water its quite often really just for the bottle-convenience or availability, I find distilled just fine.. That all being said , if you treat yourself to a bottle of Fiji , I guess thats fine. I just dont want to escalate fears about small things by spending undue time entertaining and condoning them.

Ill be happy to leave the blessing of being first chore to someone else.

I do think lies of certain types are common , and I'll admit that there are times when Ive participated , but I dont habitually do it, in part because I find it to be a personal disgrace ,to be pushed into it, or embrace it on my own ,,for a specific reason, if I tell a lie I'd be knowing it, knowing what I was saying, was not an accurate rendering of 'how things are' would imply that I was not OK with how things are , or what the ramifications of what IS -would be In some way It would mean that I couldnt muster sufficient true stuff to back me up. So the lie indicates a self-imposed verdict of failure on my part. As far as 'reality being incredible' at times,, I agree , but since mundane , by its definition ,describes that which we really live I think its the important stuff as well as special, even difficult to accept!. Ive posted multiple times , that Im a fan of the mundane , the esoteric stuff is the BS to me, though it provides interest , but it doesnt strengthen the bones in the way being grounded does. So if Im no fan of the- praise of self destruction ,so as to search for a misguided pie in the sky spiritual self,, It IS related to my mundaneness. Yes too our word say a lot about ourself, and yes again that I 'project that which my own sentiments would be onto others , How else could another be understood ? if we didnt do that? But its the alienating ourselves to the fact that we DO indeed share common motivations and habits , is what allows villification of the 'other'. Give both yourself and others a break , defend only when you really have to, but no ,,dont walk on eggshells either. See here , Is that not mundane !

Well sweetie , I figure you may be right about the resonation thing, I just felt the story drew together some dispersed ideas , and I liked it. You can stick with Aummm or Omm if you want. I dont participate in that capacity. I have my own way , ( which is what I read into the story -as well as the dedication on the part of the herder being the real essential factor in his own progress )

No, no wonder , about the participation . It would appear that you dont wish to indulge in the rough and tumble which tends to accompany the bursting of bubbles. But the thing about Jack was lost on me.

Go ahead and tell me how Im a liar. I really dont think I told any lies there, and If youre going to correct me about it , you might as well be specific. ( and dont call me a liar and then sign off with a metta it makes you look bad)

Once upon a time in a land far away lived a poor uneducated, mentally challenged man who tended a herd of cows for his master. He happened upon a meditation teacher and was very taken with his calm, loving, gentle and happy nature. He decided he wanted to know that experience first hand. And so he went to the teacher and begged him to teach him a way to achieve the inner peace that radiated so obviously from the teacher. The teacher accepted him as his student but quickly found that the man couldn’t understand any of the philosophical points he was making and as a matter of fact couldn’t even remember the mantra "OM" when he tried to teach it to him. The teacher lovingly said, "My oh my, you don’t seem to know anything at all, can’t be taught, and can’t remember anything. You are devoted and sincere in your desire to gain happiness though, so I will try to help you. My son, what do you know?" The man said, "Oh great teacher, the only thing I know is cows. All my life I’ve spent caring for cows, making sure they graze, are milked, and are kept clean. Yes, for me, everything is cows." "Well, that’s alright," said the teacher, "then you know what sound the cows make." "Oh yes," said the man, "they say moo." "Very well then," said the teacher, "for you, moo will be your mantra. All you have to do is say moo continually and you will reach freedom from suffering and know real bliss." So the man chanted moo, moo, moo when he took the cows out to graze and he chanted moo, moo, moo when he milked them, and he chanted moo, moo, moo when he cleaned them. He chanted moo all the time and very soon merged with that vibration, which is Om backward, and reached the highest heights of joyous understanding and lived happily ever after.

Yeah ,GMP , the story is probably fabrication , but it goes part and parcel with the idea that god creations might be connected to fears and operate on a stage of suspended disbelief.

I miss the significance of the geocentrism ,GMP , though I'd agree it is there to see. John of Patmos, the one boiled in oil preaching all the while ? , certainly a supper of Something

Yep, makes sense doesnt it , gives em reason to stone their own prostitute -sickness equated at the time as just reward for sin, then they had sinned as well , the guilt trip would work , and it would have the fear for thier own deaths to compound its effect. But if she kept with the business, well then eventually someone was going to put an end to it. yeah they could all be stoned -causing irrational acts , but if they had grass , they would be home eating snacks . And if it was something like ergot , I doubt youd get em to back off with a guilt trip.

Yep youre seeing this clearly , very nicely demonstrated .. If a man read , the wiseman does such and such ,, well then one would only follow that path if they wanted to be 'wise' in the eyes of the author. Which also would mean that the both the author and the man are making value judgements about themselves and deeming what has merit vs what has not as if it were a thing one could dependably hang a hat on. Regular Buddhists however are no different from Christians or other religious folks that dont readily see past their own mindset. Yep the dude attempts to destroy his body that he has a negative image of because he isnt happy with it. Pokes out his eye since it offends him. The other view of a reader is that he too wishes to 'poke his eye out' because he isnt happy with his body just as it is, but wants to believe that he is so neutral about it that he gets to acquire a new one , and doesnt see the conflict inherent in the idea that throwing oneself off a cliff has intent behind it rather than indifference.

Suffering certainly is a motivator, but that doesnt mean that the reaction to ,said suffering, is going to be 'the ticket out', take a gander at any dysfunctional relationship or neurotic behavior and you may notice that these things arent self rectifying. The suffering is purposeless or ,at best, its a negative side effect of that which is in some way beneficial. Though , if you find a purpose that lies behind a stubbed toe or genetic malady, and youll have proved this incorrect at least to some degree.

Or maybe she gave the whole village herpes, and the thing about throwing rocks was going to be in a constant danger of repeating.

I imagine it would have been interesting.

Well, we agree a lot , Im just making an esoteric expanation to describe a difference between 'things that do happen- and things that happened-not) Yep there would be consquences to each of the scenarios if they happened. Before you shoot at the target , you cant say what your score will be for certain, (yeah you can guess based on previous scores ) after you hit the thing, hindsight reflects one single accurate event happened, and anything else ..didnt (like virgin births and sin )

NO, its not , You may feel that way of course , that you want to suffer like others do and not fix any of it but no its not the view of compassion most seem to have of it. The idea of just letting the suffering persist so as to motivate , is perhaps, good intent, but its not compassionate and really sounds horribly callous or useless.IMO Compassion is that which makes the heart of the good move at the pain of others. It crushes and destroys the pain of others; thus, it is called compassion. It is called compassion because it shelters and embraces the distressed. —The Buddha Yeah thats from wikipedia, but I figure any presentation of that idea will be refuted. But since you be making the distinction between metta and compassion , Ill add, if you truly wish the alleviation of suffering , that would extend to yourself as well ( defeated by sharing suffering). I dont know what they said about this wishing , can the true wish for a total lack of suffering be divided from the intent to act directed at present suffering ? The clips I have read may be missing some wise aspect , considered by the ancients , which defies this connection between the compassionate suffering and the affirmative intent to mediate it. Im cuurious what that argument might be (in brieif)

Hmmm , instinctively Id agree with that, but but,, wouldnt that which was not-done be a figment of ones imagination? Would it not require subjective expectations in order to exist? Lets say a bank is getting robbed , I make no attempt to stop the robber fleeing the scene, well ,one might say I was expected to do something to thwart the event. 1 Whats the ramification to me? Public opinion? 2 What if Im a 92 pound weakling ? 3 What if Im blind ? 4 What if Im in cahoots? 5 What if the cops tell me to butt out? All these what ifs are just contingent imagination and opinion. Another ex, what if I begin climbing the eiffel tower (on the outside) , well, the route I take is the only one that I actually take ,and the time it takes is exactly whatever time it takes ( say thats 24 hours) any other calculated time isnt what happened and theres a huge number of calculatable times , (not even counting the thousand ways there are to fall off) Every other route never happened ! Can you come up with some scenario where some thing was not done that isnt requiring some imaginative re-write of the event from the reality of it? I cant. If I didnt feed my cat Sunday , I have to imagine that the cat was somehow supposed to be fed by me and as well that feeding her is a possible thing to have happened , which didnt. I also didnt lock her in the closet , nor did I paint her nails pink, nor did I drop a mouse on her head , nor did I put her in her travel case, ( ad-infinitum) all the bazillion things I didnt do, ALL would have to have 'ramifications' all at the same time! So what one does not do cant be said to have a specific trail of ramifications - events which occur in its wake- since only actual events are specific. ( to which one might say, Well if you dont feed the cat she will starve. And I would agree , by saying, I imagine so.)

I agree wholly, the ' tricky' part of the post.. the idea that usually throws folks off, is the part about being 'proper', they want to do the ' right ' thing that is condoned by all three, the law, the locals present , and according to their own conscience ( as if these things were synonymous which only SOMETIMES they can be.) As for the exception that you make about alway there being choices, yeah thats reasonably said , true etc, one can choose not to do the thing which they think socially approved of. Say the guy who was to drop 'fat man' said hmmm, "I dont think this is good , Im refusing" , well ,,there are consequences to that decision to be dealt with ,, the ramifications of his choices may be very compelling its not a very free choice IMO , same as those thirteen yr old girls are not at fault, I dont think they had free choice either.

The implication that everyone else has done something as prohibited as her-and his own behavior is, in itself casting a rock, society defines what is prohibited behavior, and if society deems it fine to throw the rocks , and in fact it is expected of them to maintain the 'order' of the community. Even if they had done equally 'bad things' for which they had not been punished, disobeying the societal responsibility to uphold its verdict would simply be an additional transgression. Potentially , The correct thing to do was actually stone them both without motivation from personal bias. Ist the king suggested to remove himself from the equasion , reflecting the verdict of the times , like a placid pool? Does not, the following of orders, as long as they are considered the legal and proper orders, remove the responsibilty of the act from the perpetrator? or is every individual to question and be responsible for everything they are told to do? The measure of a man can be seen in what he chooses to do , when he has choice, and its not evident, when he doesnt.

Well thats certainly the way I feel about the sharks and flies , there was a survivalist show on the other night and one of the dudes decided not to kill this tropical rattlesnake for food , for the simple reason that he thought it was beautiful. The other dude was pretty angry over the incident, he thought it should be killed not only for food but on the principle that it presented a threat of some sort (minute though that was) ,, That snake was very impressive to me , yes it was beautiful, and I can respect the clarity of the dude who just didnt want to kill it. I dont like stuff destroyed for no purpose, or even with some reasonable purpose.. I could try to justify the sentiment of taking either course of action, but to be honest I know that there is no such thing as justification.. its not a thing one can hang a hat on. At the same time ,I recognize that individuals do have motivations needs preferences etc that can be construed as justifications..,, but in the end -a respect for life, living things, the natural world , and even the creations of men is an embrace of those things , and an embracement of ones-self as something larger than this bag of bones. Have a nice weekend , mine seems will be rainy.