Running into walls again....ARGH!

[Tao99]

Edited October 23, 2009 by Tao99

[C T]

Ah...that applies to me and a few others...I shall endeavor to apply these wise words...I wonder if V would consider that these words also apply to him? Or is he excused because his way is the Highest and is the Ultimate Truth, so he is allowed to "speak too much" because it is "justified"?

I wonder what Buddha Shakyamuni would say here. Perhaps, just perhaps, He might point out that because there is no Highest Ultimate Truth, therefore it gives rise to what is perceived as the Highest Ultimate Truth. Hmm, i wonder....

 

Salam.

[Marblehead]

I wonder what Buddha Shakyamuni would say here. Perhaps, just perhaps, He might point out that because there is no Highest Ultimate Truth, therefore it gives rise to what is perceived as the Highest Ultimate Truth. Hmm, i wonder....

 

Salam.

 

Thank you for that post CowTao!

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

Thank you for that post CowTao!

 

Peace & Love!

You have honored my ancestors. How can i ever, ever repay this magnanimous act of yours? Hehehe....

 

Marblehead. Cute name.

[Marblehead]

You have honored my ancestors. How can i ever, ever repay this magnanimous act of yours? Hehehe....

 

Marblehead. Cute name.

 

Hehehe. Now I know over-doing-it when I see it.

 

I like my name. It is the name of the town (Marblehead, Mass.) where a Bluegrass band (Seatrain) first got together and titled their first album after the town. (The band is no longer together.)

 

I also have two areas at my fish pond decorated with marbles. I like marbles!

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

Hehehe. Now I know over-doing-it when I see it.

 

I like my name. It is the name of the town (Marblehead, Mass.) where a Bluegrass band (Seatrain) first got together and titled their first album after the town. (The band is no longer together.)

 

I also have two areas at my fish pond decorated with marbles. I like marbles!

 

Peace & Love!

Aa ha! No worries there about your fish losing their marbles then... Just kidding buddy Sorry!

[Marblehead]

Aa ha! No worries there about your fish losing their marbles then... Just kidding buddy Sorry!

 

No need to be sorry. Just remember you have one coming from me. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Hehehe. Now I know over-doing-it when I see it.

 

I like my name. It is the name of the town (Marblehead, Mass.) where a Bluegrass band (Seatrain) first got together and titled their first album after the town. (The band is no longer together.)

 

I also have two areas at my fish pond decorated with marbles. I like marbles!

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

I somehow thought the Marblehead moniker was a version of the "Leatherneck" Marines, you being a military career man and all, so I saw it as kind of a mental stance, going fearlessly into intellectual and spiritual adventures, with the tough spirit of the hard-headed warrior. But now I find you're named after your fishpond and a town in Massachusets? Ay, now I have to reconfigure my mental universe!

[Marblehead]

I somehow thought the Marblehead moniker was a version of the "Leatherneck" Marines, you being a military career man and all, so I saw it as kind of a mental stance, going fearlessly into intellectual and spiritual adventures, with the tough spirit of the hard-headed warrior. But now I find you're named after your fishpond and a town in Massachusets? Ay, now I have to reconfigure my mental universe!

 

 

Hehehe. Made me laugh.

 

If you ever figure me out, let me know, Okay? I have always been curious about that.

 

No I was Army. (Still am, I just don't serve anymore.) The Marines and I have some differences. They are taught to not-think - we Army guys were required to think.

 

(If there are any Marines on line here I'm in big trouble now. Hehehe.)

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

Hehehe. Now I know over-doing-it when I see it.

 

I like my name. It is the name of the town (Marblehead, Mass.) where a Bluegrass band (Seatrain) first got together and titled their first album after the town. (The band is no longer together.)

 

I also have two areas at my fish pond decorated with marbles. I like marbles!

 

Peace & Love!

 

I saw Seatrain in concert in 1972. Great show!!

 

 

ralis

[Marblehead]

I saw Seatrain in concert in 1972. Great show!!

ralis

 

Now that is something I have never done. I have seen Peter Rowan live one time. Even got to talk with him for a few minutes. My favorite song of his is "Meadow Green" on the album/CD New Moon Rising.

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

Now that is something I have never done. I have seen Peter Rowan live one time. Even got to talk with him for a few minutes. My favorite song of his is "Meadow Green" on the album/CD New Moon Rising.

 

Peace & Love!

 

I was in the military during Nam and was able to see many live concerts. Saw Seatrain in Dover Delaware and everything else in Philly.

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

For me these two questions are spot on. Yes VH smiles and laughs a lot, and tells a lot of good Buddhist information. But throughout these posts, initiated from the beginning, there is ALWAYS an ad hominen or 2 or 4. You will virtually always find these personal affronts or personal criticisms in his posts such as 'you are shitty projecting, ignorant, deluded, ego subjective, angry, getting bent out of shape. All these have been said by him to me. So let's be real about what he's doing as the initiater here.

 

I don't say these things because you are sitting there peacefully. I say these things because you are getting bent out of shape and are following me around spitefully. I don't say these without cause. I am not the initiator in fact.

 

Take a look in the mirror.

 

Now you see, in academic circles these kinds of "reasons" for arguments in a debate are called personal attacks or ad hominens (attacking the person instead of the point) and are usually not allowed in a debate forum (red flagged). (And he does have extreme (to some) Highest and Ultimate Truth ontological and afterlife views.)

 

I do talk the point, it's you who started with this whole; V says your going to go to a Buddhist hell if you don't believe him, bit. This is you getting bent out of shape and subjectively quoting me in a way that is totally mis-leading. Amazing that you think this is justified. It's one thing to say... "Hey V, is this what you are saying? Can you clear this up for me please because this is how I'm interpreting your words." But it's another thing to say, "V says your going to hell".

[voidisyinyang]

Where you've been "V"? haha. NOW the website can begin.

[ralis]

I don't say these things because you are sitting there peacefully. I say these things because you are getting bent out of shape and are following me around spitefully. I don't say these without cause. I am not the initiator in fact.

 

Take a look in the mirror.

I do talk the point, it's you who started with this whole; V says your going to go to a Buddhist hell if you don't believe him, bit. This is you getting bent out of shape and subjectively quoting me in a way that is totally mis-leading. Amazing that you think this is justified. It's one thing to say... "Hey V, is this what you are saying? Can you clear this up for me please because this is how I'm interpreting your words." But it's another thing to say, "V says your going to hell".

 

Vajraji,

 

You have repeatedly engaged in ad hominem attacks on this forum. I read the post where Tao99 quoted one of your attacks. If you wish to engage in rational discourse, all that is required of you, is to debate in a reasonable manner. If not, then you are no different than any religious fanatic.

 

 

 

 

ralis

[voidisyinyang]

I like "V" as it invokes the t.v. show Heroes or maybe a similar show. HA!

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajraji,

 

You have repeatedly engaged in ad hominem attacks on this forum. I read the post where Tao99 quoted one of your attacks. If you wish to engage in rational discourse, all that is required of you, is to debate in a reasonable manner. If not, then you are no different than any religious fanatic.

ralis

 

Only after someone has ad hom'd me Ralis. I'll say something like, look your getting angry for no reason, or you are projecting and mis reading what I'm saying, let me clarity, or something like this. Maybe I should just say, "Let me clarify." But when people jump to conclusions about you faster than hurdle jumpers in the Olympics over and over again. I suppose I need to exercise more egolessness.

 

 

 

Vajraji,

 

I read the post where Tao99 quoted one of your attacks.

ralis

 

As far as I've seen Tao99 made up an ad hom and put quotes around it. He also quotes things that I have said after the fact that someone attacked me because they got defensive and took it personal that I was talking about Buddhism vs. Monism.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

Only after someone has ad hom'd me Ralis.

 

Ad hominem attacks? No way! I was criticizing the lack of clarity in your arguments i.e, grammatical syntax.

 

 

ralis

[Tao99]

QUOTE(Tao99 @ Oct 23 2009, 09:10 AM) *

But throughout these posts, initiated from the beginning, there is ALWAYS an ad hominen or 2 or 4. You will virtually always find these personal affronts or personal criticisms in his posts such as: 'you are shitty projecting, ignorant, deluded, ego subjective, angry, getting bent out of shape. All these have been said by him to me. So let's be real about what he's doing as the initiater here.

 

"I don't say these things because you are sitting there peacefully. I say these things because you are getting bent out of shape and are following me around spitefully. I don't say these without cause. I am not the initiator in fact.

 

Take a look in the mirror."

 

 

 

See V? You just did it twice again right there (in red) as predicted. It's just a part of your belief system to use ad hominens as a debate point. My mental state and my psychological shape are not an issue to my debate point of what is the essence of what you are saying. They are attacking the person instead of the point ie ad hominens.

 

My assertion (point) is that your posts with their karma references and veiled warnings of afterlife planes no Buddha would call heaven, if DO is not actualized, along with your reasons for not getting it (the ad hominens), add up to my paraphrase of what you are saying. Since Buddha wouldn't call it heaven and anything less then heavenly is hellish, then to put it poetically its being assigned to a Buddhist hell relatively speaking. Not a bad point. To offer a rebuttal you simply attack the point, which is the Evidence offered to support the point. That is all that can be legitimately countered in a debate. The mental state or pscychological shape of Einstein is NEVER the issue of whether his theories are true or not in academic circles.

 

So you see V this is all I am really trying to tell you, and I think as a future scholar you will think it interesting and relevant to your field (not trivial). You see the irony is that in a way Buddhism employs in its doctrine ad hominens as reasons for certain things. Thus you hear about ignorance and delusions, and afflictions, and subjectivity, and ego projecting, and anger, etc and NONE of it is relevant to to the truth of Einstein's theories (or any natural world theories like it).

 

 

Now if that isn't funny what is?

 

That is the extremely amusing irony that you have - that by your own doctrine - to open your mouth was to launch ad hominens by the Buddhist doctrine itself indeed! And so you became the Initiating Poster at this multi-cultural debate hall forum you enter.

 

So it's nothing personal for me V and no big deal, and a part of Buddhist doctrine as you say. But you have to admit, from an academic standpoint (Einsteins Theory Proofs) it is very interesting and amusing? I assure you, if it wasn't for your lead-in ad hominen "shitty projections through "brown-stained glasses", I would not be bothering and this wouldn't be happening; but it does make me think.

 

Anyway have a good one.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Tao99

[Vajrahridaya]

Ad hominem attacks? No way! I was criticizing the lack of clarity in your arguments i.e, grammatical syntax.

ralis

 

You called me incomprehensible, and all sorts of things, following me around and not having a discussion, you were just here to put down my writing.

 

Finally I called you a moron, because other people can make sense of what I write, but you cannot and you found it justifiable to follow me around and insult my writing over and over again. When I asked you not to, to leave me alone, you took it upon yourself to continue to badger me.

 

over and over and over. Yes, you did insult me.

 

You can live in your world and think you are oh so pure in your handling, but you were not. I ask you to leave me be and that I don't trust your opinion so it makes no difference. I see your interpretation of things to be highly flawed. So, of course I'm not going to trust your critique of my writings.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[voidisyinyang]

Still V has now used "spitefully" -- a glamorous word indeed!

 

Ad hominem attacks? No way! I was criticizing the lack of clarity in your arguments i.e, grammatical syntax.

ralis

[Tao99]

Still V has now used "spitefully" -- a glamorous word indeed!

 

LOL. That exactly what I was thinking. (I've been keeping a list I'm going to consider it a tier 2 code word for "angry" )

Edited October 23, 2009 by Tao99

[Vajrahridaya]

 

My assertion (point) is that your posts with their karma references and veiled warnings of afterlife planes no Buddha would call heaven,

 

Actually in the 31 planes model from the Pali cannon, they are called formless heavens, abodes of the formless gods. So yes, they are considered heavens. Liberation from unconscious rebirth is considered transcending heaven and hell. Our goal is not heaven. So, we consider heaven to be a part of the cyclical existence.

 

So again, you are assuming things that are not there. I've quoted from the Pali discourse on the 31 planes many times in the past. So, I see your asserted defining of my posts to be without merit, and merely your projection. I'm calling it as I see it, it's true, you are reading a meaning into my posts that are not in line with my intention.

 

So, I say you are projecting and mis-quoting me, and this is insulting, saying that I say in quotes, "You will go to hell"... is actually you getting bent out of shape. It's a fact, you are bending this out of shape to fit and support your emotional feeling towards me.

 

if DO is not actualized, along with your reasons for not getting it (the ad hominens), add up to my paraphrase of what you are saying. Since Buddha wouldn't call it heaven and anything less then heavenly is hellish, then to put it poetically its being assigned to a Buddhist hell relatively speaking. Not a bad point. To offer a rebuttal you simply attack the point, which is the Evidence offered to support the point. That is all that can be legitimately countered in a debate. The mental state or pscychological shape of Einstein is NEVER the issue of whether his theories are true or not in academic circles.

 

But it is here, because you are asserting positions and conclusions concerning my posts that don't actually reveal that you have read my posts. You've merely read your own mis-construction of meaning into my posts.

 

The formless abodes are considered heavens in Buddhist thought.

 

 

Now if that isn't funny what is?

 

Your continuous mis-comprehension of my posts are funny, the way you read things into them that are not intended.

 

 

So it's nothing personal for me V and no big deal, and a part of Buddhist doctrine as you say. But you have to admit, from an academic standpoint (Einsteins Theory Proofs) it is very interesting and amusing? I assure you, if it wasn't for your lead-in ad hominen "shitty projections through "brown-stained glasses", I would not be bothering and this wouldn't be happening; but it does make me think.

 

Anyway have a good one.

 

I was pointing out the fact. It's true. You were reading your own mis-constructions of meaning into my posts.

 

I thought I'd use the metaphor of rose colored glasses in an attempt for the opposite intent by replacing rose colored with brown colored.

 

For me, it does say something about your psychology that you would read such an extreme interpretation into my posts. Then put my name next to it, with quotes around your mis-construction of meaning.

 

Take care.

 

LOL. That exactly what I was thinking. (I've been keeping a list I'm going to consider a tier 2 code word for "angry" )

 

Indeed... seems quite spiteful to follow me around and mis-construe everything I say and call it a fact. Of course, it gives me the opportunity to correct your mis-assumption at every corner. So, maybe it's a blessing.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[voidisyinyang]

back to Heroes! haha. well it's supper time with my drunk parents! haha. Thanks V!

[ralis]

Only after someone has ad hom'd me Ralis. I'll say something like, look your getting angry for no reason, or you are projecting and mis reading what I'm saying, let me clarity, or something like this. Maybe I should just say, "Let me clarify." But when people jump to conclusions about you faster than hurdle jumpers in the Olympics over and over again. I suppose I need to exercise more egolessness.

As far as I've seen Tao99 made up an ad hom and put quotes around it. He also quotes things that I have said after the fact that someone attacked me because they got defensive and took it personal that I was talking about Buddhism vs. Monism.

 

I have always criticized your arguments in a reasonable manner. Yes, "Let me clarify" is a reasonable place to start. However, if your arguments are continually framed as Tao99 has asserted, then you will be criticized. Especially, when the Buddhist dogma of calling people ignorant and other condescending terms are used. Given the state of human affairs throughout history, and especially now, constructive criticism as opposed to condemnation is necessary.

 

 

Your persistent chiming of dependent origination as an absolute tenet serves little value in these debates. All you present is a philosophical untenable idea that may or may not have value to your audience. To demonstrate what dependent origination implies and how one can work with that tenet may add more validity to your argument. I am certain it is obvious to most everyone here that all phenomena are related by process. If that were not the case, the universe would not exist.

 

 

ralis