The Enlightened Sage

[ben]

[3bob]

No, I'm a polymath artist and private investigator. There is a good book on the issue called Into the Cool. If you have sufficient non-deficit attention you can read more here on my blog.

 

What I am wondering is why engage in any argument with the Buddhists or the Taliban or the Tennessee Snake Handling Christian fundamentalists for that matter? It is just all the same absolutist pie in the sky snake oil bait for weak egos to control. Buddhists or Taliban...birds of a feather on the Rockwell Scale. Second rate stuff that need not dirty one's hands, mind or spirit.

 

that was easy straight from the shitter,

[joeblast]

 

I really hate to interject a little incidental reality

Thx for saving me the trouble

 

good blog, too

Edited January 6, 2011 by joeblast

[Birch]

"why engage in any argument with the Buddhists or the Taliban or the Tennessee Snake Handling Christian fundamentalists for that matter? It is just all the same absolutist pie in the sky snake oil bait for weak egos to control."

 

Well, because I think it's important to go through one's own process with things. Try and fail. When it comes to buddhism, it failed for me in many respects (as a cosmology), but not in others (some practices).

 

So what about wholly accepting a "scientific" explanation (especially one that treats humans like "cancer" )? Well until I've done the same with it (try and fail) it would be just as stupid on my part to accept a "scientific" fundamentalism as a "religious" fundamentalism. Ironically, at one point in "history" in many world cultures, both of the latter were confounded? Today? I'm not sure.

 

What I am more and more sure of is that this incessant arguing about both our origins and our futures is doing more harm than good in the present to more people than necessary. There is indeed a "war in heaven." Now if it stayed there, that would be fine with me, but it doesn't. It has tangible effects on our earth and the people who live there. And that pisses me off.

[ralis]

"why engage in any argument with the Buddhists or the Taliban or the Tennessee Snake Handling Christian fundamentalists for that matter? It is just all the same absolutist pie in the sky snake oil bait for weak egos to control."

 

Well, because I think it's important to go through one's own process with things. Try and fail. When it comes to buddhism, it failed for me in many respects (as a cosmology), but not in others (some practices).

 

So what about wholly accepting a "scientific" explanation (especially one that treats humans like "cancer" )? Well until I've done the same with it (try and fail) it would be just as stupid on my part to accept a "scientific" fundamentalism as a "religious" fundamentalism. Ironically, at one point in "history" in many world cultures, both of the latter were confounded? Today? I'm not sure.

 

What I am more and more sure of is that this incessant arguing about both our origins and our futures is doing more harm than good in the present to more people than necessary. There is indeed a "war in heaven." Now if it stayed there, that would be fine with me, but it doesn't. It has tangible effects on our earth and the people who live there. And that pisses me off.

 

 

There is a religious and scientific fundamentalism war happening in which both sides claim to have absolute knowledge of the cosmos. Neither have the absolute knowledge they claim to have. I believe the problem lies at the so called beginning. No one knows if the singularity contained any information or not. That is something to ponder.

 

I have yet to see any Buddhist that posts here say:"I don't have any answers."

Edited January 6, 2011 by ralis

[joeblast]

and there's also an issue going on where people are constantly defining terms as they see fit through their own worldview, consequently projecting distaste when they're confronted with heretofore agreed upon definitions that contradict their arbitrary definitions - as if the correcter is somehow claiming absolute knowledge!

 

claiming to have good guidelines is quite different than claiming to have a secret lock box chock full of an infinity of unassailable answers.

[Aaron]

Ralis,

 

I really hate to interject a little incidental reality into this profound and oh-so-mature discussion, but as far as this totally incidental conglomeration of probably cancerous cells called the Human Race is concerned, the universe is an open system and there is such a thing as Open System Thermodynamics.In the early 1940s Erwin Schrodinger proposed (in a series of lectures that he gave in Dublin, and which in 1944 were compiled into a book entitled What Is Life) that life itself existed and was advanced through the absorption but also perpetuation, of "free entropy" from the surrounding environment. This was not just insignificant theorizing in as much as the entire theory hinged on the assumption there was a self-replicating aspect of all living cells. This assumption led directly to the discovery of DNA. Most open system systems are self-organizing (like hurricanes) and to some extent the human body, and will engender and re-engender themselves back into the living environment as free entropy long after (to human sensibilities) they are viable entities. Perhaps in time (50-60 billion years) the free entropy in this incidental quadrant of the universe will dissipate and the surround will collapse into some rendition of a closed system and die off, but what will that matter to you or I or any Buddhist or Taoist or Christian or Jew or Muslim or Hindu who are still lurking in the cosmic weeds and claiming to be the supreme poobah in the spiritual food chain. Yum!

 

And then there is this post about an aversion to Buddhism and I have to wonder why anyone would give a rat's ass either way. On a Rockwell Scale I generally find Buddhism to be about the same hardness as the United Methodists...boring...while the Reformed Lutherans seem to be marginally more interesting.

 

 

Hello Easy,

 

Would it bother you if I pointed out that you are doing exactly what you seem to be condemning? In my mind, admonishing someone for being an absolutist is the same as being an absolutist. Perhaps what should be said, is that frugal speech often requires one to determine what one needs to address and what one wants to address. In truth very little that we do needs to be done, rather we do it because we want to do it.

 

Anyways, just some points that I wanted to bring up.

 

Aaron

Edited January 6, 2011 by Twinner

[Birch]

and there's also an issue going on where people are constantly defining terms as they see fit through their own worldview, consequently projecting distaste when they're confronted with heretofore agreed upon definitions that contradict their arbitrary definitions - as if the correcter is somehow claiming absolute knowledge!

 

claiming to have good guidelines is quite different than claiming to have a secret lock box chock full of an infinity of unassailable answers.

 

Agreements require good faith on all parties, otherwise they're worth nothing. Especially when it comes to philosophy

[Easy]

Hey,

 

I have a couple of thoughts here by way of replies:

 

1) Kate seemed to have a problem with my humans as cancer statement. If you look at it from the earth's POV, there is a unique form of life that is expanding and consuming its host's resources and the living environment around it in an unchecked and unbalanced surge of growth that threatens the existence of all asap and eventually itself. If this were happening in a human body that form of life would be called malignant. That is not a scientific perspective, but one from an old artist who doesn't think any more highly of scientism than religionism. Both of those perspectives, as far as I have experience in almost 70 years, are little more than pastimes by which their practitioners entertain themselves between feedings. (This morning I awoke beside this beautiful woman who murmured..."I've been meditating, repeating over and over: Everything is vanity. Everything is vanity. Everything is vanity...." She is as wise as beautiful.)

 

2) And then comes Aaron Twinner and he sez that I am admonishing someone for being an absolutist in a particular post and while I have combed through my post to which he refers at least four time I cannot find anywhere a place where I admonished anyone except for the gentle nudge I gave ralis for not knowing about Open System Thermodynamics.

 

Twinner, old slick, are you doing a bit of projection here? Can you point to the chapter and verse? Are you reading more, assuming more, as a way of levering in you comment? I don't know what is going on here. Hey, Aaron, are you thinking about another post I put up? In the meantime would you say that one who admonishes another for being a fascist is therefore a fascist? Would the Democrat who admonishes his neighbor for being a Republican become a Republican by so doing? If I admonished you for letting your mother dress you in silly clothes, would that mean your mother dressed me all silly-like too? I want to see how you figured all this out, slick, not just your answers.

Edited January 7, 2011 by Easy

[Birch]

"1) Kate seemed to have a problem with my humans as cancer statement."

 

Yes I did!

 

I don't know how the earth sees humans, and whether s/he sees them all quite the same at that

I hope not, just for my own benefit.

 

I went to see the website and it was really well written but I couldn't find any of the theory's tools or methods so I could try it out for myself so I could come to my own conclusions.

 

But, apparently, everything I do (including typing this reply, better make it quick to avoid overtaxing those powerstations, hurting the air with the resulting wi-fi signal, and wasting the people's eyeballs and their posture from overeating yesterday's pizza) feeds into this theory. So I don't have to "do" anything to prove it to myself. More importantly, can anything be done to reverse this process?

 

So is it (another) one of those "better party before it all ends" proposals? Seems like the "End of days" with a new dress on.

[Starjumper]

Hello Easy,

 

Would it bother you if I pointed out that you are doing exactly what you seem to be condemning? In my mind, admonishing someone for being an absolutist is the same as being an absolutist.

 

Yes, that is always a serious catch 22, but it doesn't hold water at all because it's someone who can see talking to or about someone who is blind. The blind can't tell which is which.

[Aaron]

 

2) And then comes Aaron Twinner and he sez that I am admonishing someone for being an absolutist in a particular post and while I have combed through my post to which he refers at least four time I cannot find anywhere a place where I admonished anyone except for the gentle nudge I gave ralis for not knowing about Open System Thermodynamics.

 

Twinner, old slick, are you doing a bit of projection here? Can you point to the chapter and verse? Are you reading more, assuming more, as a way of levering in you comment? I don't know what is going on here. Hey, Aaron, are you thinking about another post I put up? In the meantime would you say that one who admonishes another for being a fascist is therefore a fascist? Would the Democrat who admonishes his neighbor for being a Republican become a Republican by so doing? If I admonished you for letting your mother dress you in silly clothes, would that mean your mother dressed me all silly-like too? I want to see how you figured all this out, slick, not just your answers.

 

Hello Easy,

 

You're exact words are...

 

"What I am wondering is why engage in any argument with the Buddhists or the Taliban or the Tennessee Snake Handling Christian fundamentalists for that matter? It is just all the same absolutist pie in the sky snake oil bait for weak egos to control. Buddhists or Taliban...birds of a feather on the Rockwell Scale. Second rate stuff that need not dirty one's hands, mind or spirit."

 

I hope that clarifies my reply to your comment for you. I replied to your comment with what you said previously in mind. Another point I would like to make is that the idea of linking Buddhists with the Taliban and Tennessee Snake Handling Christian Fundamentalists seems a bit of a stretch.

 

I know that you feel that I'm "levering in my (sic)" comment in order to add weight to it, I apologize if that seems like what I'm doing, rather I was making a statement about what I felt was an absurd and unrealistic comparison.

 

Aaron

Edited January 7, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

Yes, that is always a serious catch 22, but it doesn't hold water at all because it's someone who can see talking to or about someone who is blind. The blind can't tell which is which.

 

I sometimes think we're all blind, we just don't know it.

 

Aaron

[Starjumper]

I sometimes think we're all blind, we just don't know it.

 

You are absolutely right!

 

I didn't think about it but it's all on a scale, even the immortals don't see everything I'll bet. It's more of the same idea that there are no absolutes, and that's another reason your earlier phrase didn't hold water I think??/ I don't think so well, just feel.

 

Anyway, I KNOW I'm at least 99% blinder than some of my teachers, and I see some people as 99% blinder than me, so there you have it. No absolutes.

Edited January 7, 2011 by Starjumper7

[Aaron]

You are absolutely right!

 

I didn't think about it but it's all on a scale, even the immortals don't see everything I'll bet. It's more of the same idea that there are no absolutes, and that's another reason your earlier phrase didn't hold water I think??/ I don't think so well, just feel.

 

Anyway, I KNOW I'm at least 99% blinder than some of my teachers, and I see some people as 99% blinder than me, so there you have it. No absolutes.

 

 

Hello Starjumper,

 

I Think there are absolutes, they're just very relative.

 

Aaron

[Starjumper]

duplicate post

Edited January 7, 2011 by Starjumper7

[Starjumper]

Hello Starjumper,

 

I Think there are absolutes, they're just very relative.

 

Aaron

 

Whoa, my mind just farted! Are you sure? I'm like Curly in the Three Stooges where he sometimes says: "I'm tryin' to think but nothing happens"

[Easy]

Twinner writes:

rather I was making a statement about what I felt was an absurd and unrealistic comparison.

 

Twinner,

 

Hey, Slick, Buddhism is metaphysical, the Taliban dogma is metaphysical, the Snake Handlers are handling snakes on the assumption of metaphysical protection. Can you prove to me that at its base metaphysics is anything more than superstition? Superstitious people come in all colors and sizes and varieties but those differences count for nothing when one asks "metaphysics...yea or nay?" And I say nay...the world no longer needs those kinds of weak-minded subordinates.

 

I set up that post to draw someone in who did not see the overarching connection between all three superstitions. You know it was like one of those tests that determines the level of intellectual development. From my perspective the aggregation of the three is not a stretch and it certainly is not absurd nor unrealistic. The question you charged in to answer so as to look grand and to help convince your mother to stop dressing you up in those Tweedlydum/Tweedlydee pinafores was kind of a sucker bet to take this conversation to a more intelligent level.

 

Hey, Slick, I'd give unequivocal thanks for your participation here and maybe look through my recycle bin for a consolation prize, but you did not answer the question that truly holds my interest: "If I admonished you for letting your mother dress you in silly clothes, would that mean your mother dressed me all silly-like too? I want to see how you figured all this out, not just your answers."

 

Could you get back to us on that one? You can take your time.

 

And then Kate, in a charming, wry and deftly written post, asks: "More importantly, can anything be done to reverse this process?"

 

Yes, Kate. All you have to do is invent a perpetual motion machine and we will all live forever.

[Mandrake]

[uote name=ralis' date='05 January 2011 - 10:41 AM' timestamp='1294252869' post='233793]

If what you say about "endless things" and dependent origination is true, then how do you reconcile open systems as opposed to closed systems? "Endless things" i.e, an infinite universe, is a concept of an open system which would necessarily require energy and information from an outside source. Dependent origination would be a finite closed loop with no dependency from an outside source i.e, isolation.

 

In a closed system, entropy increases and that is defined by the second law of thermodynamics. For a further discussion see: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Entropy Understanding this law voids the idea of "endless things." Why? "Endless things require infinite amounts of energy and this law does not allow for that.

 

If the universe were an open system, the laws of thermodynamics would not apply. Further, all the universal laws that make everyday things work would not exist.

 

What you propose is a contradiction in the laws of nature to fit your neat little world view.

 

 

This kind of reasoning gives science a bad name. At least you didn't use quantum mechanics to sell snake oil.

 

Mandrake

[3bob]

"1) Kate seemed to have a problem with my humans as cancer statement."

 

Yes I did!

 

I don't know how the earth sees humans, and whether s/he sees them all quite the same at that

I hope not, just for my own benefit.

 

I went to see the website and it was really well written but I couldn't find any of the theory's tools or methods so I could try it out for myself so I could come to my own conclusions.

 

But, apparently, everything I do (including typing this reply, better make it quick to avoid overtaxing those powerstations, hurting the air with the resulting wi-fi signal, and wasting the people's eyeballs and their posture from overeating yesterday's pizza) feeds into this theory. So I don't have to "do" anything to prove it to myself. More importantly, can anything be done to reverse this process?

 

So is it (another) one of those "better party before it all ends" proposals? Seems like the "End of days" with a new dress on.

 

Kate,

How does a mother see her children...? The Earth mother is a great soul of depth and heart breaking beauty, also a great weaver of light along with her many helpers. She is wounded now but un-broken and will prevail against the dark wave. Those of us that listen closely can hear her healing and uplifting song woven through all of life here... and some of her children are now Beings of golden-white radiance standing by her side with their indomitable will.

 

Om

[Birch]

 

And then Kate, in a charming, wry and deftly written post, asks: "More importantly, can anything be done to reverse this process?"

 

Yes, Kate. All you have to do is invent a perpetual motion machine and we will all live forever.

 

Thanks for the nice compliments The last part, well, I wasn't so taken.

 

I'll bet you were trying to show me out to be hopelessly naive with my last statement. I think I should clarify. What I mean is that it's pointless IMO to offer up new theories unless they lead to something worthwhile. As in, perhaps, healthier people, less social inequality, you know, that kind of naive BS

[Birch]

Kate,

How does a mother see her children...?

 

 

I dunno. I know how mine sees me. Something she didn't really want but figured she had to do to keep up with the Joneses. Something that ultimately made her fat, took up far too much time and attention. Didn't turn out like she wanted, didn't go to the "right" schools, didn't do things like "everyone else's daughter" and really hasn't been of any particular use so far, nor will it be in her old age?

 

Thanks to practice, I don't care anymore, but boy, did I care for a long time

 

So, no, no using the "great mother" archetypes on me

[Aaron]

Twinner writes:

 

 

Twinner,

 

Hey, Slick, Buddhism is metaphysical, the Taliban dogma is metaphysical, the Snake Handlers are handling snakes on the assumption of metaphysical protection. Can you prove to me that at its base metaphysics is anything more than superstition? Superstitious people come in all colors and sizes and varieties but those differences count for nothing when one asks "metaphysics...yea or nay?" And I say nay...the world no longer needs those kinds of weak-minded subordinates.

 

I set up that post to draw someone in who did not see the overarching connection between all three superstitions. You know it was like one of those tests that determines the level of intellectual development. From my perspective the aggregation of the three is not a stretch and it certainly is not absurd nor unrealistic. The question you charged in to answer so as to look grand and to help convince your mother to stop dressing you up in those Tweedlydum/Tweedlydee pinafores was kind of a sucker bet to take this conversation to a more intelligent level.

 

Hey, Slick, I'd give unequivocal thanks for your participation here and maybe look through my recycle bin for a consolation prize, but you did not answer the question that truly holds my interest: "If I admonished you for letting your mother dress you in silly clothes, would that mean your mother dressed me all silly-like too? I want to see how you figured all this out, not just your answers."

 

Could you get back to us on that one? You can take your time.

 

And then Kate, in a charming, wry and deftly written post, asks: "More importantly, can anything be done to reverse this process?"

 

Yes, Kate. All you have to do is invent a perpetual motion machine and we will all live forever.

 

Hello Easy,

 

Let me address a few things. First kudos on your masterful machiavellian plan to lure me into your intellectual trap. I thought that perhaps you were getting desperate and making things up as you go along, but I can obviously see now how incredibly intelligent you are. Now that I'm aware of your greatness, let me be the first to thank you for humbling yourself so much that you might share your infinite wisdom with us. I know it must hurt to mingle with the mediocre masses.

 

Second, you are absolutely wrong in your assumption that Buddhism is superstitious. Let me explain why. First we shall actually define superstition, rather than toss the word around... the actual definition is as follows.

 

1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.

2. a system or collection of such beliefs.

3. a custom or act based on such a belief.

4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.

5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

 

Now, as one who has spent the last six months researching Buddhism, one thing I can assure you is that, although there may be some belief in mythology, the basis of the philosophy requires one, not to blindly follow the philosophy, (i.e. the actual four noble truths and the eightfold path), but rather suggests that one practices Buddhism and comes to their own conclusion.

 

Unlike the other two religions that you mentioned, Buddhism does not require one to practice Buddhism, nor does it guarantee anything if one does, rather it lays down a proposed course of action and also the possible results if one follows that course. In fact Buddhists actually have put a great deal of time into basing their ideas on reason and knowledge, rather than speculation. What they talk about is not something that is hypothetical to them, but the result of their actual experience. Since this experience has been shared by countless buddhists (thousands at least, perhaps hundreds of thousands over the course of time) with very little variation, I would suggest that it is an actual experience, rather than superstitious phenomena.

 

One thing I admire the Buddhists for is there tolerance of others. I've never heard a Buddhist tell someone they're going to hell because they don't believe in Buddha, nor have I ever heard a Buddhist tell someone they'll have 40 virgins in heaven if they become a martyr. Comparing a religion that teaches the virtues of kindness, compassion, and tolerance, with religions that express a great deal of bigotry and hatred, doesn't make sense to me, and seems to be an attempt to provoke people, rather than make a valid and logical comparison.

 

Third, I don't respect people who resort to name calling or insinuation in an attempt to prove their points. To me it's a sign that someone's ego is being hurt and they're lashing out in an attempt to stroke that ego and reduce the pain suffered. I would suggest in the future, at least if you want to carry on discussing this with me, that you refrain from calling me names or insinuating things, it's rude and childish to the extreme.

 

I would suggest that you stop believing that you have the answers, because you don't. You are a young man who has gotten a bit of knowledge and now believes that he knows something. An older man knows much and realizes he knows nothing. Some day you'll understand that and then perhaps you'll be less apt to make sensational proclamations and more apt to have a sensible conversation.

 

Aaron

 

edit- I am fully aware that I am insinuating that you are arrogant, but I felt sarcasm was justified under the circumstances.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Twinner

[3bob]

I dunno. I know how mine sees me. Something she didn't really want but figured she had to do to keep up with the Joneses. Something that ultimately made her fat, took up far too much time and attention. Didn't turn out like she wanted, didn't go to the "right" schools, didn't do things like "everyone else's daughter" and really hasn't been of any particular use so far, nor will it be in her old age?

 

Thanks to practice, I don't care anymore, but boy, did I care for a long time

 

So, no, no using the "great mother" archetypes on me

 

That sounds very painful to me Kate, sorry.

[Starjumper]

Thanks to practice, I don't care anymore, but boy, did I care for a long time

 

Some attachments we choose to endure, like children.

 

edit, or chose

 

I feel it is best to not try to escape attachments, but rather look at it the Taoist way: Understand attachments for what they are and choose them wisely.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Starjumper7