Say something completely undisputable

[Vmarco]

Does a Country's energy efficiency equate with honesty?

 

In 1992, Albert Gore said while commenting on the environment, "The more deeply I search for the roots of our global environmental crisis, the more I am convinced that it is an outer manifestation of an inner crisis that is, for the lack of a better word, spiritual."

 

However, if one used the terms honest or dishonest to describe generalizations,...would America be predominantly honest or dishonest, compared to other Country's?

 

"My government is the world's leading purveyor of violence." Martin Luther King, 1967. Of course, the majority of Americans will deny that.

[Vmarco]

If you have nothing to say, why do you continue to speak?

 

 

"Acquiring knowledge is a form of imitation." J Krishnamurti

[Vmarco]

This is amusing. Vmarco quoted a statement and replied with a refernce to Rudolf Steiner. Then he quoted the very same statement again and responded with a Karl Kraus quote.

 

This is clear signs of academia. Not a severe case though. I've seen much worse.

 

 

The great Indian guru John Doe once said: "Vmarco is the icon of spiritual delusion."

 

Haha.

 

 

Having followed your monkey posts for awhile now, and how you consistantly troll threads, I wonder why you haven't been removed from TTB. You don't even attempt to stay on topic, or offer anything meaningful to the discussion.

 

"the ego is a monkey catapulting through the jungle; totally fascinated by the realm of the senses....if anyone threaten it, it actually fears for its life. Let this monkey go. Let the senses go." Lao-tzu

[Owledge]

Having followed your monkey posts for awhile now, and how you consistantly troll threads, I wonder why you haven't been removed from TTB. You don't even attempt to stay on topic, or offer anything meaningful to the discussion.

Well, you can ask the authorities to take care of that for you if you're craving order that much, Mr. bodhisattva.

 

BTW I was born in the year of the monkey, that might explain a bit. I also think that letting go of the senses leads to nonsense.

 

P.S.: Those posts of you that don't contain quotes are the best ones for spiritual discussion purposes. ... The other ones are still good for entertainment.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Owledge

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

1.) what are we arguing about

Rules for answering:
Dont mention the other person you are arguing with what so ever, or your response will automatically be disqualified/ignored/treated as trollbaiting.

2.) why are we arguing about it

Rules for answering:
Provide an ideal outcome without mentioning the other person you are arguing with what so ever, or your response will automatically be disqualified/ignored/treated as trollbaiting.

3.) indisputable is misspelled.

[Marblehead]

Buddhists argue more than Taoist do.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

AHHH HAHAH HA HAH HAHAHA I am laughing so hard right now!! Thank you MH that made my day/night/morning.... uhhh I haven't been to bed yet so does this count for today or yesterday???? crap im confused now.

[Marblehead]

AHHH HAHAH HA HAH HAHAHA I am laughing so hard right now!! Thank you MH that made my day/night/morning.... uhhh I haven't been to bed yet so does this count for today or yesterday???? crap im confused now.

Hehehe. Well, as Vmarco has stated, you are never living in the present because by the time you recognize what happened in the present it is already the past. And you can't live in the future cause it ain't here yet. The past is written in stone so you can't go back.

 

Yeah, maybe we all are just someone's dream?

 

If that be so, I think the dreamer has a psychological problem.

[Apech]

Buddhists argue more than Taoist do.

 

 

We could argue about that!

[Marblehead]

We could argue about that!

Hehehe. But we won't, will we?

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

yes MH, I DO HAVE a psychological problem LOL

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

the invalidation of perception is less a matter of present time than it is translation; in all fairness we cannot ever know true object-oriented space or pertinent truths via our physical sensory input.

 

The senses are designed not as a window into truth, but as a means that we may function and survive. and in cases, even thrive.

our senses are invalid in pertinence to truth, not survival.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Northern Avid Judo Ant

[Marblehead]

the invalidation of perception is less a matter of present time than it is translation; in all fairness we cannot ever know true object-oriented space or pertinent truths via our physical sensory input.

 

 

The senses are designed not as a window into truth, but as a means that we may function and survive. and in cases, even thrive.

 

our senses are invalid in pertinence to truth, not survival.

Damn! That's pretty philosophical for so early in the morning. Good job!

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

I haven't slept yet... got to talking to an old flame on facebook all night and morning....

Edit, add: And since she's fallen silent for the last 15 minutes I am guessing her day is starting and I should get to bed anyways!




Hey, sorry for being rude:


Thank you


LOL wasn't trying to be philosophical either

Edited January 26, 2013 by Northern Avid Judo Ant

[三江源]

the whole physical world is geared toward making us believe our senses and be asleep to the illusion.

 

if, in our work - which should be our life - we also collude with the normative perceptions, we have very little space to prise open for awareness to come in.

 

 

better to live a practice which holds conscious that we are NOT what we appear to be.. better by far, for our insight development and loosening of the bonds.

 

what it is that we are attached to, the partial truth, is fine.. if our aim is partial truth.

 

hmmm... polarities about absolute truth .... there's ignorance of absolute truth and and removal of ignorance about absolute truth.

 

 

 

PS. the film that Tibetan_Ice linked to is really worth watching http://www.innerworldsmovie.com/

[Apech]

So if we take as a first step, extending our understanding of the limited nature of the senses to an understanding that we are not what we appear to be, what then is the next step toward realization? The understanding itself may loosen the bonds, but is that alone enough to expose one to something deeper and more meaningful than the partial truth that is experienced by most of those in physical incarnation?

 

 

I would suggest that the next step intellectually at least is to examine phenomena to say ... ok they are not what my senses say they are then what are they? This would lead to the idea of emptiness (in Buddhism) or an idea of an underlying voidic substance (in most other systems). Then you have to examine what is it that allows me to know this or think this (or gnow this if you're going to be picky) and such examination leads to ideas of consciousness or mind or spirit as a self-luminous awareness. Then after that its a matter of reconciling, unifying or 'not-twoing' the spirit/substance, void/consciousness, appearance/emptiness apparent duality.

 

Simple as that ...

[Vmarco]

If it does, I would like to see a scientific explanation of how. The presumption that it should seems preposterous to me.

Seriously, you're quoting a politician? Even worse, you pick a politician who preaches about the evils of global warming and then sells his "Current TV" station to Al Jazeera which is heavily funded by money from oil. This is your representative in your argument? Who exactly, in any country of your choice, is the last honest politician you are aware of?

 

Therein lies your attachment to dukkha,...Gore's quote in the context of my post was quite valid,...but instead of addressing the quote, you attack Gore. IMO that qualifies as neurosis.

 

I use collage. A collage uses various existing forms, and refigures them into a new picture, not in the same context as the originals were intended. I do this several reasons,...such as, to keep VMarco removed from the focus of the dialogue, which unfortunately only works with prudent posters,...to more readily observe neurotic posters, that is those who attack the character of the person who is attributed to the quote used in the collage,...and also to identify other neurotic folks who despise the use of quotes because to them they suggest the poster is not an accomplished individualist.

 

As to the other part,...to me, all scientific explanations are just so much faith-based idiocy.

 

First,...a truth cannot be realized through the 6 senses. To me, Buddhism, that is, the prajnaparamita Buddhism I practice, is very specific about that. Thus, I could type out many truths right here, and none will be realized as truth.

 

The only way to realize a truth, is to see things as they are. That is the Noble Truth of Buddha,....Dukkha is a consequence of the desire for things to be other than they are. Everything seen with the 6 senses alone, are other than the way things are. So, people who see the world as other than it is, cling to various faiths to make their perceived lives appear more palatable.

 

In Buddhism, the 6 senses are called the 6 Consciousness'. Buddhism discusses a 7th and 8th Consciousness. However, faith cannot cross the threshold to those higher consciousness', because they are beyond the attachment to the lower 6 consciousness', of which faith is part.

 

When a truth is uncovered, there is a also a disrobing of that which had obscured the truth. It is the nature of bodhicitta. It isn't the same as faith-driven scientic theories that must be continually reviewed.

 

For most, truth and reality have little value in everyday life. The majority merely desire dependable descriptions of an objective world that they consider intelligible. The wisdom and reality that arise from certainty would undermine the survival of their object-based beliefs and conceptual imagery. Few seem to realize that those considered priests of the scientific method have neither uncovered nor explained truth. That is not their job. Scientists have little interest in truth or reality, for their paychecks are derived from the pursuit of facts about objects. Science builds its theorems or working hypotheses upon previous beliefs, and therefore it often labels any discussion of absolute certainty as absurd. For example, to say that there is no "present in time" is antithetical to scientific established beliefs.

 

Truth and reality confuse the priests of the scientific method. Their paradigm, or fixed set of beliefs, is founded on concepts of a materially existing world; that is, sciential theorems, not the sapiential truth or the reality beyond objects. Scientists, like most others who are uninterested in truth, are as characters within a dream who think that the dream is real. As truth and reality are taboo in the scientific groupthink, they cling to a faith in objects, to make the dream and their attachment to separateness more palatable. As the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Charles Townes said, "Many people don't realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith."

　

[Vmarco]

Hehehe. Well, as Vmarco has stated, you are never living in the present because by the time you recognize what happened in the present it is already the past. And you can't live in the future cause it ain't here yet. The past is written in stone so you can't go back.

 

[Vmarco]

Of course it is true that by the time your physical form translates the signals coming through your central nervous system they are in the past, which definitely validates the idea that everything that is "happening" to you is already in the past. However, it is near enough to the present that it allows for meaningful conscious reactions to it that guide behavior in a way that is useful for interacting with perceived environment. That being said, while we are not truly in the present, it does not invalidate the meaning of our perceptions.

 

Wei Wu Wei said, "Phenomenally, we can know no present, as it must be in the ‘past’ before our senses can complete the process of recording it, leaving only a suppositional past and future; noumenally, there is no question of ‘past’ or ‘future,’ but only a presence that knows neither ‘time’ nor ‘space.’ "

 

To understand the present means,...that we do not perceive the world that surrounds us, but only the world that surrounded us.

 

There is no present in time. That is irrefutable (although many will try). If you wish to see things as they really are,...if you wish to see things as a bodhisattva (see Heart Sutra, or better yet, the commentary, Heart Attack Sutra), then one must realize the present,...not through faith, knowledge, or imagination,...but through that consciousness that can recognize it.

 

Buddha's Noble Truth is that dukkha is a consequence of the desire for things to be other than they are,...everything observed by the 6 senses alone are other than the way things are.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Vmarco

[joeblast]

In 1992, Albert Gore said while commenting on the environment, "The more deeply I search for the roots of our global environmental crisis, the more I am convinced that it is an outer manifestation of an inner crisis that is, for the lack of a better word, spiritual."

Ah, explaining away the cultural rot resultant of decades upon decades of government charting its own course and distorting the majority of information people rely on to make decisions, incentivizing bad behavior, failure to prosecute fraud for those 'connected,' the dumbing down on the school systems - that's a spiritual crisis at the root of our make believe global environmental crisis?

 

It wasnt that "Gore's a politician," its that Gore is a complete and utter friggin liar, even more self serving than most everyone he denigrates. If you debate a false premise from a well known liar, are you really extracting any truths from it?

[Vmarco]

Ah, explaining away the cultural rot resultant of decades upon decades of government charting its own course and distorting the majority of information people rely on to make decisions, incentivizing bad behavior, failure to prosecute fraud for those 'connected,' the dumbing down on the school systems - that's a spiritual crisis at the root of our make believe global environmental crisis?

 

It wasnt that "Gore's a politician," its that Gore is a complete and utter friggin liar, even more self serving than most everyone he denigrates. If you debate a false premise from a well known liar, are you really extracting any truths from it?

 

I wasn't debating Gore, nor did I put Gore out there to be debated. The quote was posted to discuss the quote.

 

I have a tendency to use quotations and aphorisms liberally, even though many people appear averse to them. They often say, "Don’t tell me what someone else said; tell me what you think." Yet I have found that what others have to say sometimes arouses and opens new ways of seeing or observing. Just because I agree with U.S. President Ulysses Grant for saying that church property should be supported entirely by private contributions to keep church and state forever separate, this does not mean going into a debate about the life of Mr. Grant. The quotations, as I use them, are about the message within the quotation, not the profile of the messenger.

 

Your attack on Gore, instead of arguing the quote, is proof of your neurosis. That is not an insult,...it is meant to help you break-through your indoctrinations.

 

"The biggest crux to the evolution of humanity is breaking through your own indoctrination. It is very, very difficult to overcome emotional elements that have become so engrained in you, that you have an immediate reaction, an immediate suffering and pain, if something interfers with [your idea of the status quo]. It's a very, very complex problem. We have to learn how to identify and break our own indoctrination if we expect to move forward at all as a civilization" PJ Merola

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCWNgSa7GvA Minute 11:00 - 17:43

[joeblast]

and likewise, you ignored the real question I posed,

 

If you debate a false premise from a well known liar, are you really extracting any truths from it?

[Marblehead]

and likewise, you ignored the real question I posed,

 

If you debate a false premise from a well known liar, are you really extracting any truths from it?

Sure. One would gain the truth of the falseness of the liar.

[Vmarco]

and likewise, you ignored the real question I posed,

 

If you debate a false premise from a well known liar, are you really extracting any truths from it?

 

I'm not debating whether the quote comes from a liar or not,...you, through neurosis, is doing that. If you wish to debate the quote, go for it,....because I have no interest in where the quote came from.

 

For example, I often use,..."Human kind cannot bear very much reality" T. S. Eliot. I don't care if TS Elliot is a detestable Christian proselytizing his insanity,...I'm using the quote as it stands as part of the collage of my post.

[joeblast]

Oh, ok - so there neednt be any truth to the original statement, then. Was just curious.